Galileo

[grannymh]

For all I think: the location of our planet is rather irrelevant. God is still God and the Catholic Church is the one true Church guided by the Holy Spirit in terms of faith & morals.

peace

Dear Shlomey,

For your great statement of absolute truth, these are for you :flowers:

Blessings,
granny

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

Hi
Why did the representatives of the Catholic Church not know that the earth orbited the sun at the time of Galileo’s discoveries?
Was Galileo shown the instruments of torture to make him change his mind?
Chris Stone

The Catholic Church assumed the geocentric theory of the Solar System for obviously religious reasons. We thought our planet was important because we were the ones with the religion, that we get the position of being the center of the universe… or rather, the center of God’s attention.

As far as Galileo’s torture, I am not sure, but I am pretty certain that he did not give up his theory–or discovery.

I hope that helps, but to be sure, you should definitely do some light research.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, let me help you out here. Cassini will tell you that you are just one of the heretics that have fallen for Galileo’s lie. You see, Cassini will tell you that even the Pope, if he doesn’t accept geocentrism, is a heretic.

Never argue with Cassini. My organization has a policy: while we speak a lot at conferences, churches, schools, colleges, seminaries and universities, we never, ever debate a Young Earth Creationist or an IDer. It’s a self-defeating enterprise.

 

[StAnastasia]

As far as Galileo’s torture, I am not sure, but I am pretty certain that he did not give up his theory–or discovery.I hope that helps, but to be sure, you should definitely do some light research.Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

Catholicism and Science (Greenwood, 2008) treats this subject in chapter two.

 

[buffalo]

Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
By Kenneth J. Howell
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

The Galileo Controversy
catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

**Twisting the Knife **
**How Galileo Brought His Troubles with the Church on Himself **
By Wil Milan
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

and

The Swan’s Song of Galileo’s Myth

 

[buffalo]

Just wanted to comment on the whole earth center thingy…

I dont know what the center of the universe is but I do know one thing. I use CAD programs all day long. All 3D modeling. That being said I can make the center of anything anywhere. I think the whole center of the universe question is unanswerable. To place a center point is all about perspective. I can draw the entire universe with all the laws and have the center defined anywhere…Mars, Venus, some star way out there…doesn’t matter at all.

Things we do know:

We would have to be outside this frame of reference to know for sure

The Church was certain that the earth was immobile.

Heliocentrism is false - we know the sun is not the center of the universe.

Geocentrism of old has shown to be false.

Geocentricity of today is not old geocentrism

The math works for either heliocentrism and geocentrism

Acentrism is today’s theory - there is no center of the universe.

Man is in the center of the largest distances and the smallest.

Man is the centerpiece of creation

 

[buffalo]

Why not do the AIry experiment today?

 

[hecd2]

Things we do know:
…
Heliocentrism is false - we know the sun is not the center of the universe.

If we know that, then we necessarily also know that the earth is not the centre of the universe.

Geocentrism of old has shown to be false.

Geocentricity of today is not old geocentrism

The math works for either heliocentrism and geocentrism

I can show you the maths for the source of the Coriolis force, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the equator and the poles, the preference for launching satellites eastwards from the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum on a rotating earth. Can you show me the maths that underlies these measured phenomena if we assume the earth is *not *rotating?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

If we know that, then we necessarily also know that the earth is not the centre of the universe.
I can show you the maths for the source of the Coriolis force, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the equator and the poles, the preference for launching satellites eastwards from the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum on a rotating earth. Can you show me the maths that underlies these measured phenomena if we assume the earth is *not *rotating?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

How bout you do the AIry experiment yourself. Maybe that would simplify things.

 

[hecd2]

How bout you do the AIry experiment yourself. Maybe that would simplify things.

Why not just answer the questions?

You claimed that the maths works for a geocentic system. Show us. I can show you the maths for the source of the Coriolis force, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the equator and the poles, the preference for launching satellites eastwards from the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum on a rotating earth. Can you show us the maths that underlies these measured phenomena if we assume the earth is *not *rotating?

By the way you keep writing “Alry” experiment. It’s the Airy experiment after George Airy of Airy disc and Airy function fame. Would you like to know a little more about what an Airy disc is and about the Airy function? Why would anyone want to do the Airy experiment again?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

Why not just answer the questions?

You claimed that the maths works for a geocentic system. Show us. I can show you the maths for the source of the Coriolis force, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the equator and the poles, the preference for launching satellites eastwards from the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum on a rotating earth. Can you show us the maths that underlies these measured phenomena if we assume the earth is *not *rotating?

By the way you keep writing “Alry” experiment. It’s the Airy experiment after George Airy of Airy disc and Airy function fame. Would you like to know a little more about what an Airy disc is and about the Airy function? Why would anyone want to do the Airy experiment again?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Forgive me, the i and l are close and my bi-focals are a problem.

I am not going to do the math for you. Others have and I accept their conclusions.

I guess you are right - why should modern day scientists redo Airy’s failure? (better?)

 

[cassini]

Please note:

The Catholic Church limits infallibility to matters of faith and morals. An individual’s or group’s word by word interpretation of passages which include references to the world about us, is not part of either faith or morals.

Let me put a stop to this nonsense. Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the greatest theologians the Church ever had, made it quite clear that ANYTHING the bible says, be it of a matter of faith or of something else, because it comes from the mouth of God so to speak, IS OF FAITH. Deny Geocentricism-deny the Virgin Birth.

The Holy Office of the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664 fully treated this geocentric interpretation of scripture as a matter of FAITH. Galileo tried this ‘not of faith’ ploy and we know what that hypocrite got.

But now that all think the earth moves around the sun, they/you think they can change Catholic biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. And they tried, causing Modernism in the Church, called the heresy of all heresies by Pope Pius X. Well you cannot, for the teachings and tradition of the Church cannot be changed. God is without change. Yes the Copernicans fooled the flock into believing this and the ploy continues to uphold the Copernican heresy, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

Bellarmine’s Letter to foscarini, 1615:
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

 

[mchale]

It would take me a week to reply to all your questions mchale, many of which I answered on my thread (now closed) Deny Geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth. As regards your STR which you Copernicans rely on, well:

Actually, I just read that whole thread, just to be sure, you didn’t answer any of my scientific arguments. Ultimately, if it could be shown that there was a coherent, logical theory built around the idea of a Geocentric Universe that explained what we had have observed in the Universe as well as Newton’s and Einstein’s theories have, I would be perfectly willing to toss out the current model of the Universe in favor of one that was supported by the Church 400 years ago. However, you have not shown that to be the case.

The perception is that all his peers applauded Einstein’s theories, and that time has vindicated and proven them true, as mchale would have us believe. In fact there were many who openly opposed the theories. Outstanding among these was Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and author of many standard textbooks on astronomy.

Actually, I didn’t say Einstein’s theory was universally applauded at the time of its publication (General Relativity that is, Special Relativity never seemed to have been considered much in dispute). What is true however is that over time, as more experimental evidence has come in, and more predictions of General Relativity have come true, that it has become hard to deny General Relativity.

Elsewhere, Professor Herbert Dingle records that Lord Rutherford as saying ‘that any Anglo-Saxon would have the sense to see that the theory of [special] relativity is nonsense’, ignoring all Albert Einstein had to say on the matter thereafter.

And? Scientists argue all the time and disagree with each others theories. This is hardly proof that Relativity is wrong.

In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s Relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science’.

How devastating can the analysis have been since General Relativity remains, along with Quantum Mechanics, one of the unifying paradigms of modern Physics and Cosmology. Indeed the predictive power General Relativity makes it rather hard to simply write off.

Dingle on Relativity

The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s Relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, Relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth, it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.

‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.—’Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16.

All of these questions are a matter perspective. They are only apparent problems when A and B remain in different inertial reference frames. When an object in one frame accelerates to match the frame of the other, the paradoxes are resolved.

