Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[warpspeedpetey]

Not “almost”: there *is *an infinite number of frames of reference in the solar system; in fact there is an infinite number in any finite volume of space. But that doesn’t change the fact that the rest frame of the field of the photo is an arbitrary choice.

not if you use an actual physical camera, once you assign any dimension at all to those points, only so many can fit in the assigned space.

so unless you are arguing that those photos were taken by a massless, dimensionless camera, then we should stick to the ‘almost’

and the position of choice doesnt matter if it shows the whole system, as these pics do.

If there were such multiple frames you could determine *relative *movement between objects, but since there are no bodies with more than one photo in the example you linked, one can’t even do that.

what pics are you looking at? look again. all but earth and mars.

Good for you.

oh, dont be snarky, its a town of less than 300 people so its a big deal there.

since in the Voyager mosaic there are only single frames of each body.

look again, some of the frames closely overlap, maybe you missed it.

and its only important that one can find orbits from comparative analysis

Now there is potentially some information that these sort of photos can give us, which is whether the rest frame of the camera in tracking various solar system bodies is in an inertial or a non-inertial frame. I would expect the sun to be (approximately) at rest in the field of a camera in an inertial frame, and (approximately) at rest with respect to the stars and that is meaningful, but we don’t have that information in this case. In any case, geocentrists reject the concept that inertial frames are special, as they must do since the surface of the earth is, by definition of an inertial frame, not at rest in one. We can show from earth, by annual stellar aberration that the earth is in elliptical motion with respect to the stars with axes of the same size as its orbit around the sun - we don’t need photos like this to tell us that. Since geocentrists will tell you that the earth is fixed and the entire universe rotates around it daily, to explain the stellar aberration as an annual elliptical wobble of the entire universe around the earth is a minor claim for them. Yes, it’s crazy.

keep talking about inertial frames if you want, but these pics are from outside the local frame, thats why they are valid.

and yes geocentrism can be denied under a number of basis, but i like the photos because they cant be denied. they are a simple way to show people who are unfamiliar with the subject that geocentrism is the realm of crackpots and has no actual bearing to the modern church.

I am not. I am merely pointing out that this particular argument and evidence against geocentrism is flawed. We should be fair to our opponents.

except its not, and you are educated enough to know it, and its in black and white for all to see. you dont even have a horse in the race, as an atheist why would you care?

i can only assume that it is not the argument for you so much as the arguer. given our previous history, how else could i really interpret it?

 

[cassini]

Furthermore, I don’t think that most geocentrists claim that the other planets orbit the earth.

Geocentrism *is *false, but these photos do not prove it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Well done hecd2, but try convincing the other Copernicans.

Geocentricists, as you call us, fully accept the data that shows all the planets orbit the sun. Indeed it was Tycho de Brahe who was the first geocentricist to establish this truth. Galileo went on to confirm this rotation by way of the sunlight on one of them.

 

[thistle]

Well done hecd2, but try convincing the other Copernicans.

Geocentricists, as you call us, fully accept the data that shows all the planets orbit the sun. Indeed it was Tycho de Brahe who was the first geocentricist to establish this truth. Galileo went on to confirm this rotation by way of the sunlight on one of them.

Why is this thread still continuing? Whether geocenticism is correct or not is irrelevant. It is NOT part of the deposit of faith and is not a teaching of the Church and Catholics are free to believe it or not. Nothing presented in this thread supports it is a Church teaching.
It is a matter of science and not faith.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well done hecd2, but try convincing the other Copernicans.

Geocentricists, as you call us, fully accept the data that shows all the planets orbit the sun. Indeed it was Tycho de Brahe who was the first geocentricist to establish this truth. Galileo went on to confirm this rotation by way of the sunlight on one of them.

except for these little pictures we have showing geocentrism is false

 

[hecd2]

Well done hecd2, but try convincing the other Copernicans.

Geocentricists, as you call us, fully accept the data that shows all the planets orbit the sun. Indeed it was Tycho de Brahe who was the first geocentricist to establish this truth. Galileo went on to confirm this rotation by way of the sunlight on one of them.

However geocentrists before Tycho and Capella, including many of the Church fathers you keep quoting, held that all the bodies rotate around the earth on their deferents with the planets on smaller epicycles. So, it seems that you agree that the Church fathers were wrong about that.

I was merely pointing out that Petey’s particular line of argument is flawed and demonstrates nothing about geocentrism.

