Geocentric Universe?

[Pondero]

Well for gobbledygook, my sig, you take the cake. Trying to make sense of what the Buddist interpretation of reality is is confusing to say the least.
It could be that their philosophy is similar to that of an idealist, for whom everything exists inside the head, and nothing outside of it. We trace that idea at least as far as Descartes whose famous cogito ergo sum, sums it all up. I think therefore I am.
Nothing could be further from the truth for a realist, one who believes that he can perceive through sense perfection objects that exist outside of him, before he existed in many cases ,which still exist whether or not he thinks they exist or not.Being comes first before personal existence is perceived through thinking, not the other way around.

 

[cassini]

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

And now a bit of your ‘science’ Bill, just to show readers how you Copernicans PROVE the CHURCH wrong. Reading above you add ‘but that the Earth itself is rotating’

Now what you refer to here is an inertial force that surrounds the earth from pole to pole, otherwise known as the CORIOLIS EFFECT. But I see you attribute this force to a rotating earth whereas even the DOGS IN THE STREET NOW KNOW IT COULD BE CAUSED BY A ROTATING UNIVERSE AROUND A STATIONARY EARTH.

But then you can PROVE it is a rotating earth can’t you.

 

[mchale]

And now a bit of your ‘science’ Bill, just to show readers how you Copernicans PROVE the CHURCH wrong. Reading above you add ‘but that the Earth itself is rotating’

Now what you refer to here is an inertial force that surrounds the earth from pole to pole, otherwise known as the CORIOLIS EFFECT. But I see you attribute this force to a rotating earth whereas even the DOGS IN THE STREET NOW KNOW IT COULD BE CAUSED BY A ROTATING UNIVERSE AROUND A STATIONARY EARTH.

But then you can PROVE it is a rotating earth can’t you.

Sigh… I was pointing out how the trajectories of spacecraft are calculated.

In addition, I might add, that Newtonian Physics are generally used in calculating space craft trajectories (Its much easier than using Relativity). You are essentially depending on the fact that General Relativity allows you to choose whatever reference frame you want… but Newtonian Physics doesn’t quite give one that flexibility. Yes, if the Earth did not rotate you should still be able to calculate it, but Newtonian Physics would have no explination for its existence.

–
Bill

 

[rossum]

A STATIONARY EARTH

The “EARTH” is not and cannot be stationary. A single point on the earth might possibly be stationary, but some parts of the earth move relative to other parts, for example earthquakes and continental drift. Since we find earthquakes in the Bible it is obvious from God’s word that parts of the earth can move. The whole earth is not stationary.

rossum

 

[mchale]

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.

Let me see if I understand this, a number of Popes have essentially hid the fact that we are obliged to believe in geocentrism? They have therefore in fact, formally assisted formal heretics?

It also seems logical to assume that many of these Popes have in fact believed in this heresy before they became the Pope?

I seem to remember somewhere that a man who was a heretic could not be elected Pope. If that is indeed the case, and your argument is correct, the Church has been without a Pope for quite some time.

–
Bill

 

[rossum]

Well for gobbledygook, my sig, you take the cake. Trying to make sense of what the Buddist interpretation of reality is is confusing to say the least.
It could be that their philosophy is similar to that of an idealist, for whom everything exists inside the head, and nothing outside of it. We trace that idea at least as far as Descartes whose famous cogito ergo sum, sums it all up. I think therefore I am.
Nothing could be further from the truth for a realist, one who believes that he can perceive through sense perfection objects that exist outside of him, before he existed in many cases ,which still exist whether or not he thinks they exist or not.Being comes first before personal existence is perceived through thinking, not the other way around.

If this is a response to me then I suggest that you start a new thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum. A discussion of the Buddhist perspective on reality is OT on this thread.

For the record, Buddhist Scripture has the universe filled with uncountable solar systems, each with a static earth and its own sun, moon and planets orbiting round it. Most, if not all, of those other earths are inhabited. Some are “Pure Lands” (loosely unfallen in Christian terms) while others are “Impure Lands” like our earth; fallen in Christian terms. The suns of those other solar systems appear in our night sky as stars.

rossum

 

[hecd2]

And now a bit of your ‘science’ Bill, just to show readers how you Copernicans PROVE the CHURCH wrong. Reading above you add ‘but that the Earth itself is rotating’

Now what you refer to here is an inertial force that surrounds the earth from pole to pole, otherwise known as the CORIOLIS EFFECT. But I see you attribute this force to a rotating earth whereas even the DOGS IN THE STREET NOW KNOW IT COULD BE CAUSED BY A ROTATING UNIVERSE AROUND A STATIONARY EARTH.

