Geocentric Universe?

[hecd2]

But since you, with your scientific authority, insist that there is “no evidence” for Geocentrism, and to try to answer the various questions and objections that people have, I’ve put together some highlights from Sungenis’ book, and elsewhere, to try to explain the theory and show the supporting evidence.

The problem for you is that Sungenis is shameless in his misuse of others’ statements in support of his nonsense. Since for you, attempting to prove your prejudiced opinion takes priority, and you don’t know better from a scientific point of view, you think and hope that what Sungenis has is evidence for geocentrism, when in fact it is mere misconception, selective quotation, ignorance and deliberate mendacity. None of this really matters of course, because no cosmologist could possibly be taken in by Sungenis’s silliness (his book has had and will have absolutely no influence amongst scientists because it is unmitigated nonsense from beginning to end). Now what you have done here is to provide page after page of cut and paste from the book. Every single argument you posted is fundamentally flawed either by misconception or misrepresentation but it would be too laborious for me and too tedious for everyone else to explain the errors and deliberate misrepresentations in every argument that you choose to cut and paste (for if I were to do so you would most likely cut and paste another five pages of junk). So I will do what I have time to do which is to point out and reinforce one or two cases where Sungenis’s claims are so erroneous that he loses all credibility. There comes a point where one can conclude that Sungenis is a charlatan who is not worth listening to.

All these CMB axes “related to the direction of the Earth’s spin axis”, and you think a geocentrist is going to abandon that evidence?! Please!! But we’ll get to that later.

We begin with a reminder of Sungenis’s (and your) complete ignorance of the nature of the CMB and dishonest misuse of apparent alignment of power in the quadrupole and octupole. Previous posts have established the fact that you and Sungenis have no idea what these terms (and the dipole mean), and that neither of you know the difference between the celestial and galactic poles. But above all, neither you nor he can explain in any sort of coherent way how, even if the alignments exist, that they can possibly be evidence for geocentrism. Sungenis’s claims in his book and your uncritical parroting of them simply do not follow from the data.

Actually, yes, Van der Kamp was saying that if stellar parallax is actually stellar aberration then the distance would be 1/25th.

Van der Kamp was saying that if stellar parallax is actually stellar aberration then the distance would be 1/25th, was he? Well, first of all, van der Kamp was saying no such thing (you have obviously not read the relevant passage in de Labore Solis), secondly only a complete dimwit could confuse stellar aberration with stellar parallax theoretically or empirically and thirdly Sungenis does confuse the two phenomena on page 343 of his book. For the record, the stellar aberration of Alpha Centauri is the same as every other extra-solar body (because stellar aberration is independent of the distance to or the peculiar velocity of the source and depends only on the motion of the observer - ie the motion of the earth), but its parallax is greater than other stars because parallax does depend on the distance of the source - the closer the star, the greater the parallax).

By the way, with all your huffing and puffing about “an elementary error on nearly every page”, when are we going to see an actual error?

We’ve seen several so far, in fact everywhere we look. In the next post, we’ll see one or two more.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[grannymh]

Basically, they believe that Jesus’ walking on water was miraculous because he defied the laws of gravity. But every planet and star in the universe does this too so maybe what Jesus did wasn’t so big of a deal?

It must be late or maybe I need another Pepsi. Are you really saying that every planet and star walks on water because they defy the laws of gravity? Is Jesus the same as a fixed star or planet and by fixed I mean that the star or planet occupies a particular place in the universe as opposed to being with trees in a forest?

Perhaps both of us need to reread the context surrounding the event of Jesus walking on water.

By the way, what is the purpose of every planet and star in the universe defying the laws of gravity? And what was the purpose of Jesus walking on water?

 

[grannymh]

Well… then science has shown your church is incorrect.

Not quite. Science has shown individual persons that there is a different theory regarding the earth’s position. It is up to individual persons to debate which theory is better or whatever.

There is a huge difference between individual persons debating scientific opinions and the Catholic Deposit of Faith which contains the correct teachings.

 

[grannymh]

You believe God was born of a virgin, became a man, walked on water, raised the dead, turned water to wine, read people’s thoughts, calmed the sea and winds, was transfigured, was cruicifed, died, then rose, walked through walls, ascended to Heaven on His own, can give us His body and blood today in bread and wine, etc:

Uh huh…, this is good. Fine fine.

You believe it’s possible that the sun can revolve around the earth:

YOU’RE CRAZY!!!

Sorry, I just don’t get the anomosity against those that believe Geocentrism is possible. There have been some pretty heated insults hurled. Can someone please explain what the fear is?

