Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[MindOverMatter2]

For those who think that geocentrism was blindly supported by the church, the following quote seems to suggest otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_heliocentrism

Circulation of Commentariolus (before 1533)

The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus were circulated in manuscript. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus’ ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that “the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” Psalm 104:5 says, “[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus’ theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals. On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory.

However, in 1539, Martin Luther said:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

The decree of 1616

The Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina prompted the papal authorities to decide whether heliocentrism was acceptable. Galileo was summoned to Rome to defend his position. The Church accepted the use of heliocentrism as a calculating device, but opposed it as a literal description of the solar system. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo’s model made “excellent good sense” on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:

**"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."**
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448

 

[MindOverMatter2]

According to J. L. Heilbron, Catholic scientists have also:

"appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."
—Heilbron (1999)

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus (Index of Prohibited Books, published by order of Alexander VII, P.M.) which included all previous condemnations of heliocentric books.[62] An annotated copy of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians with a preface stating that the author’s work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory.[63] In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[64] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.

In 1629 a new Hebrew book “Elim” by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (1591 – 1655) appeared. The author says that the arguments of Copernicus are so strong, that only an imbecile will not accept them.[66] Delmedigo studied at Padua and was acquainted with Galileo.[67]

If a heliocentric system was truly heretical in a theological sense then why did the “Pope” approve a decree to print books on the subject?

Obviously it was not heretical in the theological sense of the term.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Obviously it was not heretical in the theological sense of the term.

Even if it had been declared heretical, such a decision could be reversed, since it was never declared an infallible ex cathedra teaching of the Church.

 

[Pieman333272]

I agree completely. I think we should focus on demonstrating to the heliocentrists that the Church never denied or stamped out the science behind heliocentricism, as Galileo is an oft-cited example of (especially by atheists).

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

The thing about the Geocentrists is that they focus on discrediting scientists from 500 years ago, while ignoring all we’ve learned in the last 100 years. Even if you could poke some holes in the logic of a Galileo or Copernicus that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve sent man-made satellites and spacecraft into orbits around the moon, most of the planets, and the sun, verifing that the motion of large objects in space is directed by the gravitational pull of other larger objects and that all those planets we see in the night sky with their strange zig-zag paths they trace across the sky over the months must be doing that for some reason. The darn things aren’t exempt from the force of gravity that we’ve already exploited in putting man-made satellites in orbit around Mars, Jupiter and the rest.

 

[dribynhoj]

Let’s see, The Ordinary Magisterium taught it, the Father’s believed and taught it and all the faithful held it as true - It is hard to simply deny Pope Urban’s directive:
“The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.”
“The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.”

Could it possibly be that we all have been misled? I am starting to believe that is the case. More and more data is coming out, empirical scientific data from peer reviewed journals, which unwittingly comes full circle to things like Ether and a central earth.

If relativity would allow any place to be the reference frame of choice, and Geocentrism would be simply a possibility, then why aren’t we as Catholics more swayed by the clear teachings of our Shepard, by the pillar and foundation of Truth, empowered by Christ himself? Has super-nature been supplanted with pseudo-nature, viewed through man’s eyes alone and in opposition to Scripture?

I’m troubled we have been deceived, and are closing our eyes to the Truth because of what Man is teaching us.

 

[Ismael]

Well first of all the problem with Galileo was not his support of Helicentrism but his claims against the inerrancy of scripture. Galileo was a devout Catholic, by the way, in spite of the controversy.

So Heliocentrism itself was never considered heretical, but it was often used against the Scriptures as a ‘proof’ they were wrong by anti-Christian (who have been around for centuries in Europe). That’s why the Church was very prudent about it.

Of course even the Church has some close minded people in the past (and present)… unfortunately some people plague every group, indipendently from any beliefs.

Could it possibly be that we all have been misled? I am starting to believe that is the case. More and more data is coming out, empirical scientific data from peer reviewed journals, which unwittingly comes full circle to things like Ether and a central earth.

No I do not think that there is a possibility geocentrism can be true.

Besides any claims by a Pope on scientific matters are not infallible. A Pope can make mistakes as well.

