O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Hansgeorg
Green Tea .
How can we calculate something that is still in progress, not completed ?
God Bless
- Status
Green Tea .
How can we calculate something that is still in progress, not completed ?
God Bless
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Green tea, how wonderful!How can we calculate something that is still in progress, not completed ?
God Bless
If the Universe rotates around us each day, it is perhaps not expanding?
Or were you talking about some other thing “still in progress”?
As for me, I was not talking about calculating, but about believing what I see.
God’s blessings for you too!
R
rossum
Guest
[/QUOTE]
D
DavidPalm
Guest
mellestad was right. The neo-geos are pick-n-choosers with a big dose of conspiracies. For example, Cassini says over and over that geocentrism has been the subject of papal decrees and declarations, but in fact there are no papal decrees on the subject. See my article here.
And then on the other hand, when Pope Leo XIII clearly teaches in a papal encyclical that the Holy Spirit did not put any such details of the physical universe in sacred Scripture (and Cassini himself even admits that geocentrism is the primary subject of that Pope’s teaching) then Cassini chalks it all up to a Masonic conspiracy:
We think it may have been written by Cardinal Campolla a Freemason who almost became Pope after Leo XIII died. Only when his name was opposed by civil authorities ijn Europe at the time that had a veto and God plucked St Pius X out of obscurity was the papacy saved. Note the encyclical is 100% Catholic until we get to the anything goes bit. The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy. This is how Satan works even within the Church to bring about its destruction. Every revisionist, apologiser and minimiser after this encyclical quotes the bit above to say the Church gave sanction for the Church of 1616 to be contradicted. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6712451&postcount=126
You see, non-papal decrees on geocentrism are to be followed absolutely, but papal decrees that clarify the Church’s teaching on scientific matters are to be thrown away as Masonic plots.
And Sungenis has the same sort of schizophrenic approach to these matters. On the one hand he insists that the various non-infallible magisterial documents on geocentrism are absolutely binding. But on the topic of, say, limbo where the magisterial support is actually much stronger than for geocentrism, Sungenis has a very different approach:
Limbo is not a “doctrine” that is being subjected to reform. Limbo is a theological concept that may or may not be true. Furthermore, … Benedict XVI has, for all intents and purposes, dismissed the speculative idea of Limbo. . . .
What causes confusion is when laymen reject the pope’s decision on a matter of doctrine and propagate that refusal as if the pope has committed a major heresy. As it stands, people must now decide who they are going to believe, a layman who disapproves of the ITC commission’s findings or Pope Benedict XVI who approves of them. In the final analysis, the pope has every right to dismiss a common belief that was never dogmatized. Unfortunately, various Catholics are under the impression that just because they can find some Father, saint or doctor who held to a certain belief, this makes the belief true. Not so. There are many questionable ideas held by our tradition. We should consider ourselves fortunate that we have a living magisterium who can decide these issues for us so that we don’t end up like Protestants who have no recourse to alleviating such confusion. . . .
The Catholic magisterium has never made a definitive decision on either the existence or nature of Limbo in order for the ITC findings to go contrary to it. Catholics should not treat popular and undogmatized beliefs as if they were official and binding teachings of the magisterium.
By the same token, no undogmatized belief of Limbo prior to Benedict XVI’s approval of the ITC study is binding on the hearts of Catholics. The only thing binding on the hearts of Catholics is what the Church says is binding. Limbo never entered that category. Further, it is not the ITC to which we give allegiance. The ITC is just an information-gathering arm for the pope. It is the pope’s approval of the ITC findings to which we give our allegiance. As it stands, Catholics are not required to believe in Limbo, and never were. (Point/Counterpoint: Is Limbo a Catholic Doctrine?)
Just plug geocentrism, John Paul II, and the Pontifical Academy of Science into that last paragraph and see how it reads:
By the same token, no undogmatized belief of geocentrism prior to John Paul II’s approval of the Pontifical Academy of Science study is binding on the hearts of Catholics. The only thing binding on the hearts of Catholics is what the Church says is binding. Geocentrism never entered that category. Further, it is not the PAS to which we give allegiance. The PAS is just an information-gathering arm for the pope. It is the pope’s approval of the PAS findings to which we give our allegiance. As it stands, Catholics are not required to believe in geocentrism, and never were.
