Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

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?

Here is a really bad analogy: Think of a sink half full of water (the universe, aether) and slowly draining. floating on top of the water are pockets of soap scum (galaxies). The soap scum rotates around the center. It just happens that a pocket of soap scum is rotating near the center. the edge of the pocket is in the center and the rest of it is rotating around this point in the edge (earth).

Wildgraywolf:

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?

But if there was not a big bang…

Wildgraywolf:

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.

There is. The specific mechanism of how a geocentric universe operates is pretty open.

Wildgraywolf:

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.

Science may have changed, but truth has not. Science says the Eucharist is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord.

Wildgraywolf:

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?

Three Popes, unanimous consent of the Fathers, and ultimately the Holy Spirit say yes (at least in terms of geocentrism). JimG and PhilVaz say no.

I know who I am going with.

Wildgraywolf:

Since you responded though; is there a “for dummies” kinda book or something online covering, in lay-mens terms, theories like geocentrism?

Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are coming out with the book “Galilaeo Was Wrong” this year.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Steve Andersen:

Geocentrism for Dummies? Oh the irony

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”.

What did they find with those instruments? Nothing that could disprove geocentrism. They saw relative motion. They proposed a new way to look at those relative motions. Why is it that a world famous cosmologist like George Ellis, with really high tech instruments, could say something like this,

"
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,…For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.

W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

I wonder what the kids in East Germany were taught ? What about in Russia? How about Saudi Arabia and Iran? How about Arkansas in the 1890’s?

Are you going to talk about the benefits of Communism next. Kids learned it in school so it mus’ be true.

Oh, that’s right, science is absolute, kinda like god…

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Steve_Andersen]

trth_skr:

What did they find with those instruments? Nothing that could disprove geocentrism. They saw relative motion. They proposed a new way to look at those relative motions. Why is it that a world famous cosmologist like George Ellis, with really high tech instruments, could say something like this,……

George Elis again…a mathematician not a physicist

Yes, as we admitted before, visual observations of relative motion could support either view

HOWEVER they are not consistent with an explanations for the observations (that is what science is all about after all)
ALL rotating bodies orbit around their common center of mass. Now it might look like the sun spins around the earth but there is no mechanism to explain that which would be consistent with everything else we see in the universe

Your gyroscopic stabilization theory does not work on non-rigid bodies such as the universe or a sink full of soap suds

 

[trth_skr]

Steve Andersen:

George Elis again…a mathematician not a physicist

Yes, as we admitted before, visual observations of relative motion could support either view

HOWEVER they are not consistent with an explanations for the observations (that is what science is all about after all)
ALL rotating bodies orbit around their common center of mass. Now it might look like the sun spins around the earth but there is no mechanism to explain that which would be consistent with everything else we see in the universe

Your gyroscopic stabilization theory does not work on non-rigid bodies such as the universe or a sink full of soap suds

I have also shared quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born, etc. supporting this position.

Yes the explanations are where the realm of science should operate.

What causes gravity?

This is a very basic question, and science does not have an answer. Don’t be too confident about what science knows absolutely.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

I have also shared quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born, etc. supporting this position.

Yes the explanations are where the realm of science should operate.

What causes gravity?

This is a very basic question, and science does not have an answer. Don’t be too confident about what science knows absolutely.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Nobody knows what causes gravity, but one thing is certain - it is related to the mass of an object.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

Here is a really bad analogy: Think of a sink half full of water (the universe, aether) and slowly draining. floating on top of the water are pockets of soap scum (galaxies). The soap scum rotates around the center. It just happens that a pocket of soap scum is rotating near the center. the edge of the pocket is in the center and the rest of it is rotating around this point in the edge (earth).

What force formed the galaxies and holds them together? Earth’s position is fixed; the Milkyway orbits earth, while everthing else in the galaxy orbits the galatic center and everything else in the universe orbits earth?

trth_skr:

But if there was not a big bang…

How would geocentrism account for the existence and uniformity of background radiation?

trth_skr:

Science may have changed, but truth has not. Science says the Eucharist is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord.

