I don't know why we're even arguing about this. Most of the top mainstream physicists admit that 1) there's no proof for gravity as formerly understood and 2) there must be some other (as yet elusive) explanation for the phenomenon.
On one discussion resulting from a Church Militant article on the Vatican having to answer for the 'vax deaths' resulting from the Pope's order that all Catholics shouds get one, there resulted in the discussion that Newton's theory of gravity is more of a truth than the Bible.
Here is the beginning of the exchange:
'With the Galileo affair being used as a line of attack against the Church as anti-science, you would think that the Holy See would have learned not to weigh in on disputed scientific questions, especially NOT on politicized ones like this pandemic. But, here we have the Church engaging in a Galileo x 10 here in the 21st century!'
I replied that the Galileo case was a metaphysical one (because of the relativity of the created universe), not one decided by science, and that it was never proven by science the Church got the Galileo case wrong.
Having got four thumbs down here is the first reply to this rejection of proof:
'As a physicist, I can assure you geocentrism has been proven wrong. In fact, everything known about physics proves it wrong, an infinite number of times over. Even basic Newtonian physics proves it wrong. Current lunatics, pretending to be scientists, going around thinking they are defending the Church by trying to defend geocentrism are only doing a grave disservice to the faith by confirming the idea in the minds of the anti-religious that the religious are lunatics.
I replied:
I will let other physicists answer your 'geocentrism is proven wrong' assertion Edward,
‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [heliocentrism] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved the Earth is in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73)
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ (Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18)
Richard Dawkins himself has admitted: ‘It is not actually provable that the Earth orbits the Sun, but it is perverse to deny it.’ (Richard Dawkins, speaking on gαy Byrne’s The Meaning of Life, RTE, 18th Oct. 2015.)
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less. Proofs are not the currency of science.’ (Satoshi Kanazawa: The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008. )
To which the physicist answered:
'You are quoting out of context. Making the point that a proof cannot be made on the basis of simple observation OBVIOUSLY means there needs to be OTHER MEANS THEN FROM STANDING STATICALLY ON EARTH. GOT IT?!!!!!!!!
AND THERE ARE. GOT IT?!!!!!!!!
And any "scientist" who claims there is no such thing as anything axiomatic in science, such as that that can be called proven, is flat out lying as a childish ego trip.
I replied: 'No, I have not got it Edward., I have not gone the way of Kaku like you seem to have gone with your geocentrism is proven wrong..
‘Nobody that I know of in my field of theoretical physics uses the “so called scientific method.”’ --- Michio Kaku; theoretical physicist at the City College of New York, a best-selling author, and a well-known populariser of science. (Wiki)
I follow the scientific method. The definitive problem for your heliocentric ‘proofs’ that the Earth revolves round the sun, came to a head in the wake of the famous Airy (1870-1) and Michelson & Morley (1887) experiments. Those tests showed a non orbiting Earth. It was Einstein who used his Special Theory of Relativity to rescue heliocentrism as one or two scientific possibilities, geocentric or heliocentric. That is where science is today on the matter. The Bible, that is God, on the other hand reveals the sun orbits a fixed Earth.'
He answered: 'The Bible makes no such assertion. It is not good to lie about the Bible. Making an observational comment with lyrical intent makes no definitive quantitative judgment of physical reality.
You clearly know nothing about science. Of course applied science and its methods of measurement are seldom used in theoretical physics, which is very abstract and speculative. So what? It doesn't need to be and theoretical physics is rarely used in Astrophysics, in which there are many attempts at calculation. You are absurdly wrong to suggest that Einstein's comments were meant to imply uncertainty about the status of a repudiated geocentric theory. He only meant that it is such an absurd theory, no further indisputable objective proof was necessary. Everything we know in physics repudiates it. As I pointed out previously, if you hypothetically created a solar system with the sun orbiting the earth, gravity would cause such a system to collapse instantaneously. That's where it stands now.
Finally I said:'
"The Bible makes no such assertion. It is not good to lie about the Bible." Really Edward? Someone who holds this heretical belief is really not worth discussing this subject with. You deny what all of the Fathers held, When the opinion of all the Fathers agreed on a Biblical revelation then it must be considered an immutable, irreformable truth in virtue of the fact that this revelation had been constantly preserved and held by Church Tradition since the time of the Apostles.You prefer Newton's THEORY of gravity as your blind faith, arguing as if it is a law that somehow proves your heliocentrism. When it comes to what the Bible reveals I will adhere to what all of the Fathers and the Council of Trent understood.
So Ladislaus, it seems Newton's theory is alive and well with Catholic physicists.