Early Church Astronomy

[EA_Man]

trth_skr:

This is the only official position ever taken by the Church.

Opinions of the Vatican Observatory, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, individual Cardinals, etc. are not the official position of the Church. Nor are personal opinions of Popes. The Holy Spirit protects official acts.

Again, modernists can wave their hands, try to limit the authority of the Church, etc., but ultimately they have to admit that the only official position the Church has ever taken is that the earth does not move. Combine that with the fact that no one has yet proven that the earth moves. Pretty mind boggling isn’t it. Think about this for a while.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

This is still a matter of science not of faith and morals.

Consider this: if it is the job of the teaching magesterium to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals so that the laity are protected from error in what they believe, then it is more than just ironic that although this MAY be the only position ever taken by the church it has never been declared an infallible teaching nor has it been declared an article of faith to be believed. Furthermore the majority of Catholics do not hold to the position that you are putting forth. So if all the above is true, of what use is the position of the church at all since no clear benefit is derived from it in matters of faith and morals (the only arena that infallibility is claimed to be in effect)?

Peace

 

[JimG]

JimG:

On the surface of the earth, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1042 miles. At the edge of the circumference of the universe, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1.31 light years. Quite a difference in distance covered, since in each case the distance must be traveled in one hour’s time.

trth_skr:

Ok, but our eyes do not know the distance. We see specks of light at some apparent distance (i.e., the celestial sphere) moving at 15 degrees per hour.

Light travels at a speed of 186,00 miles per second. One light year is the distance that light travels in one year. If geocentrism is correct, then a physical object at the edge of the universe is covering a distance greater than one light year in one hour’s time. It is traveling at a speed far exceeding the speed of light.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Conventional science holds that the earth’s seasons are caused because the earth rotates on an axis that is tilted in it’s orbit around the sun. That 23.5 degree tilt causes the different hemispheres to be at different angles to the sun at different times of the year.

How would a geocentric system explain earth’s seasons?

Conventional scientific theory holds that “…Earth’s magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has “hurricanes”–whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth’s rotation. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.” “Although the details of the dynamo effect are not known in detail, the rotation of the Earth plays a part in generating the currents which are presumed to be the source of the magnetic field.”

How would a geocentric system explain earth’s magnetic field?

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

If it hasn’t be proven or disproven that the earth rotates on it’s axis how can you say that the moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own axis?

Just like any physical system one must use logical tools to deduce (induce, etc.). If the earth is fixed, and we always see the same face of the moon, this is the best expalanation I can come up with.

If one assumes that the earth isrotating (as many do) and we always see the same face of the moon, then we deduce that the moon is rotating and its rotation is synchronized to its orbit around the earth.

In either case it is deduction from assumed principles based on observations of relative motions. The difference is the geocentric case has the stamp of the Holy Spirit.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

This is still a matter of science not of faith and morals.

Consider this: if it is the job of the teaching magesterium to infallibly teach on matters of faith and morals so that the laity are protected from error in what they believe, then it is more than just ironic that although this MAY be the only position ever taken by the church it has never been declared an infallible teaching nor has it been declared an article of faith to be believed. Furthermore the majority of Catholics do not hold to the position that you are putting forth. So if all the above is true, of what use is the position of the church at all since no clear benefit is derived from it in matters of faith and morals (the only arena that infallibility is claimed to be in effect)?

Peace

I am not sure how important it is for the average Catholic to believe that the earth is the center, but to me if it is true, then it an indicator of how far the modernist takeover (or as Martin Malachi says - the diabolical disorientation) has succeeded.

If in fact the earth is at center (and there is no scientific disproof that it is), then regardless of how it may or may not affect the daily lives of Catholics, it is still the truth.

How much does the concept of humans being random carbon based accidents hurling through a giant vacuum on a solidifed fragment of a ballistic event at the mercy of asteroids, global warming, ozone holes, space aliens, etc. contribute to the schizophrenic atmosphere of modern thought? The modern thought accepted by hordes of divorced agnostics, Catholics INO, skeptics looking for a sign or just plain giving up. How many people today have simple faith and don’t have to couch their faith in modernist synthesis to make it acceptable? It is difficult for all of us (myself included). We have been brought up in a sinister time in terms of philosophy and theology. Everything has to be explained in terms of the gods of the modern pantheon- scientism, socialism, feminism, etc. Yes, some put Christ in the pantheon, but we know He does not accept that.

If there were a simple scientific proof that the earth rotated or that it translated, ok, let’s be reasonable and consider how to deal with this. But there is not.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Light travels at a speed of 186,00 miles per second. One light year is the distance that light travels in one year. If geocentrism is correct, then a physical object at the edge of the universe is covering a distance greater than one light year in one hour’s time. It is traveling at a speed far exceeding the speed of light.

