Geocentrism: Do you believe in Geocentrism?

[cassini]

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra. The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See. The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

OK Marc, I see you bring out the ultimate Copernican ploy, infallibility.

The ordinary infallibility of the Catholic Church had to die a thousand deaths at the hands of those who believed that science proved the Church wrong. In their ignorance and loss of faith these loyal Catholics had of course to expurgate the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined and declared by papal decree the proposition of a fixed sun as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly. For many years now, there has been a desperate attempt to try to present the anti-Copernican condemnations and decrees as the mistaken waffling of ignorant theologians, declarations carrying no real authority at all, rulings that could be ignored as non-events and forgotten in time. In a desperate effort to have their divinely guided Church and their Church that defined and declared formal heresies, they bring in what they think is their ACE card, infallibility. The first casualty in this abuse of the Holy Ghost (infallibility) is of course the Church’s ordinary infallibility. Without it then only extraordinary infallibility can guarantee a pope when he teaches on matters of faith and morals. Unless one can show extraordinary Infallibility then that teaching COULD BE IN ERROR. Given the history of the Church is awash with doctrines promulgated outside the extraordinary infallibility, every word of it can now be said to have no divine guidance or (name removed by moderator)ut, that it could be all a pile of errors and codswallop.

Such pathetic delusion and denial desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.

For me, when a Pope defines and declares something formal heresy. I accept he has the Holy Ghost protecting him. It was this simple belief that led me to find the truth of the Galileo case and that truth set me free. When a pope goes before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a bunch of Atheists and Agnostics with a scattering of Copernican Catholics and tells the world that the Church of 1616 was wrong, that I consider outside his area of infallibility and I am not obliged to believe a word of it.

To sum up. When a Copernican says that Pope Paul V’s decree that heliocentrism was formal heresy was not infallible what he really means is that a papal decree can be wrong, in error, a total sham. Copernicans use the dogma of infallibility in the Galileo case to get rid of the ordinary infallibility of a papal decree. After the Galileo case there is only one kind of infallibility, the one that means a pope can err even when defining and declaring a formal heresy. This of course is just another heresy trying to protect the first heresy.

 

[masterjedi747]

I hope you realize that I copied this directly from your post on the other geocentrism thread!

I did indeed.

There is only one teaching authority in the Church, the Pope.

The Pope is the head, but his supreme power is exercised in the Church through various organs, with differing levels of binding authority.

The very idea that wikipedia could teach me anything more that that is a joke.

Way to avoid actually answering the argument. Did you even look at the chart I pointed you to?

Come on, tell us all how you can get past relativity.

Explain what you think the problem is? I’m guessing you think that, due to relativity, I have absolutely no basis for judging which object is really moving? Because that doesn’t follow.

 

[masterjedi747]

For me, when a Pope defines and declares something formal heresy. I accept he has the Holy Ghost protecting him. It was this simple belief that led me to find the truth of the Galileo case and that truth set me free.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Listen to yourself.
I’ll stand with what the Church teaches about Her own authority, thank you very much.

 

[choy]

i believe fully that the earth is the center of the universe

in a philosophical sense that is

what other planet did God set foot on as a human being? what other planet has God put so much love and care for?

being the center of something doesn’t always mean a geographical or mathematical center. all the attention and all the energies are focused on Earth. its like for the ancient Hebrews, being called firstborn doesn’t necessarily mean being the one born first before the other siblings. just the fact that you are the most favored one.

 

[Newbot]

There is only one teaching authority in the Church, the Pope. The very idea that wikipedia could teach me anything more tha[n] that is a joke.

I speak with all politeness, and indeed hoping the best for you. But the above is why so few are convinced by what you’re saying. Usually, to a small degree at least, the character of the speaker plays a part in how convinced we are of what they say (ethos). This is for the following reason. When we read the writings of one who shows himself erudite, who employs nuance, who is careful to listen to his opponent’s position and agree with what is true while distinguishing what is incorrect on the basis of clear argument, we assume this person is 1) liable to know the truth and 2) not likely to deceive about it. On the other hand, one who does the contrary we suspect to be 1) less likely to know the truth, having failed to consider both sides, and 2) liable to give a disproportionate account, by omitting the true points of the other side. All this should be rather clear.

