Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[CWBetts]

The ‘bottom line’ for you thistle, but not for others interested in the history of the Church, in the history of the world, in the great battle of Principalities and powers that the likes of you and others love to fob off as ‘conspiracy theories’.

Over 8,000 books and lenghty thesis have been written on the Galileo case all unsuccessfully trying to solve a ‘puzzle’ of that long affair, all written by Copernicans like yourself of course. Had they all taken your advice they could have saved themselves the bother.

Well now its our turn to speak up for the Church of 1616 and 1633 that has been ridiculed and ignored by the same Copernican heretics. Our position is that no one has ever falsified the Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures as geocentric, not even warp with his beloved ‘photos’ of H. What you lot prove to me is that there is little grace out there as the love for truth has been lost. Nay more, you are the Devil’s advocats, doing your best to stop the flow of truth getting to anyone else. Indeed the heresy is one of the most successful of them all. Even when informed of it, intellectual pride blinds you all.

Oh, please. You keep coming back to a statement by a Cardinal, quite fallible, to shore up your rediculous argument. Ihave said it before, I say it again: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. I would not go to a dentist for car reapirs. I would not go to a mechanic for a toothache. Likewise, I would not go to a science text when searching for moral truth, and I do not go to the Scriptures when looking for scientific data.

 

[Shlomey]

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

• St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[cassini]

Oh, please. You keep coming back to a statement by a Cardinal, quite fallible, to shore up your rediculous argument. Ihave said it before, I say it again: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. I would not go to a dentist for car reapirs. I would not go to a mechanic for a toothache. Likewise, I would not go to a science text when searching for moral truth, and I do not go to the Scriptures when looking for scientific data.

Well I tell you CWB, I would prefer the wisdom and theology of a Saint (Robert Bellarmine) than the opinion of a bye-product of the Copernican heresy. That reminds me, I must put up your sig for debate, sounds like a literal interpretation of the Bible to me.

 

[CWBetts]

Well I tell you CWB, I would prefer the wisdom and theology of a Saint (Robert Bellarmine) than the opinion of a bye-product of the Copernican heresy. That reminds me, I must put up your sig for debate, sounds like a literal interpretation of the Bible to me.

I will go to a saint for matters of theology…not science.

 

[cassini]

“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”

• St. Thomas Aquinas

St Thomas also said, and I will get the quote if necessary, ‘that when a point of doctrine has been defined and is contradicted by point of view, that proposal should be re examined and it will be found to be premature.’

 

[rossum]

Well I tell you CWB, I would prefer the wisdom and theology of a Saint

So would I:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
By your insistence on Geocentrism you are putting obstacles in the way of unbelievers believing.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp, I for one, and I dare say there are many more, PhDs too, who know your photos do not prove H

.

i have spent a little time in school too, and its obvious to me, it would be obvious to any one who has ever taken physics 101.

pictures showing allowing us to plot the orbits of the planets around the sun disprove geocentrism.

you all keep talking about ‘falsifying’ geocntrism, like you dont know what it means, look it up it means to be testable, to be able to show validity.

this pictures show the entire solar system. and provide multiple data points to plot planetary orbits. that allows us to test geocentrism

the pics falsify geocentrism. they flat out show it, so if somebody is saying that geocentrism is not falsifiable when shown these pics they either have no clue what it means, or they really dont want to accept that such obvious evidence exists

As another poster said, soory pal, but you haven’t falsified relativity as your false conclusion should do if it were true. They are proof for you, as Newton provided proof for others, as Stellar Aberration proved for others, as stellar parallax proved for more, as the discovery of the Coriolis effect proved for even more, as Foucault’s pendulum proved for any left overs.

they are proof that anyone can see, they falsify geocentrism. they prove geocentrism false. there is no other way to see it, denying it is like trying to convince people the sky is red instead of blue.

However, in world created by GOD, cosmic movements are relative for man’s science. Only the other day I heard a radio presenter who was convinced like yourself, being corrected by a Professor of Mathematics from Cork University in Ireland. In his opinion the world is BOTH G and H, which for me is an impossibility but for scientists adhering to the lower levels of knowledge is all they have.

i would be happy to correct the mathematician with these photos. they show the whole solar system. there is no denying it,i dont care what is said wecan see the evidence

As for ’ geocentrists heaping scorn on the Church’, don’t tell me after all this debate you haven’t understood the difference between the Church and ‘Churchmen’.

there is no difference outside of your opinion, you heap scorn on the modern church, they admitted the galileo affair was a mistake in 1992. then you attack the church for that. its anticatholic bigotry, nothing short.