Geocentrism is complete nonsense for other reasons. When are you going to demonstrate in detail how whatever version of relativity you rely on explains the Coriolis force at the earth’s surface, the preference for the easterly launch of satellites from the equator, the equatorial bulge, the difference in the acceleration due to gravity between the poles and the equator, and Foucault’s pendulum? Why should anyone take you seriously if you can’t explain these things?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[mich2]

You seem to be very knowledgeable in scientific matters Alec, so if you don’t mind, I 'd like to ask you some questions since I’m not a scientist of any kind. First, I support the geocentric view,not in terms of a physical reality, but a philosophical one. We observers ought to be viewed as being on the prefered frame…again, not because it is the only true frame that can be used, but it is the best for most purposes. If there was indeed one physical static frame of reference, relative to the universe, then this particular frame (not the sun centered) would be the only true frame one would have to use as a physical reality.

However geocentrists before Tycho and Capella, including many of the Church fathers you keep quoting, held that all the bodies rotate around the earth on their deferents with the planets on smaller epicycles. So, it seems that you agree that the Church fathers were wrong about that.

I personally think the Ptolemaic system is a great
ingenius model. We need to understand that Ptolemy was using the accepted Aristotilian scientific understanding of his day. Gravity was the reason why the earth was the center of the universe, not scriptures.However, the position of earth as being the center of the universe, seemed to have been introduced in order to explain why we do not feel any movements coming from the earth, if the earth was moving, since it would constitute a breaking of the inertial law of motion. Yes, I do believe the early greek thinkers were just as great as the great scientists . They knew that accelerations introduce the feeling of forces. While Newton himself gave us an excellent explanation of gravity, he nevertheless claimed to be ignorant of how such a model can truly work. We needed to wait for Einstein in order to get a more advanced explanation.

The concept of epicycles did indeed explain the observation of retrograde motions. I question your statement that they were wrong, due to the fact, that such a system was not introduced in order to explain a scientific physicality of the orbits, but was simply a model to help predict the passage of the celestial bodies for time keeping purposes only. Even Copernican’s model was used for this purpose. It is Galileo (and others as well) who introduced the concept of “physical realities” within the orbits. Galileo was indeed a great thinker, however, to introduce physical realities for the displacement of bodies, a static universal space system was needed, and he chose the sun.
This was excellent if he would have used it as a model only, but I believe the church was right in claiming him to be wrong in him using such a system as the only true system one could use.
The Church, therefore condemned Heliocentrism as a truth, which even today, most believe the church to be wrong in doing so…However, the sun is not static, meaning, that just as geocentrism is wrong if used as the only true or real frame of reference, the heliocentric one is just as wrong, for the same reason. To use the word “solar system” today, is trying to escape the fact that the word universe was used by Galileo, and even this conclusion is not without any scientific physical problems.
Also, I believe that he was dead wrong in bringing such a model in the arena of religion, which is why he was put to trial by the inquisition.

.

Geocentrism is complete nonsense for other reasons. When are you going to demonstrate in detail how whatever version of relativity you rely on explains the Coriolis force at the earth’s surface, the preference for the easterly launch of satellites from the equator, the equatorial bulge, the difference in the acceleration due to gravity between the poles and the equator, and Foucault’s pendulum? Why should anyone take you seriously if you can’t explain these things?

However, do the planets’ orbit around the sun truly explain everything for a heliocentric realty?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Andre

 

[cassini]

except for these little pictures we have showing geocentrism is false

Told you hecd2.

 

[cassini]

Having said that you are wrong about this.

I am not making a point about the sun’s motion with respect to any super-solar structure, but I am looking, as you are, at the solar system in an isolated way. No sequence of photographs or movie can *prove *that any object is static even within the system and that others move, since what moves and what is still within the frame depends on which object one tracks with the camera. As I have pointed out, one could choose the sun, or the earth, or any other object within the solar system to be still and the others would be seen to move. It is an arbitrary choice. One could choose to track the sun, ie to keep the sun still in the frame, because the sun is by far the biggest object in the solar system, and that is understandable, and the result of that would be observed movement of the earth, but in terms of proving what moves with respect to what, it is simply begging the question.

And beyond that consideration, the photos that you linked can’t show what you claim them to show, because they are not a sequence but a mosaic - there is only one image of earth in the mosaic, and therefore it contains no data at all about its movement, relative or absolute.

hecd2, I have been telling him that (not as well however) for weeks now but he just cannot comprehend, few Copernicans can. It is the magic - and I mean this literally - of the heliocentric gnosis.

Now given that geocentricism has never been falsified, surely one can see that the Church of 1616 has never been shown to be wrong either? So why are so few following up on this paradigm and grant the Church its 1616 decree? Are you people not aware of the criticism aimed at the Church and its anti- heliocentric Churchmen over the last few centuries. Do you not see the merit in defending the spotless Body of Christ by turning the tables on the anticrists and those who participated in maligning those same Churchmen? Seemingly few so-called Catholics today do, showing that the Church militant has long departed from this earth.

 

[cassini]

However geocentrists before Tycho and Capella, including many of the Church fathers you keep quoting, held that all the bodies rotate around the earth on their deferents with the planets on smaller epicycles. So, it seems that you agree that the Church fathers were wrong about that.

