Geocentric Universe?

[grannymh]

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

Do you like music? Do you ever listen to it in the morning? Did you listen to it this morning? Where is your physical evidence of the music you listened to?

 

[Luke65]

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

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. 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! 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.”

 

[Luke65]

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

Hi rpp, most of your questions are answered with the Tychonic system. You’ll see that the other planets rotate around the sun, while the sun rotates around the earth, and so the orbits are the same as in the Copernican system. I’ll be posting some stuff later and I’ll try to cover any other questions you have.

 

[mchale]

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. 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! 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.”

Its great to be able to find exceptions to the rule that Red Shift implies distance, but far more often than not, the bulk of the evidence supports the notion of a Hubble Constant or rather, now a days, a Constant modified for a Universe whose expansion is accelerating.

If, as Arp has claimed, that no such constant exists, then attempts to use Standard Candles* should have failed miserably. While there are certainly exceptions in the data, by and large the use of standard candles has supported the notion of a Hubble Constant.

• For those who may not know, Standard Candles are objects where we have reason to believe have a very specific intrinsic brightness. Knowing this brightness and how bright it appears to us, allows us to derive the actual distance. Specific examples of standard candles include Cephid Variables and a certain type of Super Nova caused by the explosion of a white dwarf when its mass reaches approximately 1.4 times that of the Sun.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Hi rpp, most of your questions are answered with the Tychonic system. You’ll see that the other planets rotate around the sun, while the sun rotates around the earth, and so the orbits are the same as in the Copernican system. I’ll be posting some stuff later and I’ll try to cover any other questions you have.

The one question that Tycho Brahe’s model can’t answer is, why should a body that has a diameter over 100 times that of Earth and a mass that is many times greater than the Earth rotate around the Earth?

In other words, there is no unifying scientific theory behind the model, its merely a description of the observed movements, not a fully coherent theory in the same sense that modern orbital dynamics is.

–
Bill

 

[rpp]

Hi rpp, most of your questions are answered with the Tychonic system. You’ll see that the other planets rotate around the sun, while the sun rotates around the earth, and so the orbits are the same as in the Copernican system. I’ll be posting some stuff later and I’ll try to cover any other questions you have.

I am already familiar with the Tychonic system. It is not able to properly explain why General and Special Relativity actually work, nor is it able to properly explain the phases of only Mercury and Venus. It cannot explain how we have managed to navigate through the entire solar system. It is full of logical impossibilities.

However, it also does not answer, or even address, the role geocentricism plays in salvation history.

Geocentricism has been is utterly and absolutely refuted with hard physical evidence.

 

[grannymh]

However, it also does not answer, or even address, the role geocentricism plays in salvation history.

.

Please excuse me for stepping into a serious science discussion. Geocentricism involves scientific facts or theories. Science does not play a role in salvation history; therefore,the scientific facts or theories involving geocentrism do not play a role in salvation history.

 

[rpp]

Please excuse me for stepping into a serious science discussion. Geocentricism involves scientific facts or theories. Science does not play a role in salvation history; therefore,the scientific facts or theories involving geocentrism do not play a role in salvation history.

Exactly the point I am trying to make. The idea that the Church somehow ever taught geocentricism is in the Bible is utterly ridiculous. The Bible is a book the Church collected and organized to teach us spiritual lessons. It is not a treatise on natural history, physics or astronomy.

 

[Alethios]

Accordingly the earth could be the immobile centre of the universe according to modern physics.

Modern support that it is on the axis of the universe: the Sagnac exp and GPS operations.

I think we ought to follow the current findings of science.

Yes, factual findings, not imaginative interpretations.

This thread scares me.

Scientism and modernism scare us more.

I know of not a single credible authority in the Catholic Church who says that Catholics are not free to believe in heliocentrism…

…As an abstract math model of the solar system that may simplify calculations HC may be believed (St Robert)
…As a model of reality, in opposition to scripture - no.

Odd how when the Jesuits scientifically proved heliocentrism in the 17th century, they weren’t banned for heresy. …

Odd that we haven’t heard of this scientific proof by the Jebbie flyboys… or by anyone else.
If HC was proven, why do modern scientific relativists deny its truth?

Would you reveal the mystery reference for the HC proof, please.

…everything, such as history and science, in the Scriptures must be taken as literal and innerently true,

primo ad literam, actually, not sola litera.

If he [JPII] accepted that we do not have to take Genesis literally, I don’t see why we should have to take the Geocentric statements in Scripture as literal, either:

 [ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM](http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM)

Re the rererence link:
Point out exactly where JPII says we do not have to take Genesis literally. We have trouble finding it.
Also, explain the meaning of "unseasonable interpretations " in part 3.

