P
pnewton
Guest
It is not neccessarily greater or lesser. The two are different. They require different answers when replying to anti-Catholics who question the Church. That is all I said.
- Status
O
Orogeny
Guest
C
cassini
Guest
Absolutely correct grannymh. Thank you for your priceless contribution. For the source of this comparison refer to Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini of 1615. If you want the whole text I can send it via private message.
C
cassini
Guest
All who accepted the Copernican heresy are heretics. In the case of most this heresy is material, of no malice, no intended contradiction to the Church’s command. No fault, no punishment due, no blame. The Devil will settle for the damage this heresy did to the Church rather than claim souls.
No, I take that back, think on all those souls that became atheist because this ‘science’ accommodated the rise of Agnosticism and atheism, well documented in a new book on atheism.
O
Orogeny
Guest
What organization are you referring to when you wrote “Only in a now CORRUPT organisation could such denial be so blatant.”?
Are the Bishops and Popes that reject geocentrism corrupt? Are they heretics? Are they legitimate? Is the Seat of Peter vacant?
Peace
Tim
C
cassini
Guest
The organisation created by the Copernicans within the Institurion of the Church. It was begun by a collection of them in Rome from 1741 onwards.
Yes, I would say any and all of those Churchmen that conspired to SAVE THE CHURCH FROM THE 1616 DECREE could be classed as corrupt in this matter. They are all heretics.
I see you have made the inevitable connection to sedevacantism. They hold no heretic can be a true pope. They worked overtime to try to get off the time-hook on this one. By this I mean that their sedevacantism would have to be extended back to 1741 because of the new paradigm wherein there has never been a proof for heliocentricism. This meant that all who chose H over G were heretics.
I tell them that like Galileo, who was never found guilty of heresy even though he wrote like one, because he never admitted H in his heart, so too can no pope be accused for the same reason. And as for their heresy under the impression that H was proven, well then it was material heresy. I’m sure not even sedevacantists would say a papal seat was vacant under such circumstances.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
i noticed that you avoid answering any question which my disprove your conspiracy theory
do you have any evidence at all this theory was made up to get the earth emoving again?
evidence?
evidence?
is he also a geocentrist?, is if so have him post
if i had no facts to support my case, i toowould prefer to simply dismiss the foundation of evidence to the contrary
but what about those pics? you cant dismiss them
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
so now the church is all heretics and just you few brave geocentrists are the last remaining true Cathloics, and the other 1.2 billion of us are doomed
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear cassini,
Thank you. I shall decline your kind offer since I already have access to a variety of documents and books.
Now, since Scripture is the link and Scripture is indeed priceless, let us treat it with respect. Let us also be respectful toward the institution which has preserved Scripture through the centuries, through those times that were called the Dark Ages.
We should also respect the Catholic Church as holy. The Catholic Church is seen as holy because it witnesses with fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus, Whose Holy Presence continues within the Church. (Matthew 28:16-20) Christ calls all to a holy life. It is an understatement to say that many members are not holy. On the other hand, there are many members who acknowledge their sinfulness and follow the path of conversion, penance, and renewal. United with Christ, their holiness on earth is real, though imperfect.
It is my understanding that we should show respect to others regardless of their many imperfections. “Excuse me, I need to take the plank out of my eye” is a Scripture joke that points to the truth that we shouldn’t judge the souls of others.(refer to the wooden beam in Matthew 7:1-5)
Since I just dropped in, I need to go back to some previous posts. At this point, it looks like the issue of geocentricism would be separate from Scripture as viewed in the Catholic tradition. Yes, I have read quite a lot about Scripture being the source for Catholic belief. I laughed at myself, when as an older adult I started reading the New Testament in earnest. My surprised reaction was – :extrahappy: what I learned in grade school is right here in the Bible!