What do you say to those who condemn ‘the Church’ for all the paedophiles in 'IT?

i say there are fewer pedophiles in the priesthood than in the general population and its only the media circus that it is because our culture is bathed in sex, drugs and rock n roll, and thinks it strange that men would sacrifice personal pleasure in the service of G-d, thats what i say, or i just point at my pin that says “we stand in solidarity with our priests”

but the fact that you would even bring that up, is heaping scorn on the church, please stop calling yourself a Catholic, you are not one of us.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So would I:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
By your insistence on Geocentrism you are putting obstacles in the way of unbelievers believing.

rossum

BINGO!

 

[hecd2]

Warp, I for one, and I dare say there are many more, PhDs too, who know your photos do not prove H . As another poster said, soory pal, but you haven’t falsified relativity as your false conclusion should do if it were true. They are proof for you, as Newton provided proof for others, as Stellar Aberration proved for others, as stellar parallax proved for more, as the discovery of the Coriolis effect proved for even more, as Foucault’s pendulum proved for any left overs.

Your particular brand of geocentrism relies on some unspecified brand of relativity to explain the Coriolis force, the Foucault pendulum, the preference of the launching of satellites eastwards from the equator, the equatorial bulge etc on a static earth. But your hypothesis fails because the generic form of relativity that you seem to adhere to cannot explain these phenomena. They are the consequence of the rotation of the earth with respect to the local inertial frame of reference, and saying that movements and rotations are relative to one another in a generic way does not change that fact. You have, so far, failed to explain how “relativity”, whatever you mean by that, can give rise to these forces and effects if the earth is static.

In order to make a credible case you must explain whether you are relying on Galilean, Special or General relativity to explain the Coriolis force, the equatorial bulge etc in a putatively stationary earth, and to explain in detail, how that particular relativistic theory can explain the phenomena. In science, it’s not good enough to wave your arms and wink your eyes and say “It’s because of relativity”. You need to explain exactly how the specific theory of relativity that you adhere to explains the observed phenomena. So how does “relativity” explain these things if the earth is static? You need to show specifically how the formulation of the mechanics based on whatever version of relativity that you are relying on gives rise to these forces on a static earth. If you will not or cannot do that then your hypothesis fails.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[cassini]

I will go to a saint for matters of theology…not science.

Here we go again, round twelve.

It was St Robert Bellarmine whost JOB it was to determine the nature of reported aberrations of Church law at the beginning of the 17th century. It was he who determined the geocentric interpretation of the Scriptures as a matter of FAITH, not science.

With your photos of H up your shirts, you Copernicans think you are the ones who dictate what is faith and what is science. You are just another in a line of apologists ans minimisers from 1741, all trying to worm your way out of an impossible situation.

 

[pnewton]

What is a Copernican?

 

[hecd2]

.
pictures showing allowing us to plot the orbits of the planets around the sun disprove geocentrism…

this pictures show the entire solar system. and provide multiple data points to plot planetary orbits. that allows us to test geocentrism

the pics falsify geocentrism. they flat out show it, so if somebody is saying that geocentrism is not falsifiable when shown these pics they either have no clue what it means, or they really dont want to accept that such obvious evidence exists

They are proof that anyone can see, they falsify geocentrism. they prove geocentrism false. there is no other way to see it, denying it is like trying to convince people the sky is red instead of blue.

i would be happy to correct the mathematician with these photos. they show the whole solar system. there is no denying it,i dont care what is said wecan see the evidence

Whilst I applaud your scathing opinion of geocentrism, and agree with you that Catholics are not required to hold geocentrism, and that those who promote it as an article of faith call ridicule down on the Church and the Faithful, I think you go too far by claiming that *these *photographs *disprove *geocentrism.

We observe many stellar and planetary orbital systems where the individual bodies orbit the centre of mass of the system, and we observe that the solar system from outside looks just like one of these, so it is reasonable to say that parsimony dictates that the solar system is just such a system where the various bodies, including the earth, orbit the centre of mass of the system. However a photo sequence from outside the solar system cannot *prove *absolute motion, merely motion relative to whatever rest frame is chosen for the sequence of photos. If one chooses to point the camera so that the sun is static in the sequence then that is an arbitrary choice of the sun as the rest frame for the sequence and the planets will then be seen to move relative to that frame. But that is begging the question. One could equally well choose to point the camera so that the earth, or Mars, or the moon, or even a passing comet was at rest in the sequence. What we see depends on the arbitrary choice of how the camera is steered as the sequence of photos is taken.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[cassini]

So would I:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
By your insistence on Geocentrism you are putting obstacles in the way of unbelievers believing.

rossum

rossum. I took you for an intelligent person. Let me see if you see the contradiction of the Copernicans you have decided are the new magisterium of the Church now that they have dismissed the Church of 1616 as null and void.

