Galileo's Recanting

[hecd2]

I’m going to step back a bit and try to see where my understanding fails, so I’ll ask a few questions.

1. Do the earth and the sun exert equal and opposite gravitational attractions upon each other?
2. Does F=ma apply to both the earth and the sun?
3. Does the earth therefore experience an acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the sun?
4. Does the earth move in response to this acceleration?

And finally, if geocentrism is true,

1. What causes the sun to revolve about the earth?

This is perceptive, because dynamics and kinematics are not equivalent. Although Galilean relativity, which describes what Cassini claims, is true, it does not affect our ability to detect forces that cause accelerations. As I point out in my critique of geocentrism ( evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm ) saying that a flea jumps off the earth and lands on it again is not the same as saying that the earth jumps off the flea and lands on it again. The surface of the earth is not at rest in an inertial frame so it cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[grannymh]

Where does one find in the deposit of faith that “the earth is the center of the world and does not move”?

Matters of science are not in the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit of Faith consists of Divine Revelation which was completed by Jesus Christ, the Fullness of All Revelation. “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 65-67.

Furthermore, no matter how often individual high ranking churchmen threw around the word heresy, there was no formal heresy because what the earth does is not a matter of faith and morals. This can be found on a mile of posts on old threads.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

 

[cassini]

So then there is dogmatic issues with the Church with regard to its teaching and the scientific discovery that Galileo had to recant.

Yes, sambos, very, very serious implications, so serious that Churchmen have been misrepresenting the Galileo case for centuries now. The greatest scandal and whitewash in the history of the Church without question.

As regards the promise of Christ that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, well be at peace. An indept search has revealed to me that the 1616 decree, that ‘immutable’ decree according to the Church of 1633 and 1820, has never been abrogated, thus infallibility is safe.

PS. 'the scientific theory, not discovery, that Galileo had to recant.

 

[cassini]

I’m going to step back a bit and try to see where my understanding fails, so I’ll ask a few questions.

1. Do the earth and the sun exert equal and opposite gravitational attractions upon each other?
2. Does F=ma apply to both the earth and the sun?
3. Does the earth therefore experience an acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the sun?
4. Does the earth move in response to this acceleration?

And finally, if geocentrism is true,

1. What causes the sun to revolve about the earth?

Mike. You are here using Newtonianism in your questions. Newton merely put a matematical face to heliocentricism. He did not present one single proof for the gravitational theory of the Royal Society. All Newton did was present another theory. La Sage also presented an alternative theory of PUSHING FORCES to move cosmic bodies. If you want to place your FAITH in Newton you can (Free will). Personally I now place my faith in the teaching of the Church as spelled out in official papal decree of 1616.

What Causes the sun and universe to revolve around the earth? No man will ever discover that mystery. Personally I go for the will of God as the Fathers held.

 

[sambos671]

Yes, sambos, very, very serious implications, so serious that Churchmen have been misrepresenting the Galileo case for centuries now. The greatest scandal and whitewash in the history of the Church without question.

As regards the promise of Christ that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, well be at peace. An indept search has revealed to me that the 1616 decree, that ‘immutable’ decree according to the Church of 1633 and 1820, has never been abrogated, thus infallibility is safe.

PS. 'the scientific theory, not discovery, that Galileo had to recant.

Why did the Church need to say anything about it at all. If the scriptures are silent in certain matters of science why could he the church also be silent about it?

 

[VociMike]

Mike. You are here using Newtonianism in your questions. Newton merely put a matematical face to heliocentricism. He did not present one single proof for the gravitational theory of the Royal Society. All Newton did was present another theory. La Sage also presented an alternative theory of PUSHING FORCES to move cosmic bodies. If you want to place your FAITH in Newton you can (Free will). Personally I now place my faith in the teaching of the Church as spelled out in official papal decree of 1616.

But you didn’t answer my simple questions. Just tell me “#1 is false” or “#3 is incorrect”. Tell me where the error in my understanding is to be found.

Simply go down my list of questions and tell me which are true and which are false. I repeat them here for your convenience:

1. Do the earth and the sun exert equal and opposite gravitational attractions upon each other?
2. Does F=ma apply to both the earth and the sun?
3. Does the earth therefore experience an acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the sun?
4. Does the earth move in response to this acceleration?

