Galileo

[mich2]

why should it stand to reason that the universe orbits a central point? i can think of any reason that it should.

Eventhough we believe the universe is expanding, the belief is still that it is a closed one, meaning that a gravitational centre need to exist, somewhere. If such a centre does exist, the motion of the universe as a whole would need to be influenced by such a centre.

false

How would you respond to the following statements:

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."

As stated by Max Born in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
:"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

**Stephen W. Hawking **

**“Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!” - A Brief History of Time: Tenth Anniversary Edition, p. 44 **

i didn’t quote you, why do you think i am mistaking you for someone else? further, why would you want to hold an obviously false position, even just personally, how does that benefit you?

The reason why I wrote this was because you had written that the Church is not infallible when dealing with scientific teaching…I have no problems with this; I never claimed my personal belief was due to the infallible teaching of the Church regarding this issue; as to why I personally accept this position, it is mearly a matter of viewing things differently. I tend to view those who uphold the heliocentric view as being just as dogmatic as some of the clergy in the middle ages who held geocentrism as a dogmatic physical truth.

the fact is they said it was a mistake, timing doesnt matter, you either believe the Churchs authority or you dont.

But why did they need to “re-investigate” the whole Galileo issue if it was so clear as to why the Church was in error?

sure i posted the pictures. observational evidence from outside the solar frame of reference.

I respect your argument, but I personally don’t accept this as proof of a heliocentric solar sytem, even less a heliocentric universe, as was claimed by Galileo.

they attempted to speak infallibly on a matter of science, that was the mistake.

From what I’ve read, the only proposition that was condemned as being heretical was heliocentrism…that is, the sun being static…which is indeed a false assumption.

the sun being static is a red herring, it has nothing to do with geocentrism at all. it could be doing the box waltz, and that would still not change that geocentrism is false. we are interested in the relationships between the planet and its sun. not between the sun and the galactic center.

That was the whole Galileo issue…by claiming the movement of the earth as being absolute, an absolute frame of reference was needed…not as a model, but a reality…he chose the sun…he was wrong.

Andre

 

[mich2]

There is no center of the Universe; in addition the expansion of the Universe is so rapid, that only Galaxies in relative local proximity to each other are close enough to interact gravitationally.

How ever think of it from this perspective, the Universe, as we see it, is kind of like the surface of a gigantic 4 dimensional sphere. We can only see the surface, so there is no center we can perceive for things to orbit around.

If by observing galaxies light years away means that we observe this part of the universe at a period when the universe was smaller (less expanded),would this not mean that we are actually looking “into” the sphere, whereas the true location of all matter (something that is unobservable) would be located on the sphere?

Sort of. It only works when you adopt non-inertial reference frames. I.e., you could conceivably model the movements of every object in the Universe relative to the Earth with the Earth remaining in a single spot, but you effectively have to ignore everything regarding inertia and mass. I.e., an object 9 billion kilometers from the Earth will be traveling roughly at the speed of light with respect to the Earth.

You would indeed have a good point in this matter. However, since we know the universe can “expand” at a rate which is greater than the velocity of light, why could it not be static while revolving around the earth at a velocity greater than light? Notice my point is not to assume a physical geocentric reality, but mearly to hypothize an equivalence principle, which, I believe was done by Einstein himself.

–

Bill

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Eventhough we believe the universe is expanding, the belief is still that it is a closed one, meaning that a gravitational centre need to exist, somewhere. If such a centre does exist, the motion of the universe as a whole would need to be influenced by such a centre.

gravity is a consequence of mass. the distribution of mass is roughly even, according to observation. there for there cannot be a gravitational center of the universe.

How would you respond to the following statements:

 

[mchale]

You know I have received some of the most pathetic replies on this thread and they continue to roll in. The Copernican heresy has you Catholics really twisted. The things you have to invent and make up as you go along will hopefully be seen by any objective reader as the result of a lie trying to gety out of its category. Of course I get angry at this constant attack on the Fathers, doctors and popes who held the doctrine of geocentricism as part of the Catholic faith. Telling others on this thread they were sinners and prone to error is to totally undermine their place in Catholic history. You are calling into question their judgement in regard to their understanding of Catholic revelation, tradition as well as the laws of the Church they served. And on whose word do you people base your theology, on the word of declared heretics, arians, Protestants, freemasons, atheists, and a list of Church enemies I could name in the history of ‘victorious heliocentricism.’

