Geocentric Universe?

[cassini]

It’s called “phenomenological language”, and the Church recognizes this as a valid distinction. Furthermore:

Even though all Holy Writ is inspired and is the Word of God, still, following St. Thomas (Sent. II.d.12.q.I.a.2), a distinction must be made between that which is inspired per se, and that which is inspired per accidens. As the truths of Revelation laid down in Holy Writ are designed to serve the end of religious and moral teaching, inspiration per se extends only to the religious and moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word to the religious-moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger the faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists.
– Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 92.

No, we don’t. We simply have to recognize that the author is speaking to the appearances.

No, we can’t. No, it wouldn’t. No, it’s not. You’re blowing the “implications” here way out of proportion.

I’ll quote it for you again… though it’s worth nothing that, if Saint Thomas really was your intellectual hero, you should have already been well aware of this distinction.

Even though all Holy Writ is inspired and is the Word of God, still, following St. Thomas (Sent. II.d.12.q.I.a.2), a distinction must be made between that which is inspired per se, and that which is inspired per accidens. As the truths of Revelation laid down in Holy Writ are designed to serve the end of religious and moral teaching, inspiration per se extends only to the religious and moral truths.

The Church is still in charge, and rules regarding the various levels of certitude of Church teaching are well in place. Quit with the unfounded fear-mongering.

Neither. This false dilemma is your own creation, which you’ve locked yourself into by irrationally insisting upon the literal truth of phenomenological language.

*The data inspired per accidens is also the Word to the religious-moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. *

NOT AT ALL. Once again, you manifest a stunning lack of comprehension of what it means to say that Theology is the “queen” of the sciences. You could not POSSIBLY be MORE mistaken or confused on this point, or less in agreement with Saint Thomas.

Theology is called “queen” of the sciences because it is the highest science; because its object is the highest and most noble object which we can know. Furthermore, higher sciences (such as theology) are never taken and applied to lower sciences (such as mathematics or astronomy) in the manner which you suggest. Each science has its own proper starting principles, and proceeds according to its own proper method. Theology is the “queen of all sciences” not because it rules over the lower sciences and manipulates them, but because the lower sciences build upon each other and eventually serve as the foundation upon which theology, the highest science, is built.

If they share your fundamentally perverse and anti-intellectual view of reality, perhaps so.

No, it is absolutely not a matter of religious faith. It’s a matter of natural science and natural philosophy. Only a fool would try to prove either geocentricism or heliocentricism on religious grounds.

I’m pretty much done here. As much as I would love to sit around and continue correcting your mind-numbing stream of scientific, philosophical, and theological errors, I really ought to get back to my school reading. I’ll certainly be keeping you in my prayers, but don’t expect me to respond further unless you actually begin engaging your opponents with carefully reasoned, well supported, and generally intelligent arguments.

masterjedi, I was temped to let you have the last word but I cannot resist the temptation to say that that my interpretation that you critique above WAS made on the basis of the decrees of the Church in 1616. Everything you say WAS REJECTED by the Church. END OF STORY.

 

[grannymh]

masterjedi, I was temped to let you have the last word but I cannot resist the temptation to say that that my interpretation that you critique above WAS made on the basis of the decrees of the Church in 1616. Everything you say WAS REJECTED by the Church. END OF STORY.

What can I say? A good temptation to say the last word, I cannot resist.

Hopefully, this is the end to convoluted stories about the Catholic Church.

 

[Alethios]

the universe consists of a large number of independent masses, each of which would move according to the same laws of motion that we see in planetary and galactic rotation - ie they would orbit according to the rotation curves derived from Newtonian mechanics.

Or the aether vortex curves within which the same motion is observed.

The consequence of this would be rotational periods which varied depending on the distance of the object from the earth. But the diurnal apparent rotation of the stars and galaxies in the sky is not a function of distance, indicating that it is not they that are rotating (at least not according to Newton’s laws of motion ,…

…but according to the aforesaid aether vortices.
This is a plus for aether, a minus for gravity.

So what happens when a large meteorite hits the earth? Does that not alter its centre of mass and its velocity relative to other celestial bodies?