I was merely pointing out that Petey’s particular line of argument is flawed and demonstrates nothing about geocentrism.

Geocentrism is complete nonsense for other reasons. When are you going to demonstrate in detail how whatever version of relativity you rely on explains the Coriolis force at the earth’s surface, the preference for the easterly launch of satellites from the equator, the equatorial bulge, the difference in the acceleration due to gravity between the poles and the equator, and Foucault’s pendulum? Why should anyone take you seriously if you can’t explain these things?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

hecd2, I have said many times I fully accept geocentricism because the Church of 1616 defined and declared the Scriptures say it is so, Galileo was the first to ask similar questions asa you and other Copernicans do, prove geocentrisism is true with science and prove heliocentricism is not true with science. As the title of this thread suggests, why not go one step further and prove the Virgin Birth with science. Many totally reject the Virgin Birth because it is scientifically impossible. Yet to most Catholics they know it is true.

I have repeatedly said also that because of relativity man cannot say for certain what the order of the universe is. I have said that BASED ON THIS SAME PRINCIPLE, man cannot determine the scientific LAWS that prevail in the universe. Just because the Copernicans have INVENTED LAWS for their system does not mean that these laws prevail and that others do not. That is HOW they fooled the human race into believing H has credibility. Look at Warp, he still thinks his pictures disprove G. But H physics is full of anomolies and contradictions, changing every year. It currently relies on Einstein’s special theory of Relativity and boy is it a fairy tale, disproven by many physicists.

The G of the Scriptures and of the Church is based on revelation. It needs no physics to prove because there are no physics to prove matters of faith. Your belief that only rotation of the earth can result in certain phenomena that we on earth experience is like saying that trailing smoke out of a ship’s chimny is proof that it is moving. The possibility that the ship is at anchor and that a wind blows the smoke into a trail shows the initial opinion is flawed. Who knows how the rotating universe around an immobile earth causes these same phenomens. Has anyone ever proposed a theory? No, because that might give the possibility some credibility in the world and not even Rome wants that.

While I personally uphold G as a matter of faith that cannot be falsified, and never will, there are others who have devised answers for the likes of yourself hecd2, and I’m sure Robert Sungenis PhD and Robert Bennett PhD have twenty pages of physics on these points that will really give you something to get your teeth into if you really want to know.

 

[pnewton]

As the title of this thread suggests, why not go one step further and prove the Virgin Birth with science. Many totally reject the Virgin Birth because it is scientifically impossible.

I can answer the “why” you ask here simply. The Church teaches the Virgin birth as dogma. The Catholic Church does not teach geocentrism as anything. I know that you do not agree with this, but save a handful of Catholics understand the Church teaching this way, including the Magisterum which you have labeled “Churchmen” in an Orwellian attempt to undermine anything Church officials say.

 

[cassini]

However geocentrists before Tycho and Capella, including many of the Church fathers you keep quoting, held that all the bodies rotate around the earth on their deferents with the planets on smaller epicycles. So, it seems that you agree that the Church fathers were wrong about that.

Your reference to the Church Fathers here hecd2 I take as an inference about their being wrong on other points of cosmology. It infers they too were wrong in their interpretation on Scripture on grounds of ignorance. I cannot let you away with this.

What the Fathers thought about the actual workings of the universe is neither here or there. There is only one DOGMA on cosmology that the Church defined and declared was in accordance with ALL the Church Fathers ( a unaminity that is considered by the Church as an infallible one) - that the sun moves relative to the earth. The Scriptures clearly say the sun moves. Nothing else was considered formal heresy. The proposed movements of the earth were not formally heretical but considered as contrary to the conclusions of Scripture and of Catholic faith.

Nowhere did the Fathers or the Church of the seventeenth century say anything about the movements of the moon, planets or stars. So your reference to the beliefs or not of the Fathers on any other cosmological fact or error is of no consequence. Besides, the opinion of the Fathers was theological, not physical, as they show in many of their writings.

 

[cassini]

I can answer the “why” you ask here simply. The Church teaches the Virgin birth as dogma. The Catholic Church does not teach geocentrism as anything. I know that you do not agree with this, but save a handful of Catholics understand the Church teaching this way, including the Magisterum which you have labeled “Churchmen” in an Orwellian attempt to undermine anything Church officials say.

pnewton, I hope you do not call yourself after that Arian alchemist Isaac Newton? Then again maybe you do because of your common interests, to render the Church’s 1616 decree null and void. Nay, you go further pnewton, you even deny the Church of 1616 ever taught geocentricism. Good man, out of sight out of mind, yes.

 

[thistle]

pnewton, I hope you do not call yourself after that Arian alchemist Isaac Newton? Then again maybe you do because of your common interests, to render the Church’s 1616 decree null and void. Nay, you go further pnewton, you even deny the Church of 1616 ever taught geocentricism. Good man, out of sight out of mind, yes.