 

[promethius]

The thing about the Geocentrists is that they focus on discrediting scientists from 500 years ago, while ignoring all we’ve learned in the last 100 years. Even if you could poke some holes in the logic of a Galileo or Copernicus that doesn’t change the fact that we’ve sent man-made satellites and spacecraft into orbits around the moon, most of the planets, and the sun, verifing that the motion of large objects in space is directed by the gravitational pull of other larger objects and that all those planets we see in the night sky with their strange zig-zag paths they trace across the sky over the months must be doing that for some reason. The darn things aren’t exempt from the force of gravity that we’ve already exploited in putting man-made satellites in orbit around Mars, Jupiter and the rest.

Actually, Heliocentrism was abandoned by scientists hundreds of years ago. Everyone recognizes that Copernicus and Galileo were wrong: the sun is NOT the objective center of the universe. In actuality, Heliocentrism and Geocentrism both sound as ludicrous as the other to the modern mind. We know that the sun is part of the milky way, which in turn rotates around the center of our galaxy, which in turn rotates around a point mass at the center of a cluster of galaxies…

HOWEVER, all of that is from the reference frame of the point mass at the center of the galaxy cluster. What relativity has shown us is that motion is dependent on reference frame rather than strictly objective. Thus we can define ANY point we want as the center of the universe (the earth included) and then calculate motion based on that reference frame. There’s no actual mathematical proof that the earth rotates around the sun, and the only REAL reason that physics uses that convention is because the mathematical constructs used to describe such orbital motion are simpler than those used to describe orbital motion with the earth as the center of the universe. In all reality, there is no determinate, objective center of the universe. Motion is relative.

(and this was a lecture from one of my physics professors in University, who was an avowed atheist and pointed out that even if the church had condemned Galileo for heliocentrism rather than heresy, they would not have been wrong to assert that the Earth CAN scientifically be described as the center of the universe… he was a very fair minded atheist)

 

[edwest2]

For those who think that geocentrism was blindly supported by the church, the following quote seems to suggest otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_heliocentrism

Circulation of Commentariolus (before 1533)

The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus were circulated in manuscript. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus’ ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas contradicted the then-prevailing understanding of the Bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that “the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.” Psalm 104:5 says, “[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.” Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”

Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus’ theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals. On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory.

However, in 1539, Martin Luther said:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

The decree of 1616

The Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina prompted the papal authorities to decide whether heliocentrism was acceptable. Galileo was summoned to Rome to defend his position. The Church accepted the use of heliocentrism as a calculating device, but opposed it as a literal description of the solar system. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo’s model made “excellent good sense” on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:

**"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."**
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448

“blindly supported”? Interesting choice of words. The Church always looked at everything very carefully. Galileo, the current secular martyr of note, was too fond of running around yelling “I proved it!” “I proved it!” before he had done any such thing.

Proof means proof. A concept, by the way, that some deny here. I’m sure the first astronauts would have had second thoughts about going to the moon if they heard, “Well, ya know. Nothing’s proven in science. You might hit it. You might not. We’ll see.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[promethius]

Galileo, the current secular martyr of note, was too fond of running around yelling “I proved it!” “I proved it!” before he had done any such thing.

Especially considering that each and every one of Galileo’s “proofs” for the sun as the center of the universe were scientifically incorrect.

For example, one of Galileo’s arguments that the sun was the center of the universe was based on tide patterns. Galileo asserted that the tides were caused as water “sloshed” because of the earth’s motion. Scientists of Galileo’s time already knew that tides were caused by gravitational attraction from the sun and the moon, hence the scientists who reviewed Galileo’s text on behalf of the church correctly and definitively pronounced that Galileo’s work was scientifically untenable… because it was.

 

[rossum]

Especially considering that each and every one of Galileo’s “proofs” for the sun as the center of the universe were scientifically incorrect.

For example, one of Galileo’s arguments that the sun was the center of the universe was based on tide patterns. Galileo asserted that the tides were caused as water “sloshed” because of the earth’s motion. Scientists of Galileo’s time already knew that tides were caused by gravitational attraction from the sun and the moon, hence the scientists who reviewed Galileo’s text on behalf of the church correctly and definitively pronounced that Galileo’s work was scientifically untenable… because it was.

How about Newton’s proofs or Einstein’s proofs? Science has moved on since Galileo, we have much better telescopes now than he did then so we have a lot more data available than he had.

The point was made above by ronnie bonigli (post #6) that geocentrists spend their time refuting 500 year old science while ignoring far more recent scientific results. You have shown him to be correct.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I am starting to believe that is the case. More and more data is coming out, empirical scientific data from peer reviewed journals, which unwittingly comes full circle to things like Ether and a central earth.