How does one compute this mass center? When the system includes the meteorite, the mass center differs from the Earth’s mass center alone. and this mass center does not move.
As soon as the meteorite is included in the system, the mass center suddenly jumps - an artifact of the calculation.
How does one measure this shift, which depends on the arbitrary inclusion of the meteorite in the Earth’s system and the exclusion of all Eearth satellites, including the Moon.
The moral: the center of mass concept is not as simple as some may think…

What forces make the centre of the earth “immovable” with respect to the rest of the universe?

At the center of an aether vortex there are no net forces, as in a tornado or whirlpool.

GR only prohibits motion greater than c relative to the metric - it does not prohibit metric expansion or rotation at speeds greater than c

…all of this is utterly dependent on GR

which is a fatal dependence, for relativity is rife with contradictions. With such a system anything can be proven true…or false.
No evidence is accepted from an inconsistent theory like relativity, a theory built on sand, washed away by the waters of truth. The SM requires logical consistency.

… how do geocentrists explain geostationary satellites?..Shouldn’t everything outside of the Earth rotate around the Earth either directly or indirectly in the geo-stationary model?

Excellent question deserves an excellent answer.

In the N and S hemispheres, the prevailing upper winds 5 miles up are the eastbound jet streams, with even higher speeds at higher altitudes all caused by the aether vortex flow eastward.
The LEO satellites and the general global atmospheric motion(near firmament) is eastward in the GS frame. Spacecraft are launched eastward to get a boost from the Earth’s rotation, according to MS Physics, but GC says that’s just supports the aether flow boost.

Cosmic Objects(CO) from the Moon to the galaxies all rotate oppositely - westward in the GC frame.

So, somewhere between the LEOs and the Moon, the aether flow reverses => at the geostat sat distance(GSD). Voila!
Below the GSD, Earth satellites orbit eastward; above, > 22 Kmi, they orbit westward.

no-one has ever shown that the rotation of the universe would give rise to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth in the same sense and in the same magnitude that we observe.

Here we go…

Premises:

1. Newtonian: The Earth is rotating uniformly with respect to the stationary star shell with angular velocity w.
   w produces forces of inertia (i.e., Coriolis and centrifugal forces).
2. neoTychonian: The star shell uniformly rotating with respect to the stationary Earth with angular velocity w is driven by a constant homogeneous, vector, magnetic-type gravity (MTG) or gravitomagnetic field, described by the aether vector potential

A = (Bg×r)/2

where Bg is gravity’s induction vector (NOT the magnetic field). The vector cross product indicates that the MTG field is orthogonal to both the position vector r and B.

To prove:
The equation of motion of a body in a spherically symmetric gravity field and in constant homogeneous MTG (magnetic-type gravity) field, described by means of A, is exactly the same as an equation of motion for this body in the same gravity field in the coordinate system uniformly rotating with respect to the stationary fixed star shell with
w = (Bg)/2.

The proof:
The Newtonian Lagrangian for an inertial body with the Earth spinning at w and a fixed star shell is:

L = (m/2)v^2+mvdot+(m/2)(w×r)^2-mV

V = GMe/r = gravity potential; Me = Mass of Earth

The variational equation of motion for least action is:

d(mv)/dt = -2m(w×v)-m(w×(w×r))+mE

where: E = -gradV, -2m(w×v) is the Coriolis force, -m[w×(w×r) is the centrifugal force.

The neoTychonian Lagrangian for the inertial body “m” with a star shell spin of w and the Earth stationary is:

L = (m/2)v^2 + mv[dot]A+(m/2)A^2- mV: V = GMe/r

The neoTychonian variational equation of motion is:

d(mv)/dt = -m(vx Bg)-m/4(Bg×r)xBg]+mE

If the condition for relative rotation is chosen,

w = Bg/2,

the motion equations in both views are identical.
QED

…

Now some one has shown that the rotation of the universe would give rise to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth in the same sense and in the same magnitude that we observe - with classical mechanics.

AMDG

 

[j1akey]

I finally found a topic that I can’t bring myself to actually debate. I gotta draw the line somewhere. This is the galactic equivelent of arguing that the earth is flat.
:banghead:

 

[StAnastasia]

I finally found a topic that I can’t bring myself to actually debate. I gotta draw the line somewhere. This is the galactic equivelent of arguing that the earth is flat.