Right you are.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is important. In general I have written about the theological aspects of this matter, since I consider those to be the potentially most harmful to peoples’ hearts and souls. But scientifically geocentrism ends up to be basically a giant exercise in special pleading.
Everywhere else in the observable universe, planets go around their stars and moons go around their planets. But ours is different, you know?
Everywhere else in the observable universe, massive objects rotate on their axis. But the Earth is different. Indeed, these other objects have an equatorial bulge from this rotation (just as you would expect). The Earth has an equatorial bulge too, but of course we know it’s not from rotating on its axis, it’s from the whole universe revolving around the Earth.
Objects that revolve around other objects create tidal forces that slow the rotation. The Earth experiences a slowing of its rotation and you might think that this is from the moon’s tidal force on the Earth. But no, actually the Earth doesn’t rotate on its axis and it is really the entire universe that is slowing down, just in the amount that you would expect from the Moon’s inertial drag.
The Earth’s rotation is influenced by earthly phenomena such as earthquakes. This is even true when the earthquakes are man-induced, by injecting material into faults. But it is not actually that the Earth’s rotation is slowing, the whole universe’s revolution around the Earth is influenced by earthquakes, natural and man-made.
Stellar parallax should not exist in a universe that is centered on the Earth. It would never have been predicted in a geocentric model. But stellar parallax does exist. Oh, the neo-geos say, no problem. It’s just that the movement of the stars just happens to be centered on the Sun, not the Earth (oh, the neo-geos don’t want to say “centered”, but that’s what is required to explain it.)
So we calculate things like the geostationary positions for satellites and the Lagrange positions around the Sun based on a heliocentric model of the solar system. And lo and behold the magical “aether” just happens to push when you need it to push and relax when you need it to relax so that the neo-geo can claim that it all works out the same in his universe too (but–and this is important–he could NEVER have been able to do the same calculations and dare to try to place those satellites there.) As another observer noted on another forum:
"To date not one prediction of that view of reality has been shown false. Considering the difficulties encountered explaining even simple observations like parallax or precession in the geocentric model, I’d say you are the one who is really funny. Indeed, if you did not know about parallax or precession, Geocentrism would never lead to their prediction. Indeed, unlike most scientfic theories, Geocentrism must be from its first principles be adapted to observation after the fact. A simple geocentric model would not even predict the planetary motions as observed in the sky - hence you modified Tycho-brahe model. All one needs to understand the majority of planetary observed motions in the standard model is to understand the above equation and the fact that planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. " theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=2852292#post2852292
Indeed.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is important. In general I have written about the theological aspects of this matter, since I consider those to be the potentially most harmful to peoples’ hearts and souls. But scientifically geocentrism ends up to be basically a giant exercise in special pleading.
Everywhere else in the observable universe, planets go around their stars and moons go around their planets. But ours is different, you know?
Everywhere else in the observable universe, massive objects rotate on their axis. But the Earth is different. Indeed, these other objects have an equatorial bulge from this rotation (just as you would expect). The Earth has an equatorial bulge too, but of course we know it’s not from rotating on its axis, it’s from the whole universe revolving around the Earth.
Objects that revolve around other objects create tidal forces that slow the rotation. The Earth experiences a slowing of its rotation and you might think that this is from the moon’s tidal force on the Earth. But no, actually the Earth doesn’t rotate on its axis and it is really the entire universe that is slowing down, just in the amount that you would expect from the Moon’s inertial drag.
The Earth’s rotation is influenced by earthly phenomena such as earthquakes. This is even true when the earthquakes are man-induced, by injecting material into faults. But it is not actually that the Earth’s rotation is slowing, the whole universe’s revolution around the Earth is influenced by earthquakes, natural and man-made.
