Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II released

[goofyjim]

Sungenis’ book does teach geostaionism, since this is what Scripture teaches, what the fathers held, and what the popes upheld. In fact the centrality issue is actually less important than the geostationary issue.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Only because they couldn’t travel into space and get other information to change their minds. Science is not always opposed to faith as some would believe. I am a Catholic who accepts that the earth goes around the sun. I also eat pork and don’t gouge out my eyes or cut off my hands. There is much in the Bible that should not be taken literally and this idea of geocentrism is one of them. We know better now. If the papal bull hasn’t been lifted it is high time it should be. Galileo was right.

 

[hecd2]

Refute the issue with the common courtesy. Many of your posts resort to bashing the person causing a loss of respect. You do a disservice in your replies.

Pointing out that the person who is making the claims is completely ignorant of the relevant subject as many creationists are about biology and geology, and Sungenis and Mark are about astrophysics, cosmology and relativity is doing a SERVICE to those who are not themselves expert in the relevant subjects and who therefore might think that the creationist and geocentrist arguments carry the same weight asthe arguments of those who have actually studied the subject and actually know something about it.

And Sungenis’s and Mark’s ignorance of the subject they presume to revolutionise is a matter of record on these forums and elsewhere. These guys misrepresent and misunderstand both scientific knowledge and the history of science, and they claim that good Catholics who, in every other respect, are in a state of grace, are heretics if they accept the fact of evolution or reject the notion of geocentrism. It is a particularly narrow and self-righteous point of view and that is why I will not treat them with kid gloves.

If their arguments were purely scriptural, or patristic, I would not take them to task, because that lies beyond my competence. But when they stray way beyond their competence into mine, I regard pointing out their ignorance and incompetence as entirely justified - the fact that they don’t know what they are talking about is an entirely relevant consideration in assessing whether what they claim has any merit at all.

No apology from me then.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

Only because they couldn’t travel into space and get other information to change their minds.

Traveling “out into space” did nothing to determine one way or another which system is correct. No information we have can make a definitive determination.

Science is not always opposed to faith as some would believe.

I agree. That is why Volume I of Sungenis’ book is so good. It uses science to make his case.

…I … eat pork and don’t gouge out my eyes or cut off my hands.

hallelujah!!!

There is much in the Bible that should not be taken literally and this idea of geocentrism is one of them. We know better now. If the papal bull hasn’t been lifted it is high time it should be. Galileo was right.

Well, JPII had a chance to do it, and chose not to.

As I pointed out earlier, the issues are mainly philosophical, and these issues have not fundamentally changed since Galileo’s time.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…and they claim that good Catholics who, in every other respect, are in a state of grace, are heretics if they accept the fact of evolution or reject the notion of geocentrism. …

We have pointed out many times that we are not calling those who support heliocentrism “heretics”. It just shows how disingenuous you are, Alec.

Why don’t you deal with the issues, especially the philosophical ones (the ones that define how we interpret our observations)?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

synopsis:

1. The first 50+% deals with the “Newtonian View”, i.e., static space as a reference frame. Of course geocenrtism will not work. The big bang theory would not work in the Newtonian system either (BB needs expansion amongst other things).
2. Switch to the relativistic view, but don’t mention that all those juicy points in the Newtionian view no longer apply. Make philosophical arguments why geocentrism does not make sense in the [FRWW, isotropic, homogeneous, redhsift = expansion, i.e., establishment preferred set of assumptions] relativistic view.

It is possible to make a good synopsis of the argument. I did that in the article. Here it is:

“In Newtonian mechanics, geocentrism cannot be true for many physical reasons; in General Relativity the centre of the universe has no meaning, so to claim that the earth is the centre of the universe is meaningless; in neither system can the earth be said to be the unmoving centre of the universe”

A bit shorter than yours and a lot more accurate. The Newtonian arguments are relevant because Sungenis vigorously denies General Relativity. So if Mark accepts that Newtonian physics does not apply in some domains, and his great guru Sungenis rejects GR, just what physics does Mark propose to replace Newtonian mechanics with? Whether we accept GR, or we reject it in favour of an absolute space and Newtonian mechanics, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[trth_skr]

… The Newtonian arguments are relevant because Sungenis vigorously denies General Relativity.

