Catholic Astronomy

[buffalo]

I have obliged their request, except to quote the above paragraph. My suggestion to them was the following:

As for whether you work for NASA or not, the website has a nasa.gov address. So if you’re not affiliated with NASA then I suggest you find a different website address, since otherwise, you are misleading the public. Of course, we can avoid all this extracurricular activity if you, as an astrophysicist, would tell us why a geocentric system would not work. The ball is in your court.

To this day there has been no response from them. As one can see quite readily from the above exchanges, although one government agency, at least in a private letter, was willing to divulge the truth about the use of fixed-Earth mechanics, another agency refused to be as forthcoming when the audience included the millions of potential readers on the Internet. This is really no surprise to us. Those who control our space programs have a vested interest in keeping the public under the illusion of Copernicanism, since all their funding and projects are based on Copernicus’ premises, including the quest to find life in other worlds. Only those who are courageous and knowledgeable enough can expose the illusion and allow the public to see the cosmic shell game that has been occurring for quite a long time. One such party is the team of Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch, two former government satellite engineers who know the truth about the illusion. In one of their investigations on the Global Positioning System they write:
…NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the (name removed by moderator)ut parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame…The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame….Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame – not as constant with respect to the receivers.[3]

In other words, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employs the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI) for probes sent out near the Earth (as does NASA and the GPS), yet the Jet Propulsion Lab claims to use the “solar system barycentric frame” for deep space navigation. Wang and Hatch tell us, however, “the Jet Propulsion Lab…because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame.” Not only does the Jet Propulsion Lab use the ECI frame exclusively, Wang and Hatch tell us that the Lab corrects the calculations in its “solar system barycentric frame” so that they match the ECI frame! We can see clearly that the Earth-centered frame is the standard, and thus, use of the ‘solar system barycentric frame’ is superfluous. Once the Lab’s computer makes the corrections to the solar system barycentric frame, in reality the deep space navigation is actually using the ECI frame – a fixed Earth. The public wouldn’t have been made privy to this sleight-of-hand manipulation except for the fact that two knowledgeable insiders, Wang and Hatch, have told the real story. In effect, the Earth Centered Inertial frame (e.g., geocentrism) is the only frame that allows the GPS and various space probes to work properly. The significance of these facts will be highlighted when we deal with the Sagnac Effect in Chapter 5, and the Global Positioning Satellites in Appendix 6.

 

[kbachler]

NASA Use the Heliocentric System for its Probes and Satellites?

In reality, NASA will use whatever system is more convenient, the heliocentric or the geocentric, since NASA’s orbital mechanics know that both models are equivalent, mathematically and geometrically. If they are sending probes near the sun, they will probably use a heliocentric model, since it is easier to make calculations when one considers the sun as fixed in space with the planets moving around it. If they are sending up satellites near the Earth, however, they will use a geocentric model, or what is known in the industry as a “fixed-Earth coordinate system.” This is because it is much easier to calculate and chart the movements of satellites circling the Earth if the Earth is understood as stationary in space. This fact is easily proven from the space agency’s own documentation. For example, in a letter written to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) making the following inquiry: “Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” the answer returned by the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA was very simple: “Fixed earth.”[1]

Funny that they quote an answer to “prove” their argument that has nothing to do with their argument.

The question ““Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” is asking whether the motion of the spacecraft is calculated assuming that the earth is rotating ON ITS AXIS or is fixed. The Earth REVOLVES around the Sun and completes one revolution per year; this is an orbit. The Earth ROTATES on its axis.

There is more, because you don’t understand the approach. But see below:

At other times, NASA tries to give the impression to a gullible public that only the heliocentric model will work. Through email correspondence in October 2005, NASA representatives personally invited this author to their on-line Question and Answer forum.[2] A few weeks prior to the invitation, the same NASA representatives had answered a question on their forum from another person regarding whether NASA’s probes could be sent into space and tracked using the geocentric system rather than the heliocentric. The NASA representatives answered in the negative, stating: “If the universe were geocentric, all of our calculations for space probe trajectories would be wrong.” The person who asked the question then sent NASA’s answer to this author as proof for the heliocentric system. Accepting NASA’s invitation, I then sent a formal question to the NASA website asking them to show proof why a geocentric system would not work. After six weeks of not receiving an answer, I contacted the representatives by private email and asked if they were planning to answer the question. They wrote back to me and stated that they did not plan to answer it. After I tried to convince them that, since in this public forum they had, by their initial assertions against geocentric navigation, already committed themselves, and thus had an obligation to the public to defend their position, they still refused to answer. As a rejoinder, I told them that I would be including the entire communication between them and myself in this present book. The NASA representatives then demanded that their names be withheld, stating:

We do not give you permission to quote us or use our names in your book or on your website. Although we work at NASA centers, we are not NASA employees and for us to be presented in your work as official representatives of NASA would be inappropriate and misleading.