Stellar parallax should not exist in a universe that is centered on the Earth. It would never have been predicted in a geocentric model. But stellar parallax does exist. Oh, the neo-geos say, no problem. It’s just that the movement of the stars just happens to be centered on the Sun, not the Earth (oh, the neo-geos don’t want to say “centered”, but that’s what is required to explain it.)
So we calculate things like the geostationary positions for satellites and the Lagrange positions around the Sun based on a heliocentric model of the solar system. And lo and behold the magical “aether” just happens to push when you need it to push and relax when you need it to relax so that the neo-geo can claim that it all works out the same in his universe too (but–and this is important–he could NEVER have been able to do the same calculations and dare to try to place those satellites there.)
As another observer noted on another forum:
"To date not one prediction of that view of reality has been shown false. Considering the difficulties encountered explaining even simple observations like parallax or precession in the geocentric model, I’d say you are the one who is really funny. Indeed, if you did not know about parallax or precession, Geocentrism would never lead to their prediction. Indeed, unlike most scientfic theories, Geocentrism must be from its first principles be adapted to observation after the fact. A simple geocentric model would not even predict the planetary motions as observed in the sky - hence you modified Tycho-brahe model. All one needs to understand the majority of planetary observed motions in the standard model is to understand the above equation and the fact that planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. " theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=2852292#post2852292
Indeed.
M
mellestad
Guest
Ahh, very well said. To the point, with just enough snark to give someone a nudge without necessarily crossing the line to being a jerk. Expect my next response to geocentrism to sound eerily similar to what you just postedThis is important. In general I have written about the theological aspects of this matter, since I consider those to be the potentially most harmful to peoples’ hearts and souls. But scientifically geocentrism ends up to be basically a giant exercise in special pleading.
Everywhere else in the observable universe, planets go around their stars and moons go around their planets. But ours is different, you know?
Everywhere else in the observable universe, massive objects rotate on their axis. But the Earth is different. Indeed, these other objects have an equatorial bulge from this rotation (just as you would expect). The Earth has an equatorial bulge too, but of course we know it’s not from rotating on its axis, it’s from the whole universe revolving around the Earth.
Objects that revolve around other objects create tidal forces that slow the rotation. The Earth experiences a slowing of its rotation and you might think that this is from the moon’s tidal force on the Earth. But no, actually the Earth doesn’t rotate on its axis and it is really the entire universe that is slowing down, just in the amount that you would expect from the Moon’s inertial drag.
The Earth’s rotation is influenced by earthly phenomena such as earthquakes. This is even true when the earthquakes are man-induced, by injecting material into faults. But it is not actually that the Earth’s rotation is slowing, the whole universe’s revolution around the Earth is influenced by earthquakes, natural and man-made.
Stellar parallax should not exist in a universe that is centered on the Earth. It would never have been predicted in a geocentric model. But stellar parallax does exist. Oh, the neo-geos say, no problem. It’s just that the movement of the stars just happens to be centered on the Sun, not the Earth (oh, the neo-geos don’t want to say “centered”, but that’s what is required to explain it.)
So we calculate things like the geostationary positions for satellites and the Lagrange positions around the Sun based on a heliocentric model of the solar system. And lo and behold the magical “aether” just happens to push when you need it to push and relax when you need it to relax so that the neo-geo can claim that it all works out the same in his universe too (but–and this is important–he could NEVER have been able to do the same calculations and dare to try to place those satellites there.)
As another observer noted on another forum:
"To date not one prediction of that view of reality has been shown false. Considering the difficulties encountered explaining even simple observations like parallax or precession in the geocentric model, I’d say you are the one who is really funny. Indeed, if you did not know about parallax or precession, Geocentrism would never lead to their prediction. Indeed, unlike most scientfic theories, Geocentrism must be from its first principles be adapted to observation after the fact. A simple geocentric model would not even predict the planetary motions as observed in the sky - hence you modified Tycho-brahe model. All one needs to understand the majority of planetary observed motions in the standard model is to understand the above equation and the fact that planetary orbits are ellipses, not circles. " theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=2852292#post2852292
Indeed.
