Early Church Astronomy

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

The case for geocentrism in my mind starts with the authority of the Church. To pre-Christian peoples, and argument can be made that they were only trying to explain observed phenomenon.

We did the same thing.

trth_skr:

In the case of the Church, we have unanomous Scriptural interpretation of the Fathers for a geocentric system, plus offiicial statements from three Popes.

Statements made in ignorance do not a truth make.

trth_skr:

None of this has been rescinded by the Church. When you couple this with the fact that no one has yet been able to prove that the earth rotates or translates, then I ask why not have an open mind to geocentrism? Why and on what basis dismiss the Fathers of the Church, and the three Popes who have issued statements regarding geocentrism? Based on the unproven opinions of scientists?

Astronomy does not fall with in the faith and morals authority of the Church. Thats why. daughtersofstpaul.com/jo…/jpgalileo.html

"failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.

trth_skr:

Psychologists have an unproven opinion that homosexuality is normal. Why not rescind the long standing Scriptural interpretation against sodomy? Sociologists have unproven opinions that they can describe humanity without God, or at least treating religion as strictly one of many social factors. Why not Remove the Scriptural interpretation regarding the establisment of a Church? Don’t you see this is modernism in action? Science has shown that there is no reason that women cannot be priests. Why not ordain them? If we start putting limits on what the Church can validly interpret in the Scriptures, I have to ask “who interprets what is in the category which is allowed to be interpreted and what is not”? Clearly it has to come back to the Magisterium itself. So when the Magesterium performs Scriptural interpretation then by default it is valid. There is no non-Catholic objective arbiter in existence. God is all.

The authority of the Catholic Church is that which concerns matters of faith and morals.

 

[flamingsword]

One thing we failed to look at, is the issue that first presented the geocentric theory in the first place. Aristotle said that in order for the earth to revolve around the sun the star’s positions would shift, the parallax shift. He said that would be the proof required to disprove or prove the geocentric or heliocentric theory. This argument is the prevailing litmus test used by all members of science upto and past the time of Galileo. Indeed it is used today. Aristotle was right in this and the parallax shift has been observed using our far superior optics and measurement tools. How do geocentricists explain this?

 

[trth_skr]

flamingsword:

One thing we failed to look at, is the issue that first presented the geocentric theory in the first place. Aristotle said that in order for the earth to revolve around the sun the star’s positions would shift, the parallax shift. He said that would be the proof required to disprove or prove the geocentric or heliocentric theory. This argument is the prevailing litmus test used by all members of science upto and past the time of Galileo. Indeed it is used today. Aristotle was right in this and the parallax shift has been observed using our far superior optics and measurement tools. How do geocentricists explain this?

See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=811411&postcount=19

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

We did the same thing.

Statements made in ignorance do not a truth make…

This is a modernist idea, that the Fathers were ignorant. Ignorant of what? Todays prevailing opinion?

Remember, no one has yet proven that the earth moves (or that the sun and stars do not). So what were the Fathers ignorant of? They were not ignorant of the fact that most cosmology is philosophical:

Cosmologist George Ellis in Scientific American:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

Wildgraywolf:

Astronomy does not fall with in the faith and morals authority of the Church. Thats why. daughtersofstpaul.com/jo…/jpgalileo.html

"failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.

The authority of the Catholic Church is that which concerns matters of faith and morals.

Who says what is faith and morals? Scriptural interpretation is a matter of faith. Again, the opinion of one study summarized by a Cardinal does not reverse the Fathers and Three Popes.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Fidelis]

EA_Man:

So while Galileo claimed that his view was not refuted by Scripture, the officials of the church claimed that it was. In fact neither position is correct. But who suffered?

Galileo hardly “suffered” in the sense most people presume he did. He was not thrown into prison (he was given a rather cushy house arrest in a villa with servants) or tortured (or even threatened with torture). He was simply given a rather mild rebuke and forbidden to teach an unprovable theory as a fact that must be believed above what was thought to be plain from the Scriptures. In a Protestant country of the time, such as Calvin’s Geneva, he would have fared much, much worse.

