Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trth_skr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
scm:
I think this is a good point, but see below what the Geocentric response will be…

One interesting thing to note is that it is not strictly correct to say that a lower mass body orbits a higher mass body. In fact, if there are for example two bodies in the system, they BOTH orbit around the center of mass of the system. When one is very much smaller than the other and close enough to the larger one the center of mass of the system may be inside the larger mass body, so it would appear that the lower mass one orbits the higher mass one.

trth_skr already has said that the universe is not orbiting around the earth, (including the sun ). He/she had to do this because oribts are very well understood and it is simply not possible for all of the bodies of the universe to be in the 24 hour orbit.

trth_skr said that the universe rotates as a gyroscopic system and that the earth happens to be at the center of rotation.

My pet peeve is that he/she then says the universe precesses, possibly due to the fact that it is an unbalanced gyroscopic system, but then makes further claims that would indicate that he/she belives it is a balanced gyroscopic system after all, since he/she believes that the earth is at the center of mass of the universe and has implied that the earth is at the center of rotation of the universe.

trth_skr has not responded to that yet, maybe he/she is busy with other things at the moment.
Click to expand...
Hi scm:

I am out of the country, and the internet (and time) are not as available as they normally are. I am currently in an Internet cafe.

A gyroscopic system preserves its center above all else. Even if it precesses, it will attempt to preserve its center. As long as the precession is about the centre (think of a sperical center) it can still have smooth motion. See these diagrams again:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…69&postcount=67

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
That all sounds like wishful thinking. How would geocentrists explain galatic rotation? I’m not sure what I’m trying to say here, but don’t most galaxies rotate on their own axis? Does Earth somehow anchor the Milkyway so that the Milkyway rotates on it’s own axis around Earth? Wouldn’t that anchor have to be gravity?
Click to expand...
Interestingly, our “galactic year” is estimated at abuot 230 million years. If the universe is 13.7 billion years okd, then assuming constant rotation, the milky way has only rotated about 60 times. Assuming it was rotating much faster previously, even 1000X this (i.e., 60,000 rotations) is not much (consider a car runs at 2500 rotations per minute).

In any case, rotation of galaxies are part of the angular momentum balance of the universe, whether Geocentric, heliocentric, acentric, etc.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot,com
 
40.png
scm:
Here is something I would like the Geocentrists to consider.
I have already stated that in my opinion Genesis does not imply Geocentrism.

I would like to put forth my notion of where the exact center of the universe is:

God himself is the/is at the center of the universe.
Click to expand...
scm:

This is a nice thought (perhaps it belongs in the category of precious moment Bibles, etc.) 🙂 , but God is the Creator of the universe. Certainly He is the centr of the Spiritual world, but this is not geographic.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
No scientific theory is perfect. Geocentrism as a developed scientific theory is very rudimentary. To me, more interestiung is that no one has demonstrated that Geocentrism is not true, nor that heliocentrism or acentrism are true. In fact no one has demonstrated conclusively that the earth is spinning or translating.

Think about it.
Click to expand...
I have thought about it. I’ll take geocentrism seriously when even a minority of the scientific community takes it seriously. Rudimentary? It’s actually more of a theological speculation than a scientific theory.
 
I was thinking along those lines as well… Human arrogance says we and our world are the center of the universe, but I think the truth is as you describe and rightfully so.
[/quote]

Wildgraywolf:

If this were strictly personal Biblical interpretation, I would agree with you.

Remeber as Catholics, we are to assent to the magisterium and the teachings of the Fathers, NOT just our personal opinions. The Fathers have spoken in favor of Geocentrism. So have three Popes, none of whom have had their declarations reversed.

So, if human arrogance includes the unanomuos agreement of the Fathers and official declarations of three Popes, we have a problem. This is not to say that fathers and Popes cannot be arrogant, but in their authoritative and official capacites, our intrpretation should lean more towards assent.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
scm:
At dinner tonight I mentioned to my fiance this discussion we are having over Geocentrism. She put things into perspective for me.
Basically her response was, when the time comes God will not look at or care about what specific detail of doctrine you adheared to, what particular church you attended, whether you were a Biblical expert or not. He will simply look into your heart and say “Did you know Jesus?”

This discussion (in my opinion) about whether the earth is at the center of the universe or not has now become as meaningful and important to me as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The focus is not us. Not how everything revolves around US.

The focus is and should be Jesus. He is my Lord and Saviour, He is the absolute center of my universe, and I should not distract myself from Him.

With that I will leave this discussion. I would like to say it was fun, but now I have to do some serious soul searching and prayer for the part I played in the discussion.

I love my fiance.
Click to expand...
scm:

Sorry to hear you are leaving this discussion.

I do not think you need to feel bad about taking part in it. Of course you need to follow your conscience, and i would not argue that any Catholic NEEDS to think about geocentrism. On the other hand, at a minimum it is a part of Catholic history. It is clear to any honest investigator that the Church was geocentric up to some point. What happened after that point is up to interpretation, but I still contend that no one has proven the earth moves.