Your geocentrist sources are lying to you about the science. Where are the references to these papers?

rossum

 

[dribynhoj]

Your geocentrist sources are lying to you about the science. Where are the references to these papers?

rossum

The sources you say are “Lying” to me are the same ones telling you the Earth is rotating around the sun -

Everything from Max Planck’s work on particle phyics, Planck Particle, to John Wheeler’s theory of “Spacetime Foam” or Quantam Foam, even to the newly discovered background radition displayed in concentric circles - around the Earth no less - all are answered by ether (aether) or some form of a central, moving or static, earth.

The “theories” are justifiable. My point was not to argue the science. Even Sagan admitted that the evidence of the day was leading back to a central earth, which he despised the thought of. The question presented is “Geocentrism: why doesn’t it just die and be done with?” My inartful attempt to answer was - well, maybe it’s still as valid a theory as it was for during the patristic period and during the magesterial proclamations of heresy in denying Scritputre’s literal interpritation.

So, ASSUME, that I am correct and both geocentristic and heliocentric theories are viable, scientifically - then why would Catholics not side with what our Church’s Ordinary Magiserium, the Fathers and all faithful held for 1800 years?

Someone has been lying, you are correct, and they have been systematically attacking the Church, undermining Scripture and seeking the death of your soul.

Is there a better way to lead men away from God and undermine the authority of the Church?

Great discussion, keep it going!

 

[transfinitum]

How about Newton’s proofs or Einstein’s proofs? Science has moved on since Galileo, we have much better telescopes now than he did then so we have a lot more data available than he had.

The point was made above by ronnie bonigli (post #6) that geocentrists spend their time refuting 500 year old science while ignoring far more recent scientific results. You have shown him to be correct.

rossum

Ironically, rossum, you are the one relying upon out of date science.

Here, for example, is a picture of the redshift sky taken by the SDSS telescope. It goes out to about, oh 580 million light years or so. Pretty much gets a slice of the neighborhood, anyway…

sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

Click the zoom tool, and notice the periodic shell structure centered on…yup. You guessed it.

Earth.

Now try this on for size from Dr. Hirano’s 2010 paper published in Physical Review D:

prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v82/i10/e103513

“A widespread idea in cosmology is that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic above a certain scale. This hypothesis, usually called the cosmological principle (e.g., [1]), is thought to be a generalization of the Copernican principle that “the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position”. The assumption is that any observer at any place at the same epoch would see essentially the same picture of the large scale distribution of galaxies in the universe.

However, according to a Fourier analysis by Hartnett & Hirano [2], the galaxy number count N from redshift z data (N–z relation) indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings…A natural interpretation is that concentric spherical shells of higher galaxy number densities surround us, with their individual centers situated at our location.” (emphasis added)

If you haven’t been keeping up to speed on developments in this area, you really should.

I thought everyone had been brought up to speed by recent debates on Catholic forums?

Apparently not.

Well, there you go for starters.

You might try Dr. Robert Sungenis’ astounding book “Galileo Was Wrong” for a more complete background of this rapidly escalating controversy.

 

[TMC]

You might try Dr. Robert Sungenis’ astounding book “Galileo Was Wrong” for a more complete background of this rapidly escalating controversy.

Anyone approaching “Dr” Sungenis’ works should be aware that he is neither a physicist or an astronomer. His education was in theology and his theological views have repeatedly put him at odds with his bishop and the Church. So read his works if you want but, as with all information, consider the source.

 

[bogeydogg]

I think as well that there are simple principles which we can use concerning at least the language the Bible uses concerning the Earth and Sun.

First is that the Bible teaches whatever it purposes to teach without error. So when the Bible says “the Earth shall never be moved” is it praising the Earth for its immovability or the God who upholds Creation by the power of His will? These are not astronomical statements, and neither should they be thought of as such, but rather statements of praise about the God who made the heavens and the Earth.

Second is that the authors of Scripture, while superintended by the Spirit to teach truth without error, were not made automatons and thus had their faculties of perception destroyed. Rather what God purposed the Biblical writers to teach, namely the salvific history and the purposes of God and His relation to His special creation (man), they taught without error but did so within the backdrop of their own understanding. So when a Biblical writer speaks of the path of the Sun across the sky he is not making a scientific statement but rather is using phenomenological language to explain how things appear to him.