For example, consider what masterjedi747 said. Wikipedia is not to be trusted in itself, but it lists four sources in the footnotes. The first is a recent book by Archbishop Michael Sheehan – which because it is not public domain, is rather hard to use as a source. The second is from the Code of Canon Law. It is too long to quote, but here is a rough summary of the major relevant points:

1. The Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility when speaking ex cathedra.
2. The college of bishops.possess infallibility (either in an ecumenical council or dispersed through the world) when they definitively declare that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held, etc.
   (First three points in the Wikipedia article.)
3. “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
4. All contained in the deposit of faith, and proposed as divinely revealed by the solemn magisterium of the Church or its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed and held by faith.
5. Likewise all that must be held to safeguard and expound the deposit of faith, as proposed definitely by the magisterium of the Church, must be retained.
   (This seems to be a kind of definition of terms and a clarification of what came before. In particular, we see the distinction between ‘held by faith’ and ‘theologically necessary’.)
6. A definition of heresy, apostasy, and schism follow.
7. Religious submission of intellect and will must be given to any doctrine declared by the Pope or the college of bishops, even if not proclaimed by a definitive act.
8. Religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops is to be given, even though they are not infallible.
9. “All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.”
   (Fourth and fifth points in the Wikipedia article.)

The third is from Lumen Gentium. It too is rather long and detailed and hence I cannot quote it in full. Here is another summary of the major points:

1. The faithful are to accept the teachings of bishops with religious assent in matters of faith and morals.
2. Likewise to the authentic magisterium of the Pope, even when not speaking ex cathedra.
3. There follows a clarification and definition of terms.

4.When the bishops, in communion with one another and the Pope, declare as one that some matter of faith and morals must definitively be held, they possess infalibility.
5. Likewise for the Pope himself, even speaking alone, provided he speak ex cathedra.

1. The above, however, is done according to the Revelation and deposit of faith given once and for all. They give this one deposit of faith apt expression and seek to inquire into it, but there is no new public revelation.

The fourth quote is from St. Thomas, and supposedly concerns the authority of theologians. Because that is not relevant to this discussion, there’s no need to refer to it.

Now had you said, “Yes, the above distinctions and authorities, laid out in the Code of Canon Law and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, are quite valid. The declarations of 1616 and 1633 fall under the seventh point in the Code of Canon Law, or the second in Lumen Gentium, namely religious assent of intellect and will, but not infallibility. Since these declarations have never been overturned, we are still required to assent. If you were not blind, you’d see [you could add if you felt like it].” Then we would have wondered if perhaps this might be true, and argued for or against it.

Or had you agreed as before, but said, “The declarations of 1616 and 1633 fall under the first point in the Code of Canon Law, and the fifth point in Lumen Gentium, namely ex cathedra papal infallibility, and meet the conditions for such-and-such reasons. If you were not blind, you’d see.” Then we would have wondered if perhaps this might be true, and argued for or against it.

Instead, you said, “There is no authority but the Pope, and Wikipedia has nothing to teach me.” The very tone predisposes us to disbelieve you, and a moment of research reveals that what you said is objectively and empirically false, unless interpreted in some mystical sense.

My point isn’t to be rude at all. You must imagine me saying all this in the most peaceful, kindly fashion imaginable. Indeed, I am being unkind to myself! I’m trying to teach you how to convince people that I’m wrong! If I truly wished to be cruel to you, I would say, “Do exactly what you’re doing, it’s working! You’re convincing everyone!” But alas, that would be untrue. So with great self-sacrifice I have decided to show you how to argue more convincingly, so as to refute me better.

