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

[excubitor]

One good thing that does come out of even a discussion like this is that I learn new things. The nutation (polar wobble) of the earth and the influence of tides on the rotation of the earth is now measurable in at least three ways:

Lunar Laser Ranging (using mirrors placed there by the Apollo astronauts, Sungenis’ lunar landing denial notwithstanding). See for example:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration

and especially

physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Dickey.pdf

Ring Lasers in subterranean caverns:

ringlaser.org.nz/content/about_us.php

physics.berkeley.edu/research/packard/related/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/Stedman2001JB000569.pdf

arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0406156v1

And Very Long Baseline Interferometry, which we’ve already discussed some here on this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLBI

bowie.gsfc.nasa.gov/ggfc/tides/intro.html

Now again, we would expect a body rotating on its axis to have nutation-precession and would expect its rotational velocity to vary according to the tidal action of its moon(s). And how interesting that these three independent techniques–one bouncing lasers off the moon, one monitoring ultra-distant quasars, and one measuring the Sagnac effect of lasers in subterranean caverns–all give statistically equivalent results, indicating just such motion.

Oh, or is it really that the entire universe wobbles in just such a way that it looks like nutation and tidal deceleration and that by some strange coincidence it has exactly the same effect on quasars, the moon, and the Sagnac effect on light beams below the earth’s surface measure.

I wonder which is “most likely”?

You have made some kind of logical jump. You have gone to all the trouble to show that there is a polar wobble, but have not explained how polar wobble proves that the earth is moving around the sun in annual orbit and rotating diurnally.

Even if you can prove polar wobble you have only gone part of the way. But this is where the clever deception comes in. The opponent, having convinced you the polar wobble exists now expects you to fall over and believe in heliocentrism. Whereas you have not even attempted to prove that polar wobble is evidence of a rotating earth.

In fact it cannot be proven because the gravitational forces between the sun moon earth and heavens are identical in both the geocentric and heliocentric systems.

Also it cannot be proven that polar wobble is caused by the earths rotation with respect to a static universe and not by the effect of the rotating universe upon the static earth. There is no relative difference between the two scenarios.

It’s all relative.

Let me also comment on the laser experiment bouncing lasers off the moon which somehow prove that the earth is wobbling. It’s a simple matter of logic that it is impossible to prove that absolute motion of any object in the universe from a scientific standpoint for the simple reason that according to science, earth, the moon and indeed the entire universe is moving. Therefore it is impossible to know whether the earth is wobbling on its axis, or whether the moon is wobbling in its orbit. Both scenarios would produce the same measurement. This means that the data does not prove either scenarios one way or the other. All it proves is that scientists pick their interpretation of the data to suit their preconceived philosophy and ideology, which as I said in another post is driven by a powerful bias against the scriptures, the church and God.

 

[rossum]

This has absolutely no bearing on the debate. Part of the earth moved with respect to the great bulk of the earth. This provides no evidence about what the great bulk of the earth is doing.

I wasn’t asking about the great bulk of the Earth, I was asking about the centre of the universe. Where is it (to the nearest metre or so)? How do you measure this position?

Remember also that the centre of mass of the Earth will have moved slightly as a result of the Japan earthquake; the mass of the Earth is now distributed slightly differently. What effect will the movement of the centre of mass of the Earth have had on the rest of the universe? Show your working please.

rossum

 

[razredge]

Why is it that every time a scientific theory comes out, that is contrary to a literal interpretation of scripture or past teaching, there are a group of conspiracy theorists ready to say that they are covering up the truth.

If you truly have faith, then wouldn’t it be a more mature move to try and understand the bible in light of other truths, rather than in constant opposition.

Simple, certain small minded and childish people relish the idea of being smarter than all these know-it-all scientists with all their university degrees and research.

Or, they can’t face the thought of the Bible or Church being wrong on anything and would much rather simply ignore the problem (aided by conspiracy theories and pseudoscience) and hope it will go away.

 

[DavidPalm]

But this is where the clever deception comes in.

Ah yes. All the other massive bodies in the universe rotating on their axes. Less massive body revolving around more massive bodies in every other observable system in the universe. Polar wobble. Tidal deceleration. Equatorial bulges. Stellar parallax. Rotational boost. Geostationary points and Lagrange points. It’s all a deception to make us think that the earth revolves around its sun and rotates on its axis like every other planet in the universe. But we’re too clever to fall for that ruse.