Galileo was not a martyr: a fair reading of history shows he was erroneous in his reasoning, and he was pompous to both his opponents and benefactors. His name lives on mostly because the mere mention of his name is a handy stick to try to prove the Church is anti-science and ham-handedly authoritative. The actual details are more benign. Could the Church have handled it better? Undoubtedly, and this is what the Pope apologized for. However, we are hardly in a position to stand in judgment over men who lived in those times and undoubtedly did the best they could with what they had. This affair should be taken for what it was, and not the anti-Catholic cause celebre it has become.

 

[EA_Man]

Fidelis:

Galileo hardly “suffered” in the sense most people presume he did. He was not thrown into prison (he was given a rather cushy house arrest in a villa with servants) or tortured (or even threatened with torture). He was simply given a rather mild rebuke and forbidden to teach an unprovable theory as a fact that must be believed above what was thought to be plain from the Scriptures. In a Protestant country of the time, such as Calvin’s Geneva, he would have fared much, much worse.

Galileo was not a martyr: a fair reading of history shows he was erroneous in his reasoning, and he was pompous to both his opponents and benefactors. His name lives on mostly because the mere mention of his name is a handy stick to try to prove the Church is anti-science and ham-handedly authoritative. The actual details are more benign. Could the Church have handled it better? Undoubtedly, and this is what the Pope apologized for. However, we are hardly in a position to stand in judgment over men who lived in those times and undoubtedly did the best they could with what they had. This affair should be taken for what it was, and not the anti-Catholic cause celebre it has become.

He was placed under house arrest (for life, it turns out), his written works were prohibited, he was made to issue an apology and confession that were clearly coerced. Now, if that was the appropriate treatment why did his books remain on the Index of Prohibited Books UNTIL the mid-1800’s? Why remove them at all if they were so “dangerous”?

Thanks

 

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

He was placed under house arrest (for life, it turns out), his written works were prohibited, he was made to issue an apology and confession that were clearly coerced. Now, if that was the appropriate treatment why did his books remain on the Index of Prohibited Books UNTIL the mid-1800’s? Why remove them at all if they were so “dangerous”?

Thanks

We have been given NO explanation as to why they were removed from the Index; therefor we can draw no conclusions as to why. When the proclamations were made, the Popes specified why they were condemning certain ideas. We can therefor draw conclusions from this.

In the case of Corpenicus’ writings, there was no reasoin not to remove them from the Index, because the editors removed the few offending lines (stating that heliocentrism is a fact), as demanded by the Inquisition.

As far as danger, by the mid-1800’s there were all kinds of anti-Catholic material in circulation. On top of that, Galileo was comnpletely accepted, tauight in schools, etc. The danger was everywhere. We call this modernism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[mlchance]

Back to the original purpose of this thread:

Ahimsa:

Did the Church Fathers defend geocentrism?

If so, what does that mean insofar as the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium?

I’d be surprised if, based on the science of their day, some of the Church Fathers didn’t. As to what it means for the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium: nothing. The Church is not now nor has she ever been infallible in matters strictly pertaining to science.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

This is a modernist idea, that the Fathers were ignorant. Ignorant of what? Todays prevailing opinion?

They were ignorant of astronomy

As a result of an investigation requested by Pope John Paul II in October 1992; Cardinal Paul Poupard said that: “theologians…. failed to grasp the profound non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they describe the physical structure of the universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith…”

trth_skr:

Remember, no one has yet proven that the earth moves (or that the sun and stars do not). So what were the Fathers ignorant of?

Hmm… It is still a matter of record that “In February 1616, a council of theological advisors to the pope ruled that it was bad science and quite likely heresy to teach as fact that the sun was at the center of the universe, that the earth is not at the center of the world, and that it moves.”

“In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur to the first edition of the complete works of Galileo. In 1757, a new edition of the Index of Forbidden Books allowed works that supported the Copernican theory.”

So much for the authoritative statements and unanimity of the Church Fathers and three popes supporting a geocentric system.

trth_skr:

They were not ignorant of the fact that most cosmology is philosophical:

So; theory, hypothesis, logic, mathematics and empiricism represent the least of cosmology?

trth_skr:

Cosmologist George Ellis in Scientific American:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. If the geocentric model is true then how do we get our spacecraft from their starting point to destination by using calculations based on a heliocentric system? A coincidentally interchangeable coordinate system perhaps?

