Geocentric Universe?

[hecd2]

hecd2:

In any case it’s the Sulentic print that has been artificially enhanced and false-coloured, so according to buffalo’s claims, it’s Sulentic who should be vehemently suspected of distortion and outright lies. It’s such a pity when one’s unfair accusations backfire against one’s heroes.

Wow, that’s some heavy spin!

No spin at all. If you look at the history of this discussion you will see that buffalo’s claim is that the enhancement of images and the use of false colour and colouration by NASA is wrong and (his words) “can lead to distortion and outright lies”. In this case, it is not NASA that is enhancing the image but Sulentic. By the way, I have no problem with any scientist including Sulentic using colouration and enhancement techniques to help in the visualisation of of features of interest.

The point wasn’t that there is something wrong with trying to reveal the truth to people, but trying to conceal it! Which is exactly what NASA and SSTI were trying to do - conceal the truth, unashamedly and embarrassingly. Sulentic was trying to reveal the truth.

Well, Arp’s website claims that SSTI was suppressing the feature he was interested in, but in my view the image looks like a pretty well printed image to me, with detail across the density range and the frame. If NASA and SSTI were trying to suppress data, then they made a pretty poor job of it, because the feature in question is plainly there in the original image. Don’t forget that although Arp and Sulentic are obsessed by that one feature, there are other interesting and important details to see in the frame, many of which were lost by Sulentic’s stretching and colouration.

The galaxy’s arm looks like it’s artificially cut off.

Really? How do you know that it has been “artificially” cut off? How do you know what it’s supposed to look like? I can see both spiral arms clearly in the original image, and I have no reason to think that the density of the print in the arms and the main body do not fairly reflect the luminosoty of those regions - do you?

But the point of the “deep print” picture is to highlight the luminous bridge between the galaxy and the quasar in the upper right corner.

Indeed it is, and I have no problem with that (but buffalo does - he thinks that NASA enhances and colours images and that “can lead to distortion and outright lies” - he says so despite being unable to produce a single example. Your example only shows that enhancement and false colouration are legitimate tools).

And it does make it very easy to see that they are obviously physically connected - only a big banger would say otherwise!

Really? Obviously physically connected? In the same way that this image shows that the person is obviously physically connected to the moon?

In fact, if you turn the picture upside-down it looks like an eye with a teardrop dripping from it - how fitting!

Awww. How sweet! Obviously gravity acts in a strange way in the vicinity of NGC4319 and is causing a teardrop (MK205) to drip from it. Right.

This is what mainstream science has come to: releasing a deceptive picture with press release to match, all to try and save the foundation of the Big Bang theory - their red-shift interpretation. If anyone is interested in this, you will find that Arp has a huge collection of images demonstrating that there are multitudes of these galaxy/quasar pairings as well as some galaxy/galaxy pairings, where the first one has a low redshift and the second a high redshift.

Well he has got a few. But if Arp is right and red-shift is not associated with velocity and distance but with some inherent physics in the body (what physics?) then there should be examples all over the sky since we can see billions of galaxies and hundreds of thousands of quasars. And Arp has been beefing about this one case for 38 years. It seems to me far more likely that what we are seeing here is not physical connection but a simple coincidence of features in te region of one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

Arp, the Burbridges and Narlikar have had a fair crack of the whip and they have failed to convince very many of their peers in the professional community because the interpretation of quasars as the cores of high red shift AGNs stands up well and because the cosmological, gravitational and Doppler sources for redshift are supported by the data; and because there is no other evidence for the existence of intrinsic red-shift (or any hint as to what physics would produce it).

But this contradicts the standard interpretation of redshift which says that these objects at the same distance from us should have the same redshift value.

Not quite the same, because we have to take into account peculiar velocity and gravitational effects such as the Sachs-Wolfe effects on the CMB. But quite close.

Given a choice most Catholics would prefer a Big Bang to a Steady State universe from a philosophical perspective, because the former implies a beginning to the universe, but you seem wedded to any and every fringe idea or crank who comes along (I’m not saying that Arp is a crank by the way, but Behe has become one and Sungenis always was one) and opposed to mainstream science on principle (without actually knowing enough science to be able to properly discern). Why?