Let me also comment on the laser experiment bouncing lasers off the moon which somehow prove that the earth is wobbling. It’s a simple matter of logic that it is impossible to prove that absolute motion of any object in the universe from a scientific standpoint for the simple reason that according to science, earth, the moon and indeed the entire universe is moving. Therefore it is impossible to know whether the earth is wobbling on its axis, or whether the moon is wobbling in its orbit. Both scenarios would produce the same measurement. This means that the data does not prove either scenarios one way or the other. All it proves is that scientists pick their interpretation of the data to suit their preconceived philosophy and ideology, which as I said in another post is driven by a powerful bias against the scriptures, the church and God.

You failed to explain how all three measurements, only one of which has to do with the moon, give the same results for rotation of the earth, nutation/precession, tidal deceleration, etc. Again, one is measured against the moon, but one is measuring against quasars and the other is measuring the Sagnac effect on lasers buried deep underground. So the whole universe wobbles, bobs, and weaves in just such a way that it looks like axial nutation and tidal deceleration? And it just so happens this bobbing and weaving of the whole universe just happens to look exactly the same no matter how you try to measure it? Really? That’s “most likely” compared to simply recognizing that the earth behaves just like every other planet in the universe? This is some sort of conspiracy to deceive people?

Here are some interesting comments from another forum:

1. Why should variations in the observed velocity of quasars match precisely the tidal effects on the Earth. The time delay is ENORMOUS (billions of years) The entire effect of the tides would need to be directly linked to the observed motions of the heavens, whose size does not allow for any direct connection between quasar motions and the Earth. (nothing communicates faster than light, including gravity, and these objects are billions of light years hence).
2. As you know, the tides are linked to the position of tthe MOON, not the external ‘star shell’ or the quasars whose postion is being measured. Does the puny moon drag the rest of the universe around with it in your physics John?
3. Why do these variations in the universe’s motion about the Earth happen -once again - to match those that should be induced simply by the oceans sloshing on the EArths surface? Again, as above, an occurrence that would be a one in infinity probability unless the designer of the universe where trying to trick us.
4. There is no known physics that would allow those objects - the quasars - to retain their integrity if subjected to the accelerations required.,” (theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?129749-Geocentrism-Discussion-II&p=2850927#post2850927)

As excubitor has once again demonstrated, it requires a massive exercise in special pleading propped up with conspiracy theories to maintain that the earth is motionless and that the entire universe revolves around it.

Why do this? The Catholic Church does not bid us believe any such thing as a matter of faith. As Catholics we have freedom in this matter.

 

[buffalo]

As Catholics we have freedom in this matter.

Right.

The math works both ways. So why denigrate those that choose a worldview different than the popular one? or your own?

 

[rossum]

The math works both ways.

No it doesn’t, that is the problem for Geocentrism.

What force, acting almost instantaneously over billions of light years, can accelerate a massive quasar and not tear that quasar apart? What experiments here on Earth have confirmed the existence of this force that travels faster than light?

The maths does not work both ways. You may possibly get the kinematics to work both ways. You will not be able to get the dynamics to work both ways.

Geocentrism is wrong, and those who interpret the Bible to mandate Geocentrism are as wrong as Harold Camping.

rossum

 

[DavidPalm]

The maths does not work both ways. You may possibly get the kinematics to work both ways. You will not be able to get the dynamics to work both ways.

Indeed. If there is anything deceptive here, it is this claim that the two cosmologies are identical in every respect. The claim is often made, but it rarely if ever gets backed up with real math. This is the way it was stated by Dr. Todd Wood, who attended the neo-geocentic conference late last year:

Now I’m really going to step on toes. Please stop with the handwaving. Frequently during the conference, speakers would make highly conjectural claims that could have been verified but weren’t. For example, Bennett’s ALFA challenge doesn’t sound all that hard. It looks to this biochemist like a pretty straightforward experiment. So do it. If it really will “prove” your point or support geocentrism or refute heliocentrism, then why are you spending money on this conference? Why not just pay for the ALFA experiment? Then you’ll have some real evidence, right? Likewise, I heard over and over again that systems rotate around the center of mass, and it only looks like the earth revolves around the sun if you just include the mass of the earth and the sun. If you include the stars, so I was told, then the center of mass shifts to the earth. OK, fine. Show me. There are estimates of the mass of the universe, and there are estimates of the size of the universe. Calculate the center of mass. So what if you have to make unmeasurable assumptions? If you use standard estimates of the universe’s size and mass, then you should be able to come up with a center of mass that is some measurable distance from the center of the earth.

