Geocentric Universe?

[mchale]

Check with NASA. Ask them what model they used for their spaceshots. You will find they use a stationary earth model.

Actually, that is only partially correct. Most of their trajectories for near earth missions are calculated as if the center of the Earth is stationary but that the Earth itself is rotating (They rely quite a bit on the fact that the Earth is rotating to get their spacecraft to orbit actually… that is why rockets generally take off with an eastward trajectory and why Florida is preferred as a launching site to say Maine).

That being said, once you get into the more complicated trajectories that NASA uses to get its spacecraft to redevous (as opposed to flybys) with other planets, where 2, 3 or more flybys of other planets occur and I think you will find that the NASA orbital dynamics people will happily treat any nearby planet as stationary and the rest of the system as moving.

–
Bill

 

[rpp]

NASA believes that the earth is the motionless center of the universe? This should be on the evening news.

Incorrect. They use the same formulas I use.

 

[hecd2]

You have abandoned several discussions with me (about the CMBA, about the universe as a gyroscope, about Walt van der Kamp’s errors and Sungenis misuse of them, and about Sungenis’s misuse of Ragazzoni’s work) because your knowledge of the subject is simply not sufficient to engage in an informed debate. Here we go again.

If you’re going to claim a statement is false then explain how it is false. Look, Arp, and everyone who has studied redshifts, knows that there are other causes of redshift - like gravitational and radial velocity redshifts. But if you look at redshift values, you’ll see that they assign a directly proportional distance to those objects - Arp is right.

No, he is not, if indeed that is what he meant (although it is obviously what *you *mean). Astronomers have long distinguished between the component of redshift associated with peculiar velocities in resolved galaxies and cosmological redshift. Gravitational redshift is a tiny effect compared to cosmological redshift (it is one part in 100,000 in the CMB). What Arp wants to introduce is intrinsic redshift, a substantial redshift sometimes equivalent to z>1caused by some unknown physics in the body or group of bodies that is different from cosmological, Doppler and gravitational redshift. The problem is that there is no evidence for this at all - the so called anomalies are one in a million and explainable by coincidence; and the cosmological source of redshift is supported by multiple lines of evidence including the existence of standard candles such as Cepheids, SN1as, X-ray bursts etc etc.

And that’s because those other causes are unique to each object, and obviously you can’t try to calculate that for every object in the universe!

That’s not Arp’s argument - he knows that gravitational redshift is tiny compared to the other effects, and that astronomers can distinguish between Doppler and cosmological redshift by comparing objects within resolvable galaxies. He wants to introduce a fourth cause: intrinsic redshift.

But in some important cases they do try to calculate it, but that’s the exception not the rule. Nor is it relevant to this case where the quasar has a redshift almost 15 times higher than the galaxy it’s sitting next to. From the article:

“NGC 4319 has a redshift (the fractional amount that observed wavelengths of spectral lines in a galaxy are shifted relative to the wavelengths at rest, (lobs - l rest) / lrest ) of 0.00468, while Mrk 205 has a redshift of 0.071. If redshifts imply distance, as almost all astronomers believe, then Mrk 205 is almost 15 times farther away than NGC 4319.”

That is most likely the correct interpretation. Mrk205 is 15 times further away than NGC4319. Why should we think otherwise when cases of apparently connected bodies with anomalous redshift are so rare that Arp has been beating the drum about this one case for 30 years. If redshifts are not primarily cosmological, we want to know why standard candles work, what the physics of intrinsic redshift is, and why amongst all the tens of thousands of known quasars there are no more than a tiny handful of apparently anomalous cases which, on closer inspection, are easily explained by the standard model.

Here is that evidence for a person being physically connected to the moon again:



Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

 

[Alethios]

What is ruled out [by the Magisterium]:

Evolution that does not include Adam and Eve
Evolution that does not allow Eve coming from Adam
Evolution that is unguided
Evolution that is materialistic

Also ruled out: Evolution - the formation of new biotic kinds - that continued after the six days of creation.
For on the seventh day God rested from all He had created. No new kinds/‘baramin’ have been created since.

…evolution is agreed upon by 99% of reputable scientists in the world. There is literally no case for the world being a few thousand years old, according to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

We say 98% is closer. We offer the same proof as above - none.

There’s no case for a world > 6 thousand years, with no prehistory being testable under the authentic scientific method.

What exactly is wrong with accepting theistic evolution? Isn’t God capable of speaking in metaphors in the Bible, just as he told parables whilst on earth?

The NT parables were said to be so, and understood to be so, by the disciples.
For thousands of years the Genesis creation verses were held to be literal by the Jews and the Fathers, until 150 yrs ago.
So, did God’s words change in the last century and a half, or did Biblical revisionists change them?