Alec
evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

 

[Alethios]

CAF threads are typically unstructured and ultimately pointless posturing, unless the discussion is tied to rules of evidence.
In a prior thread on Geocentrism Challenge
the following rules of order were effectively used to focus on truth and reject speculation masquerading as truth.

There are three domains in which common ground must be found; Theology, Philosophy and Science.

Since theology deals with some truths that cannot be known by observation or reason – and CAF is, by title at least, a forum of believers - we start with this ultimate arbiter of truth.
The source of truth is the deposit of faith, the content of Christ’s revelation described in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as defined and interpreted by the Magisterium. The Magisterium’s teachings are immutable and irrevocable, demanding a full assent of belief from the faithful.
There are two types :
Extraordinary: the Pope when speaking ex cathedra or the Bishops, in union with the Pope, defining doctrine at a General Council
Ordinary: universal teaching of all bishops dispersed but in unison and in union with the Pope
In all other cases the Pope or bishops are fallible, but their statements require the submission of intellect and will of a fully-formed conscience.
To be specific, unless the following echo the Magisterium, they are not guaranteed sources of authentic belief: JPII, B16, Dulles, Schoenborn , Chardin, McBrien, Reese, Coyne, Jaki, Consolmagno, Barr, Shea, Keating, cassini, not even Alethios.

The Magisterium has already ruled that Scriptures are inerrant in ALL that they describe.
“Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. “

The hermeneutics approved by Leo XIII, Benedict XV , Pius XII and Roberto Bellarmino is *primo, ad literam *- first, the meaning as written. The literal meaning can be ignored only for a very, very good reason. This is not ad literam solam, ‘only the literal’, the blind belief of fundamentalism, but it does include the possibility of multiple semantics - verses that have both literal and symbolic semantics

The next level of credibility to allow ‘reasoned argument’ , ‘ evidence’ and ‘public scrutiny’ is based on common sense - traditional scholastic philosophy - principally metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic. The foundation is realism, based on such principles as: non-contradiction/action follows being/from nothing comes nothing/no one can give what he hasn’t got, etc.
An hypothesis/cause is proven when it is necessary and sufficient for the consequent/effect. The effect is true, if and only if the cause is true.

Last is the narrowest knowledge domain. Natural science is self-limited to only material phenomena and events that are repeatable and testable via the scientific method.
Knowledge is gained by induction, the testing of individual cases empirically.
The test protocol must repeat the conditions stated or implied in the hypothesis. For example, any test conditions in pre-history are unknown - no human witnesses.
Induction can only result in tentative truth, which will be refuted by the first negative experimental result. All science is truth… pro tem.
The logician Karl Potter has noted that no absolute truth can be attained by empirical induction and that true science must be based on a consistent set of axioms.
For example, adding one more axiom, 1=2 , to the axioms of arithmetic – which are consistent – will enable us to prove that x=y is both true and false for any x and y. Adding just this one axiom then destroys the consistency of the whole system, rendering it worthless. The rotten apple that spoils the whole barrel, as it were.
Goedel has shown that any axiomatic system is incomplete, without aid from outside its domain (like theology).
Arguing either from induction or from incompleteness, science cannot supply a complete theory of everything, despite the hopes of some deluded scientists.

The following is a test application of the three rules to the premise that the Copernican model is true:

Theology: The Copernican model uses a fixed Sun and a kinetic Earth, which the Magisterium has ruled contrary to Revelation.

Philo: A fixed Sun and an Earth in orbital motion logically conflicts with the theory of relativity, which allows any observer to be considered at rest. For Copernicus to be right, Einstein/Relativity must be wrong ==> there must be a preferred reference frame for scientific experiments.

Science: Sun experiments are unfalsifiable because observations by humans or remote devices from the Sun are impossible.
Copernicus uses epicycles for planetary orbits; ellipses are actually observed.
The Copernicus model conflicts with Newtonian motion of the planets around the solar system barycenter.
A fixed Sun contradicts its observations: orbital motion around the Milky Way and its linear motion toward the Virgo cluster(ala CMB dipole interpretation).
So Copernicus conflicts with theology, reasoning and current science. 3 strikes and yer out!

Summary of this organized epistemic plan:
restriction of key faith issues to Magisterial declarations,
the use of realistic scholastic principles for reasoning and logic,
objective science based on the scientific method and testability.

Caution! It’s likely the reader may experience temporary disorientation and confusion; the standard CAF fare normally doesn’t address a systematic approach to truth.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

Just catchin’up, folks… sorry we’re late.