Just how low will your defence of a declared heresy go?

Sigh, it is you have decided that this is an issue of Catholic Revelation. As others have repeatedly pointed out, the Church has basically said that its role is on matters of faith and morals and statements by several more recent Popes have made it clear that they do not consider the practice of Natural Science to be a matter of faith or morals.

In any case, those you call heretics I call priests and brothers; including one who was appointed by the Church to the Vatican’s observatory. As for the religions or lack there of of the scientists, they are irrelevant.

–
Bill

 

[mich2]

gravity is a consequence of mass. the distribution of mass is roughly even, according to observation. there for there cannot be a gravitational center of the universe.

… but there needs to be a gravitational point somewhere in the universe which corresponds to all of the matter in the universe. For example the sun’s center of gravity is affected by the gravitational influences of the other planets.

id say that was utter nonsense in regard to geocentrism, we know from observational evidence that the earth and sister bodies of the solar system orbit the sun, as in all other observed star systems.

I respect your opinion, however, will opt to accept the explanation of renowned scientist more readily.

id say that any geologist can tell you that the earth is not hollow.

be serious

The model of the hollow sphere was for the universe, not the earth.

and in an expanding universe that would be the view from any point that had observable bodies out to its light horizon

This is the interesting point made by Hawking.

**"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. **

First, he claims that, according to observations, we seem to be at the center of the universe. Then, he goes on to write:

There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too

However, he also claims that such an explanation has not been proven to be true, for he writes:

We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption.

He ends by stating :

**We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!" **

That is, we believe that every frame would observe the same on the grounds of modesty, that is, on philosophical grounds…not on scientific ones.

i dont care for scientific dogma either, but there is all the evidence is against you, none is for you.

what good is it to personally accept something that is so easily disprovable?

I am mearly exchanging points of view. I don’t take my thoughts too seriously.

if you dont accept photos, and you dont except scientific evidence, nor do you accept the conclusion of the church. then you seem to be ssaying no evidence will matter, i simply choose to believe something false, because you want to, and for no other reason.

if thats the case, why bother to argue the point?

.

Maybe you’re right,warpspeedpetey. However, I haven’t seen much support over the pictures from anyone else but you, so it does prevent me to accept such photos as proof for the heliocentric orbital physical reality.

Andre

 

[mchale]

If by observing galaxies light years away means that we observe this part of the universe at a period when the universe was smaller (less expanded),would this not mean that we are actually looking “into” the sphere, whereas the true location of all matter (something that is unobservable) would be located on the sphere?

I am not sure it is really a question of looking into the sphere, but rather seeing the surface at an earlier point in time.

You would indeed have a good point in this matter. However, since we know the universe can “expand” at a rate which is greater than the velocity of light, why could it not be static while revolving around the earth at a velocity greater than light? Notice my point is not to assume a physical geocentric reality, but mearly to hypothize an equivalence principle, which, I believe was done by Einstein himself.

–

Ah, but the expansion of the Universe is not the same as physical motion; literally space is being created between the Galaxies, so no real motion is necessary to achieve the expansion. Like I said, the math works for a rotating Universe only if you ignore inertia (and thus also mass, gravity, etc.).

Now, I am not saying that one can’t come up with a method to have the entire Universe rotate around the Earth, but there certainly doesn’t seem to be a mechanism that will explain it.

–
Bill

 

[MarcoPolo]

I see the wolves are back, doing their best to convince the few from finding a truth of faith.

Open your eyes and look.
Now Sholmey your faith is being tested. Do you believe in the Fathers or those who have bitten the apple.

Ah, says mchale ’ but why worry about it when we have numerous other tests that strongly support the heliocentric model of the Solar System.’

Now who would buy a second hand car from these swindlers?

Good God how can you all be so blind?

You know I have received some of the most pathetic replies on this thread and they continue to roll in.

Somehow I don’t think you got this from the brilliant hecd2 above?

Well you know when it comes to accepting the word of the above or the make it up as you go along Modernists on this thread, my salvation shall be with those great saints and not the heretics.

Anyone who cannot see that the great Copernican revolution wherein man’s belief in God by the things that are was transfered to a belief that supports a rejection of God instead is of the devil has no claim to Catholic faith.

Oh you hypocrits, using the words of a Saint in a manner that could show them up as stupid or something.