Blessings,
grannymh
H
hecd2
Guest
That’s fine. I assumed that by posting here you have more than a private belief, that, in fact, you have you have an ambition to persuade others to your point of view. You cannot do that credibly if you are unable or unwilling to answer the points that I raised. Please feel free to ignore the points that I made, but also understand that in doing so, you are surrendering any possibility of appearing credible. You will be confirming that your arguments are impotent, so far as they are based on science or philosophy, or indeed on any rational scheme.
There are two ridiculous errors here. First of all the Airy experiment did not “falsify stellar aberration”. The theory of stellar aberration is entirely consistent with the Airy experiment and the reality of stellar aberration remains as a valid proof that the earth has a motion with respect to the stars equal to its orbit around the sun (isn’t that a smoking a gun?) Secondly, the Lense-Thirring effect was not “invented to get the earth moving again” - it is a consequence of solutions to the Einstein field equation - ie a consequence of GR that was predicted in 1918, 47 years after the Airy experiment. They are not at all connected:
Lense, J. & Thirring, H. Uber den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkörper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie. Phys. Z. 19, 156−163 (1918)
By the way, the Lense-Thirring effect has been experimentally demonstrated:
Ciufolini and Pavlis, *A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense–Thirring effect, *Nature 431, 958 - 960 (2004)
Steady on. Every test of SR and GR predictions has been positive. You know, even scientists most aggressively opposed to others’ ideas do not call each other “dirty old men”. It is ironic given his genius as a physicist and your ignorance.
Yep, that’s why your computer works (have you any idea how wonderful a modern computer and the internet is and how it all depends on our understanding of physics?), men stood on the moon, planes fly, mobile phones work, the inside of our bodies are imaged, we can see 12 billion light years into the past, GPS works (with GR corrections), QED (that’s Quantum Electro-Dynamics) predictions are exquisitely accurate and precise . Yeah - it’s all a great con to prove the earth moves. You really do have absurd perspectives on reality.
Ah right. You get your philosophy of science from a very enjoyable science fiction author - but nevertheless a science fiction author. Perhaps you would like to invoke octarine, which, as you perhaps know, is the colour of magic. Do you worship the Great A’Tuin? I prefer to get my science and my philosophy of science from rather more staid, perhaps less entertaining but also less, shall we say, unconstrained sources.
However a drink in the Broken Drum, or is it now the Mended Drum, would be good. Meet you there at next Hogswatch. Perhaps we could sit in the same room as a bottle of Dibbler’s homoeopathic sipping whiskey, and fall under the table.
Well that’s a pity. Perhaps they were way beyond your understanding. I hope they went to a good home, ie someone who could understand and appreciate them. As for the tale about your brother, what is that supposed to show? That your brother has the same level of wisdom about physics as you do?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
M
mich2
Guest
yes, I was going to ask you two or three questions, but the post was getting quite long.
I agree; and my point was that since no true motion can be given to the earth relative to the universe, to isolate the sun and make it at rest, while being a good model, cannot, in my opinion be regarded as the only true reality anymore than the earth centered model. Both are equal, in my opinion, and are used for different purposes.
I fully agree; this is part of my argument.
I agree with most of what you wrote; I am certainly not claiming that the heliocentric model has nothing to do with discovering a deeper form of reality concerning the physical laws within our universe.I am saying, however, that the laws we discovered throught the heliocentric model most probably form a special case of a much deeper theory, since many elements are unkown.
Accelerated motions,such as found in the movements given to the earth within a heliocentric model does seem to contradict, at first view, the laws concerning inertia, which is why I believe the philosophers of the time (middle ages) had a hard time accepting such a view.
Ptolemy, for example,said after explaining the Aristotilian laws of motion:
**" …if the earth moved,even by it’s daily rotation, the contrary of what was said would necessarilty take place.For the movement which would traverse the total circuit of the earth in twenty- four hours would necessarily be of an unsurpassable velocity. Now things that are suddenly and violently whirled around are seen to be utterly unfitted for reuniting,and the more unified are seemed to become dispersed, unless some constant force constrains them to stick together, and a long time ago, the earth would have passed beyong the heavens; and a fortiori so would all the living creatures, and all the separate masses which could by all means remain unshaken. Moreover, freely falling bodies would not arrive at the places appointed them,and certainly not in perpendicular
line which they assume so quickly. **
I notice a couple of things here. Ptolemy, who lived in the second century of the christian era, argues against the hypothesis of the orbiting earth’s model. This seems to greatly suggest that Copernicus wasn’t introducing anything new, and that such a hypothesis existed close to, if not before the time of Christ.
Secondly, his argument against such an hypothesis was totally philosophical, if not scientific in essence. I question why we make the middle ages to be so barbaric, unreasonable and totally supersticious.
This was one of the questions I wanted to ask your opinion about. Could it be possible that such Coriolis effect found in Foucault’s pendulum actually be due to a deviation of the centre of gravity caused by the change in relative positions between the sun, the earth and the moon? If so, then could this not be considered a case of equivalence principle found in GR?
Andre
M
mich2
Guest
I agree; my point would be that since what we observe as a heliocentric system prevents us to observe outside causes affecting the system, and since such outside causes comes from the rest of the universe, It prevents me of seeing the heliocentric view as being very much superior to the geocentric one. I agree, the model is better, however, I sense that we maybe actually be fooled by some illusonary observation precisely because we make the sun stand still…just my opinion.
My point was that Copernicus had been supported and actually pressed by the pope to release his research, and Galileo was also supported at first. What happened for all of this to change? It seems that his view was the Copernicus system was to be the only view (frame)allowed to be real, which personally, I disagree. Also, his heliocentric, that is, sun static view, was taken to be a reality to the point where he claimed scriptures as being wrong, for example in the case where the sun stood still for Joshua. Here, the reason, why I believe he let himself be imprisonned
( figure of speech
) within his own theory is because, he must have claimed that the sun “could not” have changed motion because he made it static, to the point where, he himself could not perceive the sun from stopping, showing his reality of a sun static universe. Imaging the sun is travelling along with the planets. For some reason, the sun changes it’s momentum (it could be due to an unknown phisical cause). While the earth continues to travel and rotate, the sudden change of movement of the sun could have just as well have made the sun to stand still for Joshua.Now, I understand,Alec, that you’re not bound by our scriptures; I am only arguing against the reasoning made by Galileo.
As for Galileo being condemed for giving the earth some movements, yes, agree, and it is where I believe the Church today claims the Inquisitors went too far. However, if we read much of the material covering the period from Copernicus and Galileo, the church never did forbid the heliocentric view, and a careful reading of the letter will show that only heliocentrism was identified as heresie, while the movement of the earth was not.
Well, Alec, the Galileo incident can be seen even today, and we have to accept this. We need to understand that the scientific knowledge of the time was still mostly Aristotilian. Galileo was not prevented in writing down his point of view, only in that it was not to be taught as absolute truth. Within the school system, there are some hypothesis which are being prevented from being taught, such as, for example, a guided evolution hypothesis. Anyone has the right to write a book about it, but is forbidden to teach it within a school curricullum.I don’t see such a big difference as existing during the time of Galileo, personally.
{QUOTE]
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Andre
P
pnewton
Guest
Well, cassini’s last post sealed it for me. Now I understand his ridiculous *Churchman *garbage. The whole of Catholicism has become heretical except him and his ilk. Perhaps some day we will read where he has made himself pope of his own church which he will claim is the only real Catholic Church left. I am glad there are others here standing firm against his self-proclamation as the last divine interpreter of sacred tradition. I understand the attraction of being one of a handful of The Fatihful, whatever that means. But we must not give into our pride that somehow we alone have seen what the Holy Spirite has mislead the whole of Catholicism on.so now the church is all heretics and just you few brave geocentrists are the last remaining true Cathloics, and the other 1.2 billion of us are doomed
Well, if he rejects following the Holy Father (the current one that is, not one from the 17th century) then he will face God for that rejection. I know one thing thought. If his logic and intelligence that is reflected in this thread is any reflection of his book, I would get more common sense from a comic book.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
par for the course when it comes to conspiracy theorists, no doubt we are part of some secret cabal, illuminati, free mason and alien abductors. i assure you that these interactions will only reinforce the viewpoint they have, i would leave them to the treatment of professionals, but they insist on using the church as their vehicle of paranoia.
but any time geocentrism raises its head, we need to strike quickly that none may be deceived by these protestants
H
hecd2
Guest
We can be sure of the diurnal rotation of the earth with respect to the star field, and with respect to the CMB, and we can also be sure of the annual movement of the earth owing to its orbit around the sun with respect to these things. So, if you define the universe by the star field and the CMB (and I don’t know how else you would define it), then we can see that there is motion between the earth and the universe (diurnal rotation, annual orbit) not shared by the sun. The sun and earth together of course, share the motion of the solar system with respect to the local standard of rest, with respect to the Hubble flow and with respect to the CMB. The point however is that the earth has rotational and orbital motion with respect to the star field and the CMB not shared by the sun.
Not sure what you mean here.
Just an aside, but 2nd C AD is hardly the Middle Ages.
He was right about the fact that on a rotating earth forces appear, but completely wrong about their magnitude, because he had no way of calculating the centrifugal and Coriolis forces due the earth’s rotation
And this is an argument about linear motion which is completely wrong conceptually because it ignores Galilean relativity.
Of course - that is not in question.But Copernicus was first to pull the threads of the arguments together and present a fully worked out system in terms familiar to modern science.
No. It is not a change of period but a rotation of the plane of the pendulum in a way that depends only on the earth’s rotation and the latitude of the pendulum. Quite apart from the fact that the effect of the sun and moon’s gravity at the earth’s surface is tiny and won’t explain the magnitude or the direction of the effect, the pendulum is not attracted to the centre of gravity of the earth-moon-sun (which is somewhere deep in the sun) and the Foucault pendulum effect is symmetric about the equatorial not the ecliptic plane.
No. These forces have nothing to do with GR - they arise in classical mechanics on a rotating earth and are not significantly influenced by the presence of the sun or moon.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
G
grannymh
Guest
Good morning pnewton,
Hold on to your train of thought. Think 2,607 views of this thread.
It is not enough to recognize ridiculous statements about the Catholic Church. The real picture needs to be explained from various view points for the benefit of the thread’s readers. It needs to be stated in a variety of ways because there are a variety of readers. Common sense is needed. Now.
Blessings,
grannymh
hint: remember that bible means – basic instructions before leaving earth
H
hecd2
Guest
I don’t think I understand the point you are making - perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean?
Well the Franciscans were deeply opposed to it for one thing
. Plus Galileo was rather rude to the Pope and he challenged the Pope’s and Bellarmine’s authority..
Well he was right about that. The earth cannot stop rotating all of a sudden and then start again, which is what would have had to happen.
I am sorry - this makes no sense at all from a scientific point of view. The sun and the earth won’t suddenly change their translation or rotation, unless they crash into something big and the consequences of that would be that we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Furthermore they’d have to start up again soon afterwards. Galileo was right about this.Here, the reason, why I believe he let himself be imprisonned
( figure of speech
Not in my reading of it: “Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves”
Not so. What you call “guided evolution” is not science but religion, and is not allowed in a science class but can be explored in a religious affairs class. In this case, the Church was meddling in science, to the extent that Galileo’s and Copernicus’s books were on the Index for a long time. This was not just a case of Galileo being admonished and prevented from teaching, but a case where the Church attempted to suppress the heliocentric view in a systematic way by banning access to the ideas. And that is wrong, regardless of whether the ideas are right or wrong.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
C
cassini
Guest
OK, so I got your ‘frame-dragging’ mixed up with the ether-dragging excuse theories after the Airy and M&M experiments.
But look above and see your cock-up. I said
‘after the Airy experiment that falsified stellar aberration as a proof for heliocentricism.’
You replied
First of all the Airy experiment did not “falsify stellar aberration”. The theory of stellar aberration is entirely consistent with the Airy experiment and the reality of stellar aberration remains as a valid proof that the earth has a motion with respect to the stars equal to its orbit around the sun (isn’t that a smoking a gun?)’
Now I’ll say it again: the Airy experiment falsified stellar aberration as a proof for heliocentricism. I never said the Airy experiment falsified Stellar Aberration. And if you dispute this then you are in error. It showed it was NOT the earth moving relative to the stars, but the Stars moving relative to the earth.
Now Einstein, one of your heros, according to every biography on his life was a dirty old man who treated his wife like a slave, committed regular adultary, never had a bath, loved dirty jokes and had a ‘seal-like’ laugh. Modern Churchmen hold him in high esteem just because he mentioned GOD onmce or twice. It mattered not to our lot that his god was not the triume God, but a god of forces, the heliocentric god.
‘The truth is that Einstein was no more than a puppet. The theories of the mathematicians and physicists from whom he plagiarised may have been devoid of common sense, but at least they tended to be internally consistent and capable of standing up to mathematical scrutiny. Einstein’s theories did not even meet that test. His life’s work was a hotchpotch of plagiarisations that were in total not only defective in logic but also so full of interior error that, as Lynch, Dingle Essen and others showed, any mathematician brave enough to investigate them critically cannot fail to destroy them. And let me repeat that he plagiarised. His contributions to thought were not only childish; they were not even his
us it was J.H. Poincare and H.A. Lorentz who first (in 1899) proposed absolute motion was undetectable in principle. Later in 1916, when his General Theory of Relativity was announced (he even got the name Relativity from J.H. Poincare) a host of other scientists’ ideas appeared as his own. Indeed it was Poincare, not Einstein, who first asserted that no velocity could exceed that of the speed of light. The idea of ‘curved space’, again credited to Einstein, was previously proposed by Friederick Riemann in 1854. It was Hermann Minkowaki who in 1907, eight years before Einstein’s General Theory, introduced a fourth dimension into cosmology called space-time. Einstein then regurgitated the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction as his own. He then proposed clocks in motion run slower to other clocks in motion or not in motion at all. Sir Joseph Larmor first mooted this idea some time earlier. The idea of crinkles in space belonged to W.K. Clifford. This then is how the great man was ‘miraculously’ inspired with all his revolutionary ideas.
As regards the proofs for his SR and GR, well they are so crooked that a book was written on these fraudulent confirmations.
Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.
C
cassini
Guest
I sure hope there are a few reading this thread objectively and can see the woods from the screaming trees that continue to uphold that conspiracy against the anti-Copernican Church of 1616 and 1633. Quite frankly pnewton, you rant here above and your attempt to portray those few of us who try to defend their good name and their authority within the Church that SHOULD never change is an education to me. To accuse us of pride when it is us that get the abuse for defending the word of God as defined by the Church is an oxymoran.
Again I stress it is not I that defined heliocentricism as formal heresy but the highest office of the Church in 1616. If you belong to a Church that can dismiss this definition of Catholic faith by quoting a few physicists and producing a photo of the universe, then it is you who is the Protestant. I have investigated every move by Churchmen as they in their scientific ignorance tried to hide this immutible decree from the eyes of the world and I know what they did. I and others are absolutely convinced that the Devil has fooled the combined intelligence of the whole human race. It has taught me what Christ meant when He described the Devil as the ‘Father of Lies’. Indeed it is a shock to me to see ‘good’ Catholics defend this heresy with a zeal that I have seen only in the likes of Dawkins.
Ranting at me will not, does not, change this history. Others will be informed, you can bank on that now, for I will see to it that it is recorded and the truth will out.
- Status