 

[Newbot]

Explain what you think the problem is? I’m guessing you think that, due to relativity, I have absolutely no basis for judging which object is really moving? Because that doesn’t follow.

Could you explain that, because it sounds rather evil and wrong .

In particular, isn’t the very principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) that all (inertial) frames of reference are equivalent for the description of natural phenomena? Hence there is no absolute justification derived from the observed phenomena for preferring one frame of reference to another: the laws become no more convoluted. Hence, all possibly signs by which to distinguish a ‘moving’ frame of reference from a ‘non-moving’ one are excluded in principle.

Perhaps, however, you will say that in general relativity, the laws will take a simpler form? And thus, although we cannot distinguish linear motion from linear rest (which was true even for Newton), we can distinguish acceleration from non-acceleration. I do not understand general relativity well enough to say for sure, but surely at the least the general law of gravity (Einstein’s Field Equations) is invariant for any frame of reference whatsoever? As I understand it, it was formulated for precisely that purpose: to come up with a general formula of coincidence holding for any four quantities whatsoever (cf. library.du.ac.in/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/7038/Index.pdf?sequence=1 ).

So I’m not quite sure how one can say that, given general relativity, any absolute distinction (not dependent on one’s frame of reference) between ‘moving’ or ‘accelerating’ and ‘at rest’ can be given.

Indeed, let me spew my own muddled opinions now. It seems to me impossible, not only to judge the distinction, but also to say that such a distinction even exists. If one attends to what ‘place’ and ‘time’ mean (coincidence of outer and inner surfaces and measure of motion, say) but reflects that physical causality cannot be instantaneous (the speed of light is finite) and that bodies (as opposed to fields) are not continuous but composed of discrete parts (in power at least), it seems that relativity follows with absolute and demonstrative necessity. ‘Place’ can only mean the potency to affect fields and bodies, and this we empirically observe to be described according to Einstein’s Field Equations, not according to any absolute Euclidean order.

 

[masterjedi747]

Could you explain that, because it sounds rather evil and wrong .

…sounds rather evil and wrong?

But yes. What I meant was essentially this: even if there is no privileged reference frame that can be identified in physics - mathematically speaking - there’s absolutely no reason to disregard other (you might call them philosophical) reasons for giving preference to certain frames of reference.

Take, for instance, a grasshopper that jumps from one spot on the ground to another: you could either consider the earth as at rest, and the grasshopper as in motion… or the grasshopper as at rest, and the earth as in motion beneath it. Mathematically, the two are perfectly equivalent. But to the natural philosopher, the second scenario makes absolutely no sense. We see that the grasshopper jumps with its legs, while we have absolutely no reason to suspect that the earth is spontaneously “jumping” under the grasshopper in so convincing a manner (especially if we’re standing right there, and don’t feel the earth “jumping” beneath us). So, because we can identify the cause of motion, we have good philosophical reason to say that we should consider the grasshopper as really in motion, and the earth as at rest beneath it.

Similar reasoning will be applied to other motions (as long as we can identify the cause of the motion). For instance, if you see a train burning fuel to change place, the only reasonable option is to admit that the train is moving itself. To propose that the train is perfectly at rest, using its engine to accelerate the entire earth beneath it, is sheer madness. Granted, the two scenarios might be mathematically equivalent, or even physically indistinguishable in theory… but if we can see the cause, we have reason to give preference to a certain frame of reference.

If we can’t see the cause, of course - take the relative motions of individual galaxies - then we can settle for saying that it’s equally reasonable to our minds if we consider either one as more at rest or in motion, and have all sorts of fun arguments about what the right answer might be. Regarding the motion of the earth, however, we can see the cause, so we can identify the correct answer. (To be brutally succinct: every other planet in our solar system rotates on its own axis while orbiting the sun, and “to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, attribute the same natural causes”, therefore et cetera.)

 

[thistle]

Basic question.

Absolutely not!