And finally, if geocentrism is true,

1. What causes the sun to revolve about the earth?

 

[cassini]

Do you have a authoritative source that shows that NASA always uses the geocentric frame? If they are putting up earth satellites, they might well do, but they do not for interplanetary missions such as the Cassini-Huygens Saturn probe. In that case they might use a geocentric frame for the launch, but can you imagine any idiot using a geocentric frame to calculate the interplanetary trajectory (never mind the complete idiocy of using a geostatic frame)?

You have been corrected about this before, so what you are doing here is indulging in wilful ignorance or worse.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Now I want you all to see what hecd2 is proposing above. Just think about it. The earth, according to hecd2, and the vast bulk of the rest of the human race, is moving through space at 70,000MPH. Now here he is trying to say that when sending up space probes they do so heliocentrically, i.e., they do so from a 70,000MPH moving base. Now what they are aiming at is also moving at great speed. Every second the positions are moving towards one another or away from one another at thousands of mph. Can you imagine the computers needed to be able to work out the computations needed in a heliocentric model.

Working it out geocentrically, the earth is at rest and the planet is moving around the sun. Now it is not the position of the planet relative to the sun that counts for a safe landing, but the planet’s position relative to the earth at the time. So it is infinitely easier to work out the maths of one moving body relative to the other than using two moving bodies relative to each other. If NASA are using hecd"'s H model then I suggest someone ring them and tell them that the earth is at rest in a G model and thus easier to work out the flightpath. I think they know this already.

And here is one for you hecd2. If the spaceship on a 70,000 MPH earth is shot into space at 5,000MPH, what speed should it be going at as it leaves the earth’s gravitational influence, 5,000 MPH ot 75,000MPH? Galileo discovered that a body on a moving body is moving at the moving body’s speed, yes? So, the spaceship SHOULD leave the earth’s atmosphere into space at 75,000MPH, yes? So we can then calculate the time needed to travel the distance to the other planets, yes? So, do the maths fit the H model or the G model?

 

[cassini]

But you didn’t answer my simple questions. Just tell me “#1 is false” or “#3 is incorrect”. Tell me where the error in my understanding is to be found.

Simply go down my list of questions and tell me which are true and which are false. I repeat them here for your convenience:

1. Do the earth and the sun exert equal and opposite gravitational attractions upon each other?
2. Does F=ma apply to both the earth and the sun?
3. Does the earth therefore experience an acceleration due to the gravitational attraction of the sun?
4. Does the earth move in response to this acceleration?

And finally, if geocentrism is true,

1. What causes the sun to revolve about the earth?

1. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the sun have a gravitational attraction. That is heliocentricism. No such influence exists in the Geocentric model.
2. Only in the Heliocentric theory does F=ma apply.
3. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the earth move, so acceleration to gravitational attraction does not apply
4. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the earth move. The earth does not move in the G model.
5. I say proper cosmic movements are caused by electromagnetic effects.

 

[VociMike]

1. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the sun have a gravitational attraction. That is heliocentricism. No such influence exists in the Geocentric model.

So you’re saying that gravity doesn’t exist? Or that the sun has no mass? Or what?

1. Only in the Heliocentric theory does F=ma apply.

So what is the correct relationship between force, mass and acceleration?

 

[cassini]

Matters of science are not in the Deposit of Faith. The Deposit of Faith consists of Divine Revelation which was completed by Jesus Christ, the Fullness of All Revelation. “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 65-67.

Furthermore, no matter how often individual high ranking churchmen threw around the word heresy, there was no formal heresy because what the earth does is not a matter of faith and morals. This can be found on a mile of posts on old threads.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is worthy of profound respect.

Granny, The BIBLE says the sun moves and infers the earth is fixed at the centre of the universe. Galileo challenged this. He said no one in the Church could interpret such passages correctly that that was a matter for science. The Church said that interpretations of Scripture (Revelation) were under the auspices of the Church and NO ONE ELSE. The Church reaffirmed the Bible reveals a moving sun and a fixed earth. In other words, the Church defined and declared WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS. That is a matter of FAITH. That is why they deemed it FORMAL HERSEY.

But the antichrists attacked the Church’s RIGHT to interpret scripture. They then conspired to bring about Heliocentric consensus (no scientific proofs are possible to man) and used their consensus science to undermine the Church’s ability to read the scriptures infallibly. It worked. The ‘Father of Lies’ managed to fool the collective intelligence and faith of nearly every man, woman and child.