There are still flat-earthers too!

 

[cassini]

What can I say? A good temptation to say the last word, I cannot resist.

Hopefully, this is the end to convoluted stories about the Catholic Church.

No its not granny, for the truth will out some day.

 

[j1akey]

StAnastasia:

There are still flat-earthers too!

Haha! I know! I don’t get that either but I guess if you have enough people then eventually there will be someone that will believe anything no matter how rediculous. I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do. This and the flat earth thing is just so far out there that I just don’t get it. It’s as if people refuse to be educated.

 

[StAnastasia]

Haha! I know! I don’t get that either but I guess if you have enough people then eventually there will be someone that will believe anything no matter how rediculous. I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do. This and the flat earth thing is just so far out there that I just don’t get it. It’s as if people refuse to be educated.

j1akey, why people propose scientifically ridiculous things is beyond me. You might look at Chris Mooney’s The Republican War on Science (2008) for answers. amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Revised-Updated/dp/B001OQOIPM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251823010&sr=1-2

 

[buffalo]

’Big Wave’ Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy
Ripples in a pond
Temple compared the wave to what happens when you throw a rock into a pond. In this case, the rock would be the Big Bang, and the concentric ripples that result are like a series of waves throughout the universe. Later on, when the first galaxies start to form, they are forming inside space-time that has already been displaced from where it would have been without the wave. So when we observe these galaxies with telescopes, they don’t appear to be where we would expect if there had never been a big wave.
One potential issue with this idea is that it might require a big coincidence.

For the universe to appear to be accelerating at the same rate in all directions, we in the Milky Way would have to be near a local center, at the spot where an expansion wave was initiated early in the Big Bang when the universe was filled with radiation.

Temple concedes that this is a coincidence, but said it’s possible that we are merely in the center of a smaller wave that affects the galaxies we can see from our vantage point - we need not be in the center of the entire universe for the idea to work.

 

[hecd2]

Also, I have never really seen a good geocentric explination for geosynchronous satellites.

It is complete pseudo-scientific nonsense; see below:

All objects from the Moon to the galaxies rotate westward in the GS frame due to the primary aether vortex.
The LEO satellites and the general global atmospheric motion is eastward in the GS frame. The prevailing upper winds 5 miles up are the eastbound jet streams, with even higher speeds at higher altitudes… all caused by the aether vortex flow – eastward.

You make several fundamental errors here: Not all LEO satellites have direct (eastward) orbits; there are polar and retrograde orbits. The nodes of a LEO polar orbit always precess *westwards *as the earth rotates under the plane of the orbit.

The jetstreams are strongest away from the equator at the polar ends of the Hadley and Ferrel air circulation cells (in fact there is an easterly, ie blowing east to west, equatorial jetstream) and are tightly latitudinally constrained *streams. *Nor do their speeds increase above the stream as you claim - none of this is consistent with the nonsensical hypothesis of “aether vortex flow”. Nor does your silly idea explain satellite and orbital dynamics, say within the solar system, such as the elliptical shape of earth orbits (also, of course observed in every other orbital system such as the solar system, binary stars and galactic rotation)

Spacecraft are launched eastward to get a boost from the Earth’s rotation, according to MS Physics, but this is just the aether flow boost eastward.

In that case the aether should exhibit an easily measurable drag. No such drag can be detected - retrograde satellite orbits do not rapidly decay and the plane of polar satellites do not get dragged round (except by the extremely tiny amount predicted by gravitomagnetics in GR).

Somewhere between the LEOs and the Moon, the aether flow reverses => at the geostationary distance(GSD) of 22,000 miles up. At the boundary there’s no aether motion - and no gravity.

Pure nonsense. It is perfectly possible to put a retrograde satellite at the same distance from earth as a geostationary one - such a satellite would orbit with the same angular velocity but in the opposite sense to geostationary satellites and thus orbit the earth twice a day.

Below the GSD, Earth satellites orbit eastward; above, they orbit westward.