A lot of cosmology tries to hide that

."Heavens! A conspiracy of astrological proportions! Right… And the moon landing never happened.

trth_skr:

Who says what is faith and morals?

Look up “faith” and “morals” in the dictionary and tell me how they relate to science and/or the scientific process. Scientific matters aside; I rely on the pope and Magisterium to interpret and teach the faith bequethed to us in scriptures and sacred tradition.

trth_skr:

Scriptural interpretation is a matter of faith.

No, it is not a matter of faith. Scriptural interpretation is the responsibility of the Church as it apples to faith and morals. Christ said; “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations…”; not “Go ye therefore and define the structure of the universe”.

trth_skr:

Again, the opinion of one study summarized by a Cardinal does not reverse the Fathers and Three Popes.

This was not a study, but an investigation commissioned by Pope John Paul II in 1992. The conclusions of this investigation determined that: "theologians failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.” And that;“This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo had much to suffer.** These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested**"

 

[trth_skr]

mlchance:

Back to the original purpose of this thread:

I’d be surprised if, based on the science of their day, some of the Church Fathers didn’t. As to what it means for the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium: nothing. The Church is not now nor has she ever been infallible in matters strictly pertaining to science.

– Mark L. Chance.

Actually, only science claims it is strictly pertaining to science. The Scriptures start with the creation story, chronicling the placement of earth, sun, stars, etc. The Scriptures are full of astronomical events.

The interpretation of Scripture is a matter for the magesterium.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EA_Man]

trth_skr:

We have been given NO explanation as to why they were removed from the Index; therefor we can draw no conclusions as to why. When the proclamations were made, the Popes specified why they were condemning certain ideas. We can therefor draw conclusions from this.

In the case of Corpenicus’ writings, there was no reasoin not to remove them from the Index, because the editors removed the few offending lines (stating that heliocentrism is a fact), as demanded by the Inquisition.

As far as danger, by the mid-1800’s there were all kinds of anti-Catholic material in circulation. On top of that, Galileo was comnpletely accepted, tauight in schools, etc. The danger was everywhere. We call this modernism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

The real question was why the RCC took a position on this issue one way or the other to begin with. At Vatican2 the statement was made that Scripture is only infallible on issues of faith and morals. If that is true, what difference does it make theologically if the Sun orbits the Earth or vice versa? Is heliocentricity, geocentricity, or some other SCIENTIFIC theory or explanation pertinent to matters of faith and morals?

Peace

 

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

The real question was why the RCC took a position on this issue one way or the other to begin with. At Vatican2 the statement was made that Scripture is only infallible on issues of faith and morals. If that is true, what difference does it make theologically if the Sun orbits the Earth or vice versa? Is heliocentricity, geocentricity, or some other SCIENTIFIC theory or explanation pertinent to matters of faith and morals?

Peace

You are creating the empirical definition that how the heavenly bodies orbit is a strictly scientific theory. The fact that the Holy Spirit inspired Moses and other people to write about cosmological issues makes them pertinent. Don’t take today’s empirical reasoning and try and straight-jacket the Church to it. The fact that the Fathers bothered to comment on interpretations of Joshua’s long day, and its cosmological consequences should indicate it is a pertinent issue for the Church. The fact that three Popes made official declarations also should indicate this. The empirical thought process of today does not reorder all thatGod has revealed to the Church.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JimG]

Well, I always thought that Foucalt’s pendulum experiment pretty definitively proved that the earth rotated on its axis. But geocentrists claim that it only shows that the entire universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours!

Of course, such a rotation of the universe would lead to faster than light rotational speeds of distant stars and galaxies and some pretty significant relativistic effects which I don’t think have been observed.

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

They were ignorant of astronomy

As a result of an investigation requested by Pope John Paul II in October 1992; Cardinal Paul Poupard said that: “theologians…. failed to grasp the profound non-literal meaning of the Scriptures …”

Hmm… It is still a matter of record that “In February 1616, …moves.”

“In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV granted an imprimatur to the first edition of the complete works of Galileo. In 1757, a new edition of the Index of Forbidden Books allowed works that supported the Copernican theory.”

So much for the authoritative statements and unanimity of the Church Fathers and three popes supporting a geocentric system.