There are a number of Eucharistic miracles you should check out. With better tools, comes better understanding of truth.

trth_skr:

Three Popes, unanimous consent of the Fathers, and ultimately the Holy Spirit

Do not a dogma define. One pope speaking ex cathedra does.

trth_skr:

JimG and PhilVaz say no.

Me three… I don’t entirely disagree with you trth_skr. I do believe that earth is the center of the universe, but the center of the universe for humanity and God’s Love for humanity, but not as a physical reality.

 

[buffalo]

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.

But the truth doesn’t always exclude science, rather science can be contained in it.

 

[JimG]

buffalo:

But the truth doesn’t always exclude science, rather science can be contained in it.

You are right that truth does not exclude science. It is just that the Church was given no divine assurance with respect to discerning scientific truth.

Scientific truth does not ever really contradict religious truth.

Scientific truth must of necessity be limited because it has to exclude the supernatural. That is it’s method of operation. But it doesn’t mean that scientists must be atheists. It only means that they cannot use religion in the scientific method. Many scientific discoveries have been made by religious people.

 

[JimG]

Wildgraywolf:

Nobody knows what causes gravity, but one thing is certain - it is related to the mass of an object.

This is still an open question. Some view gravity as the result of the curvature of space resulting from the presence of massive objects. Physical objects simply follow the curve.

 

[JimG]

Science may have changed, but truth has not. Science says the Eucharist is not the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord.

Actually, science can have nothing to say about the matter. Everything and anything that science can determine about the consecrated species is limited to that which is perceptible to the senses (or scientific instruments which are extensions of the senses.) And all of that is what we refer to as the accidents or appearances of bread and wine. Science can’t look under the appearances, which is where we find the reality of Christ in his totality, in the Eucharist.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

JimG:

This is still an open question. Some view gravity as the result of the curvature of space resulting from the presence of massive objects. Physical objects simply follow the curve.

Ah… I remember reading something to the effect of… Gravity results from the quantum effect of mass curving space. Does that sound right?

 

[pgoings]

Could someone address the issue of the extreme velocities of distant celestial objects again?

It seems to me that if the universe is rotating such that I see the stars, etc. in much the same places each night, that their speeds must be >> c.

How does this work?

Paul

 

[JimG]

pgoings:

Could someone address the issue of the extreme velocities of distant celestial objects again?

It seems to me that if the universe is rotating such that I see the stars, etc. in much the same places each night, that their speeds must be >> c.

How does this work?

Paul

It doesn’t.

 

[JimG]

Wildgraywolf:

Ah… I remember reading something to the effect of… Gravity results from the quantum effect of mass curving space. Does that sound right?

If I remember correctly, the idea is that rather than view gravity as a force, one can view it simply as moving objects following the path of least resistance in space.

The more massive an object, the more space is curved around it. A moving object approaching such a “gravity well” just naturally follows the curvature of space.

(Those artificial “gravity wells” one sees in the malls, into which one can drop coins, provide an analogy.)

 

[wanerious]

pgoings:

Could someone address the issue of the extreme velocities of distant celestial objects again?

It seems to me that if the universe is rotating such that I see the stars, etc. in much the same places each night, that their speeds must be >> c.

How does this work?

Paul

Again, one needn’t even be so esoteric. The final nail in the coffin of ancient geocentrism was the unequivocal detection of stellar parallax in the 1800’s — the small shift in the apparent position of nearby stars due to the changing position of Earth around the Sun. Absence of parallax was a key argument against heliocentrism in Greek times. Geocentrists must devise a non-uniform spinning universe where nearby stars inexplicably shift their positions in different amounts proportional to their distance from us, in a manner to exactly mimic that which we would expect from a heliocentric model. Few are willing to postulate such a deceptive universal design. And not just tangential motion, but also the radial shifts of nearby stars are detected through their spectral Doppler lines. Claiming that it’s just “relative motion” doesn’t work, since it’s different for each star and systematic in its effects.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

JimG:

If I remember correctly, the idea is that rather than view gravity as a force, one can view it simply as moving objects following the path of least resistance in space.