Wrong, as we have seen. Your explanation for geostationary orbit is clueless.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Sorry, but you’re missing the point. You’re not proving anything. Under the neo-Tychonian model, the parallax and redshifts/blueshifts are the same as under your model, because the stars are rotating around the sun as the sun rotates around the Earth.

And you are missing the point. Why do the stars rotate around the sun as the sun rotates around the earth? You are confusing kinematic equivalence with dynamic equivalence. What geocentrism fatally lacks is a consistent theory of dynamics that explains the kind of statement you make above and is consistent with elliptical orbits and other observations. Such a very detailed and consistent framework is provided by Newtonian mechanics starting from the laws linking force, mass and acceleration and the observation that the force due to gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: from this, all else follows. Where is the dynamical theory that starts with observable and testable laws of motion and concludes that the universe rotates around the sun (once per day, for heaven’s sake) which in turn rotates around the earth?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

• Is the Sun a star? Its spectrum doesn’t match any star in the sky.

Where do you get your nonsense from? The spectrum of the sun makes it a perfectly normal G2V star of which there are millions in the galaxy - a yellowish white main sequence dwarf.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[cassini]

Haha! I know! I don’t get that either but I guess if you have enough people then eventually there will be someone that will believe anything no matter how rediculous. I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do. This and the flat earth thing is just so far out there that I just don’t get it. It’s as if people refuse to be educated.

‘I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do.’

‘I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do.’

‘I may not believe in any god but at least I can see why others do.’

And you SEE the earth going around the sun? Well, I don’t, I SEE the sun going around the earth. You SEE with your MIND, I see with my eyes.

 

[hecd2]

no-one has ever shown that the rotation of the universe would give rise to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth in the same sense and in the same magnitude that we observe.

All you have done is to define a gravitomagnetic vector potential and an induction vector in such a way that they give you the answer that you want. There is absolutely no empirical or theoretical basis for the appearance of such forces at a static earth. You choose to define the induction vector as twice the angular velocity and the vector potential as the cross product of the induction vector and half the distance for no physical reason. It’s not even properly consistent with the magnetic analogy. Your definition, that A = w x r, merely creates by fiat, with no physical justification, the same force that can be seen to arise from the departure of a test point from rectilinear motion at the surface of a rotating earth. Inventing a non-existent field that gives the answer you want is not the same as deriving the forces from physical principles, either by the application of Newtonian mechanics in a non-inertial frame or by using Lagrangian formalism with generalised co-ordinates and physical bases for kinetic and potential energy.

So, the situation stands: no-one has ever shown that the rotation of the universe would give rise to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on a static earth in the same sense and in the same magnitude that we observe.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The idea that the earth is stationary and everything orbits it is absurd on some many fundamental levels.

It directly contradicts that gravity is relative to mass. Something we know to be true.

It directly contradicts light speed. LOL can you imagine the speed that a galaxy like Andromeda must be traveling at. It’s 2 million light years away yet it can orbit the earth in a day, thats just over 12.5 million light years a day! In fact how can we even see it when it is moving approx 4562500000 times the speed of light!

LOL yep, these people believe that Andromeda is traveling at approx 4562500000 times the speed of light! I was going to continue but if someone can’t see how utterly ridiculous that is then they are beyond talking to.

 

[pickguard1]

It directly contradicts light speed. LOL can you imagine the speed that a galaxy like Andromeda must be traveling at. It’s 2 million light years away yet it can orbit the earth in a day, thats just over 12.5 million light years a day! In fact how can we even see it when it is moving approx 4562500000 times the speed of light!

This is the part that is the real kicker for me…if everything out there is traveling at speeds like this, we wouldn’t see p(name removed by moderator)oints of light - we would see a completely solid line that scribes the star’s orbit in the sky. Because from our vantage point, if they are orbiting once a day, they’re going many times faster than the speed of light - that is, they would be making it round the earth millions of times before their light ever reaches us! Thus, their light should appear to be coming from everywhere in their orbit at the same time!

But, sadly, it’s not.

This thread has made me at least reexamine my beliefs, and that is a good thing - to not just take one’s beliefs for granted without examination. But in the end, I think they’re still pretty much the same. Earth spinning once on its axis every 24 or so hours…

 

[cassini]

There are still flat-earthers too!

