C
cassini
Guest
Thanks for that Son, its made my day. Cannot stop laughing.You also used really exciting font sizes. If the logic and coherence of your position doesn’t convince them, maybe the font sizes and colors will.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
It is weird - it is like telling you that every red light you stopped at all your life you didn’t have to.The moon orbits the earth every 27 days, it is a relatively stable platform to view this from. So we KNOW the sun does not orbit the earth every 24 hours, we KNOW the earth is spinning. We have observed this.
I cannot believe people are actually trying to say the whole universe orbits the earth everyday.
C
cassini
Guest
‘There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.
C
cassini
Guest
Charles, you really do not get it, do you. You cannot reason your way through RELATIVITY. There will be a different view to cosmic movements from any body in this cosmos but it proves nothing. Why is it that you Copernicans cannot accept this and try to use relative movement to prove the earth moves? Are you that desperate to convince YOURSELVES?The moon orbits the earth every 27 days, it is a relatively stable platform to view this from. So we KNOW the sun does not orbit the earth every 24 hours, we KNOW the earth is spinning. We have observed this.
I cannot believe people are actually trying to say the whole universe orbits the earth everyday.
As for believing the Scriptures over human consensus, well if you can convince me that even GOD could not create the universe to rotate around the earth then you will convince us believers.
C
cassini
Guest
What is so strange about galaxies rotating with the universe around the earth? This is what every telescope sees every day.Well actually I have seen a few thing suggested. I do find it most humorous to be accused of not understanding by some one that believes that the earth is the center of the universe.
C
cassini
Guest
Luke K, if you can convince us that even GOD could not create the universe, including the sun, to rotate around the earth every day, then you will become greater than God. And that in a nutshell is where the Copernican heresy has led man, his reasoning in preference to God’s omnipotence, just as Pope Urban VIII predicted in 1633 should the heresy be loosed on man.
C
cassini
Guest
Now this IS an important post. Note readers whast Luke K relies on for his DOGMA OF COPERNICANISM:
I mean, you might as well throw out all of cosmology and physics for the past several hundred years if you believe that.
And completely ignore all other solar systems observed in the universe.
And abandon all of our God-given faculties of rational observation and faith in divinely ordained physical laws.
For any readers not programmed with the drug of ‘modern science’ let me simplify man’s ‘observation’ of other solar systems. First of all Luke K admits man has NEVER SEEN SUCH A SOLAR SYSTEM. Modern science relies on ‘WOBBLES’ that is, what is called 'PERTURBATION ‘LAW’.
So what is this perturbation 'LAW?
‘After Newton’s death, his ideas and equations triumphantly swept the world. The human race saw the spheres of heaven rotating and revolving through the absolute, stationary framework of outer space, all perfectly obedient to Newtonian laws of motion. .’ — LIFE NATURAL LIBRARY The Universe, p.16
Here above Newtonian ‘laws’ and mathematics are made look like a well-oiled machine. Again this is not true history but more of the Earthmovers’ heliocentric propaganda. The fact is that there was no ‘perfect obedience’ to Newtonian laws of motion as the following quote demonstrates.
‘The De Mundi Systemate, The System of the World, which forms Book III of the Principia, contains the full development of the theory of universal gravitation. In it the orbits of the planets and their satellites are specified…[but irregularities are found]. Subsequently, similar orbit irregularities [were] observed… Newton explains these phenomena as due to the “perturbative” effect of the sun.’ — Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, P.211
See the chickens coming home to roost here; ‘irregularities’ are found by Newton as Cassini discovered. Keplerian ellipses do not describe the true orbits of the sun and planets so of course orbital ‘irregularities’ would have been found when astronomers tried to find them along their supposed elliptical paths. But these guys needed their sun-centred elliptical orbits. So how did Newton worm his way past all these ‘irregularities’ and keep his maths intact? Simple, with yet another stop-gap invention of his of course, another theory called:
‘Subtle gravitational influences (perturbations).’
— Standage: The Neptune File.
‘Perturbation theories (WOBBLES): Of great interest in the further development of the subject is the celebrated three-body problem. Lagrange’s elegant solutions of the restricted problem, the n-body problem and a discussion of integrability. The groundwork is thus laid for the exposition of perturbation theories, which consist of two fundamental types: general perturbation theory and special perturbation theory.’ ----Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences: Chapman Hall, p.89.
With a stroke of pragmatic genius, Newton accounted for these ‘small’ discrepancies in his Keplerian orbits by saying they must be caused by the (subtle) gravitational ‘pull’ of the other bodies within the solar system. But little did he know what he was letting himself in for. When he first fell for Hooke, Wren and Hally’s theory of gravitation, Newton began with simple earth-moon relationship mathematics; one that presumed the moon orbited the earth in an elliptical curve. With his rescue theory the maths got harder, infinitely harder, for he then had to extend the maths to include a third influence, the sun, then a fourth, etc.