T
twinc
Guest
even more to the point - see video and discussion on geocentricism on www.mbowden.info - twincAhh, very well said. To the point, with just enough snark to give someone a nudge without necessarily crossing the line to being a jerk. Expect my next response to geocentrism to sound eerily similar to what you just posted
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Seeing a non-moving earth and not seeing some things that can be verified by extra research are two different things.
And no, 6.9 billion pairs of eyes do not see themselves (you do not see your own eyes), nor their own persons as immobile. When we walk, we typically know we walk, that is that we are not immobile.
The part about NOT seeing polarised light is opaque. When I wear sunglasses, the light I do see is polarised.
Malaria trypanosomes are too small to see with naked eye, but with a microscope we can verify they exist.
God is invisible. If Geocentrism is correct one of his daily works is very much pointing to him. Rotating a Universe around earth takes infinite power. And … so far you have not proven Geocentrism wrong, nor the alternative explanations preferrable to this one.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Stellar parallax is what convinced me of geocentrism.Everywhere else in the observable universe, planets go around their stars and moons go around their planets. But ours is different, you know?
Everywhere else in the observable universe, massive objects rotate on their axis. But the Earth is different. Indeed, these other objects have an equatorial bulge from this rotation (just as you would expect). The Earth has an equatorial bulge too, but of course we know it’s not from rotating on its axis, it’s from the whole universe revolving around the Earth.
Stellar parallax should not exist in a universe that is centered on the Earth. It would never have been predicted in a geocentric model. But stellar parallax does exist. Oh, the neo-geos say, no problem. It’s just that the movement of the stars just happens to be centered on the Sun, not the Earth (oh, the neo-geos don’t want to say “centered”, but that’s what is required to explain it.).
Most stars do not show one. Tens of thousands do, but they are still a minority. The biggest parallax is 0.76 seconds per half year and next half year back to where it started. 1 second is like two radii of earth popping up through surface at about 30 metres’ distance.
I do not say the stars that move have their movement centred round sun, only it is - in this case - in time with sun. This means we do not have parallax trigonometry to support the big distances and the big bodies.
If you do have a rocket near Saturn supporting independently the distances of Proxima Centauri, or confirming that when not viewed from earth it is not moving each half year, that would/might further the case of modern “science” somewhat (I have not worked out the trigonometric implications yet). All I have heard it is observing is the planets and the impact of their gravity. Nothing about Prox. Centauri being independently observed from there for the half years.
The “everywhere else in the Universe” rhetoric looks impressive, until you find that we do not see planets around most stars and we do not see moons around most exo-planets. This might be due to big distances, et c, as of modern science. It might as well be due to closer and smaller stars (but definitely beyond Saturn even at aphelium) having few “planets” much smaller and without moons. And “rotation causing bulging equators” and “moons slowing rotation” is hypothetical. It is not data, it is explanation, and materialistic one at that. Maybe the Orange shape is just attractive to our Creator?
How much? How accurately is this measured? Can earthquakes have influenced clocks? Well, let us discount that one, if the clocks are outside earthquake area. And stick with the first two questions.The Earth’s rotation is influenced by earthly phenomena such as earthquakes. This is even true when the earthquakes are man-induced, by injecting material into faults. But it is not actually that the Earth’s rotation is slowing, the whole universe’s revolution around the Earth is influenced by earthquakes, natural and man-made.
your quote:
Well, dance moves are predictable things, and Tychonian geometry might be as attractive to angelic dancers. Or their Heavenly Choreographer. Stars moving parallactically can be explained as angels moving in time with sun, for obvious theological reasons. Like him being put to rule the day. Or honoured by showing his honours to Our Lord on Calvary or to his namesake some thousand years earlier.
Ever happened to see dancers moving so accurately you took them for robots, and get surprised when they stopped? That surprise but about the stars might await us for Apocalypse.
R
rossum
Guest
Standing on Mars I would see a moving Earth. Does the truth of the universe change when I change my viewpoint?