I know the Church condemns the I know the Church condemns the heliocentric theory, and no one really believes the Sun is the center of the universe.
However, does she teach the geocentric theory?

It’s probably more precise to call the Biblical support geostatism, since there are no explicit references to a central location, but many verses establishing that the Earth is static and the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.
see the Geocentric bible online for all the geostatic verses.
To discuss geocentrism as a scientific theory vs. Revelation, the Genesis references to the aether on Day 1 and day 4 must also be included.

By the Church teachings, we mean the Magisterium teachings, nothing else.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Earth is fixed and the Sun and Moon move, which is a geostatic model. It also teaches that there is a firmament/aether that fills the heavens, into which all celestial objects were placed. Call this ‘geostatic plus aether’ the Biblical universe model.
Scripture makes no explicit claim about our world’s centricity.‘Geocentric’ is ambiguous; it requires elaboration of exactly what center is meant.
To deny the Biblical universe model is to say the Bible is errant, which is heretical.
To use the heliocentric model as an abstract computational aid to support mathematical models does not conflict with Revelation, as St. Robert and popes after Galileo pointed out. To believe that the HC model is reality is contrary to Scripture.
In fact, to believe that all the planets orbit the Sun - except the statet Earth - is Biblically compliant. This is part of the neoTychonian model of the Biblical universe belief, a model which is Bible compliant.
The Ptolemaic model assumes all objects orbit the Earth, which is more than the Bible states.

So, does the Magisterium teach the geostatic /aether theory? Yes. … the geocentric theory? Undefined.

However, according to the “Catholic Encyclopedia”
… at one time, it was erroneously believed that the geocentric system was contained in the Bible. …

What is true is that the geostatic/aether system is contained in the Bible. …
In any case the CE is not a Magisterial source.

Are we as Catholics allowed to believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system and the modern scientific view of the universe?

Once the intellect understands the geostatic content of Revelation, any notion that the Earth moves or the Sun doesn’t is contrary to Catholic belief.

Philosophers since the time of Thales of Miletus have looked for a unity in diversity
There is unity and diversity in the community of the Trinity
God is complete in Himself in One Being
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit

Greek philosophers have thought beauty consists of unity in diversity - such as soldiers marching in step.
Scholastics taught that unity in the diversity of nature is a reflection of the Trinity in creation, the ultimate source of beauty. Humans share a unity of being, yet each individual is different. The Three Persons share the unity of the Godhead, yet are distinct from each other.
The abundance of beauty in nature is said to reflect the vain attempt of the finite to imitate the infinite.

What seems to be at the heart of it is that they [Trads] think the Church condemned Galileo for believing in heliocentricity … and if the Church did in fact do that, and the Church is infallible, then geocentricity must be true and infallibly true.
If he was condemned for his heliocentricity, it wasn’t condemned by the Church but a few power-wielding academics who happened to be priests.

The Magisterium put Galileo on trial for teaching Biblical errancy - heliocentricity as reality. This is what Pope Urban and the Defender of the Faith believed.

However, to my knowledge, Galileo wasn’t condemned for this but condemned for heretical remarks about the Eucharist.

Not true. Update your knowledge.

In fact, if I’m not mistaken, Copernicus was actually honored by the Pope for his scientific work. However, anti-Catholic historians have warped this story, some ultra-conservative Catholics have believed them, and hence become geocentric-model supporters.

Can’t speak for others, but our belief in geostatism is based on the Bible as written.

… I’ve read a lot of the Scripture quotes that allegedly deny heliocentricity but I don’t see how they are proofs …

How can the Earth be fixed and the Sun move in a heliocentric system?

most Church fathers have not been translated into english.

Which tracts have not been translated?

I’ve also heard that a couple of Popes back in the day claimed geocentricity and condemned heliocentricity, but I’ve never seen their source on that. Even if the Popes did say that, you could argue it doesn’t pertain to faith and morals, but rather physics, and thus the Popes are unable to make infallible statements about it.

The source for the Popes was Scripture. Disbelief in the Word of God IS a matter of faith and morals, not physics. Revelation is all true, whether we arbitrarily classify it as faith, physics, or otherwise.

AMDG

 

[pickguard1]

Just catchin’up, folks… sorry we’re late.