We should have no objection to this seeing as how no one who hears the nightly weatherman say, “Sunrise tomorrow at 6:30; sunset at 7:15” calls the TV station and complains that the news people seem not to know that the Earth moves and not the Sun.

This sort of objection is really rather silly and is more a case of selective criticism of the Bible than an attack with which the Church need to concern itself.

God Bless

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Actually, Heliocentrism was abandoned by scientists hundreds of years ago. Everyone recognizes that Copernicus and Galileo were wrong: the sun is NOT the objective center of the universe. In actuality, Heliocentrism and Geocentrism both sound as ludicrous as the other to the modern mind. We know that the sun is part of the milky way, which in turn rotates around the center of our galaxy, which in turn rotates around a point mass at the center of a cluster of galaxies…

The fact that we know that the Sun is not at the center of the universe, and thus, as you say “Heliocentrism was abandoned by scientists hundreds of years ago” is a strawman argument. Obviously we know the Sun is not at the center of the universe, but it is still at the gravitational center of our Solar System, and the planets motions are CAUSED by their rotation around the Sun.

We now understand, as we did not in the time of Ptolemy, that gravity doesn’t merely apply to an apple falling to the earth, it is an attraction between all objects. The reason the moon displays the path we see as it moves across the sky from day to day and month to month is because it’s in orbit around the earth. And the reason it’s in orbit around the Earth is because it is moving at a good speed and is caught in the earth’s gravitational field, if it was moving slower it would crash to earth, just like an apple from a tree, if it was moving faster it would escape the earth’s gravitation and head away from earth. But it’s going at a good enough speed to just keep revolving around the earth. From this understanding of gravitation and orbits, we have now launched thousands of rockets and man-made communication satellites into orbits around the earth. They did exactly what we thought they would do, based on our understanding of gravity and orbits. And we’ve also sent satellites into orbits almost all the other nearby planets like Mars and Jupiter, and even around the Sun. Those satellites then “obeyed” the law of gravity and went into orbit around those planets, just like the moons that were already in orbit around many of those planets.

Now, in the "heliocentric model” of the solar system, those paths across the night sky of all the other planets are explained perfectly when we consider that they are in fact in orbit around the sun, and the orbit itself is explained by the gravitational field of the Sun. So when we look at a planet like Mars, that say, moves in a path north across the night sky for months, and then one day turns on a dime and then move south across the sky for months, we have to ask; “what is driving it to make this strange zigzag pattern wandering across the sky?” Are the moon and the man-made satellites subject to laws of gravity, yet the other planets in the solar system are exempt from this force, and the other planets just move left for a few months and then right for a few months simply as if they have free will?

Just look at the Apollo space program, the whole thing was based on sending space craft into orbits around the Earth and then into orbits around the moon. The NASA scientists had to use precise calculations of the mass of the Earth, the mass of the Moon and the speeds of the rocketships needed to go into and fall into an orbit around those masses. If they were working with an incorrect worldview, those Apollo astronaunts would have crashed to Earth, or the Moon, or shot right past the Moon and would have been hopelessly lost in space. We’ve done the same thing to send space probes into orbits around Mar, Jupiter, Saturn and many others, all those space probes did exactly what we expected them to do based of the force of gravity. We now KNOW that objects in space are attracted to other objects across large distances of space. And we know, because of this force, the Moon orbits around the Earth, other Moons around the other planets, and mad-made satellites and space craft faithfully follow this “Law” and will go into an orbit around the Moon or planets or the Sun for that matter, we’ve done it with all of them. So we’re left with that puzzle, Why would the planets, with their strange zig-zag random dance this way and than way across the night sky, be exempt from this “force” acting between masses across empty space?

 

[Timothy17]

At a minimum, Geocentrism is philosophically correct. We are not interested in the universe from the point of view of, say, the Sun or the Moon or Alpha Centauri - we are interested in it from our view, and our view is here from Earth, and Earth is our place of origin. We are interested in how these things affect and relate to us. Our interest and wonder at the night sky was kindled and fostered in and by a geocentric worldview, which sought to explain what those lights were and why they appeared and behaved as they do : human curiousity was the cause for interest and geocentrism, our natural condition, was the avenue and pretext which disposed us to this condition. It would be absurd to abandon this principle, because doing so would require us to pretend to not be human, and to place the interests and concerns of things that do not have interests or concerns above our own, which would be illogical and unnatural. Science is a materialistic pursuit that has human origins and human ends. It is justified or not justified by human reasoning. You would be rightfully appauled if your government spent billions researching what the universe is like for theoretical amphibious, space-travelling monkeys that might live in a distant galaxy, for example.