The more massive an object, the more space is curved around it. A moving object approaching such a “gravity well” just naturally follows the curvature of space.

(Those artificial “gravity wells” one sees in the malls, into which one can drop coins, provide an analogy.)

Thanks Jim! and for keeping it simple…

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

…
Scientific truth must of necessity be limited because it has to exclude the supernatural. That is it’s method of operation. But it doesn’t mean that scientists must be atheists. It only means that they cannot use religion in the scientific method. Many scientific discoveries have been made by religious people.

Maybe by definition and operation scientific truth does exclude the supernatural, but stating the hypothess that the earth is immovable and the center of the universe is not supernatural. The supernatural revelation of this truth, such as for example the prophecies of the coming of the Messiah or the destruction of the temple in Jeruslaem, is a motivation to explore this truth.

There are many observations which make the hypothesis possible. There exists an anti-geocentrisc dogma within science which tends to chastise anyone who would propose earth at the center, regardless of the evidence.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

This is still an open question. Some view gravity as the result of the curvature of space resulting from the presence of massive objects. Physical objects simply follow the curve.

This does not explain gravity. It is more like an analogy than an explanation. It is also not a very good analogy. We have all seen the pictures of the grid with local distortions. The idea is the object will roll into this distortion or curvature of space. The limitation is- what causes a sense of downward direction? What causes the object ot want oo move anywhere? Obviously some unexplained force causes the object to want to move downward. This for force is gravity, still unexplained. Relativists recognize this view as simply a mathematical (more precisely a geometric) tool for gravity, not an explanation.

There a re anumber of physical theories (graviton, radaition pressure, aether theories, Le Sagean type corpuscular theories, etc.) for grtavity, but relativity has more or less exckluded them in favor of an unexplained mathemarical description.

The math seems to work in relativity (and Newtonian mechanics for limited instances), but no explanation is offered.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot,.com

 

[trth_skr]

pgoings:

Could someone address the issue of the extreme velocities of distant celestial objects again?

It seems to me that if the universe is rotating such that I see the stars, etc. in much the same places each night, that their speeds must be >> c.

How does this work?

Paul

The extreme velocities are not an issue. The entire universe is rotating, so locally at any point in the universe, the speed of light is normal. As I pointed out in previous posts, the light from the distant stars do not ever exceed there future light cones. See these threads I posted earlier for more detailed discussion:

catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=285
catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=857
catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875
catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=871

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Steve_Andersen]

trth_skr:

This does not explain gravity.

Gravity is a fundamental force
It no more has an explanation than mass does

It is an intrinsic property of matter

trth_skr:

… The limitation is- what causes a sense of downward direction?

Acceleration

trth_skr:

What causes the object to want oo move anywhere?

Objects don’t want to do anything…they’re objects

trth_skr:

Obviously some unexplained force causes the object to want to move downward.

Gravity

trth_skr:

This for force is gravity, still unexplained.

Unexplained doesn’t mean unexplainable

trth_skr:

Relativists recognize this view as simply a mathematical (more precisely a geometric) tool for gravity, not an explanation.

Just because the mechanism isn’t fully explained doesn’t mean that empirical descriptions of the observed effects are somehow wrong.

trth_skr:

There are a number of physical theories (graviton, radaition pressure, aether theories, Le Sagean type corpuscular theories, etc.) for grtavity, but relativity has more or less exckluded them in favor of an unexplained mathemarical description.

Yes we know there is a disconnect between relativity and quantum mechanics…nothing new there

Graivtons have been postulated but not proven
Relativity doesn’t require a particle to work

what ever the expaliantion there would be no effect on our empirical understanding of the phenomenon
the sky is still blue whether or not we understand the nature of light

trth_skr:

The math seems to work in relativity (and Newtonian mechanics for limited instances), but no explanation is offered…

They’re working on that

BUT

The nature and cause of gravity that doesn’t change it observed effects
Two bodies will rotate around their center of mass regardless of why