The Church does NOT teach geocentricism. You are wrong. No Catholic is obliged to believe geocentricsim.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Told you hecd2.

yeah i got proof and i am not going to let it go. these pics are absolute proof.

talk all you want you cant explain away these pictures from outside the solar frame of reference.

we have observational proof geocentrism is false. no number of people saying different will contravert what all can see.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

hecd2, I have been telling him that (not as well however) for weeks now but he just cannot comprehend, few Copernicans can. It is the magic - and I mean this literally - of the heliocentric gnosis.

oh, i comprehend, its just that geocentrism is wrong. the pics prove it. i understand what you mean it is just wrong.

Now given that geocentricism has never been falsified,

 

[Luke65]

Warp, you just don’t listen. You don’t even listen to Alec, who is on your side on this issue. Geocentrism (the Tychonic System) has not been falsified. Even if you had a complete video you would not be able to determine if the earth was rotating around the sun, or the sun was rotating around the earth, because the orbit would look exactly the same. And it looks like you haven’t been able to convince Wikipedia of your discovery either! Again:

Non-falsifiability of geocentrism
If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone.[dubious – discuss] Ideas such as this which are not falsifiable may be true[dubious – discuss], but they are not scientific theories.

And again, this quote, or something like it, has been there for at least a couple years, even though everybody would love to prove it wrong. So for anybody who thinks they can, by all means, be the first in the world to falsify geocentrism! Good luck!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp, you just don’t listen. You don’t even listen to Alec, who is on your side on this issue. Geocentrism (the Tychonic System) has not been falsified.

once again, i completely understand, but the idea is wrong. the pictures themselves are the falsification of geocentrism.

they are taken from outside the local frame of reference and show the system, and provide the necessary info to plot orbits.

it cant be anymore clear than that.

Even if you had a complete video you would not be able to determine if the earth was rotating around the sun, or the sun was rotating around the earth, because the orbit would look exactly the same.

that is completely untrue, as long as the video was taken from a similar position as voyager, outside the solar system, than you could easily see that geocentrism is false.

And it looks like you haven’t been able to convince Wikipedia of your discovery either! Again:

they dont support geocentrism, they just say the concept exists. big deal. you all havent managed to convince anybody of import at all, tell me when nasa joins your little group, or any astrophysicists that currently teach at a respected university.

And again, this quote, or something like it, has been there for at least a couple years, even though everybody would love to prove it wrong. So for anybody who thinks they can, by all means, be the first in the world to falsify geocentrism! Good luck!

the pics falsify geocentrism, the fact that you cant tell that, tells me that you all are just repeating something you read, or heard. party over, the pics prove geocentrism is false, all by themselves.

and i will be sure that anyone who mentions geocentrism is confronted with the evidence

find another hunting ground, i take anti catholic bigotry extremely personally. those oics will be around for a very long time

 

[williamric]

While I appreciate cassini’s continued fire for the faith, I think it’s of importance to include the following paragraph in that same letter by Cardinal Bellarmine:

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to** proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures** that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.The physical structure of the solar system was not at that time observable as it is now. It thus is not a matter of “faith.”

Stirke three:thumbsup:

 

[cassini]

I can answer the “why” you ask here simply. The Church teaches the Virgin birth as dogma. The Catholic Church does not teach geocentrism as anything. I know that you do not agree with this, but save a handful of Catholics understand the Church teaching this way, including the Magisterum which you have labeled “Churchmen” in an Orwellian attempt to undermine anything Church officials say.

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1616:

‘That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, [is] unanimously declared to be foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.’

Now pnewton, show us any abrogation of this ‘dogma’ and you will be a hero on this thread.

 

[cassini]

cassini;4637805:

hecd2, I have been telling him that (not as well however) for weeks now but he just cannot comprehend, few Copernicans can. It is the magic - and I mean this literally - of the heliocentric gnosis.

oh, i comprehend, its just that geocentrism is wrong. the pics prove it. i understand what you mean it is just wrong.

i assume you mean other than these pictures showing that geocentrism is false.

i assume you mean other than in 1992 when the Pontifical academy of science, appointed to the task by JPII, that said the church had made a mistake in the galileo affair?

because people can see the truth of the matter. either the rest of humanity is wrong, or you are, which do you think that is?

you are confused, by denying the obvious truth in public you heap scorn on the church.

everyone can see this is little more than the realm of conspiracy theorists. you even deny photos

it would be laughable, but you are dragging the church through the mud.

does any priest know you are doing this? why dont you see what your bishop has to say?

Warp. Boy I would love you on my side. you never give up do you? Well neither will I, so we cannot go on forever. Our exchange reminds me of those movies where the two opponents batter each other until neither is left standing. Usually, if it is a good movie, both become friends and live happy ever after. Want to shake on it warp?