They were not ignaorant of astronomy. Ptolemy’s model was as predictive as anything unitl recent computer curve fitting schemes. The ancient Mayans and other ancient cultures could predict the movement of planets, stars, etc. very accurately. The issue is cosmology, not astronomy. It is true we know more today about the chemical make-up of stars, planets, etc., but we do not have much certainty in cosmology.

As for Benedict the XIV, first there is no written record, at least publicly available indicating that Benedict the XIV himself removed the books from the Index. He just happened to be Pope at the time. Do I doubt he was aware of it? Not necassarily, but still we really do not know the extent of his involvement in it. Second, no reason for the removal was given. You are interpreting the actions. In the case of the condemnations, the reasons for the condemnations were spelled out, so no second guessing is required.

So; theory, hypothesis, logic, mathematics and empiricism represent the least of cosmology?

If the geocentric model is true then how do we get our spacecraft from their starting point to destination by using calculations based on a heliocentric system? A coincidentally interchangeable coordinate system perhaps?

Again it is relative motion. Many satellites are launched from earth using a fixed earth coordinate system. Take a look at these this thread:

catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875

Gary Hoge makes similar claims, but really cannot answer to the reality of it.

Wildgraywolf:

Look up “faith” and “morals” in the dictionary and tell me how they relate to science and/or the scientific process. Scientific matters aside; I rely on the pope and Magisterium to interpret and teach the faith bequethed to us in scriptures and sacred tradition.

Since when is the Church held to dictionary definitions?

Wildgraywolf:

No, it is not a matter of faith. Scriptural interpretation is the responsibility of the Church as it apples to faith and morals. Christ said; “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations…”; not “Go ye therefore and define the structure of the universe”.

And where did he say “go ye and interpret the Scriptures in terms of Webster’s definition of faith and morals” ?

Wildgraywolf:

This was not a study, but an investigation commissioned by Pope John Paul II in 1992. The conclusions of this investigation determined that: *“theologians **…***Father, have requested”

It was a investigation, ok. In and of itself it has no doctrinal significance, even though commissioned by a Pope. Any significance it may have would stem from how the Pope acted on it.

Did he say, “I hereby as Vicar of Christ with all the authority…Galileo was right, the earth moves”? No.

Did he say anything officially about the science? No.

The only way he acted on it was to apologize for the treatment of Galileo. Sounds more like a statement on Church application of justice than on geocentrism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Well, I always thought that Foucalt’s pendulum experiment pretty definitively proved that the earth rotated on its axis. But geocentrists claim that it only shows that the entire universe revolves around the earth every 24 hours!

Of course, such a rotation of the universe would lead to faster than light rotational speeds of distant stars and galaxies and some pretty significant relativistic effects which I don’t think have been observed.

Actually, since the entire universe is rotating, local speed of ligh is not exceeded anywhere. Take a look at this quote from Rosser describing the relativistic perspective of the fixed earth reference frame (this thread:catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875)

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c *. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 108 m/sec under these conditions.” (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

This buttresses it:

“In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature or rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light).” (Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com*

 

[Wildgraywolf]

JimG:

Of course, such a rotation of the universe would lead to faster than light rotational speeds of distant stars and galaxies and some pretty significant relativistic effects which I don’t think have been observed.

I was reading an article from the Vatican Observatory: “The Acceleration of the Universe”, saw your post and got to wondering… If the universe were expanding would not the rotation of the universe also have to increase proportionately to remain within the 24 hour window?

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

I was reading an article from the Vatican Observatory: “The Acceleration of the Universe”, saw your post and got to wondering… If the universe were expanding would not the rotation of the universe also have to increase proportionately to remain within the 24 hour window?

We do not know the universe is expanding. We assume it is because scientists interpret redshift to mean expansion, then we built the entire big bang theory on this premise. There is controversy regarding interpretation of red shift.

IF the universe is expanding, then, yes the velocity of the outer circumference of the universe would be increasing, but realtive to what?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

We do not know the universe is expanding. We assume it is because scientists interpret redshift to mean expansion, then we built the entire big bang theory on this premise. There is controversy regarding interpretation of red shift.

IF the universe is expanding, then, yes the velocity of the outer circumference of the universe would be increasing, but realtive to what?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I don’t know if I should take your word for that… After all the Vatican Observatory was established by the papacy and the Jesuit astronomers seem to believe that the universe is continuing to expand from the “big bang”… HOW could they be wrong?