As you say with the malaria trypanosome, sometimes we need to dig further than our raw senses to determine the truth. What “extra research” could we perform on Mars to show that it is not at the centre of the universe and that it is actually moving? What results would we get from our Martian experiment that would differ from the same experiment performed on Earth? It doesn’t even have to be Mars; a space vehicle like Voyager carries many experiments, this could be one of them. Such a space vehicle would not be at the centre of the universe either.
Where is you scientific data? Where is your proposed experiment? This is science so you actually need to do some science here.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
How about this - and it will be cheap ( a lot less than the LHC)
Redo Airey’s experiment.
Redo Airey’s experiment.
R
rossum
Guest
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on a moving American continental plate?
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on a static American continental plate?
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on a moving European continental plate?
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on a static European continental plate?
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on a space vehicle similar to Voyager?
What results do you expect if the experiment is performed on Mars?
This is science, you need to have some idea from your theory as to what results you would expect for your experiment performed in different locations.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
If any of the platforms are moving then the tilt amount will be predicted and accounted for.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Thank you for bringing up Mars.
I wrote a letter to NASA, and have not got an answer.
If Geocentrism is true, standing on Mars would involve more radical changes of speed than standing on the moon.
I mean, the moon has a pretty small change in radial distance from earth for its daily round around us. Cf this post, I am giving a short URL:
o-x.fr/1po1
Now, with Mars an aphelium beyond the sun is very much further from us, and very much higher speeds than a perihelium behind us with us between it and the sun.
This would of course not be an issue about daily speed if day and night are earth rotating.
I have asked NASA if they used Newton Metres to check whether speed variations are as would be expected from Heliocentrism of from Geocentrism (making the problem as clears as I could) and I have got no answer on the e-mail:
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Actually what you say is just what would be expected. Due to the extremely small angles involved, we are only able to measure the parallax from those stars close enough to us. There are many billions of stars and galaxies too distant for the measurement to be done.
As I said above, geocentrism represents a massive exercise in special pleading. Geocentrism would never have predicted stellar parallax and now, once it is proven to exist, the neo-geos have to come up with an ad hoc explanation. In this case, however, it’s ironic since their explanation would just as well prove that the Sun is the center of the universe and not the Earth. In fact, the former would be a more plausible and more satisfactory explanation.
So I’m curious whether, when the Gaia Mission satellite is placed at the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrangian point and gets correlative stellar parallax readings, that will have any impact on your viewpoint. [NB: the L2 Lagrangian point is calculated by orbital mechanics using a heliocentric model of the solar system. The neo-geos would not be able to determine an L2 point based on first principles. But we have spacecraft sitting at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point”]Sun-Earth Lagrangian points, which by itself is physical evidence against geocentrism.]
You have already admitted the validity of using stellar parallax to measure the distances to stars, therefore it should be obvious that the distances involved are precisely why it’s difficult to locate other planets. The fact remains, however, that in ever single case in those solar systems the planets all go around their star. Special pleading aside, why would ours be different?
How about the equitorial bulges of rotating bodies? How about the slowing of the rotation of the Earth? How about geo-stationary satellites? How about spacecraft sitting at Lagrange points calculated using heliocentric assumptions?
Why would somebody continue to hold a geocentric model as a tenable hypothesis in light of the physical evidence?
Again, special pleading. Does the neo-geocentrist really believe that earthquakes cause the whole universe to slow down or that earthquakes cause atomic clocks to change time so that our measurements are off?
hansgeorg, once you have recourse to the dances of angels moving the stars in unpredictable ways, fairies in Iceland pushing the continental plates around, or magical “aether” as other neo-geos utilize to explain the holes in their view, we are well outside the boundaries of scientific investigation. There’s little more to be said at that point, since any possible evidence that runs contrary to your view can be handled on an ad hoc basis by recourse to miraculous intervention. If an individual Catholic wishes to hold such a view he is free to do so, so long as he agrees that the Catholic Church herself does not hold us to any such view of the universe.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
Special pleading. In other words, the explanation is possible, but leaves the proof so much less cogent.