‘Newton also proposed that since any object that has mass is attracted to every other object that has mass, the orbits of each planet is influenced not only by the sun, but by all the other planets as well.’
OK., so much for the history OF PERTURBATION LAW, it was an invention of Newton’s to correct a false elliptical orbit.
But In our day cosmologists use this same illusion to FIND SOLAR SYSTEMS IN SPACE. Yes, they interpret movement of light in stars (WOBBLES) as EVIDENCE for solar systems. They DISMISS any other possible cause for such light movement.
AND THIS IS WHAT LUKE K BASES HIS TRUTH ON.
God help us all.
L
Luke_K
Guest
cassini and Luke65, you claim the virtue of humility in your position because you demonstrate childlike obedience to the Church/God, yet you still attempt to rationalize your belief with pseudo-science. Why are you presenting me these quotes that try to use their own form of science to disprove mine, if your position is truly the more humble one that can only be understood by divine revelation?
I can see that you are firmly entrenched in your geocentrism to the point that your faith in God and the Church hinges on it. If your faith depends on the whole universe orbiting around the earth every 24 hours, I guess I will not try any longer to destroy your worldview. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the centuries have believed the Catholic faith and have been saved without knowing a thing about astronomy, so I’m sure that you can still become saints regardless of whether you accept basic math and physics.
I hope we can meet in heaven and behold the truth together someday. But let me tell you, we’re going to get there because of baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, not because the earth is at the center of the universe.
I can see that you are firmly entrenched in your geocentrism to the point that your faith in God and the Church hinges on it. If your faith depends on the whole universe orbiting around the earth every 24 hours, I guess I will not try any longer to destroy your worldview. Hundreds of thousands of people throughout the centuries have believed the Catholic faith and have been saved without knowing a thing about astronomy, so I’m sure that you can still become saints regardless of whether you accept basic math and physics.
I hope we can meet in heaven and behold the truth together someday. But let me tell you, we’re going to get there because of baptism, confession, and the Eucharist, not because the earth is at the center of the universe.
W
wussup
Guest
Luke K;5664906I can see that you are firmly entrenched in your geocentrism to the point that your faith in God and the Church hinges on it. If your faith depends on the whole universe orbiting around the earth every 24 hours said:
L
Luke_K
Guest
Yes I guess that was the whole point of this thread. Just read the first post.
I was just trying to contribute what I could.
W
wussup
Guest
Yeah, well, that was 34 pages ago! I don’t actually remember anyone answering the question now that you mention it.Yes I guess that was the whole point of this thread. Just read the first post.
“Are we as Catholics allowed to believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system and the modern scientific view of the universe?. I am curious to know what the consequences of believing in the heliocentric nature is for a catholic.”
G
grannymh
Guest
The Catholic Church only deals with issues of faith and morals. Individuals like St. Robert B. and various prelates can deal with anything their individual minds want to. It’s a form of right to free speech. The planets are not part of faith and morals necessary for salvation. Find the posts for masterjedi747 and you will find excellent information about what really goes on in the Church regarding veracity of faith and morals. As for science, check out this thread.
G
grannymh
Guest
Answer to question: Yes, Catholics can believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system. They can believe the geocentric nature of the universe. These are items of science.
Regarding the modern scientific view of the universe, with modern as the operative word: Since some parts of the modern scientific views deny the existence of God, those parts would be considered a contradiction to the Catholic position that God exists. For Catholics, the existence of God trumps an unfortunate view of science.
L
Luke65
Guest
Well then, I will explain it to you - to all of you. God knows the end from the beginning. And the Holy Spirit leads the Church of Christ - the Catholic Church - to all truth. So let’s think like God does - outside of time. And let’s start with what the Church actually defined:
Now, one thing that might jump out to readers is the question of why the Holy Tribunal, “by command of His Holiness” and thus lead by the Holy Spirit in defining this doctrine, differentiated between an immobile sun and a mobile Earth - the former being “formally heretical”, and the latter being only “erroneous in faith”. We cannot know for certain because we have no records of how the Tribunal arrived at these definitions, but it is commonly thought that it was because Scripture is explicit about the motion of the sun in a variety of literary styles, including historical narratives; while the immobility of the Earth can only be found in poetic passages. However, the Fathers were unanimous that both points were literal truth, and so a mobile Earth is still an error in faith.
Now, God could have at any time had His Church declare belief in a mobile Earth to be heresy, but the Holy Spirit never did that. Why? Well, obviously it was for the same reason that this same Holy Spirit chose not to declare the immobility of the Earth unambiguously in Scripture: because God, knowing the end from the beginning, did not want His people to all be heretics! And sure, it’s a technicality that no one believes that “the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place”, while they do believe that the Earth orbits around the sun. But obviously it pleased God to let His people off on a technicality, knowing that the world, including His people, would be deceived by the prince of this world about the true nature of the world.