If you would look carefully at the two categories of information which you mentioned above, you would, at the very least, have the basis for an answer to your question.

 

[Luke_K]

It must be late or maybe I need another Pepsi. Are you really saying that every planet and star walks on water because they defy the laws of gravity? Is Jesus the same as a fixed star or planet and by fixed I mean that the star or planet occupies a particular place in the universe as opposed to being with trees in a forest?

Perhaps both of us need to reread the context surrounding the event of Jesus walking on water.

By the way, what is the purpose of every planet and star in the universe defying the laws of gravity? And what was the purpose of Jesus walking on water?

I was saying that geocentrists believe Jesus’ walking on water was miraculous. It is viewed as miraculous because Jesus was defying gravity (by not falling in the water), and nothing else in the universe has the same capability to defy gravity because God’s physical laws prevent that from happening. In other words, the commonly accepted laws of gravity do not apply to Jesus because he was the one who made them.

But geocentrists also believe that the commonly/scientifically accepted “Laws of Gravity” do not apply to the planets and stars, because these commonly accepted laws show that the whole universe cannot revolve around the earth every 24 hours.

So they force themselves into the responsibility of showing that the stars and planets DO follow a common set of natural laws unknown to modern science, from our living rooms to a galaxy millions of light years away.

If they don’t do this, they’re forced into two different possibilities:

1. God acts miraculously at every moment to sustain the earth in its foundation, and acts at every moment to move the universe around it every 24 hours. (Both Jesus and the motion of the heavenly bodies are miraculous.)
2. Jesus’ walking on water was not miraculous because the stars and planets also defy the commonly accepted laws of gravity like Jesus did. (Neither Jesus nor the motion of the heavenly bodies is miraculous.)

And considering the centuries of mathematical toil, scientific hypothesis and re-examination, and applications that testify to the veracity of the commonly accepted laws of physics, I think that geocentrists have an absurd task to show that the planets and stars do follow laws that allow them to orbit the earth every 24 hours.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Not quite. Science has shown individual persons that there is a different theory regarding the earth’s position. It is up to individual persons to debate which theory is better or whatever.

There is a huge difference between individual persons debating scientific opinions and the Catholic Deposit of Faith which contains the correct teachings.

Err no, science has showing that the earth is not at the center of the solar system, is has also show then woman did not come from a mans rib. We are all wrong from time to time, and that includes your church. At least admit it.

 

[hecd2]

The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. For example, in the recently published book by Oxford University Press titled The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, the Most Violent Explosions in the Universe

OK - let’s look at Sungenis’s claims for GRBs. Either Sungenis has not read the book and has been persuaded erroneously that it contains geocentric evidence OR he has read it and he deliberately misrepresents it. In either case Sungenis’s reputation is shredded by his misuse of GRBs as evidence for geocentrism. To begin with he doesn’t tell his reader that the chapter he so relies on does not, and was not intended to, describe the current state of knowledge but provides an historical context to the story of the discovery and interpretation of GRBs. Let me explain, in the almost forlorn hope that you will read this and realise how deceptive Sungenis has been. I will keep it simple. It is true that GRBs are distributed isotropically and their frequency can be explained by one of two conclusions: either they occur within or close to the galaxy and their distribution is a sphere centred on the earth OR they occur throughout the universe, primarily at cosmological distances with homogeneous distribution. The latter explanation provides, of course, zero evidence for geocentrism. What Sungenis fails to tell you is that it is clear that the latter explanation is now known to be correct. The observed distribution of GRBs is explained by the fact they occur not in the galaxy but at cosmological distances. I quote from Katz’s book:

“The Copernican dilemma was finally resolved by statistical studies of rough positions of a large number of bursts, the same kind of data that created it.” p93

“The importance of the discovery of soft gamma repeaters was that inferences drawn from the superburst of March 5, 1979, could not properly be applied to classical gamma-ray bursts. No longer could it be argued that gamma-ray bursts originate in or near our galaxy…” p98

“In particular, the Copernican dilemma was much less severe. It had seemed to imply that classical gamma-ray bursts…were distributed over a spherical volume with a definite outer boundary, but with us at the center. This could be explained naturally if bursts were at cosmological distances, but such great distances had apparently been excluded by the identification of the March 5, 1979, superburst in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Now the contradiction was removed because the superburst was realized to be entirely unrelated to the classical bursts.” p99

“Further BATSE data continued to arrive, and the evidence for cosmological distances only grew stronger.” p124

“The debate of 1995 was an anticlimax. The protagonists restated positions in a controversy that most astronomers has considered settled in 1993. In the two intervening years and subsequently, the case for a galactic halo of burst sources had only weakened further.” p125

