Catholic Astronomy

[grannymh]

Now given that the Fathers held God revealed a G order, and the Church defined and declared this order, thus confirming a Catholoic astronomy and cosmology, why in God’s name wouldn’t Catholics accept this revelation?

Since there was no Catholic Church Council in session at the time of the local trial of Galileo, there was no defining dogma regarding the particular location and position of one single material/physical planet in the entire universe. Thus, there is no formal heresy whatever.

Furthermore, it is a wrongful exaggeration of the true position of the Church Fathers to even hint that they, in themselves, totally on their own speculations, could declare the exact physical position of material earth as a theological dogma.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16&17

 

[grannymh]

Here we go again. Are you saying only ‘infallible’ promulgations of the Church are to be held as Catholic beliefs?

What has been said on CAF for more than two years is that not every promulgation, decree, or pronouncement of a papal commission is automatically assumed to be completely infallible. Infallible is not an everyday ingredient of common speech no matter how often the four-letter word heresy is thrown around.

Infallible dogmas come about after years of study guided by the Holy Spirit. Infallible dogmas do not pop up at local trials with decrees pertaining to an individual author and to his books.

For more than two years, it has been demonstrated that there is no infallible Catholic doctrine regarding the physical location of one, singular material planet in the entire universe.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[mellestad]

What? rational thought or popular thought.

Again, anyone is free to prove it wrong. It has been tried and has failed. The math works both ways. How does one go about choosing?

By experiment?

Can the math you’ve cited can be used to send a rover to mars, or send satellites to orbit the sun?

Looking at the models or orbit paths, I can see how the ‘math holds up’ from a cursory examination from the perspective of a person on our planet looking at the sky, but it wouldn’t hold up if you were trying to send something away, and the change would be obvious from satellites and probes once they moved away from Earth.

So from a practical sense of sending man-made objects from Earth out to our solar system, you can’t have it both ways because only one method is going to be on target.

Which is why you won’t find people at NASA using geocentrism…it doesn’t work, it doesn’t make accurate predictions and it doesn’t have any explanatory power.

Not that I expect that to be convincing. I’ve had discussions with flat-earth folks to, and it is the same argument. I remember asking one why picture from space stations made the Earth looked curved, and he said it was because of a fish-eye lens. He had elaborate math models to explain why airplane travel ‘worked’ on a flat Earth. He had very ‘intuitive’ arguments about anything you could think of…it all sounds very reasonable. Very faith based too (no offense to the religious types here).

But the flaws were the same. They refuse to make the theory falsifiable…real evidence will always be explained away somehow. Second, the math, once you really get down to it, isn’t consistent with observation, but that doesn’t matter either, because they’re never in a position where it matters. Professionals who would actually use the math to make something work aren’t going to use the theory, because it doesn’t actually work.

I’m not sure what, specifically, it is that encourages people to get into stuff like this at a psychological level, but it is fairly resilient towards argument. I expect this thread isn’t any different.

 

[buffalo]

By experiment?

Can the math you’ve cited can be used to send a rover to mars, or send satellites to orbit the sun?

Looking at the models or orbit paths, I can see how the ‘math holds up’ from a cursory examination from the perspective of a person on our planet looking at the sky, but it wouldn’t hold up if you were trying to send something away, and the change would be obvious from satellites and probes once they moved away from Earth.

So from a practical sense of sending man-made objects from Earth out to our solar system, you can’t have it both ways because only one method is going to be on target.

Which is why you won’t find people at NASA using geocentrism…it doesn’t work, it doesn’t make accurate predictions and it doesn’t have any explanatory power.

Not that I expect that to be convincing. I’ve had discussions with flat-earth folks to, and it is the same argument. I remember asking one why picture from space stations made the Earth looked curved, and he said it was because of a fish-eye lens. He had elaborate math models to explain why airplane travel ‘worked’ on a flat Earth. He had very ‘intuitive’ arguments about anything you could think of…it all sounds very reasonable. Very faith based too (no offense to the religious types here).

But the flaws were the same. They refuse to make the theory falsifiable…real evidence will always be explained away somehow. Second, the math, once you really get down to it, isn’t consistent with observation, but that doesn’t matter either, because they’re never in a position where it matters. Professionals who would actually use the math to make something work aren’t going to use the theory, because it doesn’t actually work.

I’m not sure what, specifically, it is that encourages people to get into stuff like this at a psychological level, but it is fairly resilient towards argument. I expect this thread isn’t any different.

Actually NASA uses a fixed earth in their calculations.

 

[mellestad]

Actually NASA uses a fixed earth in their calculations.

Would you mind posting some citations for that claim?

 

[mellestad]

Would you mind posting some citations for that claim?

Granted, there isn’t any reason why you couldn’t use the model of a fixed Earth for things, if all you are concerned with is gross orbit. It can work, as long as you don’t have to account for gravity in whatever it is you’re doing.

Once you plug gravity in though it breaks down because the assumptions don’t work. Stuff like this: gunn.co.nz/astrotour/?data=tours/retrograde.xml shows how a fixed anything model will work for a gross orbit. Just select, “Follow whatever” and you can see. The default is the sun.