Which other catechisms teach geocentrism ? If they do not, this does not suggest that the issue is of any very great importance.

The CC is only a summary of some Magisterial teaching… ; geostatism is included under the general belief in biblical inerrancy.

Papal and council decrees like Pius XII’s “Human Generis” are what have allowed Catholics to believe in science…

…science, that is, does not conflict with revealed truth.

The Holy Mother Church teaches that we are free to belief in evolution and heliocentrism, and the matter is as simple as that.

Once the discussion concerns what the Church teaches, then the sole authority is the Magisterium. Unless the following echo the Magisterium, they are not guaranteed sources of authentic belief: JPII, PB16, Dulles, Schoenborn , Chardin, McBrien, Reese, Coyne, Jaki, Consolmagno, Barr, Shea, Keating, cassini, not even Alethios.

What is not simple are the vague specifications of belief above: we are free to believe in MICRO- evolution and heliocentrism that excludes the Earth as a planet or treats HC as a model of convenience, not reality.

…since when are tribunal papal decrees considered to be infallible?

Tribunal papal decrees in which the Pope appoints the tribunal and approves the results are considered to be correct, immutable and irrevocable.

Let’s reason this out:
Who defined infallibility??? … the Pope! he declared himself infallible - under prescribed conditions.
Now he had to be infallible to say this, that is , he was infallible before stating so. Else he was fallible in declaring infallibility.
Backpedal to the Galileo rulings - he was infallible then, in what he ruled himself or approved by the actions of the Holy Office.
Like the Immaculate Conception, infallibility was always thought to be resident in the Magisterium, until it was formally delared a part of the faith deposit.

… Heliocentric theory is no longer a scientific theory because it presumes the sun is immobile.

So Galilean science proved that geostatism was wrong and heliocentrism is right.
Then modern science changed its mind and said acentrism is right.
So science was wrong in the past and maybe it still is? So why base any search for truth on such a fickle science?

Meanwhile the Magisterium (not the Church’s modernist teachers) has always held that geostatism is true.

And how can we have true free will if we don’t have options?

An insight that can be usefully extended - to include why there is an order in the universe, a set of predictable relations bewteen natural causes and their effects. How can there be free will in the midst of chaos? If no action has predictable results, we can’t be responsible for any act.

The only thing really said about Copernicanism is that it can’t be held as true because it is contrary to the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. But according to the Index decree, his books could be published if corrected, and I believe it was the fact that in the books it was proposed as fact that the earth moved and the sun is motionless. Correcting this to posit this as a theory would suffice for its puiblication and removal from the index.

HC is OK as an abstraction , heretical as a fact.

Of course, people of faith know that no “proof” from science could ever disprove any dogmas of the Church, so any new interpretation of scripture would necessarily still be in conformance with previous interpretations. It must be granted that if the Church has the ability to infallibly interpret scripture, she most definitely has the ability to offer multiple and yet still infallible interpretations of the same passage.

As a point of fact, has the Magisterium ever done multiple and yet still infallible interpretations of the same passage?

Yes, for many verses are both literal and symbolic.

AMDG

 

[tjm190]

Also ruled out: Evolution - the formation of new biotic kinds - that continued after the six days of creation.

so evolution in general?

There’s no case for a world > 6 thousand years, with no prehistory being testable under the authentic scientific method.

madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-08/965364844.Es.r.html

 

[yankee_doodle]

you guys are really debating the merits of geocentrism? :

Wow … now I heard it all!

 

[Luke65]

You have abandoned several discussions with me…

I didn’t abandon the discussion - I’m studying! And putting together a complete response to the questions and objections raised here. As far as the Arp thing goes, while what you said is true (except I believe that Arp has falsified the standard redshift formula), it’s not what we were talking about. Arp made a general statement that mainstream science believes that redshift equals distance. It was challenged so I pointed out, from the article you linked, that they say the same thing - no big deal. But I agree that Arp’s “intrinsic redshift” is questionable, if not dubious.

 

[masterjedi747]

I’m currently back at college, so my (name removed by moderator)ut here will be very limited, however…

Tribunal papal decrees in which the Pope appoints the tribunal and approves the results are considered to be correct, immutable and irrevocable.

Not so simple. According to Canon Law, there are TWO WAYS that the Pope can approve the results of a tribunal:* in forma communi *and in forma specifica. If he approves the tribunal decision *in forma *specifica, then yes, be on the lookout for infallible Church teaching. But if it is simply approved in forma communi, then it falls under the realm of the ordinary/usual form of papal teaching, which is not infallible.