That is not necassarily a problem. No object exceeds its own future light cone. See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=818117&postcount=21

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

Conventional science holds that the earth’s seasons are caused because the earth rotates on an axis that is tilted in it’s orbit around the sun. That 23.5 degree tilt causes the different hemispheres to be at different angles to the sun at different times of the year.

How would a geocentric system explain earth’s seasons?

Conventional scientific theory holds that “…Earth’s magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has “hurricanes”–whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth’s rotation. These complex motions generate our planet’s magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.” “Although the details of the dynamo effect are not known in detail, the rotation of the Earth plays a part in generating the currents which are presumed to be the source of the magnetic field.”

How would a geocentric system explain earth’s magnetic field?

In the geocentric system, the universe rotates around the earth on a 23.5 degree ecliptic.

These forces occur in the geocentric system also. In this post, I explain to Gary Hoge how analogous forces are produced in the geocentric case:

catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7525&postcount=2

catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7576&postcount=4

If you read through the whole thread there is more discussion.

As far as specifically a dynamo, the rotation of the universe against the stable earth along with these analogous forces would produce an analogous dynamo.

Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are wwriting a book, “Galileo was Wrong”, which should be out this year. There will be a lot of scientific expalantion in it.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

Just like any physical system one must use logical tools to deduce (induce, etc.). If the earth is fixed, and we always see the same face of the moon, this is the best expalanation I can come up with.

If one assumes that the earth isrotating (as many do) and we always see the same face of the moon, then we deduce that the moon is rotating and its rotation is synchronized to its orbit around the earth.

Well it should be easy enough to prove or disprove lunar rotation. If earth’s position is indeed fixed as you claim; we could put a laser on the moon’s surface, pointed at receivers on earth and see if we lose the signal or not.

trth_skr:

In either case it is deduction from assumed principles based on observations of relative motions. The difference is the geocentric case has the stamp of the Holy Spirit.

No it dosen’t. Besides the Holy Spirt works by inspiration and not by deduction nor does the Holy Spirt work from assumed principals. Also, the church is the only authority on scriptural interpretation in matters of morals and faith; since the church has not defined as a matter of faith, dogma or doctrine any theory on the structure of the universe it is wrong for you to insist that it has and that it has the “stamp” of the Holy Spirit.

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

Well it should be easy enough to prove or disprove lunar rotation. If earth’s position is indeed fixed as you claim; we could put a laser on the moon’s surface, pointed at receivers on earth and see if we lose the signal or not.

Won’t work. In the rotating earth / rotating moon case, since the rotation of the moon is synchronized to the orbit, a laser pointing on the moons surface will always hit the same spot.

In the fixed earth, orbiting moon case we will get the same effect.

Remember, lasers hitting spots are an observation:

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:

No it dosen’t. Besides the Holy Spirt works by inspiration and not by deduction nor does the Holy Spirt work from assumed principals. Also, the church is the only authority on scriptural interpretation in matters of morals and faith; since the church has not defined as a matter of faith, dogma or doctrine any theory on the structure of the universe it is wrong for you to insist that it has and that it has the “stamp” of the Holy Spirit.

No, but the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, which were authoratatively interpreted by the fathers as geocentric. Also, the Holy Spirit protects certain official acts of the Popes. The Holy Spiriti’s “stamp” has nothing to do with induction / deduction, etc.

Again, who decides where the Church has authority? The Church does. If they interpreted the Scriptures authoritatively and three Popes used that interptretation to make official acts, then the Church has determined it is authorized to act on this topic. Show me an authoritative statement from the Church (not Poupard’s opinion) that the cosmology in the Scriptures is not realted to faith and morals.

We did not give science the authority to tell the Church when it is moving into science’s territory. By acting on this Scriptural question (i.e., whether the earth moves) the Church has declared its authority there. Only another equally authoritative statement from a Pope (along with explanation for reversing the Father’s authoritative Scriptural interpretation per Vat. I, Trent, etc.) could possibly undo it.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Ahimsa]

Some husbands would swear that the universe is uxorocentric.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

No, but the Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures, which were authoratatively interpreted by the fathers as geocentric. Also, the Holy Spirit protects certain official acts of the Popes. The Holy Spiriti’s “stamp” has nothing to do with induction / deduction, etc.

Again, who decides where the Church has authority? The Church does. If they interpreted the Scriptures authoritatively and three Popes used that interptretation to make official acts, then the Church has determined it is authorized to act on this topic. Show me an authoritative statement from the Church (not Poupard’s opinion) that the cosmology in the Scriptures is not realted to faith and morals.