Again, that only works if you can rely on a model. If you actually want to do the math behind the model, you need gravity, which is going to be heliocentric because the Sun is the largest mass object in our solar system.

---

So if that is the argument, then we could also used a “Fixed Pluto” orbit and have the same results. Not sure why you would want to though, or what it would prove.​

I would note, for observers, the veracity of my psychic powers

 

[mellestad]

One thing I’m curious about, and I don’t expect this to make any difference to your belief, Buffalo, I’m just curious as to the novel ways things can be rationalized. Anyway, my question:

Since we can see that planets in other solar systems orbit their stars based on various methods en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Detection_methods what is the explanation for other system’s planets orbiting their stars?

I guess the larger question would be, what is the novel interpretation of gravity that has equal explanatory power, that unifies all our observations in the same way but avoids the necessity of our Sun being the main influence on the Earth’s orbit?

And no, I’m not going to argue with you about it (unless you want me to), I’m just curious.

 

[buffalo]

One thing I’m curious about, and I don’t expect this to make any difference to your belief, Buffalo, I’m just curious as to the novel ways things can be rationalized. Anyway, my question:

Since we can see that planets in other solar systems orbit their stars based on various methods en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet#Detection_methods what is the explanation for other system’s planets orbiting their stars?

I guess the larger question would be, what is the novel interpretation of gravity that has equal explanatory power, that unifies all our observations in the same way but avoids the necessity of our Sun being the main influence on the Earth’s orbit?

And no, I’m not going to argue with you about it (unless you want me to), I’m just curious.

This exchange between Sungenis and McAndrew is worth reading.

“Some object that, although it may be true that the Earth can serve as the barycenter of the
universe, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of a larger object revolving around
a smaller object. This is true, of course. The reason we do not see any such phenomena is that
there is only one place where it could be true – at the center of the universe.”

 

[kbachler]

This exchange between Sungenis and McAndrew is worth reading.

“Some object that, although it may be true that the Earth can serve as the barycenter of the
universe, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of a larger object revolving around
a smaller object. This is true, of course. The reason we do not see any such phenomena is that
there is only one place where it could be true – at the center of the universe.”

LOL. This is another observably false statement.

Two words: Binary stars.

 

[kbachler]

Actually NASA uses a fixed earth in their calculations.

Actually, that’s untrue. Consider for example, any exploratory craft that uses gravitational slingshots to build up speed. The Cassini spacecraft did 2 gravity assists around Venus and one around the Earth. If they used a stationary Earth, such a trajectory would have been impossible to calculate.

Buffalo, please you’re doing a dis-service to Catholics by posting information that is consistently demonstrably false, both in terms of the mistaken information you disperse, and in terms of the impressions you may create of Catholics. Please stop, go to your local college and take some classes in astronomy and physics.

 

[kbachler]

That is true. And I will argue just as vigorously with the atheists who say that evolution and science “prove” that life arose without God. Either way it is just unscientific.

Agreed. It doesn’t “prove” it either way.

 

[mellestad]

LOL. This is another observably false statement.

Two words: Binary stars.

Well, no need to be rude. That attitude will only reinforce his beliefs.​

Anyway. I’m fascinated that the argument is immediately put in religious terms at the beginning of the article. That explains the adherence to the belief, and that explains this thread, at least to me.

I had assumed the argument was presented on some sort of math or intuitive basis first and foremost, rather than on a Biblical basis.

 

[mellestad]

This exchange between Sungenis and McAndrew is worth reading.

“Some object that, although it may be true that the Earth can serve as the barycenter of the
universe, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of a larger object revolving around
a smaller object. This is true, of course. The reason we do not see any such phenomena is that
there is only one place where it could be true – at the center of the universe.”

Thanks.

 

[kbachler]

What began as an amusing post, ended up as a great victory of science over faith. Well Puzzle, for some - Buffalo and I being two, Stephenlig probably a third - we prefer faith over science. You see on a Catholic forum defined and declared faith is guaranteed by infallibility, science is very fallible, just keeps changing to keep up with new discoveries and the theories of the time.

'Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?— (Job. 38:31-33).

In the Bible, some of God’s most profound teaching comes to us by way of questions. In the passage above, where the Lord queries Job about the order and mechanisms of the universe, He was demonstrating to us all the limits of our human understanding and the folly of thinking we could figure out His Omnipotence.

God states that we should love Him with all our heart, all our soul, and all our mind. If He is incapable of being understood, then why would He give such a commandment? Is He cruel? Mischievous? And it’s not His omnipotence that needs figuring out. It’s his omniscience.

God is clearly an understandable God. He has a universe of physical laws as well as moral ones. Laws are discernible. It is arguable that the universe is constructed this way so that we CAN know Him.

BTW, you misunderstood the post that you criticized - it clearly is not an argument of science over faith. Faith is important, and faith is ALSO required in science. What the post argues for, is that people not believe in mysticism, which is exactly what Buffalo is engaging in. The information he is participating in is akin to astrology, and alchemy.

Please, at least try to understand what you are criticizing before you make the criticism.