Really? Any competent physicist can derive the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a rotating earth by calculating the effect of the departure from straight line motion of a test particle at the surface - a derivation which is based on known physical relationships between force and acceleration.

So let’s see you derive the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on a static earth from the influence of a rotating universe using known physical relationships. Good luck. You’ll need it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[yankee_doodle]

wow … this thread still exists? If there’s anyone here who seriously doubts the sun is the center of our solar system, we orbit around it, and our solar system is part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of galaxies in a vast expanding universe … might I suggest a trip to your nearest department store to pick up a decent telescope (and you can see for yourself).

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The center and axis need not be the same.

I know, and earth still is not at the center.

 

[yankee_doodle]

The center and axis need not be the same.

holy smokes … I get it (you’re actually trying to redeem the CC from the Galileo affair by saying they didn’t really mean center, they meant axis … or some other similarly bizarre argument). You gotta be kidding me

 

[masterjedi747]

No doubt you and other Copernican heretics, puffed up with intelectual pride…

Intellectual pride? When you sit here claiming to be one of the last Catholics in the entire world who knows the truth? When you claim that Pope John Paul II, Cardinal John Henry Newman, and Pope Benedict XVI – in short: all of Rome, not to mention countless other intellectual giants and Catholic theologians over the past 300-odd years – they have it all wrong, and you know better on this issue than all of them put together? And you dare to accuse your opponents of intellectual pride? Right. Forgive me if I’m seeing a slightly different version of events.

It was a papal decree that established THE CHURCH’s teaching on the matter.

It was a tribunal decree (with ordinary papal authority), and it did NO such thing.

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.

If you knew ANYTHING about CANON LAW, then you would understand that decrees issued by Church tribunals do NOT carry the weight of formal papal authority, unless the Pope himself EXPLICITLY elevates them to such a level (for example: by approving the decree in forma specifica), and declares them to be his own.

Yes, they KNEW a papal decree was immutible…

You really, really, REALLY need to brush up on your education concerning the true extent of papal authority and infallible Church teaching. Perhaps start with the references in my previous post responding to Alethios.

…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.

THAT’S ALL THAT IT TAKES. There was NOTHING about the 1616 decree to prevent the Pope from doing such a thing, and in fact the POPE is perfectly within his power to ignore (and thereby implicitly abrogate) any ordinary tribunal decree such as that if he so chooses. It was the POPE’S authority which gave the tribunal decree its (not infallible) power in the first place, and the POPE’S authority which discarded the same (already long-ignored and effectively dead) tribunal decree later on with just a wave of his hand. He’s the Pope, he absolutely has the power to do such a thing, and that’s just part of how Church law works whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[Thing]

I know, and earth still is not at the center.

How do you know?

 

[Thing]

holy smokes … I get it (you’re actually trying to redeem the CC from the Galileo affair by saying they didn’t really mean center, they meant axis … or some other similarly bizarre argument). You gotta be kidding me

No *I *said center. Center does not need to mean any particular axis anywhere. The beautiful universe is, for us, expanding away in every direction from earth. Earth is the center of an expanding universe, as are all other points the center.
And then, the universe exists in infinity, outside space, as space I presume expands continuously into it. And the center of infinity is the point where you are at.
So in several ways earth is the center of the universe and of everything from our pov.

Here are the offensive passages;

“the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”
“the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”

“The world is firmly established and it cannot be moved…”

“If I had a firm enough place to stand, I could move the world”. - Archimedes

But thats not possible, the planets are freefalling through space, there is no firm ground to stand on to ‘move the world’.

“the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”

The foundations of the Earth are the qualities which keep it Earth; its density, gravity, its 1000 mph spin and its 57000 mph orbit, or whatever the figures are. Can you move it from its foundations… no you can’t.

“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”

Thats what the weather forecast girl says to me every morning. And shes a scientist! (meterologist).

But Galileo had a problem, he bit the hand;

To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio (“Simpleton”). Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

 

[grannymh]

No *I *said center. Center does not need to mean any particular axis anywhere. The beautiful universe is, for us, expanding away in every direction from earth. Earth is the center of an expanding universe, as are all other points the center.
And then, the universe exists in infinity, outside space, as space I presume expands continuously into it. And the center of infinity is the point where you are at.
So in several ways earth is the center of the universe and of everything from our pov.