All I get are quotes from Augustine, Aquinas and Bellarmine to support the Copernican heresy. The fact that these three supported a geocentric interpretation of the Scriptures shows me that geocentricism was never included in the passages above. Indeed both Bellarmine and Aquinas have developed the doctrine of geocentricism more that any other saints in history. To actually try to uses these saints and what they said brings Catholicism into disrepute. It depicts saints of the Church as full of contradiction, going one way and meaning another. Such however is the product of the Copernican heresy - total contradiction and sophism in every field of authority of the Church.

As regards my putting converts off joining the Catholic Church, well that is a matter of opinion. My position is based on the Catholic faith as set down by the Church in order of events throughout history. I always subscribed to its divine guidance. I was well educated and had read up on the galileo affair. I always had a suspicion that here was an exception to all the Church claimed to be. I trusted those Catholics who went before me and presented me with an explanation of that ‘Copernican revolution’, a ‘once-off’ such happening in history, where the Church was PROVEN wrong. I fully accepted the reasons handed on to me and all Catholics why this incident was really a non-event and why it had been competely eliminated from all matters pertaining to doctrinal history, including Denzinger’s HISTORY OF CVATHOLIC DOGMAS, that include even some insignificant commands handed down by THAT SAME HOLY OFFICE of the time.

But then came the wind of TRUTH. Science never falsified the Church’s ruling of Copernicanism as heresy. Alas,this TRUTH opened up a can of worms that I simply could not believe. But unlike many other happenings in history, PROVIDENCE had left a trail of documents that cannot be refuted. Everry move of the Copernicans, both inside the Church and outside it, had been recorded.

To say I was shocked at the pragmatism of Churchmen (BY Churchmen I mean all those whom Providence ALLOWED run the Church since 1741, including popes) would be to say the least, I was appalled by what they did and said. They HUNG popes Paul V and Urban VIII out to dry as idiots, just as the Copernicanins on this forum try to HANG me and a few others out as idiots.

But all that is being exposed now, and they don’t like it. It was all right for Pope John Paul II to get a commission to further HUMILIATE the anti-Copernican Churchmen, - for what other conclusions could have have been produced - the TRUTH? - but as you can see from another posting here above, it is not permitted to reverse the charge.

So there you have it rossum, let anyone who wants to convert to Catholicism to do so because it is the only religion that represents the triune God of TRUTH without blemish, just like His CHURCH, unblemished also - never having defined and declared a false heresy, never having accused Galileo falsely, never having impeded the true progress of science.

If they still prefer the dogma of science, I suggest they stay out of the Church, we have enough of that unchanging kind in it at present.

 

[cassini]

What is a Copernican?

In my book, a Copernican is one who, thinking the earth moves around the sun has been proven, ALSO interprets the Scriptures contrary to their literal language,

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whilst I applaud your scathing opinion of geocentrism, and agree with you that Catholics are not required to hold geocentrism, and that those who promote it as an article of faith call ridicule down on the Church and the Faithful, I think you go too far by claiming that *these *photographs *disprove *geocentrism.

please dont applaud my scathing opinion, i take no joy in this, one must excise cancer from the body, or the body suffers.

we are only in a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend, n ot that you are my enemy, but we are definitely opponents bound to be on the opposite side of further issues.