 

[mellestad]

Actually, that’s untrue. Consider for example, any exploratory craft that uses gravitational slingshots to build up speed. The Cassini spacecraft did 2 gravity assists around Venus and one around the Earth. If they used a stationary Earth, such a trajectory would have been impossible to calculate.

Buffalo, please you’re doing a dis-service to Catholics by posting information that is consistently demonstrably false, both in terms of the mistaken information you disperse, and in terms of the impressions you may create of Catholics. Please stop, go to your local college and take some classes in astronomy and physics.

You could still use stationary Earth though, couldn’t you?

If you uses stationary Earth to calculate the locations of the planets, and hand-waved away the velocity calculations things would still work.

Sort of like I said in the one of my previous posts…for the orbit locations fixed Earth will be fine, but if you want to know the effect of your sling-shot calculation then you need gravity, and if to accept the basic calculations for gravity then you are forced to accept everything that comes with it.

Or am I missing something? I’m not an astrophysicist.

Basically, if a geocentrist stands on the shoulders of others to get all their data, then distorts it, they can still claim they used a fixed Earth method to make gross orbital calculations and then use some fallacies to claim their model works. They only get into trouble if someone asks them to do original research, or create any unifying theory.

 

[kbachler]

Well, no need to be rude. That attitude will only reinforce his beliefs.​

Anyway. I’m fascinated that the argument is immediately put in religious terms at the beginning of the article. That explains the adherence to the belief, and that explains this thread, at least to me.

I had assumed the argument was presented on some sort of math or intuitive basis first and foremost, rather than on a Biblical basis.

I wasn’t being rude. I was not laughing at Buffalo, I was laughing at the argument. It’s foolish. I have come to learn, thanks to Mel Brooks, believe it or not, that sometimes its ok - and even more important - to laugh at such foolishness than it is to discredit it.

Brooks noted that if he argues philosophy with a Nazi, then in some way he dignifies the Nazi philosophy. But if he LAUGHS at Nazi philosophy, then people tend to see the foolishness that it really is.

One could argue, probably convincingly if one tried, that to treat speculations as gospel fact, and to treat demonstrably wrong information as though it is correct is a form of heresy. It would be one thing to ask questions, it is another thing to offer as true demonstrably false statements of God’s universe. It smears his Creation. We laugh at astrologers, we disdain them, we rebuke them for this very same reason. How is Buffalo any better?

If we know something is a speculation or something we don’t yet understand, we should just call it that.

For example - I’ve seen some really bad use of the concept of reference frames from the Theory of Relativity, as some people claimed that we could consider something the center of the universe from a given reference frame. Think about how easy that is to prove wrong.

It’s NOT the center of the universe - its the center of the REFERENCE FRAME. For it to be the center of the universe, your reference frame would need to be the entire universe. Funny that I didn’t see that mentioned anywhere. And btw - that’s once of the reasons why there is no center.

 

[buffalo]

LOL. This is another observably false statement.

Two words: Binary stars.

Huh? Binary stars rotate about their common center of mass.

 

[kbachler]

You could still use stationary Earth though, couldn’t you?

If you uses stationary Earth to calculate the locations of the planets, and hand-waved away the velocity calculations things would still work.

Sort of like I said in the one of my previous posts…for the orbit locations fixed Earth will be fine, but if you want to know the effect of your sling-shot calculation then you need gravity, and if to accept the basic calculations for gravity then you are forced to accept everything that comes with it.

Or am I missing something? I’m not an astrophysicist.

Basically, if a geocentrist stands on the shoulders of others to get all their data, then distorts it, they can still claim they used a fixed Earth method to make gross orbital calculations and then use some fallacies to claim their model works. They only get into trouble if someone asks them to do original research, or create any unifying theory.

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.

 

[kbachler]

Huh? Binary stars rotate about their common center of mass.

As was correctly pointed out earlier, ALL objects orbit (not rotate) around their common “center of mass.” In the case of stars, the objects are large enough to make it an easily observable phenomena. The observation is that the objects revolve around each other.

Given your statement above, you must now either accept that your quote:

“Some object that, although it may be true that the Earth can serve as the barycenter of the universe, we do not see any cases in the rest of the cosmos of a larger object revolving around a smaller object. This is true, of course. The reason we do not see any such phenomena is that there is only one place where it could be true – at the center of the universe.”

is ridiculous because ALL orbits are around the common center or mass, or you must accept it as ridiculous because the binary stars observably revolve around each other.

Either way, you’ve just demonstrated that something you thought was interesting is on the horns of a dilemma.

 

[buffalo]

Actually, that’s untrue. Consider for example, any exploratory craft that uses gravitational slingshots to build up speed. The Cassini spacecraft did 2 gravity assists around Venus and one around the Earth. If they used a stationary Earth, such a trajectory would have been impossible to calculate.

Buffalo, please you’re doing a dis-service to Catholics by posting information that is consistently demonstrably false, both in terms of the mistaken information you disperse, and in terms of the impressions you may create of Catholics. Please stop, go to your local college and take some classes in astronomy and physics.

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]
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.