If it weren’t for geocentrism, we would have no knowledge whatsoever of the solar system or the universe, because we simply would not be interested in or concerned with these phenomenon. Holy Scripture commanded ancient man to look at the Sun, the Moon, and the heavenly bodies (stars and planets) for reckoning the times and for signs of the times. The Magi kept this commandment, and by it were able to reckon the time of Christ : had they not taken this commandment literally, they would not have recognized his sign (his star), just as King Herod and his court had failed to.

This artifically fostered and hyped animosity between Christianity and science is, frankly, absurd, and in my opinion an entirely false dichotomy that will have reprecussions for both communities, but especially the scientific one. Irrational hatred, distrust or perverted notions and understandings cannot bode well for a scientist who is supposed to approach his work as neutrally as possible, thereby permitting him to seek and find the unadultered truth.

Pax,
Tim

 

[rossum]

Ironically, rossum, you are the one relying upon out of date science.

Here, for example, is a picture of the redshift sky taken by the SDSS telescope. It goes out to about, oh 580 million light years or so. Pretty much gets a slice of the neighborhood, anyway…

sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

Click the zoom tool, and notice the periodic shell structure centered on…yup. You guessed it.

Earth.

Your source is ignorant of the nature of redshift. Wherever we observe the universe from we will see our point of observation at the centre of concentric shells of redshift. This is a prediction of the Big Bang theory.

Now try this on for size from Dr. Hirano’s 2010 paper published in Physical Review

prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v82/i10/e103513

Which looks at limits on the possibilities of an oscillating universe. Nothing to do with geocentrism. I will also point out that the quote you provide has obviously been quotemined. You did go and have a look at the original didn’t you? I did and the quotemine is obvious. The initial part of the quote is from the Abstract, and is quoted correctly:
Hirano:

We investigate the observational constraints on the oscillating scalar field model using data from type Ia supernovae, cosmic microwave background anisotropies, and baryon acoustic oscillations. According to a Fourier analysis, the galaxy number count N from redshift z data indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings.

Notice that your quote does not include the next part of the abstract but jumps to an entirely different part of the paper. Here is the rest of the abstract which follows on from the quote your source gave:

We fix the mass of the scalar field as mϕ=3.2×10-31h  eV such that the scalar field model can account for the redshift spacings, and we constrain the other basic parameters by comparing the model with accurate observational data. We obtain the following constraints: Ωm,0=0.28±0.03 (95% C.L.), Ωϕ,0<0.035 (95% C.L.), and ξ>-158 (95% C.L.) (in the range ξ≤0). The best fit values of the energy density parameter of the scalar field and the coupling constant are Ωϕ,0=0.01 and ξ=-25, respectively. The value of Ωϕ,0 is close to but not equal to 0. Hence, in the scalar field model, the amplitude of the galaxy number count cannot be large. However, because the best fit values of Ωϕ,0 and ξ are not 0, the scalar field model has the possibility of accounting for the periodic structure in the N-z relation of galaxies. The variation of the effective gravitational constant in the scalar field model is not inconsistent with the bound from observation.

My apologies for all the mathematics. Your lying quotemining source has taken a sentence from the opening of the abstract and used a sneaky ellipsis to join it to another sentence from a completely different part of the paper. As I said, you are being lied to. If you are arguing with scientists then they will always check sources. If you don’t do the same then you will get caught out like this when your sources use underhand methods. Ellipses are a common method of quotemining, for instance “And God said ‘Let there be … no God’” The first part comes from Genesis and the second part comes from Psalm 14. You can do some very sneaky things with an ellipsis. I suggest that you always look out for such when using untrustworthy sources such as the one you are currently using.

You might try Dr. Robert Sungenis’ astounding book “Galileo Was Wrong” for a more complete background of this rapidly escalating controversy.

I cannot comment on Dr Sungenis’ theology. His science is complete rubbish. You are being lied to.

rossum