Who defined infallibility??? … the Pope! he declared himself infallible - under prescribed conditions.

Do you realize how very (deliberately) limited those conditions are?
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Strict conditions for infallible declarations aside, also note the following:
“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.” trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

Backpedal to the Galileo rulings - he was infallible then, in what he ruled himself or approved by the actions of the Holy Office.

The Pope approved the 1616 decision in forma communi.
And he never even signed the 1633 condemnation of Galileo.
The 1870 decree didn’t rise beyond the level of ordinary papal teaching, either.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Check with NASA. Ask them what model they used for their spaceshots. You will find they use a stationary earth model.

Doesn’t look like it to me…

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/mission/images/trajectory7-med.jpg

marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/mission/trajectory-image.html
library.thinkquest.org/12145/orbits3.htm

I am of course talking about leaving then returning to earth. If the orbit of earth was not taken into account then you would end up millions of miles out. The idea the the earth is at the center of the solar system, let alone the universe is absurd.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The NT parables were said to be so, and understood to be so, by the disciples.
For thousands of years the Genesis creation verses were held to be literal by the Jews and the Fathers, until 150 yrs ago.
So, did God’s words change in the last century and a half, or did Biblical revisionists change them?

I would imagine given the overwhelming evidence for evolution intellectual honesty changed them.

 

[hecd2]

I didn’t abandon the discussion - I’m studying! And putting together a complete response to the questions and objections raised here. As far as the Arp thing goes, while what you said is true (except I believe that Arp has falsified the standard redshift formula), it’s not what we were talking about. Arp made a general statement that mainstream science believes that redshift equals distance. It was challenged so I pointed out, from the article you linked, that they say the same thing - no big deal. But I agree that Arp’s “intrinsic redshift” is questionable, if not dubious.

Arp’s intrinsic redshift is “questionable if not dubious” but Arp has “falsified the standard redshift formula”? You’re not making sense.

Arp has been promoting his case that red shifts do not correspond to a cosmological expansion for decades and he has failed to persuade the astronomical and cosmological community, because his case started out weak and has got weaker with the detection of tens of thousands of quasars, the development of a consistent explanation for what quasars are, the publication of several large scale galactic surveys, the measurement of thousands of standard candles, the detection of multiple events such as novae and supernovae in which the precursor and the products of the event lie at the same redshift, and the detection and measurement of the CMB and its anisotropy, all of which support Hubble expansion. Meanwhile he puts forward a tiny handful of apparently anomalous cases of visual alignment, all of which are explained by coincidence, and suggests an alternative to Hubble expansion which requires some bizarre unknown physics. Arp lost the argument long ago

Alec
evolutionpages.com/third_year_wmap.htm

 

[pickguard1]

Athelios and (and others), if you could, please use the quotation tab at the bottom of the post you are quoting (there is even a multi-quote tab). I know it can be a bit tedious, but it helps if the original posters are identified, so we can go back and easily find the context of the specific quotes. I’ve noticed a few tidbits that I think came from some of my earlier posts mixed in with posts from others. I sometimes can’t remember which ones were mine and which were others…anyway, this would be helpful to me at least

 

[Alethios]

God wrote the Bible through men, protecting them from spiritual error, but not from historical or scientific error.

This comes at the issue from the wrong direction. Start with the Bible containing the truth and nothing but the truth, no matter what subject its verses may be arbitrarily classified as.
It’s all true, regardless of the human scribe or its spiritual, historical, symbolic or scientific content.

By your way of it, the Church has been wrong for over 270 years - so it is a bit late to try salvaging the Church’s competence to teach doctrine

Many Churchmen are teaching doctrine in heresy, as in the days of Arius and Pelagius
But the Magisterium is not. The Magisterium has been right for 2000 years.

I would still like some evidence from magisterial texts - such as catechisms - that support your position by emphasising the importance of geocentrism.

The catechism is only a summary of all Magisterial teaching, along with some topics that are not Magisterial; geostatism is included under the general belief in biblical inerrancy.

Read the rulings of the Galilean tribunals and Pope Urban

So why were its volumes given the Imprimatur ? Maybe the clerics who provided these licences & permissions saw no heresy.

Individual clerics are not Magisterial; the Pope’s Imprimatur would certainly count.

If any of them were, or became, bishops, that would have serious consequences for the visibility of the Church & the perpetuity of the Faith.

Most Amchurch bishops have more serious problems than allowing the geocentrism heresy.
Here’s a section of the ordination rite of a bishop - the examination and sacred vows of the future bishop.