Once again, you can believe that this is just another incredible coincidence, or you can simply love the truth: we are at the center of the universe, because we are the apple of God’s eye. And because…
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:27)
Now, certain Catholics have tried to argue that because the pope took the Copernican books off the Index of Forbidden Books that this means the Church “abrogated” her geocentric doctrine! How conveniently they forget the difference between Church doctrine and Church discipline - the former being immutable and binding on the whole Church; the latter being changeable at the discretion of the Church. But by their reasoning, since the Church abrogated the whole Index, then there must not be any more heresies! This is the sort of logic they are reduced to. Why? Because they cannot produce any Magisterial decree abrogating the Church’s geocentric doctrine - so they quote Ludwig Ott and the Catholic Encyclopedia!
If the Catholic Church did not immutably declare Her geocentric doctrine, then why has She not changed it? If the Catholic Church’s geocentric doctrine is not infallible, then why can’t anybody prove that it’s wrong? Wake up! The Lord has done this and it is wonderful in our eyes! Or you can believe that these are simply more incredible coincidences.
But for those who suppress the truth, a different fate awaits…
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." (Romans 1:18-25)
J
JimG
Guest
The purpose of the magisterium of the Church is to preserve the teaching of the Apostles handed down from Christ, and to hand it down faithfully to succeeding generations. Popes and bishops can have varying opinions on matters of science, but their teaching goes to Faith and Morals, not to astronomy, cosmology, General or Special Relativity, string theory, red shift, or physics.
It appears that the real reason for belief in geocentrism has more to do with support for a particular theory of bible interpretation than with science. Let the scientists argue science. Let the theologians argue scripture and theology. Geocentrism is not an article of the Catholic Faith.
I’m sure geocentrists will disagree with that, just as the Lefebvreites disagreed with Vatican II. But the fact remains, nothing in our Catholic Faith requires a belief in geocentrism.
It appears that the real reason for belief in geocentrism has more to do with support for a particular theory of bible interpretation than with science. Let the scientists argue science. Let the theologians argue scripture and theology. Geocentrism is not an article of the Catholic Faith.
I’m sure geocentrists will disagree with that, just as the Lefebvreites disagreed with Vatican II. But the fact remains, nothing in our Catholic Faith requires a belief in geocentrism.
G
grannymh
Guest
One needs to understand that faith and morals was the only thing that came under the idea of unanimous Fathers.
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).
Please note that geocentrism/science is not mentioned.
Please check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Please pay attention to God as the Creator of the universe–this is a real doctrine of faith.
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.
McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox:
*“They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light”;
“What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate”;
“In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought” . *
It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing “Einstein’s” theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington’s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington’s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question:
“Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?” This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the “enemy” theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.
The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science.
Was this the hoax of the century?
McCausland stated that
*“In the author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science”. *
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
Summary
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigor is the measure of truth. Little do people realize how science is conducted in the presence of personality and thinly disguised ideology. .
AMDG
What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise.
McCausland (2001) quotes the former Editor of Nature, Sir John Maddox:
*“They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light”;
“What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate”;
“In spite of the fact that experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact and his theory has ever since been held to be one of the highest achievements of human thought” . *
It is clear that from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing “Einstein’s” theory; he was only interested in confirming it. One of the motivating factors in Eddington’s decision to promote Einstein was that both men shared a similar political persuasion: pacifism. To suggest that politics played no role in Eddington’s glowing support of Einstein, one need ask only the question:
“Would Eddington have been so quick to support Einstein if Einstein had been a hawk?” This is no idle observation. Eddington took his role as the great peacemaker very seriously. He wanted to unite British and German scientists after World War I. What better way than to elevate the “enemy” theorist Einstein to exalted status? In his zeal to become peacemaker, Eddington lost the fundamental objectivity that is the essential demeanour of any true scientist. Eddington ceased to be a scientist and, instead, became an advocate for Einstein.
The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant subversion of scientific process and may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century. It probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of 20th-century science.
Was this the hoax of the century?
McCausland stated that
*“In the author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the decisive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November 1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed, but one of the most unfortunate incidents in the history of 20th-century science”. *
It cannot be emphasised enough that the Eclipse of 1919 made Einstein, Einstein. It propelled him to international fame overnight, despite the fact that the data were fabricated and there was no support for general relativity whatsoever. This perversion of history has been known about for over 80 years and is still supported by people like Stephen Hawking and David Levy.
Summary
The general public tends to believe that scientists are the ultimate defenders of ethics, that scientific rigor is the measure of truth. Little do people realize how science is conducted in the presence of personality and thinly disguised ideology. .
AMDG
W
wussup
Guest
Oh, … so, you mean, oops, we made a mistake.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Why do the galaxies rotate?
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Ok now i see, you deny everything we understand about the universe because it does not agree with the ancient scribblings of desert men.
- Status