"In May 11, 1997, observers using the 33 foot diameter Keck telescope obtained the visible spectrum of the afterglow of the burst of May 8, 1997. They found absorption lines with the characteristic wavelength ratios of the lines of iron and magnesium, typical of interstellar matter…Light from the gamma-ray bursts had been absorbed by matter nearly halfway across the universe…The absorbing matter might be in the same galaxy as the gamma-ray burst, in which case the burst also had a redshift of 0.835. Or, the light of the afterglow may have accidentally passed through the absorbing matter on its way to Earth. In that case the burst was even more distant and had a greater (though unmeasured) redshift. In either case, there no longer could be any doubt that gamma-ray bursts occur at cosmological distances. That question was answered conclusively. "p148

In other words GRBs are known not to be galactic in origin and not to arise on a sphere centred on earth; but are homogeneously distributed throughout the universe at cosmological distances. Sungenis badly misrepresented the case. If I were you, I’d be angry with Sungenis for his blatant attempts at manipulation.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[grannymh]

I was saying that geocentrists believe Jesus’ walking on water was miraculous. It is viewed as miraculous because Jesus was defying gravity (by not falling in the water), and nothing else in the universe has the same capability to defy gravity because God’s physical laws prevent that from happening. In other words, the commonly accepted laws of gravity do not apply to Jesus because he was the one who made them.

But geocentrists also believe that the commonly/scientifically accepted “Laws of Gravity” do not apply to the planets and stars, because these commonly accepted laws show that the whole universe cannot revolve around the earth every 24 hours.

So they force themselves into the responsibility of showing that the stars and planets DO follow a common set of natural laws unknown to modern science, from our living rooms to a galaxy millions of light years away.

If they don’t do this, they’re forced into two different possibilities:

1. God acts miraculously at every moment to sustain the earth in its foundation, and acts at every moment to move the universe around it every 24 hours. (Both Jesus and the motion of the heavenly bodies are miraculous.)
2. Jesus’ walking on water was not miraculous because the stars and planets also defy the commonly accepted laws of gravity like Jesus did. (Neither Jesus nor the motion of the heavenly bodies is miraculous.)

And considering the centuries of mathematical toil, scientific hypothesis and re-examination, and applications that testify to the veracity of the commonly accepted laws of physics, I think that geocentrists have an absurd task to show that the planets and stars do follow laws that allow them to orbit the earth every 24 hours.

Could it be that Scripture miracles or Scripture non-miracles (points 1 and 2) actually have nothing to do with planets and suns and their “laws”?

I liked your first point "the commonly accepted laws of gravity do not apply to Jesus because he was the one who made them." But even that is slightly off the mark when one looks at the context of the Gospels and the basic issue between Jesus and His contemporaries. However, that discussion belongs elsewhere. My point in bringing it up is that some geocentrists look to Scripture as proof of scientific theories. On the other hand, when one looks to Scripture to see what it is actually proving, one finds that Scripture’s “proof” is that Jesus Christ is Divine. And Jesus is simply not in the same class as the planets and stars.

It all boils down to my deepest wish --that geocentrists would stick to science.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[tjm190]

You should know better than that. However, exactly what was the author getting to? What does pillars mean?

It is raining cats and dogs outside.

So you admit that not all language in the bible is literal?

 

[grannymh]

Err no, science has showing that the earth is not at the center of the solar system, is has also show then woman did not come from a mans rib. We are all wrong from time to time, and that includes your church. At least admit it.

In various posts/threads, I have pointed out that individuals and their individual opinions can be wrong about issues of science. But dogmatic science is not part of the Catholic Church period. Therefore, how could I possibly say that the Catholic Church’s Deposit of Faith is wrong about an issue (regarding specific scientific theories) that is totally outside of its realm. That would be illogical.

 

[grannymh]

So you admit that not all language in the bible is literal?

Please see

 

[Charles_Darwin]

In various posts/threads, I have pointed out that individuals and their individual opinions can be wrong about issues of science. But dogmatic science is not part of the Catholic Church period. Therefore, how could I possibly say that the Catholic Church’s Deposit of Faith is wrong about an issue (regarding specific scientific theories) that is totally outside of its realm. That would be illogical.

You’ve lost me. Also what is “dogmatic science” . That’s kind of a contraction.

 

[tjm190]

You’ve lost me. Also what is “dogmatic science” . That’s kind of a contraction.

Haven’t looked at the whole back round discussion, but I assume he means science is not written into church dogma

 

[buffalo]

So you admit that not all language in the bible is literal?

Uh - I have right along.