If the Church has been lead into heresy, then Jesus lied when he said that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” In that case, the Church was never from God in the first place.

It is the Magisterium that cannot teach heresy. To find the truth, we look there - nowhere else.

…it is rather irrelevant whether the earth spins or stays motionless, or whether the sun spins or stays motionless, or whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth. None of that affects the Deposit of Faith, nor does it pertain to faith or morals, per se. The only problem arises when one tries to posit that some scientific discovery disproves scripture.

We recall our grammar school nuns told us that we didn’t need to know what adultery was, because we couldn’t commit it( Ah, the golden days of youth, when there were less than 10 commandments!).
When we learn that geostatism is a revealed belief, we also come of age. With this new understanding, the conscience is more informed; more faith is required.

If the matter is irrelevant, why do scientists constantly point to the Galileo affair as science’s defeat of faith, HC over GC?
Even the staunchest atheist cites the triumph of scientific truth over religious superstition…

If this notion is so necessary to be believed why is it not taught ?​

Biblical inerrancy is taught - by the Magisterium.

And why is it not taught in the CCC ? The CCC is a publication of very high doctrinal authority - yet it does not teach geocentrism.

What is being asked for is a CCC duplication of the Bible… to what end?
Read it yourself , taking each word literally, unless there’s strong evidence against it, and refer all disputed verses to the Magisterium for interpretation.

Geocentrism and Creationism = epic fail.
And I am a staunch Mass of All Time-attending traditionalist.

But do you follow the Magisterium’s teachings?

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun.

Reality check: Exactly where and when did ‘recent’ science prove the mobility of the Earth?

Remember, the rules of evidence for the scientific method.include:
Natural science is self-limited to only material phenomena and events that are repeatable and testable via the scientific method.
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.
Goedel has shown that any axiomatic system is incomplete, without aid from outside its domain (say, like theology).

It contains an NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR and featured on Catholic-Answers

CA is certainly not the Magisterium.

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states:

The mathematical and experimental sciences, also known as exact sciences, have no contact whatever with faith, although at one time, it was erroneously believed that the geocentric system was contained in the Bible.

The geostatic system is contained in the Bible.
The CE is not quoting the Magisterium here, but opining.

I think we can all agree geocentrism has nothing to do with morals…

We think all can agree that denial of revealed truth has everything to do with morals…

The Church’s claim to be infallible most definitely does NOT hinge on whether the earth moves.

Only if you believe that God’s word is true - all of it true.

The Magisterium teaches that it’s acceptable to believe in evolution and heliocentrism, and therefore I do so.

Whoa! One must distinguish …If the belief is micro-evolution and HC as a model of all planets except the statet Earth, THEN such belief is acceptable.
If the belief is macro-evolution and HC as a model of reality, THEN such belief is unacceptable.

AMDG

 

[grannymh]

And why is it not taught in the CCC ? The CCC is a publication of very high doctrinal authority - yet it does not teach geocentrism.

Alethios, I do appreciate your insight regarding evolution on another thread. However, regarding the CCC and geocentricism, I suggest that you reread Pope Leo XIII statement back in post 268. He is very clear about the doctrines of faith or morals coming down from the Apostles. He is not referring to a duplication of the Bible. In fact, no one is suggesting that the CCC be a duplication of the Bible.

The CCC purpose is to preserve the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This Deposit contains Divine Revelation. Not every word in Scripture is a Divine Revelation of faith and morals. Thus, not every word in the Bible is interpreted as a Divine Revelation. This is why the Bible would not need to be duplicated. What is duplicated from the Bible are the Divine Revelations. Check the CCC footnotes for the specific Scripture verses.

The CCC contains the teaching of the Magisterium. If you put Scripture in the search box of the following link, you will find 91 paragraphs of information.


Regarding any book which carries the Nihil obstat and Imprimature, please reread post 269 which explains what they mean and more importantly what they do not mean.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Do you like music? Do you ever listen to it in the morning? Did you listen to it this morning? Where is your physical evidence of the music you listened to?

Classic case of standards of evidence, not all claims require the same standard of evidence.

I.E. Claiming one listened to a song does** not **require that same standard of evidence as claiming there is an invisible all present entity in the sky that watches me 24 hours a day, dies for my sins, parted the sea, and is going to torture me for the rest of my life because it is on a MASSIVE ego trip and really really insists i believe it is there.

 

[mchale]

I am not sure what I find scarier, that there are still people who hold to geocentrism or that most who do seem to believe you need to believe it to be a good Catholic (or Christian in the case of non-Catholic geocentrists).

Believing that the Earth goes around the Sun is not Modernism nor is it Scientism (How can applying scientific techniques and standards to a scientific subject like astronomy be scientism?.. it is science).