Here’s the article:

Research Highlights
VATT Research - The Acceleration of the Universe http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/images/HLine2.jpg
A number of observations confirming discoveries of distant supernovae have contributed to the work of the High Redshift (High-Z) Supernova Search. These bright stellar explosions are astronomers’ best “standard candle” for measuring the distances to the farthest galaxies. Much to the surprise of the search team, the distances to the supernovae have been greater than those predicted by the Big Bang. It seems that the universe is expanding faster now than it did in the past, hence it is accelerating in its expansion. This has lead to a theory of a “dark energy” much like the “dark matter” of which the MACHOs form a part. The dark energy is a repulsive force that acted during the initial inflation of the universe when it expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a basketball in the first 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang (if it had started as the size of a pea it would have expanded to about the size of Saturn’s orbit, 877 million miles, in that time!). The density of matter with its mutual gravitational attraction has kept this repulsive force in check for over ten billion years, but it has begun asserting itself again as matter is spread more and more thinly through space by the continuing expansion of the cosmos.

 

[EA_Man]

trth_skr:

You are creating the empirical definition that how the heavenly bodies orbit is a strictly scientific theory. The fact that the Holy Spirit inspired Moses and other people to write about cosmological issues makes them pertinent. Don’t take today’s empirical reasoning and try and straight-jacket the Church to it. The fact that the Fathers bothered to comment on interpretations of Joshua’s long day, and its cosmological consequences should indicate it is a pertinent issue for the Church. The fact that three Popes made official declarations also should indicate this. The empirical thought process of today does not reorder all thatGod has revealed to the Church.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

All this does is tap dance around the question.

Is the cosmological question of heliocentricity or geocentricity posed in this thread a MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS OR NOT?

Your answer is of the “have the cake and eat it too” variety. You claim that this is an important issue otherwise the Holy Spirit and three church fathers would not have written about it and then commented on it. But where is the truth claim? What is the church’s position on this question? You seem to be saying that they were correct in censuring Galileo, so according to that logic we “know” that Galileo was “wrong”. But what is the explicit position of the church regarding whether or not the Earth moves? I would think that this is a settled matter as three popes have made declarations concerning it.

Peace

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

I don’t know if I should take your word for that… After all the Vatican Observatory was established by the papacy and the Jesuit astronomers seem to believe that the universe is continuing to expand from the “big bang”… HOW could they be wrong?

Here’s the article:

Research Highlights
VATT Research - The Acceleration of the Universe http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/images/HLine2.jpgA number of observations confirming discoveries of distant supernovae have contributed to the work of the High Redshift (High-Z) Supernova Search. These bright stellar explosions are astronomers’ best “standard candle” for measuring the distances to the farthest galaxies. Much to the surprise of the search team, the distances to the supernovae have been greater than those predicted by the Big Bang. It seems that the universe is expanding faster now than it did in the past, hence it is accelerating in its expansion. This has lead to a theory of a “dark energy” much like the “dark matter” of which the MACHOs form a part. The dark energy is a repulsive force that acted during the initial inflation of the universe when it expanded from the size of a proton to the size of a basketball in the first 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang (if it had started as the size of a pea it would have expanded to about the size of Saturn’s orbit, 877 million miles, in that time!). The density of matter with its mutual gravitational attraction has kept this repulsive force in check for over ten billion years, but it has begun asserting itself again as matter is spread more and more thinly through space by the continuing expansion of the cosmos.

Note that they say, “…Much to the surprise of the search team, the distances to the supernovae have been greater than those predicted by the Big Bang…”.

Then they say, “…This has lead to a theory of a “dark energy” much like the “dark matter” of which the MACHOs form a part…”

What is happening is that they need to postulate the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Note that these substances are undefined and have never been detected. If they do not exist, then the current big bang theory goes away. I.e., one could say, “dark matter and energy have the unique property of keeping the big bang theory viable”. They also have the property of being undetected, hypothetical, and supposedly composing around 96% of the matter of the universe.

If the big bang theory collapses because dark matter and dark energy are non-existent, then the redshift question comes back. What is redshift indicating? If it is expansion, then we will end up needing new theory.

Welcome to cosmology.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com