The latter part of the above show shows an utter misunderstanding of mathematics and reference frames. Mathematicians, engineers, physicists, rocket scientists - all know that you can pick ANY reference frame and it can work. The key is to pick a reference frame that makes your calculations easy.

I’ve done physics problems where I had to calculate the orbit of a moon about Saturn. I picked Saturn as the reference frame. That didn’t mean that Saturn is the center of the universe. It meant it was convenient.

Scientists, physicists, mathematicians do this sort of thing all the time. Really. There is a difference between choosing a reference frame and saying that a geocentric model is correct.

 

[mellestad]

I found that blog post too. That isn’t really the type of citation I was looking for, unfortunately…that is just a blog author claiming NASA is conspiring against his righteous cause.

 

[kbachler]

I have obliged their request, except to quote the above paragraph. My suggestion to them was the following:

As for whether you work for NASA or not, the website has a nasa.gov address. So if you’re not affiliated with NASA then I suggest you find a different website address, since otherwise, you are misleading the public. Of course, we can avoid all this extracurricular activity if you, as an astrophysicist, would tell us why a geocentric system would not work. The ball is in your court.

To this day there has been no response from them. As one can see quite readily from the above exchanges, although one government agency, at least in a private letter, was willing to divulge the truth about the use of fixed-Earth mechanics, another agency refused to be as forthcoming when the audience included the millions of potential readers on the Internet. This is really no surprise to us. Those who control our space programs have a vested interest in keeping the public under the illusion of Copernicanism, since all their funding and projects are based on Copernicus’ premises, including the quest to find life in other worlds. Only those who are courageous and knowledgeable enough can expose the illusion and allow the public to see the cosmic shell game that has been occurring for quite a long time. One such party is the team of Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch, two former government satellite engineers who know the truth about the illusion. In one of their investigations on the Global Positioning System they write:
…NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the (name removed by moderator)ut parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame…The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame….Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame – not as constant with respect to the receivers.[3]

In other words, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employs the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI) for probes sent out near the Earth (as does NASA and the GPS), yet the Jet Propulsion Lab claims to use the “solar system barycentric frame” for deep space navigation. Wang and Hatch tell us, however, “the Jet Propulsion Lab…because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame.” Not only does the Jet Propulsion Lab use the ECI frame exclusively, Wang and Hatch tell us that the Lab corrects the calculations in its “solar system barycentric frame” so that they match the ECI frame! We can see clearly that the Earth-centered frame is the standard, and thus, use of the ‘solar system barycentric frame’ is superfluous. Once the Lab’s computer makes the corrections to the solar system barycentric frame, in reality the deep space navigation is actually using the ECI frame – a fixed Earth. The public wouldn’t have been made privy to this sleight-of-hand manipulation except for the fact that two knowledgeable insiders, Wang and Hatch, have told the real story. In effect, the Earth Centered Inertial frame (e.g., geocentrism) is the only frame that allows the GPS and various space probes to work properly. The significance of these facts will be highlighted when we deal with the Sagnac Effect in Chapter 5, and the Global Positioning Satellites in Appendix 6.

NASA wouldn’t respond because they typically wouldn’t waste their time on crackpots in a budget cutting environment.

There was a great response in The Lazlo Letters though. A comedian wrote (under the name of Lazlo) to NASA and asked how much gasoline would it take to drive to Mars. They did a calculation and finished with “Have a nice trip!”

May I ask, for a positive reason, what’s the highest level of mathematics you have completed?

 

[buffalo]

Funny that they quote an answer to “prove” their argument that has nothing to do with their argument.

The question ““Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” is asking whether the motion of the spacecraft is calculated assuming that the earth is rotating ON ITS AXIS or is fixed. The Earth REVOLVES around the Sun and completes one revolution per year; this is an orbit. The Earth ROTATES on its axis.

There is more, because you don’t understand the approach. But see below:

The latter part of the above show shows an utter misunderstanding of mathematics and reference frames. Mathematicians, engineers, physicists, rocket scientists - all know that you can pick ANY reference frame and it can work. The key is to pick a reference frame that makes your calculations easy.

I’ve done physics problems where I had to calculate the orbit of a moon about Saturn. I picked Saturn as the reference frame. That didn’t mean that Saturn is the center of the universe. It meant it was convenient.

Scientists, physicists, mathematicians do this sort of thing all the time. Really. There is a difference between choosing a reference frame and saying that a geocentric model is correct.

Thanks.

Now go back to post #102. A challenge was presented about using a fixed earth. So now we know that it can be used. The math works either way.

 

[kbachler]

Thanks.

Now go back to post #102. A challenge was presented about using a fixed earth. So now we know that it can be used. The math works either way.

