Geocentrism 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position

  • Thread starter Thread starter trth_skr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As of toady, 9/6 I have improved the section on llack of reversal of the Pope’s declarations against heliocentris, with the help of Art Sippo (who ehlped me sharpen my pencil on the issue throuh our dialogue), here:

envoymagazine.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1&TOPIC_ID=1188

Please take another look:

Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
veritas-catholic.blogspot.co…scriptural.html

Do not forget Parts I and II:

Part I: Basic Principles
veritas-catholic.blogspot.co…101-part-i.html

Part II:Basic Physics
veritas-catholic.blogspot.co…01-part-ii.html

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
I don’t get the fascination with 16th century science. You really think you have something to offer folks that physics and astronomy has missed the past 300 years. Quite strange…

Do not download Google Earth whatever you do, you’ll be very upset that you can rotate the planet at will. However, with the earth at a far distance away, the Google people make it appear that the universe is rotating instead, since the stars move. You’ll like that part. :cool: 😃

Phil P
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
I don’t get the fascination with 16th century science. You really think you have something to offer folks that physics and astronomy has missed the past 300 years. Quite strange…

…
Phil P
Click to expand...
Actually, Phil, I think you are stuck in 19th century physics. In the first third of the 20th century, Einstein said (CS = coordinate system):

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. – Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”

The not so amazing thing is that Cardinal Bellarmine and others within the Church (though apparently not Galileo) understood this in the 16th century, and the Fathers of the church understood it in the first centuries of Christianity.

😉

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
yes, but while any CS could be used to explain visual observations
it would not be consistent with other observed phenonemon
 
Steve Andersen:
yes, but while any CS could be used to explain visual observations
it would not be consistent with other observed phenonemon
Click to expand...
If that is true, then Einstein’s General Relativity is false. That is a fact. There are NO preferered reference frames in the universe. It can be described from any chosen point, and what is described must be consistent with the universe described from any other chosen point.

Maybe GR is not true, but then we are still in the same boat- we have only observations, and they can be interpreted in more than one way (including, but not limited to geocentrically).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top