The fact that you had even a slight open mind to it (and maybe more?) will make you think the next time you see a modern science spokesperson on Nova or the Science Channel trumpeting the triumphs of modern science in cosmology and declaring us carbon-based chemicals joy riding on hard balls hurling through space after an exposion occuring out of nothing.

Think about it.

God Bless You.

www.veritas-catholic.com
 
40.png
buffalo:
She is very wise and correct.

One of the reasons I participate in these discussions is that their are many here who can benefit. Secularism and materialism have been poundng them daily and for some have weakened their faith. Perhaps our discussions will strengthen their faith.
Click to expand...
This is central to the question “Why even think about geocentrism?”

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
I’m still not sure about geocentrism…

If earth and by default it’s entire solar system, is the center of the universe how is it then that we are part or still part of a galaxy? Shouldn’t earth’s postion be fixed and the Milkyway be somehow in earth orbit or is the Milkyway just passing through?

If there was a “big bang” wouldn’t that point mark the center of the universe where we would find earth? Earth’s position then must be constant with all matter flying away from us. Correct?

Given a sphereical and aparently expanding universe with earth at it’s center shouldn’t all galaxies be at a nearly equal distance from us, heading away from us at a nearly uniform speed?
 
40.png
trth_skr:
I wonder when the last time the big bang theory or darwinianism made you feel that way?😉

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
I don’t accept them in and of themselves, but rather with God as First Cause. The big bang theory or darwinism serve as a human attempt to explain the world around us, they are incomplete. I cannot accept them soley on their own merits espically with God outside of the equasion. I am held in gunuine awe of God’s precision and planning and in the variety, flexability, adaptability, and tenacity of His Creation. None of these theorys can explain the mechanisims by which the big bang occured or how evolution works. The big question that makes all things possible is: Where did matter come from?

Here’s a brief example. The big bang. I’ve read some articles that say sound was possible because of the density of matter. After I read that it occured to me that this was the fading echo of God’s command, “let there be light”.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Remeber as Catholics, we are to assent to the magisterium and the teachings of the Fathers, NOT just our personal opinions. The Fathers have spoken in favor of Geocentrism. So have three Popes, none of whom have had their declarations reversed.

So, if human arrogance includes the unanomuos agreement of the Fathers and official declarations of three Popes, we have a problem. This is not to say that fathers and Popes cannot be arrogant, but in their authoritative and official capacites, our intrpretation should lean more towards assent.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you, however I wasn’t aware that geocentrism was dogma; even if it is dogma there is still room for the development of doctrine.

Science has changed a lot since then; none of those early scientists or astonomers lived in an era where humanity has landed on the moon or saw spacecraft land and travel about on other worlds. With better tools there can be better understanding and with better understanding better doctrine.

You do raise a good question for another thread: Does the Church’s authority to infallably teach extend beyond faith and morals and into the physical world?
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
Does the Church’s authority to infallably teach extend beyond faith and morals and into the physical world?
Click to expand...
The Church’s mission is to infallibly hand down the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. This involves matters of faith and morality. Not science.
 
40.png
JimG:
The Church’s mission is to infallibly hand down the deposit of faith received from the Apostles. This involves matters of faith and morality. Not science.
Click to expand...
lol. Thanks Jim. Actually, I wrote that for trth_skr to chew on. :o

Since you responded though; is there a “for dummies” kinda book or something online covering, in lay-mens terms, theories like geocentrism? It was probably aparent from my posts that my science knowledge on this subject is pathetic to say the least. :whistle:

Anyway, it is a subject I’m interested in and I’m sure any recomendatons you (or anyone) could make would help me aquire a better understanding.
 
Biology, chemistry, anthropology, we’ve made a few mistakes.

Faith, morals, astronomy, physics, the stock market, lottery, and predicting the World Series, we’ve been infallible. :rolleyes: An encyclical was issued last year on the Boston Red Sox, Bostonus Redus Deus, co-written by Peter Kreeft. 👍

Phil P
 
I’m afraid I don’t know of any popular books about geocentrism. It only seems to show up on this forum. But I’m on my second reading of The Fabric Of The Cosmos, by Brian Greene.
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
…; is there a “for dummies” kinda book or something online covering, in lay-mens terms, theories like geocentrism? It was probably aparent from my posts that my science knowledge on this subject is pathetic to say the least. …
Click to expand...
Geocentrism for Dummies? Oh the irony 😃 😉 :rotfl:

I don’t know how they do it now but when I was a kid (all those years ago) the grade school and high school science texts would include geocentrism just as a means of explaining the evolution of scientific understanding. “Here’s what we used to think before instruments and here is what Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Kepler found out with instruments”.

Other than that it is probably only mentioned in pseudo-science books

If you search on “Galileo” you’ll probably find a lot of anti-Catholic sites that might have good physics, i.e. non-geocentric, info despite their editorial bent.
 
Steve Andersen:
Geocentrism for Dummies? Oh the irony 😃 😉 :rotfl:
Click to expand...
OMG, I never saw THAT one comming. :clapping:

I did spend some time over the weekend reading about geocentrism, I thought some of the arguements were very interesting, but my overall opinion of geocentrism as a possibility didn’t rate very highly on my probability scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top