It’s probably more precise to call the Biblical support geostatism, since there are no explicit references to a central location, but many verses establishing that the Earth is static and the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.
see the Geocentric bible online for all the geostatic verses.
To discuss geocentrism as a scientific theory vs. Revelation, the Genesis references to the aether on Day 1 and day 4 must also be included.

By the Church teachings, we mean the Magisterium teachings, nothing else.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Earth is fixed and the Sun and Moon move, which is a geostatic model. It also teaches that there is a firmament/aether that fills the heavens, into which all celestial objects were placed. Call this ‘geostatic plus aether’ the Biblical universe model.
Scripture makes no explicit claim about our world’s centricity.‘Geocentric’ is ambiguous; it requires elaboration of exactly what center is meant.
To deny the Biblical universe model is to say the Bible is errant, which is heretical.
To use the heliocentric model as an abstract computational aid to support mathematical models does not conflict with Revelation, as St. Robert and popes after Galileo pointed out. To believe that the HC model is reality is contrary to Scripture.
In fact, to believe that all the planets orbit the Sun - except the statet Earth - is Biblically compliant. This is part of the neoTychonian model of the Biblical universe belief, a model which is Bible compliant.
The Ptolemaic model assumes all objects orbit the Earth, which is more than the Bible states.

So, does the Magisterium teach the geostatic /aether theory? Yes. … the geocentric theory? Undefined.

What is true is that the geostatic/aether system is contained in the Bible. …
In any case the CE is not a Magisterial source.

Once the intellect understands the geostatic content of Revelation, any notion that the Earth moves or the Sun doesn’t is contrary to Catholic belief.

Greek philosophers have thought beauty consists of unity in diversity - such as soldiers marching in step.
Scholastics taught that unity in the diversity of nature is a reflection of the Trinity in creation, the ultimate source of beauty. Humans share a unity of being, yet each individual is different. The Three Persons share the unity of the Godhead, yet are distinct from each other.
The abundance of beauty in nature is said to reflect the vain attempt of the finite to imitate the infinite.

The Magisterium put Galileo on trial for teaching Biblical errancy - heliocentricity as reality. This is what Pope Urban and the Defender of the Faith believed.

Not true. Update your knowledge.

Can’t speak for others, but our belief in geostatism is based on the Bible as written.

How can the Earth be fixed and the Sun move in a heliocentric system?

Which tracts have not been translated?

The source for the Popes was Scripture. Disbelief in the Word of God IS a matter of faith and morals, not physics. Revelation is all true, whether we arbitrarily classify it as faith, physics, or otherwise.

AMDG

Thanks Alethios for the last couple posts - they’ve helped clear my mind a bit about the whole thing :tiphat:

 

[Alethios]

There is a different between center of the universe in terms of physical motion as opposed to the center of the universe in terms of theological significance.

That’s why calling the Biblical model Geostatic reduces the confusion.

Anything about the movement of the sun said by the Church Fathers and Scripture is probably stated in this sense [of relativity], though it doesn’t contradict heliocentricity.

Relativity only was proposed 2 centuries ago as a scientific theory - all the Fathers were dead.
‘Probably’? Actually reading the books of sacred tradition would reveal that geostatism was believed in an absolute, not relative, sense.

I’m quite certain I learned that we can measure the force of the earth being pulled around the sun.

We are quite certain that this force cannot be measured. How and when and who did the experiment?

This also pertains to the earth’s rotation … it’s not a relative thing, because it pertains to centripetal force.

The inward flow of aether simulates rotational effects , like centripetal force.

Well-oiled pendulums (the ones that move along not one but two axis) can prove that the earth is rotating. Right?

Then Foucault pendulums also can prove the existence of aether flow. You see, the Foucault pendulum rotation can be explained by multiple causes.

… toilets flush in opposite directions on the lower hemisphere while it doesn’t spiral at all near the equator.

Have you actually tested this urban legend? The Coriolis effect on a small volume of water depends crucially on the initial conditions, like eliminating all vortices. And the odds are fifty-fifty that the spin will randomly match the prediction.

… the planetary system we live in is definitely heliocentric.

… if the Sun itself is a satellite of Earth => the neoTychonian model.

… the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.
When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Infallibility was not defined in the 1600’s.
Please define the difference between infallibility vs. truth.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

What about tribunals whose reports are reviewed and approved by the Pope?