Yes, it does. But it has nothing to do with a geocentric model.

 

[mellestad]

No, its not that simple.

Start with a stationary Earth and adjust Venus’ trajectory for the Earth’s motion, right (which really implies that the Earth is not stationary, but let’s let that drop for now.) Think about slingshotting BACK from Venus to Earth. If you were going to make anything stationary, you’d follow the same procedure and make your current reference frame (VENUS) stationary, and then shoot for the moving Earth. Otherwise you’d have to change the entire way you calculate everything.

And what of a slingshot that doesn’t even INVOLVE Earth? Those calcs are not done as though Earth is stationery. If anything were to be treated as stationary, it would be the current reference frame, which would instantly force Earth to be treated as moving.

But as a geocentrist you’re starting with the assumption that you know the gross orbital mechanics. You can calculate based on the model where the Earth will be in relation to Venus at any given time.

Regardless though, we agree, I’m just trying to show how their way of thinking will bypass this type of argument. Again, the math doesn’t actually work if you keep asking, “why”, but they could still generate the equations using Earth as a stationary reference…they just couldn’t explain why the equations they stole work.

As in your binary star example, they can make a model that functions, but it isn’t unifying and it can’t deal with complex systems without a bunch of buts and maybes. They are continually in a situation of rationalizing things instead of predicting things.​

Every time I deal with pseudo science I try to explain that a “real” scientific idea will generate not only an explanation, but a prediction. That is where the kooky stuff always fails, and why it is considered kooky.

Who would believe quantum mechanics if it didn’t make predictions, and those predictions worked?

Anyway. Cheers

 

[buffalo]

mellestad - did you catch all of this? You cannot use this argument as a disproof for geocentrism.

 

[buffalo]

Every time I deal with pseudo science I try to explain that a “real” scientific idea will generate not only an explanation, but a prediction. That is where the kooky stuff always fails, and why it is considered kooky.

Remember this point of yours. Undoubtedly we will meet up again discussing another subject.

 

[mellestad]

mellestad - did you catch all of this? You cannot use this argument as a disproof for geocentrism.

Which argument, specifically? There is a lot of stuff flying around.

 

[buffalo]

Which argument, specifically? There is a lot of stuff flying around.

Post 102.

 

[kbachler]

But as a geocentrist you’re starting with the assumption that you know the gross orbital mechanics. You can calculate based on the model where the Earth will be in relation to Venus at any given time.

Regardless though, we agree, I’m just trying to show how their way of thinking will bypass this type of argument. Again, the math doesn’t actually work if you keep asking, “why”, but they could still generate the equations using Earth as a stationary reference…they just couldn’t explain why the equations they stole work.

As in your binary star example, they can make a model that functions, but it isn’t unifying and it can’t deal with complex systems without a bunch of buts and maybes. They are continually in a situation of rationalizing things instead of predicting things.​

Every time I deal with pseudo science I try to explain that a “real” scientific idea will generate not only an explanation, but a prediction. That is where the kooky stuff always fails, and why it is considered kooky.

Who would believe quantum mechanics if it didn’t make predictions, and those predictions worked?

Anyway. Cheers

They can’t make the binary star argument they made. They contradict themselves.

 

[mellestad]

Remember this point of yours. Undoubtedly we will meet up again discussing another subject.

I doubt it. Forum rules state topics about atheism are forbidden, so I try not to discuss them for fear of a banning.

Granted, I see lots of people discussing it anyway, but that doesn’t make me feel any safer.

In any case, I’m here to learn about Catholicism specifically. This conversation was applicable because most geocentrists seem to be Catholic, so I was curious.

 

[buffalo]

I doubt it. Forum rules state topics about atheism are forbidden, so I try not to discuss them for fear of a banning.

Granted, I see lots of people discussing it anyway, but that doesn’t make me feel any safer.

In any case, I’m here to learn about Catholicism specifically. This conversation was applicable because most geocentrists seem to be Catholic, so I was curious.

It is allowed in the “Back Fence”.

Oops - I misread your post - i thought you were referring to evolution.

 

[mellestad]

Post 102.

OK, thanks.

My other posts already address this point. I’m content though, really. I’ll keep watching the thread, but I probably won’t respond unless you offer something new. For me, the ‘root cause’ of this has already been illuminated.

I appreciate your tone and responsiveness!

 

[buffalo]

I doubt it. Forum rules state topics about atheism are forbidden, so I try not to discuss them for fear of a banning.

Granted, I see lots of people discussing it anyway, but that doesn’t make me feel any safer.

In any case, I’m here to learn about Catholicism specifically. This conversation was applicable because most geocentrists seem to be Catholic, so I was curious.

I love discussing Catholicism. Ask away.

 

[grannymh]

This exchange between Sungenis and McAndrew is worth reading.