Physicists know this, which is why Dingle’s book had about all the impact of a tiny pebble.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Never argue with Cassini. My organization has a policy: while we speak a lot at conferences, churches, schools, colleges, seminaries and universities, we never, ever debate a Young Earth Creationist or an IDer. It’s a self-defeating enterprise.

I agree in the sense that you are never going to convince the YEC that you are correct. At the same time, I think it is necessary to make sure that others who might read this thread or others, doesn’t get the impression that we are unwilling to debate because are arguments are weak.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Let me put a stop to this nonsense. Cardinal Bellarmine, one of the greatest theologians the Church ever had, made it quite clear that ANYTHING the bible says, be it of a matter of faith or of something else, because it comes from the mouth of God so to speak, IS OF FAITH. Deny Geocentricism-deny the Virgin Birth.

A Cardinal, no matter how good of a theologian, is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly considering that he can only work with the knowledge he has at the time. His pronouncement on this issue is in no way binding on Catholics of the current time.

The Holy Office of the Church in 1616, 1633 and 1664 fully treated this geocentric interpretation of scripture as a matter of FAITH. Galileo tried this ‘not of faith’ ploy and we know what that hypocrite got.

This of course doesn’t say anything about whether the Earth is the center of the Universe or not.

But now that all think the earth moves around the sun, they/you think they can change Catholic biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. And they tried, causing Modernism in the Church, called the heresy of all heresies by Pope Pius X. Well you cannot, for the teachings and tradition of the Church cannot be changed. God is without change. Yes the Copernicans fooled the flock into believing this and the ploy continues to uphold the Copernican heresy, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. The gates of hell shall not prevail.

So lets see here…belief in a non-geocentric universe is, according to you Heresy. Yet most in the Church, including the Popes of the last century or so, have almost certainly believed it. Last I checked, a Pope who was guilty of formal heresy was actually not valid as a Pope. But if most if not all of the Church’s leaders have been heretics, then wouldn’t that mean that the Church has failed?

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

A Cardinal, no matter how good of a theologian, is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly considering that he can only work with the knowledge he has at the time. His pronouncement on this issue is in no way binding on Catholics of the current time.

This of course doesn’t say anything about whether the Earth is the center of the Universe or not.

So lets see here…belief in a non-geocentric universe is, according to you Heresy. Yet most in the Church, including the Popes of the last century or so, have almost certainly believed it. Last I checked, a Pope who was guilty of formal heresy was actually not valid as a Pope. But if most if not all of the Church’s leaders have been heretics, then wouldn’t that mean that the Church has failed?

–
Bill

To be a heretic a Pope must knowingly and with all facts officially pronounce against it, making it doctrine. None has done so.

 

[The_Barbarian]

If Buffalo could provide a testable explanation how rockets fired near the equator need less energy in burning fuel to obtain escape velocity than rockets fired from higher latitudes, it would make belief in geocentrism much more reasonable. Assuming a stationary Earth, of course.

Why do you think that happens, Buffalo?

 

[buffalo]

If Buffalo could provide a testable explanation how rockets fired near the equator need less energy in burning fuel to obtain escape velocity than rockets fired from higher latitudes, it would make belief in geocentrism much more reasonable. Assuming a stationary Earth, of course.

Why do you think that happens, Buffalo?

I don’t know, (others make the arguments) but I will sell my gold at the north pole, since it will weigh more.

 

[Orogeny]

To be a heretic a Pope must knowingly and with all facts officially pronounce against it, making it doctrine. None has done so.

So no one other than a Pope can be a heretic? Who is cassini calling a heretic then?

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

So no one other than a Pope can be a heretic? Who is cassini calling a heretic then?

Peace

Tim

Anyone can be a heretic. You and I can be heretics if we cleave away at the certain truths.

If a Pope gets some bad info and makes pronouncements then it could be ignorance and not heresy. If he pronounces with full knowledge against a truth then that is heresy.

Of course a pronouncement would not be infallible unless in full communion with the college of bishops.