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[grannymh]

You’ve lost me. Also what is “dogmatic science” . That’s kind of a contraction.

You are so right – “dogmatic science” is a contradiction which for some reason, some people don’t recognize. This is part of the problem associated with geocentricism and heliocentricism.

What I was trying to say is that an umpire wouldn’t apply football’s penalty rules to a baseball game. In other words, the Catholic Deposit of Faith would not include the laws of science in its “game” which is based on faith and morals. Thus the Catholic Church in its official sense cannot declare one way or another on a science matter.
On the other hand, individual members of the Church can say what they want about science – it is freedom of speech.

There are Catholics who have been great scientists. There is a list on a post somewhere. Their achievements do not become part of the Catholic Faith.

 

[grannymh]

Haven’t looked at the whole back round discussion, but I assume he means science is not written into church dogma

You are correct.

 

[cassini]

We use human reason because God gave us human reason… the Scriptures are books of faith, as I have said time and time again, and though fully inspired and true they are not always meant to be understood in the most literal sense. Science was left to us by God to figure out on our own, and He gave us human reason to do so.

Morning George. Human reasoning is fallible, the Scriptures are the word of God. Who decides what the word of God says and means, you Copernicans or the Church? There is no point going on about being Catholic, accepting the Scriptures are inspired and true and then REJECTING what the Church defined and declared according to the dictates of Trent. You Copernicans are HYPOCRITS.

 

[cassini]

Hi GeorgeSword,

Agree. Scriptures are books of faith.
I did check out the Teen Catholic Converts Colony . And left a post…

The most recent and accurate reiteration on this very point is to be found in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, where he declares:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’

 

[cassini]

Originally Posted by cassini
See Charles, you bring the truth down to human reasoning on small bodies orbiting larger bodies. In other words you conclude THIS because of THAT. This is AN ASSUMPTION. ASSUMPTIONS are not science and do not prove anything so the core earth/sun question has not been proven either way. Of course geocentricism does not comply with your heliocentric ASSUMPTIONS, but that is taken for granted. Now you, Pope John Paul II and all the other human reason over faith Copernicans can chose what you like, but ASSUMPTIONS apart, I chose God’s omnipotence to create what HE said in the Scriptures He created.

I don’t assume anything, i have a 10" Meade i can SEE the moons orbiting Jupiter, i can SEE the shape of Andromeda. Again, give me ONE example of larger massed object orbiting a smaller massed object.

Charles, you really do not get it do you? Is there any way to get across to you Copernicans how to present the case of G v H?

What you do not SEE is the earth orbiting the sun, NOBODY has ever SEEN the earth orbiting the sun. You ASSUME the earth orbits the sun. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a CHOICE we can all make. We use different criteria in making that choice. I chose to go with the Church of 1616 because my faith tells me that if the Church was wrong on this one then it is NOT THE CHURCH GUIDED BY GOD. Just ONE such error is enough to TOTALLY undermine what the Church claims based on Catholic faith. Now you Copernicans, popes included, chose to go with ASSUMPTIONS based on what you think proves your choice, but I go on TRUST in that God allowed the 1616 papal decree DEFINING and DECLARING G as a revelation of Scripture. It is a matter of faith as Bellarmine said in 1615, just as the Virgin Birth is a matter of faith, both revealed in the Scriptures, both deemed IMPOSSIBLE by science.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Charles, you really do not get it do you? Is there any way to get across to you Copernicans how to present the case of G v H?

What you do not SEE is the earth orbiting the sun, NOBODY has ever SEEN the earth orbiting the sun. You ASSUME the earth orbits the sun. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a CHOICE we can all make. We use different criteria in making that choice. I chose to go with the Church of 1616 because my faith tells me that if the Church was wrong on this one then it is NOT THE CHURCH GUIDED BY GOD. Just ONE such error is enough to TOTALLY undermine what the Church claims based on Catholic faith. Now you Copernicans, popes included, chose to go with ASSUMPTIONS based on what you think proves your choice, but I go on TRUST in that God allowed the 1616 papal decree DEFINING and DECLARING G as a revelation of Scripture. It is a matter of faith as Bellarmine said in 1615, just as the Virgin Birth is a matter of faith, both revealed in the Scriptures, both deemed IMPOSSIBLE by science.

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just deliberately ignoring my points. Where did i say i see the earth orbit the sun, i SAID i have a Meade. i can see the moons orbit JUPITER, i can SEE the spiral shape of Andromeda. What we never see, ANYWHERE is an object of larger mass orbiting an object of lesser mass.

So why on earth ANY rational person believe that the earth (in a cosmos that has a 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars.) is the ONLY exception to that rule.