It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false.

The correct argument: The Magisterium has infallibly defined a theological theory that cannot be false - an inerrant Scripture

The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a ruling that belief in HC as a model of the real world (not a mathematical model for simplifying computation ) bordered on heresy.

Taken from “The Galileo Controversy”

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Neither of these fallible sources is the Magisterium.

The matter is one of science and therefore the Church has not the capacity to make an “infallible” judgment on the matter.

To the Magisterium, this was a matter of faith, not science. in which they have full capacity to judge.

In Cardinal Bellarmine’s 1615 letter, he qualifies his comment that geocentrism is a matter of faith with: “if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe…we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.” It doesn’t matter if he admitted he didn’t foresee such a demonstration. The fact is, he admits the understanding of the Scripture could change, meaning the traditional interpretation was not immutable.So we know from Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter, geocentrism was not an immutable interpretation of Scripture.

But St Robert’s opinion in his private letter to Foscarini has no Magisterial authority.

Well, although geocentricism can’t be flat out disproved, there is strong evidence against it in that everything we understand about gravity would have to be completely wrong for it to be true.

What is the strong evidence based on the scientific method?
We don’t understand a lot about gravity, like its mechanism, or ation at a distance without a medium betwixt. Maybe the little we do know is wrong?

AMDG

 

[mchale]

Why is anyone even looking at the specific theory of Copernicus? Even before Galileo was dead, its successor, developed by Kepler, had been developed. Within a century, Newton would develop his theory of Gravity which would then stand the test of time until General Relativity was developed by Einstein.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Science: Sun experiments are unfalsifiable because observations by humans or remote devices from the Sun are impossible.

Umm, and? You can do experiments from just about everyhwere else in the solar system. From all of them, it still looks like the Earth is orbiting the Sun (or more precisely their common gravitational center, which happens to be within Sun).

Copernicus uses epicycles for planetary orbits; ellipses are actually observed.
The Copernicus model conflicts with Newtonian motion of the planets around the solar system barycenter.
A fixed Sun contradicts its observations: orbital motion around the Milky Way and its linear motion toward the Virgo cluster(ala CMB dipole interpretation).

You realize that the Solar Motion towards the Virgo Supercluster also requires that the Earth be moving towards the Virgo Supercluster at a similar rate. As does the Sun orbiting around the center of the Galaxy, it can’t do it without the Earth doing it as well.

–
Bill

 

[JimG]

Why is anyone even looking at the specific theory of Copernicus? Even before Galileo was dead, its successor, developed by Kepler, had been developed. Within a century, Newton would develop his theory of Gravity which would then stand the test of time until General Relativity was developed by Einstein.

–
Bill

Yes, and new developments will certainly continue, most likely building on past developments. The interest in going back to gencentrism quite frankly amazes me.

 

[grannymh]

FYI

Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible,** as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals**; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

Specific scientific matters per se are not considered as part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith which is placed in the Apostolic era.

For interesting reading, check out the many, many references in the Catholic Catechism. Put earth or science or any similar term into the search box of the following web site. Please do not take single paragraphs out of context.


Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

Taken from “The Galileo Controversy”

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

FYI

In order to understand the Nihil obstat and *Imprimatur, *one should read the entire text.
This is what follows:
“The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contaned therein that those who have granted the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statements expressed.”

 

[rpp]

If we have a geocentric universe, I have some questions.

Keep in mind these are coming from someone who understands orbital mechanics and can calculate orbits and is a trained and experienced observational (amateur) astronomer.

Why is it that only Mercury and Venus show phases like the Moon? If the answer is that it is because that Mercury and Venus orbit the Earth inside the orbit of the Sun and the other planets orbit beyond the Sun, then why aren’t the phases of those planets reversed because the light is coming from behind them?

The Galileo and Casini space probes that, respectively, went to Jupiter and Saturn use the Sun as a gravitational slingshot. Both probes arrived within one second of their planned arrival time which took many years.If Jupiter is Orbiting the Earth, it simply would not have been where the probes when they got there. Please explain how this is possible, do not be afraid to use math.