Angels guiding stars are not ad hoc. Both Pagans and Hebrews thought something like that, as well as certain Christian Theologians including St Thomas Aquinas.
, which by itself is physical evidence against geocentrism.]
No, Lagrangian points are not by themselves physical evidence against geocentrism.
Oh, learn to read!
I have said I do NOT admit the so called parallax as a valid trigonometric calculation, precisely since with the star moving we have no known distance, and one known angle - obviously too LITTLE to make any trigonometric statement.
Hence, I have not at all admitted anything like the great distances being the obvious reason why this and that and sundry is not seen.
I can imagine the measurements are off. Am I THE neo-geocentrist now? I am not speaking for Sungenis, nor is he speaking for me until I read him and agree.
Dances of angels, as said, are NOT unpredictable as to movements, since we can predict them - as long as the dance goes on.
Fairies in Iceland may be responsible for Thingvellir phenomenon, I said nothing about them pushing Europe and America asunder.
AEther is one valid explanation as to how light and for that matter gravitation is transmitted.
None of the supernatural explanations are purely ad hoc. Angels are for instance implied by “visibilium omnium et IN-visibilium” and God moving Universe around … well, God both exists and is strong enough.
Pope Leo XIII in § 18 did NOT mention the miracle of Joshua as one possibility where popular language used by hagiographer would make the Bible scientifically inaccurate without damage to the purpose of Scripture. If you know the story of St Augustine’s conversion, there was at least one occasion where knowing that Jacob and Esau must have had the same horoscope was crucial to the slavation of a soul.
C
cassini
Guest
Someone put up a link to the following:
Texts from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro 362
I cannot find it. Would really appreciate if the poster would put it back up. Many thanks.
Finocchiaro’s book Retrying Galileo is one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the Galileo case for the simple reason he reproduces the official Church documents on the matter, including the decrees against heliocentrism.
Texts from The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, edited and translated by Maurice A. Finocchiaro 362
I cannot find it. Would really appreciate if the poster would put it back up. Many thanks.
Finocchiaro’s book Retrying Galileo is one of the most comprehensive books ever written on the Galileo case for the simple reason he reproduces the official Church documents on the matter, including the decrees against heliocentrism.
H
hansgeorg
Guest
condemnation:
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
full text of Providentissimus Deus:
o-x.fr/etjt
No link to that work, sorry!
You may notice, Leo XIII is not formally contradicting Urban VIII on the question.
law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
full text of Providentissimus Deus:
o-x.fr/etjt
No link to that work, sorry!
You may notice, Leo XIII is not formally contradicting Urban VIII on the question.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
You may also notice that the first linked source is not from Urban VIII but from the Congregation of the Holy Office during Urban’s reign. It was never signed by the Pope but was approved only in forma communi. That same Roman Congregation, according to Finocchiaro, issued positive permission in 1822 for Catholics publicly to present the earth’s motion as an established fact:
11 September 1822 The Congregation of the Holy Office decides to allow in general the publication of books treating of the earth’s motion in accordance with modern astronomy. . . .
25 September 1822 Pope Pius VII ratifies this decision. . . . (from Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p. 307)
Thus the restriction that was placed on Galileo in specific in 1633, was removed from Catholic scholars in general in 1822 and that decision was ratified by the Pope.
Leo XIII, in Providentissimum Deus 18, laid out the principles on which such apparent discrepancies between faith and science are to be resolved. This same principle was repeated by his successor, Pius XII, in 3Divino Afflante Spiritu. The resolution is that the Holy Spirit did not put details of the physical universe in sacred Scripture but inspired the sacred writers wrote according to the appearances. The principle has broad application, as can be seen by the Vatican’s stance toward scientific issues in general, but the most obvious application of this Pope’s teaching is to the geocentrism controversy. As Cassini has said:
The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy. (link)
An individual Catholic is free to hold to geocentrism, of course, but the Church does not present that view as a matter of faith and Catholics are free to hold other views as well.
- Status