Principal Consecrator: An age-old custom of the Fathers decrees that a bishop-elect is to be questioned before the people on his resolve to uphold the faith and to discharge his duties faithfully.
My brother, are you resolved by the grace of the Holy Spirit to discharge to the end of your life the office the apostles entrusted to us, which we now pass on to you by the laying on of hands?
Bishop-Elect: I am.
Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved to be faithful and constant in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ.
Bishop-Elect: I am.
Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved to maintain the deposit of faith, entire and incorrupt, as handed down by the apostles and professed by the Church everywhere and at all time
Bishop-Elect: I amPrincipal Consecrator: Are you resolved to build up the Church as the body of Christ and to remain united to it within the order of bishops under the authority of the successor of the apostle Peter?
Bishop-Elect: I am.
Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved to be faithful in your obedience to the successor of the apostle Peter?
Bishop-Elect: I am.Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved as a devoted father to sustain the people of God and to guide them in the way of salvation in cooperation with the priests and deacons who share your ministry?
Bishop-Elect: I am.
Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved to show kindness and compassion in the name of the Lord to the poor and to strangers and to all who are in need?

Bishop-Elect: I am.

Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved as a good shepherd to seek out the sheep who stray and to gather them into the fold of the Lord?

Bishop-Elect: I am.

Principal Consecrator: Are you resolved to pray for the people of God without ceasing, and to carry out the duties of one who has the fullness of the priesthood so as to afford no grounds for reproach?
Bishop-Elect: I am, with the help of God.

AMDG

 

[Thing]

The idea the the earth is at the center of the solar system, let alone the universe is absurd.

The Earth is at the center of everything.

 

[Alethios]

Whether or not species alter over a long course of time is 100% irrelevant to what the first cause of life was.

Both are unfalsifiable, requiring experiments done in the past.

…the fact that the Vatican has monogenesis as a doctrine is troubling.

It’s the Magisterium that holds to monogenesis. Not accepting higher authority will always cause troubles.

Monogenesis is forced upon the Church by the Bible - The Magisterium is forced to repeat the truth, no matter how tempting the lure of idle speculation. Forced to tell the truth, when everyone wants to boldly go where no man has gone before. A terrible situation… to some.

It’s noteworthy a few researchers on primates believe that there is evidence that some of the same cognitive faculties used in religious experience, are found in other primates, though not to the same degree.

Why is this noteworthy? That we share some mental capabilities with animals is obvious - who denies it?

Another interesting thing is there was a huge explosion of artistic activity in modern Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago,

What scientist was present to log this in their notes 50 Kya? There’s no credible scientific chronometer that exceeds 10000 years ago. 50 Kya is 10 times older than the limits of scientific history.

However, lets assume that geocentricity was proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. Will you accept the scientific evidence or reject it because “THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL and IRREVERSABLE ( i.e. immutable, i.e., infallible)”?

We will accept or reject the objective evidence according to the scientific method. Will anyone join us?

Believing in evolution does NOT mean rejecting God or Adam and Eve as our first parents. It just calls for an alternative interpretation (which seems perfectly fine as long as it does not contradict Church dogma). It also does not take away from the spiritual truths found in Genesis.

Aye, matey, but there’s the rub - what alternative interpretation (which does not contradict Church dogma), also does not take away from the spiritual truths found in Genesis?
How can the ceasing of creation after 6 days be reconciled with continuing creation? … right - it can’t.

What is “true science” in your book?

The true scientific method, as described before.

The biggest advocate against geocentricism is gravity.

Replace gravity with aether/firmament… what’s the problem now?

Now, could there be a supernatural force keeping the Earth at bay but also spinning as it naturally would around the Sun? sure, but it would have to be supernatural.

Brush up on the aether concept; then we can talk.
Or do you mean everything created is supernatural, since nothing natural can create itself?

Are there any Christians who think that God could not have made the Earth the gravitational center of the universe?"

…the “gravitational” center? of course He could have, but He didn’t. Why? because the planets still revolve around the Sun. That much is provable.

Think push of an aether vortex, not pull of Newton’s gravity.
The planets do revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the statet - the Earth. Consistent with Revelation - and astronomy.

the Sun is mobile and it is NOT the center of the universe.

Progress - you’re halfway to geostatism!

God wrote the Bible through men, protecting them from spiritual error, but not from historical or scientific error.

God is the author of Holy Writ, not the scribes. All of the Bible is true; the rest of it is in error.

Even if 99% of scientists are avowed atheists, that doesn’t damper their credibility regarding factual evidence regarding evolution.

It’s the interpretation of experiments that challenges their credibility, rarely the factual evidence.