Today we have amateur theologians like yourself granny, and trained Modernist theologians repeating what Galileo was condemned for. Galileo lied at his trial and thus could not be found guilty of formal heresy. Instead they found him guilty of suspected heresy.

Hereunder a letter that sum up the Church’s position on faith and science.

SIR –
Peter Wilson points out that the Church has no competence “in questions of paleontological fact”. Quite so. The Magisterium has no competence or authority to affirm any of the theories of science. She cannot affirm, nor even “accept”, theories of universal gravitation, of electro-magnetism, of nuclear physics or of astronomy. (Though the vast majority of Catholics believe that the earth revolves around the sun, it is not part of the teaching of the Church, and the Church, as the Church, has no means of “accepting” heliocentrism. It is not part of the faith.)

Likewise, the Catholic Church cannot (ever) affirm or accept the theory of evolution, which arose outside of Revelation and is therefore “alien” to the teaching of the Church, as are other theories of science. The Catholic Church, quite simply, does not have a divine “mandate” to affirm the theories of science.

However, the Catholic Church does have a competence, negatively, to deny that any theory of science is true if she judges the theory to be contrary to the faith of the Church. For this, the Church does not require any competence in any particular area of science but makes the judgment from her own divinely given “competence” to infallibly judge matters relating to faith and morals.

Thus the Church does not need to know any of the science involved, or what scientific theories may be contradicted, in affirming that Jesus walked on the water, and that He rose from the dead. Similarly, whereas the Magisterium of the Church cannot affirm that the theory of evolution is true, if she came to believe that the theory of evolution was contrary to Revealed Truth, she has the competence (without any competence in palaeontology) to repudiate the theory of evolution as contrary to the faith.

Yours faithfully,
Fr. Neil Evans
St Benedict’s church,
Sketty, Swansea

 

[cassini]

So you’re saying that gravity doesn’t exist? Or that the sun has no mass? Or what?

So what is the correct relationship between force, mass and acceleration?

No I am not saying gravity does not exist. Gravity exists on earth, on the moon and probably on every planet out there. What Newton said was that gravity extends from the sun TO the planets and from every other body in the universe to every other body in the universe.

Now there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a FACT, none.

‘Mass’ is a word invented by Newton, but has caused science a lot of problems. For amateurs like ourselves it conjures up an image of SIZE and the biggest the most powerful. A big baloon and a little marbel show that ‘mass’ must be qualified a little more. Is it weight now? But have cosmic bodies in space ‘weight’? Newton used this magic word to get everyone believing in his theory, it is as flux as he needed and no one could measure ‘mass’ to prove his theory wrong.

We can work out on earth the correct relationship between force, weight and acceleration. We can work out on the moon when we are there the correct relationship between force, weight and acceleration. But what you mean is the the correct relationship between force, mass and acceleration between cosmic bodies. Well you can make them up to fit a theory if you know distances, speeds and orbits. But they are only make up mathematical ad hocs.

Let me go one step further. Newton and other physicists could measured the correct relationship between force, ‘mass’ (weight and size) and acceleration on earth. All he had to do then was use these ratios and apply them to a heliocentric theory, this way it all looked like his laws worked for heliocentricism also. It was very clever.

 

[cassini]

Why did the Church need to say anything about it at all. If the scriptures are silent in certain matters of science why could he the church also be silent about it?

Sambos, The Church was not the one who instigated the problem. It was well known even at the time of Copernicus (1546) that the theory of a fixed sun was contrary to many passages in the Bible. Copernicus knew that relativity meant that man cannot prove either H or G. He knew that the H model was a perfectly legitimate model for working out movements and positions of cosmic bodies relative to each other. The Church had no problem with its use as a mathematical calculater.

But along came Galileo. He was so full of pride that he bknew the Bible was the only thing that stood in his way to becoming one of the most famous men in history. He alone wanted to go down in history as the man who discovered the world is H. So, he had to get rid of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. HThis led to the Church’s DEFENCE of Scripture as ordered by TRENT. The Church HAS to defend its infallible source of revelation. Bellarmine compared the Bible’s revelation of a moving sun to the Virgin Birth, for BOTH are revealed by the same Book. If one falls then what else in the Bible could be said to have been interpreded incorrectly. Pope urban VIII said that this heresy was a GREAT DANGER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH for it would cast a doubt on everything.