We observe many stellar and planetary orbital systems where the individual bodies orbit the centre of mass of the system, and we observe that the solar system from outside looks just like one of these, so it is reasonable to say that parsimony dictates that the solar system is just such a system where the various bodies, including the earth, orbit the centre of mass of the system. However a photo sequence from outside the solar system cannot *prove *absolute motion, merely motion relative to whatever rest frame is chosen for the sequence of photos. If one chooses to point the camera so that the sun is static in the sequence then that is an arbitrary choice of the sun as the rest frame for the sequence and the planets will then be seen to move relative to that frame. But that is begging the question. One could equally well choose to point the camera so that the earth, or Mars, or the moon, or even a passing comet was at rest in the sequence. What we see depends on the arbitrary choice of how the camera is steered as the sequence of photos is taken.

solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam3.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam2.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam1.gif

i only care about the planets motions relative to the sun, its path has more than one data point in these pics, allowing its path to be extrapolated as well, however the motion of the sun relative to greater galactic center is of no consequence to the immediate question of geocentrism, the frame of reference of importance here is entirely in view, and those photos are taken from outside that frame of reference.

the pics do disprove geocentrism, nothing but the moon orbits the earth. you may need to actually look at these photos, they are taken from outside the local inertial frame of reference.

 

[hecd2]

we are only in a situation where the enemy of my enemy is my friend, n ot that you are my enemy, but we are definitely opponents bound to be on the opposite side of further issues.

We are opponents in some matters and probably not in others. I have never met someone that I either disagreed with or agreed with on everything. I think that people should always celebrate when they find common ground - we should be looking for ways to work together, not constantly seeking division and disagreement.

solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam3.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam2.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam1.gif

i only care about the planets motions relative to the sun, its path has more than one data point in these pics, allowing its path to be extrapolated as well, however the motion of the sun relative to greater galactic center is of no consequence to the immediate question of geocentrism, the frame of reference of importance here is entirely in view, and those photos are taken from outside that frame of reference.

the pics do disprove geocentrism, nothing but the moon orbits the earth. you may need to actually look at these photos, they are taken from outside the local inertial frame of reference.

Having said that you are wrong about this. I have seen enough of the way you operate on CAF that, having taken a position, no evidence or logic will shift you, and I am not prepared to get into a “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument, so I will just make these points for the record and leave you to disagree.

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.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Having said that you are wrong about this. I have seen enough of the way you operate on CAF that, having taken a position, no evidence or logic will shift you, and I am not prepared to get into a “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument, so I will just make these points for the record and leave you to disagree.

well, at least you didnt call me stoopid again

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

im not claiming that any body is static, as you well know.

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.

that is why these pictures are so beautiful, they are view of the entire solar system,* from outside that frame of reference*

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.

their relations can be seen because they provide more than one data point. thats the beauty of multiple photos.

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.

no, but they do show multiple photos of all the other planets, and none of them seem to be orbiting the earth. therefore they do show what i claim.

geocentrism is false

 

[hecd2]

Sigh, why do I not stick to what I say I will do?

that is why these pictures are so beautiful, they are view of the entire solar system,* from outside that frame of reference*

They are a view of the solar system from the edge of the solar system - the rest frame of the photo is an arbitrary choice. There is no such thing as a single frame of reference for the solar system.

their relations can be seen because they provide more than one data point.

Except that they *don’t *provide more than one data point, but even if they did, they would not show what you think they do as the rest frame of the photo is a choice not a property of the system.

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.

no, but they do show multiple photos of all the other planets, and none of them seem to be orbiting the earth. therefore they do show what i claim.

geocentrism is false

Well they don’t show multiple photos of *any *of the planets. All the photos of the planets, both in the mosaic and in the individual frames are single frames. There is no dynamic information in this mosaic at all.

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

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sigh, why do I not stick to what I say I will do?

i thought you might have been blowing a little smoke there, leaving something alone is no more your habit than mine

They are a view of the solar system from the edge of the solar system - the rest frame of the photo is an arbitrary choice. There is no such thing as a single frame of reference for the solar system.

 

[hecd2]

there are almost an infinite number of frames of reference for the solar system, as a matter of fact, with a powerful enough camera almost any where in the universe you can get a clear shot.

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.

any body with more than one photo of it in the series can be tracked comparatively.

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.

you know how clyde tombaugh found Pluto right? he compared a series of static photos to find the moving object. thats one of the oldest photographic techniques we have and it is exactly applicable here.(i used to live in his home town)

Good for you.

Tombaugh set up a camera so the field was at rest with respect to the stars and looked in multiple frames taken days apart for a body moving against that reference, since a planet, as viewed from earth, is not fixed against the stars (in fact the term planet comes from the classical Greek for wandering stars - asteres planetai). All that such photos can do is to show relative movement - the Tychonic system would be an equally valid explanation for a multiple frame sequence of bodies in the solar system. But that is not even the case here, since in the Voyager mosaic there are only single frames of each body.

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.

anyways i dare you to go to work and tell them you are defending geocentrism.

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.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm