S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’m happy you were amused, but that wasn’t humor; it is the simple truth. Motion is not absolute but relative to the perceiver.
StAnastasia
- Status
StAnastasia
J
JRKH
Guest
Well said.
All of these things really depend upon the perspective of the individual.
It also depends somewhat on the context of a given conversation. It can be accurately said that the earth is not the center of the universe strictly based upon the known or widely accepted actions of heavenly bodies. It can just as accurately be said that the earth IS the center based upon the fact that this is our home planet and everything we observe, know, measure etc about the universe is done from and in the time space perspective of our earthly existance.
The reason we now understand that the earth revolves and rotates around the sun which in turn rotates around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is simply because it seems to most accurately describe the motion of the bodies involved.
It does not change the fact that, for humans, the earth remains the center of our universe.
Peace
James
S
StAnastasia
Guest
James, nicely put! Fifteenth-century Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) applied an ancient Kabbalistic commonplace to God in the universe: “God is like a circle whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.”
StAnastasia
C
cassini
Guest
But as Cardinal Bellarmine would have pointed out StAnastasia: ‘Ah, but we know it is we who are turning around in such a situation.’
C
cassini
Guest
Hi JRKH. Most of what you say is true, To us on earth, the earth is the centre of the universe. this is a crucial philosophical and theological statement. Let us now enter theology. For whom did God create the universe? Answer, MAN. What was His intention in creating the universe? Answer, to bring night and day and seasons and years and so that we would know him by the things that are made (signs). How did God achieve this? Answer: by placing us at the centre of the universe whereupon a whole doctrine of geocentricism emerged, completed by St Thomas Aquinas. But they now say God deceived us by creating the universe so that we would think we were at the centre of the universe when all the time we are on a planet orbiting the sun at the edge of a galaxy in turn flying out in an expanding universe. But I thought God never deceived us? Answer: He never has.
So, what did this new science achieve? Answer; It eliminated that proof for the existence for God that was indisputable. Geocentrism is, has to be, theocentrism. Thus God was removed from the minds of man based on created things. Following it came the rest of His creation, all now explained by ‘natural processes.’ Indeed so convincing was this replacement that Atheism was born out of it for they now has a complete system without the NEED for God.
And why are Satan and his demons roaring with laughter? Because even Catholics are promoting this natural process as the truth of it.
Well God help us all.
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello Anastasia,
Opps my bad… it was Copernicus, :hammering:
Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically-based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the center of the universe.
Luther:
Code:
"**There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky**, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. **However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." **From:
astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html
God bless,
John
J
John_oxios
Guest
Hello rosarygirl,
The Church in Copernicus and Galileo’s time may have been wrong, but How the Earth revolves around the Sun was not a matter of Faith, in which the Holy Spirit will not let the Church fail.
astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html
A Brief Note on Religious Objections to Copernicus:
I get asked about this a great deal, in large measure because the common lore is that the Catholic Church immediately condemned Copernicus and his system, while enlightened Protestants eagerly embraced both. In fact, the response from the leading Protestant theologians of Copernicus’ time was swift and negative, though even this response was mostly remarks in passing in conversation or sermons, nothing resembling an organized anti-Copernican campaign. The Catholic Church, despite later official hostility, was largely silent at first. Silence, however, does not necessarily imply approval, as the events of the following century were to so forcefully prove.
Code:
The Church said that:
Code:
* **The Church officially declares that the heliocentric theory is "philosophically false and at least an erroneous belief.**Galileo faced two specific charges:
Code:
* Disobedience of Bellarmine's 1616 order.
* Misleading censors who published his book.God bles,
johnnie o
C
cassini
Guest
Hi rosarygirl (my what a lovely name you chose). I’m afraid that there are many inaccuracies in John O’s account. The reason for this is because those who hated/hate the Catholic Church have their version of the history under discussion, and Catholics, because of their perceived view that the Church was proven to have been wrong in their anti-Copernican decree, have also ammended history to 'save the Church’s divine guidance. Both sides therefore have perverted history so much that few today are aware of the truth of it.
The fact - taken directly from the records - are that when Copernicus published his book On the Revolutions in 1543, it was prefaced by a Protestant Osiander, who knew both Churches, Catholic and Protestant, interpreted the geocentric passages of Scripture in the same way and that Copernicus’s book would not be tolerated if he did not pull the wool over the eyes of all. So what he did was prefaced it with a denial that Copernicus actually presented heliocentricism as a TRUTH, but only as a tool to further the progress of science. Thus his book was tolerated by the Church in silence.
The second misrepresentation is to say 'Galileo faced two specific charges:
Code:
* Disobedience of Bellarmine's 1616 order.
* Misleading censors who published his book.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
How do we know that?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That passage was written four years before De revolutionibus appeared.
C
cassini
Guest
Because he knew the difference:
And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present
Now good night all, I’m off to bed.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What’s the difference between the universe revolving around me as I twirl and the universe revolving around us as earth rotates on its axis?
StAnastasia
J
John_oxios
Guest
Are you trying to say the use of Luthers’ quote here is inappropriate?
I guess the Copernicus hypothesis was around awhile before it was published,
hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/derevolutionibus.html
Title page of Copernicus’ On the Revolutions (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium). The book was published in 1543 in Nuremberg as Copernicus lay on his deathbed, and was dedicated to Pope Paul III. The second edition was printed in Basel in 1566, and the third in Amsterdam in 1617
Your turn to recant:
bj.uj.edu.pl/bjmanus/revol/intro_e.html
Code:
The History ofDe revolutionibus
by dr. Marian Zwiercan
The Autograph De revolutionibus preserved in the Jagiellonian Library is a result of work of the great scholar, intermediate between a rough copy and a fair copy. It had remained in Copernicus’ hands until his death (24 May 1543). His papers and books passed to his closest friend, Tiedemann Giese (1480-1550), a bishop in Chelmno at that time. He bequeathed his library to Warmia Chapter. However, the autograph went to the collection of George Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574), astronomer, Copernicus’ pupil.
From High Altitude Observatory:
hao.ucar.edu/Public/education/bios/copernicus.html
Copernicus’ landmark work On the Revolutions (De revolutionibus orbium coelestium) was dedicated to Pope Paul III and published in 1543 in Nurenberg, as Copernicus lay on his deathbed.
However, his heliocentric hypothesis had been circulating for over 30 years, starting with his Commentariolus, written between 1512 and 1515 and circulated in manuscript form. **Georg Joachim Rheticus **(1514-1574), who joined Copernicus in Frombork **in 1539 **as his first and only disciple, published in 1540 his Narratio Prima, a first account of the Copernican planetary model. Copernicus died on May 24 1543 in Frombork
Sorry left this out of the original quote, but had you looked the reference up you would have seen:
The specific response one of the most important contemporaries of Copernicus, Martin Luther, is telling. The quote below is actually in response to the publication of the brief Commentariolus, which appeared a decade before De Revolutionibus.** It comes from Luther’s Tablebook (Tischreden), or record of dinner-table conversations:**
Code:
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."God bless,
John
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
And this is, was, and ever shall be the fallacy of those who seek to make Divine Revelation conform with the changing currents of science. In 100 years (should our Blessed Lord delay His imminent return) people will still adore the God whom Moses proclaimed as having created the material universe in 6 days, still teach and believe in it, still trust in Christ whom the Catholic Church preaches, and science will move on to the next theory and the theory after next.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall never pass away”.
J
John1
Guest
What about Giordano Bruno?
J
John_oxios
Guest
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What about him?
C
cassini
Guest
Good morning StAnastasia, your question first. Relativity exists only in a sphere where it is impossible to tell which of two entities move in relation to each another. In the case you present we know it is you revolving relative to the universe. Therefore the universe is NOT revolving around you.It is as simple as that. just as Bellarmine compared your type of relativity with a boat leaving the shore. Bellarmine however then walked into it by saying the earth/sun relationship can be resolved in similar manner. It cannot, for unlike the shore, which we know to be fixed relative to a boat, not so the earth.
C
cassini
Guest
Hi John 1. Bruno was a fascinating character. Here is some information I put together on him.
‘Giordano Bruno was an out-and-out magician, an “Egyptian” and Hermetist of the deepest dye for whom the Copernican heliocentricity heralded the return of magical religion.’ Francis A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1964, p.ix.
Bruno’s heresies included a belief in a kind of transmigration of souls and animistic pantheism, which ‘he wanted to live as a form of gnosis with the intensity of a mystic.’ It is no wonder then that he came under investigation by the local Inquisition who eventually preferred 130 charges of heresy against him. In response, after defrocking himself in public in 1576, Bruno fled to other towns from Italy to Freemasonic England, continually avoiding the Inquisitors while he promoted the full teaching of Hermēs for the next two years.
‘Copernicus’s theory, by placing the sun rather than the earth at the centre of our own planetary system, was understood by Bruno as evidence of divine harmony and universal unity, in which all the planets were governed by a central authority.
Seen through the complex and symbolically inclined mind of Bruno, the heliocentric system, brought down to earth by the power of astral magic, provided the model for the ideal society. Such a society would of course be ruled by a great ‘solar monarch’ [god of forces], advised by philosopher-priests, whose reign would usher in the magical Hermetic religion around which all the nations of the world would unite.’ Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,230.
We see again there is ‘nothing new under the sun’. Consequently, when De revolutionibus was published he acquired a copy, not for the astronomical calculations mind you, for Bruno had no astronomy at all, but because of the secret religion it again offered the world. Thereafter, needless to say, he became one of Copernicus’s most ardent admirers. Giordano’s cosmic vision however, went much further than a single solar system among a universe of stars. To Bruno, the universe was infinite in size with endless numbers of stars, each a sun with its own solar system, its own planets and earths, also supporting life, even intelligent life. Here, Hancock and Bauval cannot resist in adding:
‘And thus Bruno, through his remarkable intuition, can be said to have anticipated by nearly four centuries our modern ideas of the cosmos.’ — Talisman, p.230
Bruno didn’t ‘anticipate’ our modern ideas of the cosmos; he helped conjure them up. Thereafter he carefully sowed the seeds of this cosmological heresy throughout Europe. Essential to this mission of course was for the Masons to install heliocentricism into the minds of man as a fact and then Bruno’s philosophical, ideological and theological poisons would follow as a consequent.
Protestant England, free from Roman rule and influence, proved fruitful ground for Bruno. It was here he wrote most of his books. The first of these was on the ability to memorise, a subject he knew was popular and which he hoped would bring him honoured fame in England as it had done in Italy and France. Above all however, was Bruno’s quest to spread Copernicanism and the hermetic gospel throughout academia in England.
‘Bruno was among the very first to speak openly at Oxford on the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. But with a major difference. Unlike other scholars, the Nolan insisted on placing the theory within “the context of the astral magic and sun-worship” that was evident in the Hermetic texts.’ — Talisman, p.231.
‘In 1583 Bruno visited Oxford, where George Abbot, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury, described him thus: “He undertook among very many other matters to set on foot the opinion of Copernicus that the earth did goe round, and the heavens stand still; whereas in truth it was his owne head which rather did run round, and his braines did not stand still.”Francis A. Yates, op. cit., pp.39-40.
Bruno, who could give as good as he got, saw such ‘Aristotelians’ as ignorant men with no intellectual depth to them, having no love for truth as he saw it and so more to be pitied than scorned. But Bruno would not be deterred. In 1584 he published another book, La Cena de le Ceneri - The Ash Wednesday Supper, devoted entirely to a defence of Copernicus’s heliocentricism.
‘Most of these traits appear in the Cena which is also the most expressive document of the curious ways in which Copernicus’ doctrine began to prevail… a stepping stone towards the cosmos of Hermēs Trismegistus, a mystical sun-kingdom of infinite extension, with a cyclic process of birth, growth, decay and rebirth throbbing through it for eternity. Bruno’s next work On the Infinite Universe and Worlds was a work presented by Bruno’s modern admirers as the bold, programmatic proclamation of the infinity of the universe and the anticipation of the world view on which Newton’s physics and astronomy put the hallowed seal.’ Stanley Jaki, The Ash Wednesday Supper, Mouton, Paris, 1975, p.14.
- Status