That is why the Church defined and declared H formal heresy.

Going to walk the dog now so I’ll answer other posts later.

 

[VociMike]

No I am not saying gravity does not exist. Gravity exists on earth, on the moon and probably on every planet out there. What Newton said was that gravity extends from the sun TO the planets and from every other body in the universe to every other body in the universe.

Now there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a FACT, none.

Do you disagree that the sun is “held together” by gravity?

Do you disagree that if one could stand on the surface of the sun one would feel the gravitational pull of the sun?

 

[grannymh]

So then there is dogmatic issues with the Church with regard to its teaching and the scientific discovery that Galileo had to recant.

There are no Dogmatic issues regarding the movement or non-movement of the earth because Dogma in its official, formal understanding involves issues of Divine Revelation. The period of Divine Revelation is complete with Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Now if one is talking about scientific opinions, then the use of the non-related dogma should be understood in the context of a lot of hot tempers.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[hildegaard]

Actually, you got it wrong. Here is Galileo recanting (just before his death):

The falsity of the Copernican system
should not in any way be called into
question, above all, not by Catholics, since
we have the unshakeable authority of the
Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most
erudite theologians, whose consensus
gives us certainty regarding the stability of
the Earth, situated in the center, and the
motion of the sun around the Earth. The
conjectures employed by Copernicus and
his followers in maintaining the contrary
thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that
most solid argument deriving from the
omnipotence of God. He is able to bring
about in different ways, indeed, in an
infinite number of ways, things that,
according to our opinion and observation,
appear to happen in one particular way.
We should not seek to shorten the hand of
God and boldly insist on something
beyond the limits of our competence….
D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I am writing
the enclosed letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio,
from whom I have heard no news lately. I
entrust it to Your Excellency to kindly
make sure he receives it

Galileo Galilei

Stillman Drake, Galileo At Work:
His Scientific Biography, Chicago, London, The
University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 417.

as quoted in the book Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II, Robert Sungenis

 

[hecd2]

1. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the sun have a gravitational attraction. That is heliocentricism. No such influence exists in the Geocentric model.
2. Only in the Heliocentric theory does F=ma apply.
3. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the earth move, so acceleration to gravitational attraction does not apply
4. Only in the Heliocentric theory does the earth move. The earth does not move in the G model.
5. I say proper cosmic movements are caused by electromagnetic effects.

Nuff said.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[VociMike]

Nuff said.

I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it. One of us certainly has the wrong understanding of Fides et Ratio.

 

[sambos671]

Sambos, The Church was not the one who instigated the problem.** It was well known even at the time of Copernicus (1546) that the theory of a fixed sun was contrary to many passages in the Bible**. Copernicus knew that relativity meant that man cannot prove either H or G. He knew that the H model was a perfectly legitimate model for working out movements and positions of cosmic bodies relative to each other. The Church had no problem with its use as a mathematical calculater.

But along came Galileo.** He was so full of pride that he bknew the Bible was the only thing that stood in his way to becoming one of the most famous men in history**. He alone wanted to go down in history as the man who discovered the world is H. So, he had to get rid of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture. HThis led to the Church’s DEFENCE of Scripture as ordered by TRENT. The Church HAS to defend its infallible source of revelation. Bellarmine compared the Bible’s revelation of a moving sun to the Virgin Birth, for BOTH are revealed by the same Book. If one falls then what else in the Bible could be said to have been interpreded incorrectly. Pope urban VIII said that this heresy was a GREAT DANGER TO THE CATHOLIC FAITH for it would cast a doubt on everything.

That is why the Church defined and declared H formal heresy.

Going to walk the dog now so I’ll answer other posts later.

What scriptures would force a geocentric view?

 

[VociMike]

Cassini, I have a speculative question. If I were in a room with the pope and asked him if a Catholic was allowed to believe that the earth orbits around the sun (or around the center of mass of the solar system, if you like), what do you imagine he would answer me?

 

[cassini]

Do you disagree that the sun is “held together” by gravity?

Do you disagree that if one could stand on the surface of the sun one would feel the gravitational pull of the sun?

I do not know if the sun is “held together” by gravity .

I do not know if one could stand on the surface of the sun one would feel the gravitational pull of the sun.

What have these questions got to do with anything.