So, Robert Sungenis determines what physis are correct? This is not about facts, but poking at what Sungenis says?

So if Mark accepts that Newtonian physics does not apply in some domains, and his great guru Sungenis rejects GR, just what physics does Mark propose to replace Newtonian mechanics with?

Read the book, Alec (or have you already)?

Whether we accept GR, or we reject it in favour of an absolute space and Newtonian mechanics, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe.

The Big Bang theory will not work with Newtonian cosmology (i.e., no expansion + absolute space). So your cosmology requires general relativity. Why bother with those Newtonian arguments? Because they mislead the uninformed. You score multiple points by showing that the cosmology that would not work for your system also does not support geocentrism. Then you make a few philosophical points to “show” that your system (general relativity) philosopically does not support geocentrism (though we know that the dynamics are capable of it).

We also know that other general relativistic systems besides FRWW could support a center. We also know that with the right set of “assumptions” (other than the one that supports big bang) our observations could be interpreted as us being at least very near a center. And we know that there is no way to verify which of the reasonable possible assumptions are correct at this time, and the ones chosen are chosen for philosophical reasons only (including “modesty”).

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

We have pointed out many times that we are not calling those who support heliocentrism “heretics”. It just shows how disingenuous you are, Alec.

No, you are the disingenuous one, because you cannot use this statement to abdicate responsibility for the consequences of your position. You apparently believe that the patristic view supported by the magisterium though history, up until the mid 20th century was against evolution and for geocentrism, do you not? You quote the condemnation of Galileo as proof that his position was held to be heretical. Either you think that acceptance of evolution and rejection of geocentrism is irrelevant to faith and salvation; or you think it matters. You clearly think that it matters.

So, if those Catholics who accept evolution and reject geocentrism, in the full knowledge of the evidence, are not heretics, then what are they? I think that the Church accepts either view conscientiously held as being equally valid from a salvational perspective - evolution or young earth creationism; acentrism or geocentrism. As far as current Church teaching goes, acceptance of evolution and rejction of geocentrism is not heresy. But you clearly disagree and hold that YEC and geocentrism is an important dimension of the faith and morals teaching of the Church.

So do tell us, if those who hold to the fact of evolution and reject the notion of geocentrism are not heretics (ie holding beliefs contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church) then exactly in what relationship to the magisterial teaching, in your opinion, do they stand?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

… You apparently believe that the patristic view supported by the magisterium though history, up until the mid 20th century was against evolution and for geocentrism, do you not? You quote the condemnation of Galileo as proof that his position was held to be heretical. Either you think that acceptance of evolution and rejection of geocentrism is irrelevant to faith and salvation; or you think it matters. You clearly think that it matters.

So, if those Catholics who accept evolution and reject geocentrism, in the full knowledge of the evidence, are not heretics, then what are they…

…If their arguments were purely scriptural, or patristic, I would not take them to task, because that lies beyond my competence. But when they stray way beyond their competence into mine, I regard pointing out their ignorance and incompetence as entirely justified - the fact that they don’t know what they are talking about is an entirely relevant consideration in assessing whether what they claim has any merit at all…

Alec:

Maybe try and take your own advice (for your own good). Or is ecclisiastics now one of your strengths? :nope:

There are many mitigating factors. Read the books.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Alec:

Let’s talk about some of the real issues:

However we are not able to make
cosmological models without some
admixture of ideology. In the earliest
cosmologies, man placed himself in a
commanding position at the center of the
universe. Since the time of Copernicus we
have been steadily demoted to a medium
sized planet going round a medium sized
star on the outer edge of a fairly average
galaxy, which is itself simply one of a
local group of galaxies. Indeed we are now
so democratic that we would not claim that
our position in space is specially
distinguished in any way. We shall,
following Bondi (1960), call this
assumption the Copernican principle.

Hawking, S. W. And Ellis, G. F. R., The Large Scale
Structure of Space-Time, 1973, p. 134. Bondi, Hermann,
Cosmology, 1960.