There is no scientific evidence to support this theory and there is certainly nothing in scripture which says the earth is the centre of the solar system or universe.

 

[JRKH]

There is no answer to that James is there? I could ask then why you entered the thread on the side of the heresy. How do you think Christ your King feels about that? It seems to me it is just your way to avoid answering akward questions.

Good question - Why I entered the thread.
I entered to answer the poll question and to give a short answer as to why I believed what I believed. - And that is basically that since the physical world will pass away it realy doesn’t matter. It is the Spiritual that is important.

We may as well argue over whether Jesus was right or left handed as to to argue over the Earth’s postion in the physical universe.

But you are right. There is no answer - - At least none that matters to our salvic walk so I will likely drop from the discussion and leave you all to it.

I’m off to help my ill wife get dressed - -
Charity - Now that’s critical to the salvic walk.

Peace
James

 

[Mannyfit75]

Absolutely not!

There is no scientific evidence to support this theory and there is certainly nothing in scripture which says the earth is the centre of the solar system or universe.

For the record. I reject any Centrism Helio or Geo. I was looking over a picture of Apollo Landing on the moon and from the Astronaut point of view. He looks to be the center of the universe. So the idea of Geocentrism is also false.

I also like to add this. Suppose we are in another galaxy, let’s say, the Andromeda Galaxy. If we were on a planet in that Galaxy, they too would presume they are the center of universe.

It depends on the point of view. I have read Robert Sungenis’ argument in favor of Geocentrism and frankly, I am not convince. It does look good on “paper” but it goes against current scientific theories.

I believe that current standard model of the universe and the origins of the universe because current scientific evidence shows that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Nor is the earth a young earth as many creationist believe.

I am Theistic Evolutionist. I do affirm that God created all things out of nothing. That he created Adam as the first man and Eve the first woman (formfrom the side of Adam’s). I don’t think that happen 10,000 yrs ago.

Currently archeological evidence that the first humans (homo-sapiens/modern humans) appeared around 180,000 yrs ago (according to Wikipedia). I believe the father and mother of those human beings are the literal Adam and Eve.

 

[Newbot]

I was just being silly with the ‘evil and wrong’ stuff.

Let us accept the following: a reference frame is called ‘privileged’ if and only if there is some sign or characteristic by which it can be distinguished from all others.

But there are different kinds of signs. Some derive solely from quantitative measurements – the mathematical reasons, as you called them – while others take into account non-quantitative reality, particularly causality – which you called philosophical reasons. E.g. if I’m standing in a spin chamber, I can easily decide whether it’s spinning by whether or not I fall down (or whether momentum is preserved, etc.). On the other hand, the difference between breaking a window with one’s head, and breaking someone’s head with a window, is very real, but not quantitative: it has to do with the end and the good and suchlike. All that seems quite true.

Now, you say, suppose a cricket jumps from A to B. Philosophically, say, we know the cricket is the cause of that motion. In one frame of reference, the earth is immobile and the cricket moves. In another, the cricket is immobile and the whole universe jumps. Surely, then, the latter frame of reference is excluded because the cricket cannot be the cause of all that motion?

This is a distinction, but is it the right one? Suppose we’re standing on the moon, and suppose the cricket is as large as Jupiter. We see its legs kick the world, which goes flying away. “But no, no!” I object. “Actually, the cricket went flying away. It was the cause, remember? The cause is the one that moves.” Surely that does not follow. But the same is true even if the cricket is small. In Newtonian terms, momentum is conserved. So to say ‘the cause moves, while the other does not move’ seems incorrect, and hence this cannot be used as a philosophical sign for distinguishing 'moving from ‘non-moving’ frames of reference

“Of course that’s not what I meant,” perhaps you might say. “This is what I meant: the cricket isn’t big enough or strong enough to move the whole earth.” But this is a quantitative consideration, which we’ve excluded. It reduces to the conservation of energy.