 

[grannymh]

Originally posted by God

“Come to Me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.”
Matthew 11: 28-30

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
John 3: 16-17

 

[cassini]

Dear Gentle Readers,

Cassini asks how can we be so blind? (Post 98)

It is not that we are blind. Rather, we are focused on the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. This Church has existed since Jesus, Himself, sent her forth with these words:

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28: 18-20

Jesus is keeping His word this very day by being truly present in the Holy Eucharist. He is loving and forgiving us in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The truth of His salvation for all is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Cassini speaks about an “heresy” connected with Copernicus, who died in 1543. He presents a lot of material related to Galileo. He uses a lot of church-type words. In real life, there will always be an heresy this or an heresy that. No matter what, the Catholic Church remains true to her Founder. Jesus clearly states:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” *Matthew 16: 18. *In Post 66, Cassini says: “The Copernican heresy was so successful that it really did eliminate Catholic faith.”

See for yourselves. The Catholic Church doors are wide open to welcome you.

Blessings,
granny

If ever I read a case for the inerrancy of the 1616 decree, this is it. I agree with every word. How sad then that it should end so:

In Post 66, Cassini says: “The Copernican heresy was so successful that it really did eliminate Catholic faith.”

Had I said THE Catholic faith you would be correct. I said Catholic faith. Faith in the Church of 1616, Catholic faith in the Church using its instrument set up by popes and headed by the reigning pope to deal with serious heresy. Catholic faith that would not bend to accommodate a defined and declared heresy. Catholic faith that would not used the advice of Saints in a manner that would support the heresy it was designed to avoid. Catholic faith that would not dismiss the documentation that clearly shows no pope ever dared deny the authority of the 1616 decree. There is more to Catholic faith than in paying lip service to it but denying it when bending to the theories of materialist science.

Did not Jesus tell us we should be like children, not PhDs in that useless theoretical physics or quantum mathematics. The Catholic faith teaches us that if we take the word of the Church when it defines and declares on a matter of faith, we believe and accept this definition will never be shown to be in error. Did the Church at Vatican I not say that Peter is elected to preserve the faith, not to change the faith? Did any pope ever change (abrogate) the faith, no. Did any pope ever give the impression that the faith had changed, yes, lots of them, especially at Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes no. 36 when to their shame they too suggested their predecessors erred and caused conflict between faith and science. That is as far as they went, allowing all to read the propaganda of the Church’s enemies even in order to discern what they meant.

Some day however, this too will ber corrected. Pope Benedict XVI. if he was aware of the truth and did not have advisers like those on this thread, could well be that pope. He has surprised me, a different man to that of Cardinal Ratzinger. What courage he is showing, even against his own views in the past, surrounded as he is by Modernists who had excommunicated tradition itself, let alone the popes of the seventeenth century.

That grannymh is faith lost.

‘Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and diversely… Today, with most people, the word ‘heresy’ connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead; because it deals with matters no one now takes seriously.’ Hilaire Belloc: The Great Heresies, Sheed & Ward, London, 1938, p.3.—

 

[cassini]

Sigh, it is you have decided that this is an issue of Catholic Revelation. As others have repeatedly pointed out, the Church has basically said that its role is on matters of faith and morals and statements by several more recent Popes have made it clear that they do not consider the practice of Natural Science to be a matter of faith or morals.

In any case, those you call heretics I call priests and brothers; including one who was appointed by the Church to the Vatican’s observatory. As for the religions or lack there of of the scientists, they are irrelevant.

–
Bill

If you can show me a legal abrogation of the 1616 decree and a legal retrial of Galileo, withdrawing his condemnation as ‘suspect of heresy’, then you can say the CHURCH no longer holds Copernicanism as heresy, the believers in Copernicanism are not heretics, and Galileo has been pardoned. Having discovered the truth in spite of the sophestry and lies of centuries, I for one have lined up with Pope Paul V and Urban VIII never to be separated from them again.

Without any legal authority upon which you all offer personal opinions, you can use all the non legal inferences, suggestions, all the ‘basically saids’ and they have no legitimacy. You can call em any name you wish, and portray me as an idiotic fool, but what’s new, believers have always been called such. The Church operates under Canon laws you know, and consensus, this pope said or that pope said when addressing an academy of agnostics and atheists has no authority unless it complies with tradition, dogmas and doctrines already defined.

 

[mich2]

I am not sure it is really a question of looking into the sphere, but rather seeing the surface at an earlier point in time.

However, seeing the surface at an earlier time must also imply to see the surface while it was still smaller, symbolized by a smaller sphere. It seems the model of viewing the universe would be like viewing a sphere within a sphere within a sphere… and we would be located on the most outer one. The reality would be, of course, that all mater is located on the outer sphere, but we have no means to observe this, due the limit put on the velocity of light.

Ah, but the expansion of the Universe is not the same as physical motion; literally space is being created between the Galaxies, so no real motion is necessary to achieve the expansion. Like I said, the math works for a rotating Universe only if you ignore inertia (and thus also mass, gravity, etc.).

But it seems the other way could work as well. Imagine the earth being located at the center of the universe, symbolized as the center of a sphere. Let us assume the earth to be immovable,just for this particular example. Now let the universe (sphere) rotate . While the universe is rotating (instead of expanding) , it will rotated around the earth at a velocity much greater than light, while the independant mass velocities remain
below the speed of light.

Now, I am not saying that one can’t come up with a method to have the entire Universe rotate around the Earth, but there certainly doesn’t seem to be a mechanism that will explain it.

Let me jump in hot water for a moment…I quoted something from Stephen Hawking to warpspeedpetey .

**
“Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!” - A Brief History of Time: Tenth Anniversary Edition, p. 44 **–

Since Steve clearly mentions that we have no proof that other frame would observe the same privileged position (the universe looking the same in all direction), let us postulate instead that it is not. We can do this since to assume the observation would be the same is also a postulate.

What would be the outcome? What if gravity is created not only by the mass of the body but also
by how much energy was used in creating the mass as well. If we compare the earth with the sun, while the sun is more massive, much more energy was dispensed in creating the earth, since the elements found on the earth are much more complex. What if the earth has the most complex elements. in all the universe? Would that constitute a plausibility for it to be central as well?

Bill

Andre

 

[grannymh]

The following quote refers to post 99

If ever I read a case for the inerrancy of the 1616 decree, this is it.

Dear cassini,

Our gentle readers are invited to reread post 99 again.

Yes, in real life, there will always be an heresy this or an heresy that. What has happened is that throughout history, the original heresies found in the early centuries continue to morph. These heresies have been addressed by restating the truths of the Catholic Church.

Post 99 call us to focus on the truths of the Catholic Church, especially the truth that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Holy Eucharist. It calls us to focus on the truth of God’s grace.
Every time the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass takes place, there is the affirmation of revealed truth.

The revealed truth concerning the earth is that the universe is created by Almighty God. Human observations of what happens in the sky above have been recorded for ages.

The Catholic Church invites all people to lift their hearts to the Divine Creator, to go beyond the physical universe. The Divine Creator is calling His beloved creation, us, to a supreme life after human death. The Divine Creator knows us and our flaws which is why He made it possible for us to seek Him, to find Him, and to be with Him in the glory of heaven.

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.”
John 3: 16-17

See for yourselves. The Catholic Church doors are wide open to welcome you.

Blessings,
granny

 

[warpspeedpetey]

]… but there needs to be a gravitational point somewhere in the universe which corresponds to all of the matter in the universe. For example the sun’s center of gravity is affected by the gravitational influences of the other planets.

where are you getting this idea? do you mean it as a ‘point of balance’?

as earth cannot be that place, as a matter of insufficient mass, and observational evidence. why does it matter?

I respect your opinion, however, will opt to accept the explanation of renowned scientist more readily.

i give you the exact reason his idea must be false. yet you believe him based on fame? its not even a matter of opinion, his idea is excluded by the evidence.

The model of the hollow sphere was for the universe, not the earth.

so now i am to accept, against all observation, and laws of physics, that the universe is a thick walled hollowed sphere?

This is the interesting point made by Hawking.

**"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. **

First, he claims that, according to observations, we seem to be at the center of the universe. Then, he goes on to write:

There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too

However, he also claims that such an explanation has not been proven to be true, for he writes:

We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption.

He ends by stating :

We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

That is, we believe that every frame would observe the same on the grounds of modesty, that is, on philosophical grounds…not on scientific ones.

absolutly false. in an expanding universe, which is what we observe, any point with an observable body out to the limit of its light horizon roughly 13.8 billion light years, would show the same effect.

its a matter of 2 factors, both of which we are familiar with.

1. an expanding universe
2. the speed of light.

there is nothing philosophical about it, it is merely logical deduction from known factors.

i think you misconstrue what hawking means, and i am no hawking fan.

I am mearly exchanging points of view. I don’t take my thoughts too seriously.

Maybe you’re right,warpspeedpetey. However, I haven’t seen much support over the pictures from anyone else but you, so it does prevent me to accept such photos as proof for the heliocentric orbital physical reality.

Andre

no one confirms the sky is blue either, we can all see the truth. photos dont lie, they are verifiably from outside the solar frame of reference and provide orbital data in the same manner that astronomers have used since stonehenge as such they disprove geocentrism.

what further support do they need?

that aside, you have no evidence to support any of your positions, but you have no problem accepting them,

how can you seriously support accepting ideas for which there is no evidence, against the combined reasoning of the rest of humanity, then reject all, even photographic evidence of my position?

what would satisfy you?

 

[StAnastasia]

Yes, in real life, there will always be an heresy this or an heresy that. What has happened is that throughout history, the original heresies found in the early centuries continue to morph. These heresies have been addressed by restating the truths of the Catholic Church.Blessings,granny

grannymh, isn’t this thread – entertaining though it may be – essentially a waste of time? What Cassini has to say is utterly irrelevant to both the astronomical community and the Catholic Church. One may of course entertain a private fantasy that the world is not the way it is – many people do so – but nothing that has been said in all the posts on this thread will change either the world works or our religious faith one bit.

StAnastasia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

grannymh, isn’t this thread – entertaining though it may be – essentially a waste of time? What Cassini has to say is utterly irrelevant to both the astronomical community and the Catholic Church. One may of course entertain a private fantasy that the world is not the way it is – many people do so – but nothing that has been said in all the posts on this thread will change either the world works or our religious faith one bit.

StAnastasia

you are right, however many people whoare not members, and presumably not even Catholic lurk this forum. a read through of this thread, with no refutation, may lead some to believe that this is standard among Catholics.

it is really anti Catholic bigotry of the traditionalist kind that masquerades as a crackpot conspiracy theory.

to allow this idea to gain any traction is to damage the credibility of the Church, as the proponents claim to be Catholics.

i wouldnt bother otherwise

 

[hecd2]

No clue. Put me on ignore then.

You wish…

However when you make apparently knowing statements about what we know and don’t know, as you have, you really should be in a position to defend them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[buffalo]

You wish…

However when you make apparently knowing statements about what we know and don’t know, as you have, you really should be in a position to defend them.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I cannot trust you for you have deliberately excluded from your conclusions God, which renders you impotent.

 

[grannymh]

Pardon me. But a previous comment took me by surprise.

For me, this is an equal opportunity forum. Personally, I am here to learn and share, agree and disagree. Hopefully, what I present will be debated on its own merits, not on who I am.

Blessings,
granny

 

[hecd2]

I believe in geocentrism, as philosophical position, since, so far, science has not given any physical local centre to the universe.

That’s fine as a philosophical opinion.

**If ** one day science would identify one physical stationnary local , universal central point, I would suspect it to be the earth…however, so far, no true physical locality has been identified.

If you mean by this statement that no unmoving centre of the universe has been identified, of course that is true as such a concept is quite meaningless. But IF such a physical place *were *to be identified why would anyone SUSPECT that it would be at the earth?

Since this thread is about Galileo, I will again state my belief that Galileo was in error, not because he supported the heliocentric view of Copernicus, but claimed it as the only reality. One must understand that, in order for Galileo to speak in such a way, he had to claim the sun to be fixed, and use this argument as a reality and not simply a model, for the latter was something that he was free to use.

Why shouldn’t Galileo claim that the sun was the centre of the solar system, which it is? Why shouldn’t he point out that the earth is not the centre of the universe? You have to understand that the distinction between the solar system and the universe was not properly understood in Galileo’s day. His correct rebuttal of geocentrism and the step that he took to oppose the Church’s toxic interference in the free expression of thought are more important than whether strict heliocentrism is correct. As a dynamical system, the solar system is certainly heliocentric.

I also believe that science, today, is opening up many doors for us, including metaphysical concepts,which, according to our two recent Holy Fathers,are starting to bridge back once again, science and religion.