The Earth: a Sphere or Flat?

Any mention of the pre-Copernican geocentric or earth-centred reality today is usually replied to with a reference to what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This is the standard reaction of a generation led to believe we are more intelligent and knowledgable than those ignoramuses of historic times and especially those Bible-thumping Churchmen of the Middle Ages and the seventeenth century. But the hard fact is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ among the great geocentricists of old exist in the sceptics’ prejudices, for it is a long time since that notion was seen off. The first recorded science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in Isaias, yes, in the Old Testament, the Bible itself:

‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.’ — Ch. 40:22.

That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient science. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as the Copernican propagandists would have us believe.

 

[cassini]

And you are missing the point. Why do the stars rotate around the sun as the sun rotates around the earth? You are confusing kinematic equivalence with dynamic equivalence. What geocentrism fatally lacks is a consistent theory of dynamics that explains the kind of statement you make above and is consistent with elliptical orbits and other observations. Such a very detailed and consistent framework is provided by Newtonian mechanics starting from the laws linking force, mass and acceleration and the observation that the force due to gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them: from this, all else follows. Where is the dynamical theory that starts with observable and testable laws of motion and concludes that the universe rotates around the sun (once per day, for heaven’s sake) which in turn rotates around the earth?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Sorry for butting in on your right to reply Luke but this guy answers as though Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are Laws of gravity. First of all there are - for the moment - no theories of dynamics for geocentricism because the scientific world never applied itself to theories as regards a geocentric universe. From the very beginnings geocentricism was rejected on ideological grounds by the scientific societies, usually created by occultists and freemasons as in the Royal society of London. Any attempt to contradict their gravitation theories were easily dismissed (as in the La Sage theory of a pushing force) and none but the heliocentric theories accepted by ‘science’. That is why the geocentric physics cubbard is near empty. Trouble is that in order to seem credible, I find those who adhere to the revelations of the Scriptures are using heliocentric physics and applying them to a geocentric model. In other words they too will fail because heliocentric physics is as heretical - so to speak - as holding a fixed sun orbiting spinning earth as true, and truth will not come from the operations of heresy.

But now that the fraud is exposed for what it is, these theories will come through. For a start there will come a day when the fact that orbits are not ellipses will demonstrate the heliocentric foundations are an illusion. It will be seen that orbits are directly connected with electro-magnetic effects and that is where the future of cosmology is going. Google in electric universe and see for yourself.

 

[cassini]

The idea that the earth is stationary and everything orbits it is absurd on some many fundamental levels.

It directly contradicts light speed. LOL can you imagine the speed that a galaxy like Andromeda must be traveling at. It’s 2 million light years away yet it can orbit the earth in a day, thats just over 12.5 million light years a day! In fact how can we even see it when it is moving approx 4562500000 times the speed of light!

.

Yet you have no problem with traveling faster than a bullet through space at 67,000 mph without as much as a breeze in your hair. In other words, there are things that reason cannot deduct. What if the stars are in a firmament bubble and it is the bubble that is rotating, just like someone in a plane dies not experience the speed it is traveling at?

 

[j1akey]

cassini:

And you SEE the earth going around the sun? Well, I don’t, I SEE the sun going around the earth. You SEE with your MIND, I see with my eyes.

Yes, I have a mind so I use it. The simple fact of the matter is if we did live in a geocentric universe then that also means the calculations we use to determine the location of planets and their future locations to send spacecraft to would be wrong and they’d miss every time. It’s math.

cassini:

Yet you have no problem with traveling faster than a bullet through space at 67,000 mph without as much as a breeze in your hair. In other words, there are things that reason cannot deduct. What if the stars are in a firmament bubble and it is the bubble that is rotating, just like someone in a plane dies not experience the speed it is traveling at?

Wind is caused by the movement of gases or objects through those gases in our atmosphere. Those gases have a certain amount of resistance to them. Space…being a vacuum and all has so little to no resistance to objects that it causes no wind.

I can’t believe I’m actually explaining this garbage, this is grade school education.