“No, none of that is right. Surely the cricket, merely by jumping, could not cause all the distant stars to jump. That is the real philosophical reason why we prefer certain frames of reference: because in them, there are no arbitrary uncaused motions in the far distance.” Very well. But note: once again, this only serves to distinguish inertial from non-inertial frames of reference.

Here’s a broad (dialectical) argument. In every case, we’ve tried to say something like the following: “If A acts upon B, then either the fact of causality, or some true philosophical statement we must make with respect to that causality, distinguishes some frames of reference from others.” However, because physical bodies act by contact, it follows that any natural action concerning place must be mutual (as is also proved by Newtonian mechanics and relativity). In addition, all true statements describing solely the efficient causality of (inanimate) natural bodies may be expressed as the correlation of measurable quantities of the bodies (i.e. as mathematical laws). Hence on neither ground can we distinguish one among many inertial frames of reference, unless they are mathematically distinct.

So far I’ve kindly granted that there is a real difference in the case of non-inertial motion, and I’ve assumed the conservation of momentum. In light of general relativity, that is much less obvious. However, I won’t inflict my befuddlement about that on you.

All this doesn’t mean that ‘place’ isn’t equivocal. “I’m going to San Francisco tomorrow,” I say. “Oh no you aren’t! San Francisco’s coming to you, because the earth will rotate as you travel. In fact, both you and San Francisco will stay where you are, and the metric field will bring you together.” On the contrary, it’s quite possible to speak of ‘place’ in a more ordinary and relative way, in which context the cricket example makes perfect sense. The cricket really is the cause in that case, and not in a mutual way: it’s using its inanimate nature as an instrument towards the end of getting to some (relative) place which is good for it, all of which is beyond the capacity of the individual electrons.

This is relevant to the broader question. It questions the very possibility of ‘absolute immobility’.

 

[buffalo]

For the record. I reject any Centrism Helio or Geo. I was looking over a picture of Apollo Landing on the moon and from the Astronaut point of view. He looks to be the center of the universe. So the idea of Geocentrism is also false.

I also like to add this. Suppose we are in another galaxy, let’s say, the Andromeda Galaxy. If we were on a planet in that Galaxy, they too would presume they are the center of universe.

It depends on the point of view. I have read Robert Sungenis’ argument in favor of Geocentrism and frankly, I am not convince. It does look good on “paper” but it goes against current scientific theories.

I believe that current standard model of the universe and the origins of the universe because current scientific evidence shows that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Nor is the earth a young earth as many creationist believe.

I am Theistic Evolutionist. I do affirm that God created all things out of nothing. That he created Adam as the first man and Eve the first woman (formfrom the side of Adam’s). I don’t think that happen 10,000 yrs ago.

Currently archeological evidence that the first humans (homo-sapiens/modern humans) appeared around 180,000 yrs ago (according to Wikipedia). I believe the father and mother of those human beings are the literal Adam and Eve.

Do you see all the stuff science has to go through to justify research of SR? (dark matter, etc.

Billions! Colliders, space telescopes, etc. etc. etc.

I wonder if this is now a profit/funding issue to keep it going?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Do you see all the stuff science has to go through to justify research of SR? (dark matter, etc.

Billions! Colliders, space telescopes, etc. etc. etc.

I wonder if this is now a profit/funding issue to keep it going?

All the scientific discoveries is man’s desire to know his origins.

They have to prove their theory through experimentation. That is basic science. Old theories die out when they disproven.

I have know many theories from astronomers about how the universe will come to an end, and I do not agree to everything that modern astronomers theorized especially when they conflict to final faith of humanity (Final human faith is dependent on God, who Himself will judge us all. See Book of Revelation).

I am sure you heard about the BIG RIP theory… I don’t agree with it because the lack of evidence.

The space telescope is a good investment because it gives out new discoveries about distant black holes, gamma ray bursts, etc.