Really? I think that is wishful thinking on their part.

I will stress again, Alec, that I am not a scientist of any kind, so will certainly fumble on most of the
arguments you have presented. The reason why I will propose the counter arguments, is because I personally believe, just as the double slit experiment has been interpreted to mean that particle/wave is not a contradiction in term, but just a weird reality which comes out of Quantum Mechanics, the observations made for the earth’s movements could potentially be interpreted for a static earth as well.

I am sorry Andre, but this is a poor analogy. What has any interpretation of Young’s experiment got to do with geocentrism? I am afraid that there isn’t a physical system in which the earth can be static at the centre of the universe. The proposition that the earth is static at the centre of the universe is either false or meaningless, depending on which mechanics you apply.

Do you know that only geocentrists (and flat-earthers!) call Airy’s stellar aberration experiment “Airy’s failure”? What was the failure? That it failed to confirm the existence of an aether that we now know does not exist.
Indeed, the results of the experiment are perfectly compatible with a modern understanding of physics, astronomy and optics, if the earth is moving with respect to the star field in an ellipse with the same axes as its rotation around the sun. Doesn’t seem much like a failure to me. More evidence that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You have been duped.

For all your upper arguments, it seems to me personally that a “space medium” which G.R. calls spacetime, could explain the phenomena.

It cannot explain it any differently from how I have.

Your argument seems to be based on an empty space type of model, which is ok as well.

It is not so based and it works in classical mechanics as well as GR.

Again, since we know that the light’s path is greatly influenced by the spacetime cuvature,a direct linear path for the light from a star would be an oversimplification, it seem. A moving sun, in my opinion, by continuously changing the spacetime ought to affect the path of light as well.

No - this is wrong (and a bit like your suggestion that Foucault’s pendulum can be explained by the “motion” of the sun and moon, in that it doesn’t stack up quantitatively). The effect of gravity on light is well understood in GR. The sun’s effect on starlight arriving at the earth that does not pass near the sun is very, very much smaller than the effect of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration can be explained only by the motion of the observer (ie the earth) at right angles to the path travelled by the light from the star to the observer. It does not depend on any motion of the star and it is not affected significantly by the sun.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Now I will tell readers why it is called ‘Airy’s failure’.

As I pointed out it is called Airy’s failure only by geocentrists who try to represent it as an experiment that shows that it is the motion of the stars that gives rise to stellar aberration. That is a fundamental misinterpretation of the physics. In fact stellar aberration tells us nothing about the motion of the source and only about the motion of the observer at right angles to the light path from the source to the observer.

Simply, it was found that over a year the stars move in a 360 degree turn.

Simply, you are wrong. Over a year, the stars’ apparent position changes by an amount that shows the earth’s changing velocity with respect to incoming starlight as predicted by the Keplerian orbit of the earth around the sun. In fact, stars at the celestial pole describe a tiny very low eccentricity ellipse (actually, the eccentricity is exactly equal to the eccentricity of the earth’s orbit around as measured by direct measurements of the earth’s distance from the sun) with a maximum amplitude of about 20 arc seconds, while those on the ecliptic describe a straight line with a similar amplitude.

This was lauded as proof for an orbiting earth, but as any first year physics student should know - if they were allowed think - the phenomenon could be caused by an orbiting stars.

First of all, since you know far less physics than any first student, it is not surprising that you don’t know that stellar aberration cannot be used to say anything about the velocity of the source (ie the star), and secondly, even if it could, who can accept an entire universe that wobbles elliptically around the earth with major axes equal to the predicted Keplerian orbit of the earth around the sun, and with an orientation precisely on the ecliptic (the plane that includes the earth and the sun). With no dynamical explanation for such a bizarre motion of the universe, why would anyone think such a thing?

Now if any scientist did this simple test with two telescopes, one filled with water, the other as normal (air) and proved it was the earth that moved, then they would be named in history. But, guess what? It was not until Airy in 1824 did it that science admitted they found it was the stars that moved relative to the earth.

But that is a fundamental misrepresentation of the Airy experiment - stellar aberration can determine nothing about the motion of the star, so “science” has never “admitted” as a result of any stellar aberration measurement that it is stars which move and not the earth.

Somehow I don’t think you got this from the brilliant hecd2 above?

Perhaps if you read carefully and think hard you’ll get it now.

Alec
evolutionpages.com