---

…the standard models of a principle of
uniformity (the cosmological or
Copernican principle). This is assumed for a
priori reasons and not tested by
observations. However, it is precisely this
principle that we wish to call into question.
The static inhomogeneous model discussed
in this paper shows that the usual
unambiguous deduction that the universe is
expanding is a consequence of an unverified
assumption, namely, the uniformity
assumption. This assumption is made
because it is believed to be unreasonable
that we should be near the center of the
Universe.**

George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?”
General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February,
1978, p. 87.

---

People need to be aware that there is a
range of models that could explain the
observations. For instance, I can construct
[for] you a spherically symmetrical
universe with Earth at its center, and you
cannot disprove it based on observations.
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.

“Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” W. Wayt Gibbs,
Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55.

Mark Wyatt

 

[rpp]

Geocentrism is nothing less than making Mankind, a created being, the center of the Universe. A position which only God occupies.

It is the scientific equivalent of moral reletivism, making the person the center of the moral universe.

Those supporting this this theory here have completely lost any credibility on virtually any subject.in my mind.

As a former astronomer, I can tell you it is utterly baseless. Planetary could not be accurately predicted, until the Copernican system began to be used and Newton refined the math behind it. Once that system was used, it became possible to properly predict such things as lunar occultations of the planets, planetary conjunctions and planetary movement through constellations.

In fact, the geocentric idea has no explanation for retrograde (backwards) movement of planets across the sky, especially Venus and Mercury. Also, Geocentrism cannot explain why Venus and Mercury are never visible overhead at midnight, but are only visible near the Eastern sky before sunrise or the western sky after sunset.

But then Geocentrism ignores some very important empirical information. The space probes sent out have observed that each planet orbits the Sun. It is not “relative motion”. These planets do not interact with the Earth at all.

I realize I will never convince Geocentrists, but the idea did not even work well when it was generally accepted.

 

[trth_skr]

Geocentrism is nothing less than making Mankind, a created being, the center of the Universe. A position which only God occupies.

God is in the center of the universe?

As a former astronomer, I can tell you it is utterly baseless. Planetary could not be accurately predicted, until the Copernican system began to be used and Newton refined the math behind it. Once that system was used, it became possible to properly predict such things as lunar occultations of the planets, planetary conjunctions and planetary movement through constellations.

The Copernican system was no more accurate than the Ptolemaic, and there is tons of scientific and history of science referecnes stating that.

As for local systems, Newtonian mechanics works fine.

In fact, the geocentric idea has no explanation for retrograde (backwards) movement of planets across the sky, especially Venus and Mercury. Also, Geocentrism cannot explain why Venus and Mercury are never visible overhead at midnight, but are only visible near the Eastern sky before sunrise or the western sky after sunset.

Really, why not? Are you referring to the ancient Ptolemaic or geocentric in general? The cdrom for Galileo Was Wrong demonstrates retrograde motion for heliocentric and geocentric models, no problem.

The modern Tychonic system theoretically should exactly mimic the modern Keplerian in terms of relative motions of all bodies in the solar system (there is simply a coordinate transformation between the two).

But then Geocentrism ignores some very important empirical information. The space probes sent out have observed that each planet orbits the Sun. It is not “relative motion”. These planets do not interact with the Earth at all.

You are implying that the rest of space is in some type of gravitational hold by the earth. That is not being proposed. Please read the book before you make assertions. The spacecraft would not “know” if the universe were revolving around the earth. It would be relative motion.

I realize I will never convince Geocentrists, but the idea did not even work well when it was generally accepted.

It [the Ptolemaic] worked just as well, or even slightly better than the Copernican. The Keplerian was even worse, until modern [curve fitting] corrections were made.

rpp: Read the book. All these misconceptions are covered in great detail.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[rpp]

I knew that you would not be convinced, but your previous responses show a significant misunderstand of what data has been gathered and projects an wistful and nostalgic view on a system that was so utterly broken that it motivated many to try to fix it.

No, you will not listen to logic. This thread had served it’s purpose. I am too charitable to alow someone to further embarrass them self in such a way. I believe this thread should be closed for this very reason.