It is true, roughly speaking, that a modified version of Tycho Brahe’s hypothesis can be used to predict the motions of the planets in our sky. It does not, however, have any unifying principle with the power to explain why this is the case (Gravity in the normal heliocentric model of the solar system). Nor have I yet to see anyone explain to me how a geostationary sattelite would work under this or any other geocentric model of the solar system.

In any case, I see a great deal of pride in the geocentric or geostatist position. I am not suggesting that holding that position itself is a prideful one, but rather the position that one must hold the position to be a good Catholic. The modern leaders of the Church clearly do not seem to have any issues with heliocentric models for the solar system and indeed I dare say you will have a hard time finding any school sanctioned by the Church that teaches geocentrisim as anything other than a superceded hypothesis. Therefore, to suggest that one must believe in geocentrism is to suggest that the modern leaders of the Church are at the very least condoning heresy if not actively participating in it.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

I am not sure what I find scarier, that there are still people who hold to geocentrism or that most who do seem to believe you need to believe it to be a good Catholic (or Christian in the case of non-Catholic geocentrists).

Believing that the Earth goes around the Sun is not Modernism nor is it Scientism (How can applying scientific techniques and standards to a scientific subject like astronomy be scientism?.. it is science).

It is true, roughly speaking, that a modified version of Tycho Brahe’s hypothesis can be used to predict the motions of the planets in our sky. It does not, however, have any unifying principle with the power to explain why this is the case (Gravity in the normal heliocentric model of the solar system). Nor have I yet to see anyone explain to me how a geostationary sattelite would work under this or any other geocentric model of the solar system.

In any case, I see a great deal of pride in the geocentric or geostatist position. I am not suggesting that holding that position itself is a prideful one, but rather the position that one must hold the position to be a good Catholic. The modern leaders of the Church clearly do not seem to have any issues with heliocentric models for the solar system and indeed I dare say you will have a hard time finding any school sanctioned by the Church that teaches geocentrisim as anything other than a superceded hypothesis. Therefore, to suggest that one must believe in geocentrism is to suggest that the modern leaders of the Church are at the very least condoning heresy if not actively participating in it.

–
Bill

You are claiming that because everyone else believes the earth revolves around the sun that it is foolish to believe otherwise. Isn’t this an argument from popularity?

I am fascinated by this subject. I was shocked to learn that their were people that actually believed in geocentricity. I was further amazed to find out that it cannot be proven either way.

This sets up an a priori worldview choice.

This needs to be discussed openly and people not chided for their interest. The truth really does matter.

 

[pickguard1]

You are claiming that because everyone else believes the earth revolves around the sun that it is foolish to believe otherwise. Isn’t this an argument from popularity?

I am fascinated by this subject. I was shocked to learn that their were people that actually believed in geocentricity. I was further amazed to find out that it cannot be proven either way.
This sets up an a priori worldview choice.

This needs to be discussed openly and people not chided for their interest. The truth really does matter.

My sentiments exactly

 

[mchale]

You are claiming that because everyone else believes the earth revolves around the sun that it is foolish to believe otherwise. Isn’t this an argument from popularity?

No, and I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote? What I am arguing is that since the leaders of the Church clearly have no issue with the heliocentric model of the Solar System being taught in Catholic Schools, and in other activities have either supported the current astronomical establishment or indicated an indifference to the issue that it is arrogant for geocentrists to argue that one must believe geocentrism (or geostatism as one poster puts it) if you are to be a good Catholic.

–
Bill

 

[buffalo]

No, and I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote? What I am arguing is that since the leaders of the Church clearly have no issue with the heliocentric model of the Solar System being taught in Catholic Schools, and in other activities have either supported the current astronomical establishment or indicated an indifference to the issue that it is arrogant for geocentrists to argue that one must believe geocentrism (or geostatism as one poster puts it) if you are to be a good Catholic.

–
Bill

OK.

I would bet may of those teachers would be surprised to know that it cannot be proven either way.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I am fascinated by this subject. I was shocked to learn that their were people that actually believed in geocentricity. I was further amazed to find out that it cannot be proven either way.

I’m intrigued.

Do you mean it can’t be proven as in science does not prove things? If so i totally agree.

However if the geocentric model is correct then how on earth did man land probes on mars? The trajectory of the ships would have been all over the place is the the geocentric model was correct. I would say that pretty much disproves it.

 

[buffalo]

I’m intrigued.

Do you mean it can’t be proven as in science does not prove things? If so i totally agree.

However if the geocentric model is correct then how on earth did man land probes on mars? The trajectory of the ships would have been all over the place is the the geocentric model was correct. I would say that pretty much disproves it.

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

 

[JimG]

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

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

 

[buffalo]

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

I do not know what they believe. That wasn’t my claim.