In 1919, Sir Arthur Eddington observed a total solar eclipse taking some very high resolution (for the time) photos. Using Einstein’s formulas in General Reletivity published ten years earlier he calculated that a particular star would be just barely behind the limb of the Sun, by 1 or 2 arc seconds, BUT the star would actually be visible because the Sun is so massive that it would bend the light of this star and we would actually be able to see behind the sun slightly. The photographs bore this out and proved not only that General Relativity was correct in this area, it also proved that the Sun has a mass of 1.98892 × 1030, more than 300,000 times the mass of the Earth. (It needed to weigh this much to bend the light of the star the amount it did. If the Sun mass is such that we can observe it actually bending light, how come it orbits the much less massive Earth?

In Kepler’s time, only 6 planets were thought to exist. In 1690 John Herschel discovered Uranus during a sky survey. Newtonian orbital mechanics were used to calculate the position of Uranus. Yet it did not quite move as predicted. Postulating another planet was “perturbing” the orbit of Uranus, Urbain Adams and Joseph le Verrier used Newtonian formulas to calculate the position of another possible planet using an approximate mass. He Johann Galle pointed his telescope there and found the planet. Pluto was discovered in the same way. If geocentricism is true, how was this possible?

Newtonian orbital calculations cannot properly account for the observed motion of Mercury, there are always slight errors. However, when Einstrinian formula are used, which take the relativistic effects of the Sun’s mass and the speed of Mercury’s motion around the Sun, it can predict it’s motion absolutely accurately. How is this possible if Mercury is orbiting the Earth?

Einsteinian orbital mechanics can predict the position of any object in the Solar with an accuracy that exceeds less than an inch of of actual position and less than 1/100,000 of a second of arc for an observer) of error in 1,000 years. Yet no such achievement is possible using Ptolemy’s models, even when epicycles are taken into account. The errors are always much larger. over a dramatically shorter space of time (less than a year.) How does this support an Earth centered solar system?

The constellation of GPS satellites, and the receivers that use them, use Einsteinian formulas to account for the relativistic affects of their orbital speed and the reduced influence of the Mass of Earth on the satellites vs the receivers, and a set of synchronizing atomic clocks in order for GPS receiver to calculate position on the Earth to within a couple of feet or less (for US military grade receivers). Neither Special nor General Reletivity are compatible with geocentricism. Since GPS receivers do indeed work, how is it that the universe orbits around the Earth?

Finally, and this is probably the most important question, how is geocentricism part of the deposit of and in what way does it contribute to salvation history and the mercy that God offers all Mankind?

 

[tjm190]

Umm, those are the words of Dr. Halton Arp. But you’re more than welcome to debate the issue with him, his email address is on his website (and he emailed me back). Good luck!

if you wish to present an argument, be prepared to defend it

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Who are you to lecture the popes and theologians of the Church on how to interpret the Scriptures? Can you not see where the Devil has led you all with ‘science’. This is PROTESTANTISM. But you sre not alone for the WHOLE Church bar a few have been doing this since 1741.

 

[buffalo]

I see your religion has changed.

 

[grannymh]

I see your religion has changed.

Reasoned Logic is a good element of any philosophical system. Naturally, I find Physical Evidence to be somewhat limiting.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I see your religion has changed.

Yeah i am fed up of being branded an “atheist” (even when my “religion” said none), the word is meaningless.

Not that PEARList is a religion in any sense of the word, but i does describe the process i go through to come to conclusions about the cosmos.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Reasoned Logic is a good element of any philosophical system. Naturally, I find Physical Evidence to be somewhat limiting.

Yep is a bit of pain, being limited to reality an all that…

 

[grannymh]

Yep is a bit of pain, being limited to reality an all that…

Physical evidence is part of reality but not all reality is physical evidence.

One should be careful of the logical fallacy expressed in: All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.

This is a delightful day for this silly granny.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Physical evidence is part of reality but not all reality is physical evidence.

One should be careful of the logical fallacy expressed in: All grass is green; therefore all green things are grass.

This is a delightful day for this silly granny.

Then you have to do is provide a single shred of evidence for anything not physical

 

[mchale]

Then you have to do is provide a single shred of evidence for anything not physical

I think with respect, we should consider that what you really mean by evidence, is scientific evidence. Other sorts of evidence, for example, testimony by eye witnesses would probably not be considered evidence at all. And from the perspective of science, you would be right to do so. However I think we need to keep in mind that science does not necessarily encompass all of reality. I have yet to know of a scientific test that can prove I am in love with someone for example .

–
Bill