 

[hecd2]

The Big Bang theory will not work with Newtonian cosmology (i.e., no expansion + absolute space). So your cosmology requires general relativity. Why bother with those Newtonian arguments?

Because Sungenis rejects GR. The alternative to GR is Newtonian mechanics which works fabulously provided objects are not travelling very rapidly or are in very strong gravitational fields. I am simply pointing out that whatever system Sungenis chooses, geocentrism is invalid. If Sungenis had a proposal for physics that was neither Newtonian, nor GR, that supported geocentrism, and that explained the detailed observations of planetary precession, frame dragging, gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, gravitational radiation then he would be a fine physicist. But this is as far beyond him as it is beyond me to become the Pope.

Then you make a few philosophical points to “show” that your system (general relativity) philosopically does not support geocentrism (though we know that the dynamics are capable of it).

Wrong. I make scientific, not philosophical points. The dynamics might be capable of making the surface of the earth the unmoving centre of the universe (the dynamics are equally capable of making every other point in the universe the unmoving centre -the earth can take its place in a very long queue), but the kinematics disqualify the earth’s surface. The surface of the earth is not, by definition, at rest in an inertial frame (one of the things that convinced me that Sungenis is a physics ignoramus was his total misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the concept of inertial frames)

We also know that other general relativistic systems besides FRWW could support a center.

You keep saying FRWW - I think you mean FRLW (that’s Friedmann-Robertson-Lemaitre-Walker) - is this an example of your lack of physics knowledge or is there a real FRWW metric - who is the second ‘W’? - we want to know. Or perhaps you don’t want to acknowledge the contribution of ‘L’ - Lemaitre, a Catholic priest, to the development of the Big Bang theory. and so you have eliminated him for a non-existent ‘W’.

Anyway we are talking about a metric solution to the Einstein field equations that describes the universe - a cosmological solution to the field equations. So, what I’d really, really like you to do, is to tell us what alternative to the FRLW metric there is that a) is a genuine solution to the Einstein field equations, b) supports a centre of the universe and very importantly, c) is physical - ie describes a universe that in other respects represents the one we observe.

I am absolutely sure that Mark will not be able to suggest a solution other than FRLW that satisfies these conditions, because I know that such a solution does not exist. Let’s see what he proposes (if he understands the question) - I know that he only has the vaguest idea or no idea at all about what a metric, cosmological solution to the Einstein field equation means or would look like.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

…Anyway we are talking about a metric solution to the Einstein field equations that describes the universe - a cosmological solution to the field equations. So, what I’d really, really like you to do, is to tell us what alternative to the FRLW metric there is …

Alec, we have discussed this before, the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model is one example. I know you feel there are problems with it.

"It is shown that spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes, if the usual assumptions are made about the local physical laws determining the behavior of matter, provided that the universe is inhomogeneous and our galaxy is situated close to one of its centers……the standard models of a princile of uniformity (the cosmological or Copernican principle). This is assumed for a priori reasons and not tested by observations. However, it is precisely this principle that we wish to call into question. The static inhomogeneous model discussed in this paper shows that the usual unambiguous deduction that the universe is expanding is a consequence of an unverified assumption, namely, the uniformity assumption. This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe."

George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February, 1978, p. 87.

The dynamics might be capable of making the surface of the earth the unmoving centre of the universe (the dynamics are equally capable of making every other point in the universe the unmoving centre -the earth can take its place in a very long queue), but the kinematics disqualify the earth’s surface. The surface of the earth is not, by definition, at rest in an inertial frame.

No one said the surface of the earth had to be at rest in an inertial frame. That is a very restrictive and specific condition. You keep trying to make that a requirement.

Alec: Have you read the books?

What about the assumptions and the philosophy? According to our world’s top cosmologists, these end up determining our models. The science comes in after the assumptions are made and the stage is set.

The current stage is set with the Copernican “Principle”, amongst other major assumptions. Axiomatic systems are limited by their definitions and postulates. If you postulate earth not having a priviliged position, then of course any theories created [with this postulate] will not “work” with earth having a priviliged position.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[goofyjim]

Alec, we have discussed this before, the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model is one example. I know you feel there are problems with it.