We did not give science the authority to tell the Church when it is moving into science’s territory. By acting on this Scriptural question (i.e., whether the earth moves) the Church has declared its authority there. Only another equally authoritative statement from a Pope (along with explanation for reversing the Father’s authoritative Scriptural interpretation per Vat. I, Trent, etc.) could possibly undo it.

You’re missing the point…

In October, 1992 Cardinal Paul Poupard presented to Pope John Paul II the results of the papal-requested Pontifical Academy study of the famous 1633 trial of Galileo.1 He reported the study’s conclusion that at the time of the trial, "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…"

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

Won’t work. In the rotating earth / rotating moon case, since the rotation of the moon is synchronized to the orbit, a laser pointing on the moons surface will always hit the same spot.

In the fixed earth, orbiting moon case we will get the same effect.

You said earlier that the earth and moon don’t rotate… If earth does not rotate on it’s own axis and if the moon is not rotating on it’s own axis (keeping the same face towards us) why wouldn’t that proove your point?

 

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

… 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

Actually I want to correct your assertion regarding Vat2. At Vatican II it was stated that the Scriptures are free from error with regards to what God wanted us to know for our salvation, not that they were ONLY infallible with regard to faith and morals.

This is a modernist twisting of Vatican II. I am not saying you were doing it intentionally, but read the actual statement:

Constitution on Divine Revelation," Dei Verbum, article 11

“…we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Who knows what truth God wanted us to have for our salvation? Perhaps the Holy Spirit did when he inspired the writing of the Scriptures? I think so. I believe everything in the Scriptures are the truths He wanted us to know.

Note that the statement does not say it is fallible in other areas; though it appears ambiguous. Since it is not explicit, we have to look to previous Church proclamations to answer if it is fallible. Previous Church proclamation support the inerrancy of the Bible as authoritatively interpreted by the Magisterium. This includes unanmous consent of the fathers (Trent, Vat. I), as well as official statemetns of Popes (though I am not sure how often Popes interpret Scripture).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

You’re missing the point…

In October, 1992 Cardinal Paul Poupard presented to Pope John Paul II the results of the papal-requested Pontifical Academy study of the famous 1633 trial of Galileo.1 He reported the study’s conclusion that at the time of the trial, "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…"

I did not miss the point. This is theological speculation. There are theologians who say that the Bible is full of errors, the Eucharist does not contain the real presence, homosexuality is just fine, etc.

Poupard and the creators of the study / investigation formed an opinion, which truthfully goes against the established principles of the Church with regards to Scriptural interpretation.

Note that JP II DID NOT act on this report in any way regarding interpretation of Scriptures. He did not revoke the condemnations. He did not condemn the three Popes. He did not state infallibly (or in any officail capacity) that the earth moved.

This was an opinion piece, JP II read it, and acted where he thought appropriate- he apologized for how Galileo was treated. This is criminal justice, not science, not Scriptural exegesis.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

You said earlier that the earth and moon don’t rotate… If earth does not rotate on it’s own axis and if the moon is not rotating on it’s own axis (keeping the same face towards us) why wouldn’t that proove your point?

I think I reversed your proposal. I read it to fast. The same basic expalantion holds, though. Let me try and expalin in more detail.

Rotating earth case: The moon always shows the same face to the earth. If we point a laser from the moon to a point on the earth (say a 1 foot diameter target in your backyard), you will see the laser point hi the target, the move away as the earth turns.

Fixed earth case: The moon always shows the same face to the earth. The observations in the fixed earth case are the same as the rotarting earth case. So the laser would hit the target then move away in the same manner as the rotating earth case.

In the geoecntric case we see the moon rise and set at night with a 27.3 day cycle, just like the rotating earth case. Why would a laser pointing to the earth act any differntly? Maybe you can explain your proposal and assumptions in more detail. Look again at the Ellis quote. Observations cannot prove a difference. If they could we would have established one way or the other by now.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

You said earlier that the earth and moon don’t rotate… If earth does not rotate on it’s own axis and if the moon is not rotating on it’s own axis (keeping the same face towards us) why wouldn’t that proove your point?

I see your point. The moon does have to rotate on its axis for the additional velocity it has (in the geocentric system) over the normal 24 hour period of the universe’s rotation. This is the additional velocity which creates the 27.3 day period or moon phases. Again, this is the same in the fixed and rotatng earth cases. In the geocentric case, local actions are similar to the heliocentric case (ie…, the planets orbit the sun [earth is not a plaent], the moon has an orbit around the earth beyond the universal rotation, etc). In fact outside our solar system, things could be more or less identical at a local level (i.e., within a solar system or galaxy).

For that reason, the laser pointing from the moon to earth would produce the same effect in both cases. Again, the Ellis quote.

Sorry for mis-stating.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com