Dark Matter was through to be theory and recently, new discoveries prove the existence of dark matter. Some astronomers theorizes the possibility of going to other parallel universes using worm holes, and maybe even crossing into a black hole. Do I think if they are correct on it? Well, I don’t know. Current evidence doesn’t prove the existence of wormholes or other parallel universes.

Many years ago, modern astronomers use to believe the universe was eternal and it had no beginning nor end. Fred Hoyle affirm this. However, Monsignor Lemaitre made a theory called the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”. Hoyle, who affirm a “steady state theory” coined the phrase BIG BANG.

When modern astronomy proves Lemaitre’s theory to be correct. Astronomy slow move away from the “steady state theory” and now, many astronomers accept the Big Bang as the standard model of the universe.

Scientific discoveries are not infallible. They will change base on current scientific evidence. There are mounting evidence that refute Geocentrism (which I will not get into), and I think many other CAF members (who reject Geocentrism) pointed that out already.

Besides, rejecting Geocentrism will not give you a ticket to go to hell.

 

[masterjedi747]

Now, you say, suppose a cricket jumps from A to B. Philosophically, say, we know the cricket is the cause of that motion. In one frame of reference, the earth is immobile and the cricket moves. In another, the cricket is immobile and the whole universe jumps. Surely, then, the latter frame of reference is excluded because the cricket cannot be the cause of all that motion?

Something like that, yes.

…The cause is the one that moves." Surely that does not follow.

That’s definitely not what I meant to say. For that matter, I would be perfectly willing to consider the sun as a cause of the motion of the earth, even while considering the sun as (effectively) at rest.

Suppose we’re standing on the moon, and suppose the cricket is as large as Jupiter. We see its legs kick the world, which goes flying away. “But no, no!” I object. "Actually, the cricket went flying away. It was the cause, remember?

Except in that case, the motion imparted to the earth by the cricket would not be so insignificant that I could (practically speaking) consider it as nothing.

But the same is true even if the cricket is small. In Newtonian terms, momentum is conserved.

Right, and I never meant to disagree with that.

So to say ‘the cause moves, while the other does not move’ seems incorrect, and hence this cannot be used as a philosophical sign for distinguishing 'moving from ‘non-moving’ frames of reference.

“No, none of that is right. Surely the cricket, merely by jumping, could not cause all the distant stars to jump. That is the real philosophical reason why we prefer certain frames of reference: because in them, there are no arbitrary uncaused motions in the far distance.” Very well. But note: once again, this only serves to distinguish inertial from non-inertial frames of reference.

Not sure I understand what you mean by that last sentence?

But again, all I really meant to say was something like this: Given two baseballs flying past each other in deep space, I don’t have enough information to give any “philosophical” preference to the motion of one baseball over another. But if I have a baseball sitting on a tee, and someone walks up to it with a baseball bat and hits it out of the stadium, I have good reason to judge that “the baseball has been moved, while the stadium has remained unmoved”. (Note: I’m NOT intending to make any claim about absolute motion with respect to the universe as a whole.)

Here’s a broad (dialectical) argument. In every case, we’ve tried to say something like the following: “If A acts upon B, then either the fact of causality, or some true philosophical statement we must make with respect to that causality, distinguishes some frames of reference from others.”

My thoughts on this aren’t very distinct, but I guess I just thought that it should be pretty simple to judge on a case-by-case basis… maybe by giving preference to the largest and/or most immediate body within our frame of reference, and then judging other motions within respect to our frame of reference based upon their cause, and ruling out any uncaused motions at a distance. Or something along those lines.

So a fly sitting on the ground should be considered as at rest; a fly that flaps its wings and lifts off the ground should be considered as in motion. A parked car on the street should be considered as at rest; a car driving up a hill should be considered as in motion. The sun and stars should be considered as (practically speaking) at rest; the planets should be considered as rotating and revolving around the sun.

Hence on neither ground can we distinguish one among many inertial frames of reference, unless they are mathematically distinct.

On neither of those grounds, maybe. But I’m not sure why that matters?

All this doesn’t mean that ‘place’ isn’t equivocal.