"It is shown that spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes, if the usual assumptions are made about the local physical laws determining the behavior of matter, provided that the universe is inhomogeneous and our galaxy is situated close to one of its centers……the standard models of a princile of uniformity (the cosmological or Copernican principle). This is assumed for a priori reasons and not tested by observations. However, it is precisely this principle that we wish to call into question. The static inhomogeneous model discussed in this paper shows that the usual unambiguous deduction that the universe is expanding is a consequence of an unverified assumption, namely, the uniformity assumption. This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe."

George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February, 1978, p. 87.

No one said the surface of the earth had to be at rest in an inertial frame. That is a very restrictive and specific condition. You keep trying to make that a requirement.

Alec: Have you read the books?

What about the assumptions and the philosophy? According to our world’s top cosmologists, these end up determining our models. The science comes in after the assumptions are made and the stage is set.

The current stage is set with the Copernican “Principle”, amongst other major assumptions. Axiomatic systems are limited by their definitions and postulates. If you postulate earth not having a priviliged position, then of course any theories created [with this postulate] will not “work” with earth having a priviliged position.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I’m never going to bother reading malarchy (hope I spelled that right). I accept fully the overwhelming evidnece that the earth and the other planets go around the sun. I am bowing out of this discussion now because nothing will change my mind. Not even an offical mandate from the Vatican. If God can reveal dogmas to us in time that were not directly in the Bible He can also reveal to us scientific truths that the writers in biblical times may not have been able to comprehend. Such as the earth is round and not flat.

 

[hecd2]

Alec, we have discussed this before, the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model is one example. I know you feel there are problems with it.

No, you have never proposed this metric to me before.

And yes, there is a rather fundamental problem with it in that it is unphysical, because it requires unobserved singularities and because the required inhomogeneity would be revealed by galaxy surveys (it’s not revealed)

However, I’d like to congratulate you on your best attempt so far. You have responded with a better answer than I thought you would be able to. Pity then, that the solution you propose is not physical.

Now the LTB model is an exact dust solution to the Einstein Field Equations - it is based on GR. So how do you or Robert square this with Robert’s violent rejection of GR. If you reject GR you can’t fall back on the LTB model or any exact or inexact solution to the Einstein field equations.Do you or do you not reject GR?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Alec:

Maybe try and take your own advice (for your own good). Or is ecclisiastics now one of your strengths? :nope:

There are many mitigating factors. Read the books.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

So do tell us, if those who hold to the fact of evolution and reject the notion of geocentrism are not heretics (ie holding beliefs contrary to the magisterial teaching of the Church) then exactly in what relationship to the magisterial teaching, in your opinion, do they stand?
Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[trth_skr]

Alec:

You are getting too far ahead. You stll have not answered these quations:

**Alec: Have you read the books?

**What about the assumptions and the philosophy? According to our world’s top cosmologists, these end up determining our models. The science comes in after the assumptions are made and the stage is set.

The current stage is set with the Copernican “Principle”, amongst other major assumptions. Axiomatic systems are limited by their definitions and postulates. If you postulate earth not having a priviliged position, then of course any theories created [with this postulate] will not “work” with earth having a priviliged position.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[goofyjim]

Is the earth still flat? They used to believe that at one time until it was proven otherwise. Why live in the past on this issue? The eart goes around the sun. I contacted the CA office myself this afternoon and they confirmed that Sungenis is a little strange in his beliefs. So I do question why this thread continues to go on. I am awaiting an official call from one of the apologists to go into more detail.

 

[trth_skr]

Is the earth still flat? They used to believe that at one time until it was proven otherwise. Why live in the past on this issue? The eart goes around the sun. I contacted the CA office myself this afternoon and they confirmed that Sungenis is a little strange in his beliefs. So I do question why this thread continues to go on. I am awaiting an official call from one of the apologists to go into more detail.

Flat earth never was a Catholic issue. Even the ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical. I am sure other cultures did too.

CA is not the magesterium. Let us know what they say.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com