Here are the offensive passages;

“the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.”
“the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”
“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”

“The world is firmly established and it cannot be moved…”

“If I had a firm enough place to stand, I could move the world”. - Archimedes

But thats not possible, the planets are freefalling through space, there is no firm ground to stand on to ‘move the world’.

“the LORD set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”

The foundations of the Earth are the qualities which keep it Earth; its density, gravity, its 1000 mph spin and its 57000 mph orbit, or whatever the figures are. Can you move it from its foundations… no you can’t.

“And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place”

Thats what the weather forecast girl says to me every morning. And shes a scientist! (meterologist).

But Galileo had a problem, he bit the hand;

To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio (“Simpleton”). Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings.

Neither a scripture scholar nor a science master am I. It is common sense which can connect faith to reality. The Catholic Church’s mission is to unite humanity with God for all eternity. God is Spirit so it seems proper to read the Bible in the terms of Spiritual communication. Thus “foundation” of the world seen as a Spiritual communication of faith or morals is simply stating that God is the sustaining Creator of the world.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

How do you know?

How do i know the earth is not at the center of the solar system? Read the last couple of pages.

 

[shoewindow3000]

The Pope is infallible when:

1. He is speaking as the Pope
2. He is addressing the faithful
3. the teaching concerns faith and morals

 

[Thing]

How do i know the earth is not at the center of the solar system? Read the last couple of pages.

The sun is not at the center of the solar system.

 

[Thing]

Neither a scripture scholar nor a science master am I. It is common sense which can connect faith to reality. The Catholic Church’s mission is to unite humanity with God for all eternity. God is Spirit so it seems proper to read the Bible in the terms of Spiritual communication. Thus “foundation” of the world seen as a Spiritual communication of faith or morals is simply stating that God is the sustaining Creator of the world.

Yup, I have no problem with that at all. Psalms are after all “songs sung to a harp” and not physical science theories sung to a harp.

 

[grannymh]

The Pope is infallible when:

1. He is speaking as the Pope
2. He is addressing the faithful
3. the teaching concerns faith and morals

1. Please note that there are specific conditions as to the manner the Pope speaks. Infallibility does not cover every time the Pope says something. Post 307 above has information about this.,
2. Addressing the faithful is a good thing but does not impact infallibility.

3.Technically, infallibility concerns faith and morals. However, infallibility only covers the actual dogma involved. How the teaching is applied is another story.

 

[cassini]

Sigh… I was pointing out how the trajectories of spacecraft are calculated.

In addition, I might add, that Newtonian Physics are generally used in calculating space craft trajectories (Its much easier than using Relativity). You are essentially depending on the fact that General Relativity allows you to choose whatever reference frame you want… but Newtonian Physics doesn’t quite give one that flexibility. Yes, if the Earth did not rotate you should still be able to calculate it, but Newtonian Physics would have no explination for its existence.

–
Bill

Now now Bill. You were trying to use the trajectories of spacecraft as evidence for a rotating earth.

As regards gravitational laws:

In the Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences we read of:

‘Cassini’s Laws. In 1693 Cassini published three laws describing his observations of lunar motion… All spin-locked satellites observed to date have obliquities corresponding to a stable Cassini state. — J. Shirley and R. Fairbridge: Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences, Chapman hall, 1997.

By far the most surprising disclosure to be found tucked away in mathematical literature is the fact that in spite of all the publicity given to Isaac Newton and his formula for the gravitational field of earth, it is Domenico Cassini’s formula for gravity, called the international formula, which is more often used. Confirming this in another Encyclopaedia we read:

‘(Cassini)
This formula …is the basis of the international gravity formula.’ — Sneddon’s Encyclopaedia Dictionary of Mathematics for Engineers and Applied Scientists, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1976, p.113.

These are but some of the discoveries acknowledged - albeit only in specialist publications - even by the Copernicans. Throughout all his years at astronomy however, Cassini sought to measure the orbits of the sun and planets with increasing accuracy. It was this quest that was to lead to Cassini’s greatest deduction and discovery, a find that would place him in total opposition to the Earthmovers who would go on to ensure the significance of his astronomic work would never be known throughout the world.