You didn’t mean that double negative, I assume?
…though I’d honestly rather avoid discussing of the nature of “place” entirely, if we can.

This is relevant to the broader question. It questions the very possibility of ‘absolute immobility’.

Again, I never meant to speak about absolute motion or rest. Sorry if I wasn’t clear on that point.

 

[Newbot]

I think we actually agree. The whole point of what I was saying was: absolute place or absolute motion and rest do not strictly exist. I guess you agree with that.

I also wanted to say that, besides this strict sense of place and motion, there’s a different, one might call it a loose or relative, sense. (Which is why I used a double negative: ‘place’ and ‘moving’ really do have more than one meaning.) Apparently, it was this relative sense of motion you were referring to from the start. What you said about how to characterize it makes sense: we call some body that is, compared to what it contains, large and relatively stable, a (relatively) ‘immobile’ body. This is the usual sense of the word ‘immobile’, the sense we use when we talk about going somewhere or leaving or what the cricket did and so forth. And as you say, it’s especially suited to practice. So I think we agree about that too.

In the strict sense, one cannot say whether the sun or the earth or neither is ‘really’ at rest. But in the loose or relative sense (setting aside the possibility that something strange in the extreme is going on outside the lunar sphere) the sun seems to be the ‘immobile’ one, since it’s the largest and heaviest body and departs least from the center of mass of the whole solar system.

 

[buffalo]

All the scientific discoveries is man’s desire to know his origins.

They have to prove their theory through experimentation. That is basic science. Old theories die out when they disproven.

I have know many theories from astronomers about how the universe will come to an end, and I do not agree to everything that modern astronomers theorized especially when they conflict to final faith of humanity (Final human faith is dependent on God, who Himself will judge us all. See Book of Revelation).

I am sure you heard about the BIG RIP theory… I don’t agree with it because the lack of evidence.

The space telescope is a good investment because it gives out new discoveries about distant black holes, gamma ray bursts, etc.

Dark Matter was through to be theory and recently, new discoveries prove the existence of dark matter. Some astronomers theorizes the possibility of going to other parallel universes using worm holes, and maybe even crossing into a black hole. Do I think if they are correct on it? Well, I don’t know. Current evidence doesn’t prove the existence of wormholes or other parallel universes.

Many years ago, modern astronomers use to believe the universe was eternal and it had no beginning nor end. Fred Hoyle affirm this. However, Monsignor Lemaitre made a theory called the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”. Hoyle, who affirm a “steady state theory” coined the phrase BIG BANG.

When modern astronomy proves Lemaitre’s theory to be correct. Astronomy slow move away from the “steady state theory” and now, many astronomers accept the Big Bang as the standard model of the universe.

Scientific discoveries are not infallible. They will change base on current scientific evidence. There are mounting evidence that refute Geocentrism (which I will not get into), and I think many other CAF members (who reject Geocentrism) pointed that out already.

Besides, rejecting Geocentrism will not give you a ticket to go to hell.

SR seems to violate parsimony. Just look at the gyrations the theory requires.

 

[masterjedi747]

In the strict sense, one cannot say whether the sun or the earth or neither is ‘really’ at rest. But in the loose or relative sense (setting aside the possibility that something strange in the extreme is going on outside the lunar sphere) the sun seems to be the ‘immobile’ one, since it’s the largest and heaviest body and departs least from the center of mass of the whole solar system.

I was actually thinking we would start out by identifying the center of mass between the sun and the earth, and pointing out that (essentially by definition) both the sun and the earth orbit around that point. But then that center of mass happens to be located deep beneath the surface of the sun, so… therefore the earth orbits the sun, whether the sun has other motions of its own or not. (And the same holds true for every other planet in our solar system.)

 

[clmowry]

I vote none of the above.

We can choose an infinite number of reference points when trying to explain things we observe.

Empirical data tells me that the universe actually revolves around my 7 year old daughter.

Chuck