If ideology doesn’t affect judgment, why are all faith-based interpretations of facts dismissed immediately… like a global flood?
Why is NASA on a crusade to find water and signs of life on other worlds? That would, they think, discredit faith beliefs.

All respectable scientists in the world believe in evolution.

hyperbole: extravagant exaggeration Merriam-Webster

And define respectable…

Fundamentalists or ultra-traditionalists sometimes will attempt to write up a critique of evolution, which don’t stand up for a week in open scientific journals. That’s why they never, ever contribute to these journals;

Most likely - blacklisting of any religious associations

What evidence could I provide for you to show you just how clear it is that macroevolution is essentially fact?

First abolish the Bible, remove the rational component of thinking, and repeal the scientific method. (or is the last already a fact?)

You know, I believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the WTCs were blown up by interior demolition.

off -topic, but true.

So the Church has been, & still is, in error on what (according to you) is a major issue?

Most of the Churchmen,the modern sons of Arius, yes; the Magisterium, no.

…the Church which has the theology & the doctrine & the theological method that makes them possible, has been in error since 1735 ?

Historically, you could say the left turn started before that - with the Deformation and the Galileo/Copernicus case.

AMDG

 

[mchale]

So lets see here, if we are to take the position of the geocentrists, we have to accept the fact that the Church has allowed a formal heresy to exist for for 400 years now, and that they have done very little to correct that heresy in the last several hundred years. Indeed this heresy has become so pervasive that ostensibly Catholic works were given the imprimatur without any general controversy arising.

Of course maybe, just maybe, the Church has decided that it should get out of the busines on trying to make theological pronouncements on discoveries in science? Maybe it realized that science is subject to the limits of human knowledge and that God never meant the Bible to be a science text book.

–
Bill

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The Earth is at the center of everything.

Sure it is , its not even at the center of our own solar system.

 

[Thing]

Sure it is , its not even at the center of our own solar system.

The center and axis need not be the same.

 

[grannymh]

So lets see here, if we are to take the position of the geocentrists, we have to accept the fact that the Church has allowed a formal heresy to exist for for 400 years now, and that they have done very little to correct that heresy in the last several hundred years. Indeed this heresy has become so pervasive that ostensibly Catholic works were given the imprimatur without any general controversy arising.

Of course maybe, just maybe, the Church has decided that it should get out of the busines on trying to make theological pronouncements on discoveries in science? Maybe it realized that science is subject to the limits of human knowledge and that God never meant the Bible to be a science text book.

–
Bill

There have been posts on what the Imprimatur is not, posts on what infallibility is not, posts on what Catholic doctrine is not, posts on what the Pope and high ranking prelates are not, posts on what formal heresy is not, and other posts too numerous to mention.

 

[cassini]

So lets see here, if we are to take the position of the geocentrists, we have to accept the fact that the Church has allowed a formal heresy to exist for for 400 years now, and that they have done very little to correct that heresy in the last several hundred years. Indeed this heresy has become so pervasive that ostensibly Catholic works were given the imprimatur without any general controversy arising.

Of course maybe, just maybe, the Church has decided that it should get out of the busines on trying to make theological pronouncements on discoveries in science? Maybe it realized that science is subject to the limits of human knowledge and that God never meant the Bible to be a science text book.

–
Bill

Hi Bill. No doubt you and other Copernican heretics, puffed up with intelectual pride could teach Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the unanimous opinion of the best theologians the Church had in 1616 a thing or two. It was a papal decree that established THE CHURCH’s teaching on the matter. Unless you can show me an ABROGATION of this decree THEN IT IS STILL IN FORCE. That is how the LAW works and all in the CHURCH are subject to CANON LAW. It was not THE CHURCH that capitulated to the heresy and allowed it to be unleashed among the flock, but those, including popes, who fell for the so-called ‘proofs’ that falsified the papal decree so they ILLEGIALLY HID the decree and allowed the heresy to contaminate the teachings of the CHURCH like dry rot in a building. Yes, they KNEW a papal decree was immutible so they made it disappear in 1835, not by ABROGATION but with, and I quote Pope Gregory XVI ‘without explicit comment.’ In other words, SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE 1616 DECREE.

Do not try to contaminate the CHURCH with the folly of the heretics in it.

As regards the CHURCH getting out of the business of ‘trying to make theological pronouncements on discoveries in science’, here we see one of the fruits of the Copernican heresy, nothing but contempt for the CHURCH’s defence of its RIGHT to interpret Scripture as GOD mandated.
As regards the Bible, the CHURCH holds it contains no error in both mundane and sacred things.