In this exchange, Robert Sungenis misunderstands the Catholic Church position regarding its Deposit of Faith. As has been pointed out many times on CAF, in the 17th century there was no properly defined theological dogma of the Catholic Church which explicitly stated the exact scientific position of one, singular material/physical planet in the entire universe. Thus, there was no “formal heresy” as indicated on page 22 of the link. Catholics are free to believe in geocentrism or not believe in geocentrism depending on its scientific merits.

For those who wish further information about the local trial of Galileo and its decrees, please read the posts of DavidPalm.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[mellestad]

I love discussing Catholicism. Ask away.

I just poke around. Mostly I’m learning by observation. Actually I did ask a question earlier on another thread and didn’t get a response.

I’m just looking for ‘official’ doctrine here, a simple link would be excellent, rather than a debate.

What is the justification for the gap between the garden of eden and the appearance of Jesus?​

Haha, that is the worst thread derail I’ve ever seen. Like I said though, just a link is good.​

Regarding evolution…yikes. I’m fairly certain if I look up ‘futility’ in my dictionary it is going to reference debating evolution with a 20,000 post Catholic geocentrist.

 

[buffalo]

I​

Regarding evolution…yikes. I’m fairly certain if I look up ‘futility’ in my dictionary it is going to reference debating evolution with a 20,000 post Catholic geocentrist.

 

[cassini]

What doctrine above of mine? I gave none. For all you know I think the moon is the center of the universe.

Moving on, yes only the infallible teachings of the Church should be taught as definitively Catholic. One should not elevate certain things, such as geocentrism, to their level. If one treats geocentrism as something to be faithfully believed in despite scientific evidence to the contrary as a matter of faith, that means it must be an unshakable belief. Only infallible ones are such. If the Church infallibly stated that the Sun was not in fact the center of our solar system, then one would have ground for doing so. However, the Church will not do so because this isn’t even a matter of faith. It’s a matter of science, in the same way that the Pythagorean theorem or laws of thermodynamics are. It is not under the Church’s jurisdiction of teaching, which is faith and morals. Therefore, it is not a matter of faith and should not be treated as such.

The doctrine you describe in your moving on piece Biedrik.

Let me explain. The heresy defined and declared in 1616 was one of anti-Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics. The subject matter did concern the order of the universe, but the conflict was about the misinterpretation of Scripture as held by all the Fathers. This was pointed out by Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the greatest thinkers and theologians that ever graced the Catholic Church. On 13th May every year the Mass of the day contains a collect that states:
O God, who didst adorn blessed Robert, the Bishop and Doctor, with wonderous learning and virtue that he might overcome the wiles of error and maintain the rights of the Apostolic See; grant by his merits and intercession that we may grow in the love of truth, and that the hearts of the erring may return to the unity of the Church. Through our Lord Jesus.

Bellarmine’s faith was such that he knew there was no evidence that contradicted the Fathers’ interpretation, and he doubted there could ever be such evidence. His faith was vindicated because after 400 years of science the interpretation of the Fathers could not be proven wrong by science. It remains a matter of faith.

When Newton and Bradley claimed they had proof the earth had to move about the sun, the matter became a cosmological one for the Copernicans both inside the Church and outside of it. That way they could hide and ignore the dogmatic heresy of biblical contradiction that they thought the Church got all wrong. Then when they loosed the heresy for all to believe, there was no going back. The likes of Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and Bellarmine had to be mocked for their part in condemning a ‘cosmological’ matter. They are now portrayed (by Vatican II) as ‘troublemakers’ who couldn’t separate faith and science.

The doctrine of the Copernicans, that the matter was one of science, not of faith, has spread far and wide and has far greater appeal than that of faith, due of course to (1) their belief that the literal biblical interpretation of the Fathers has been proven wrong - which it hasn’t, and (2) because of human pride in intellectual matters, how great we are in our knowledge of things. Science is the new way, the truth, the life. Today Catholics will not give the matter a second thought, indeed they now defend the error on all fronts lest anyone rethink their position.

This doctrine has spokesmen and women now telling Catholics what they can believe, what is of faith, what is of science, what is infallible, what is not, what is heresy, what is not and on and on as the needs require. They can find not one Church statement that gives them this right to correct the Church of 1616 and 1633.

Of interest is that in Humani Generis, the encyclical of Pope Pius XII, the Bellarmine principle was also vindicated. In this encyclical the Pope ruled that all Catholics must adhere to the doctrine that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. Now this today is considered a ‘scientific’ question, not a matter of faith. Similar to the Virgin birth, another physical fact revealed in the same Scriptures as is a geocentric creation. But watch what happens if science ‘proves’ all humanity did not descend from one original married pair, the doctrines on Adam and Eve will go the same way as the interpretations defined as dogma in 1616. Protestantism and Copernicanism, two faces of the one coin.