Instead what we got were speculations. Handwaving. If you calculate this, it supports geocentrism. If you do that experiment, it supports geocentrism. Enough with the IFs. If it’s not a hard experiment or calculation, then do it! And if your idea has no way to be tested (like the superluminal velocity of the infinitely dense plenum aether that can’t be detected by larger particles), then please just admit that it’s a speculation. Stop pretending to be all science-y when you’re not.

You will never be taken seriously as long as you approach science with a “look but don’t touch” attitude. You’ve gotta get your hands dirty.


http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/hanging-out-with-geocentrists-part-5.html

There is another very specific challenge on the table for the neo-geocentrists to do some real math instead of just hand-waving. In reply to Rick Delano’s claim that “Geocentrism perfectly accounts for LaGrange points”, Dr. Tom Bridgman issued the following challenge:

Really? Good. Then you won’t mind backing it up.

Among real scientists, such a bold statement implies this calculation has actually been done.

Since this is a fairly straightforward analysis in a Newtonian and non-geocentric framework that undergraduate physics students are expected to do (and I have done it), you are required to prove that this analysis has been done in the physically geocentric model.

Identify all five Lagrangian points using a strictly geocentric calculation with full mathematical detail FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES, i.e. the claimed geocentric physics behind it, presenting the equations of motion, etc. (Wikipedia - lagrange points). Post the solution on a web site and send me the link. The positional solutions must be identical to those found in Newtonian non-geocentric case and should properly identify the Lagrange points of the Earth-Sun system (STEREO @ L4 & L5, Sentinels of the Heliosphere at L1, WMAP @ L2), the Earth-Moon system (ARTEMIS at L1 & L2), and the Sun-Jupiter system (Trojan asteroids). Note that operating missions have made, or are making use of up to four of the five points. We’ve not yet found a good use for L3 points that warrants a visit.

And no cheating - claiming that the result is the same as the non-geocentric case with a coordinate transformation to the geocentric frame is physically indistinguishable from the frame of reference designation - which can be done anywhere in the universe and makes all frames equivalent. There is no universal or physically preferred rest frame by this method on any scale less than the CMB.

Bear in mind that if a professional scientist were to make a claim such as yours for a problem as trivial as this, and be unable to back it up, they would be suspected of fraud. However, I suspect a better term might be your own term: ‘blithering incompetent’. ;^)

dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/09/geocentrism-galileo-was-wrong.html?showComment=1293886127545#c392833789179925355

So far there’s been silence from the neo-geo camp. So who, I wonder, is deceiving whom?

 

[buffalo]

Indeed. If there is anything deceptive here, it is this claim that the two cosmologies are identical in every respect. The claim is often made, but it rarely if ever gets backed up with real math. This is the way it was stated by Dr. Todd Wood, who attended the neo-geocentic conference late last year:
Now I’m really going to step on toes. Please stop with the handwaving. Frequently during the conference, speakers would make highly conjectural claims that could have been verified but weren’t. For example, Bennett’s ALFA challenge doesn’t sound all that hard. It looks to this biochemist like a pretty straightforward experiment. So do it. If it really will “prove” your point or support geocentrism or refute heliocentrism, then why are you spending money on this conference? Why not just pay for the ALFA experiment? Then you’ll have some real evidence, right? Likewise, I heard over and over again that systems rotate around the center of mass, and it only looks like the earth revolves around the sun if you just include the mass of the earth and the sun. If you include the stars, so I was told, then the center of mass shifts to the earth. OK, fine. Show me. There are estimates of the mass of the universe, and there are estimates of the size of the universe. Calculate the center of mass. So what if you have to make unmeasurable assumptions? If you use standard estimates of the universe’s size and mass, then you should be able to come up with a center of mass that is some measurable distance from the center of the earth.

Instead what we got were speculations. Handwaving. If you calculate this, it supports geocentrism. If you do that experiment, it supports geocentrism. Enough with the IFs. If it’s not a hard experiment or calculation, then do it! And if your idea has no way to be tested (like the superluminal velocity of the infinitely dense plenum aether that can’t be detected by larger particles), then please just admit that it’s a speculation. Stop pretending to be all science-y when you’re not.

You will never be taken seriously as long as you approach science with a “look but don’t touch” attitude. You’ve gotta get your hands dirty.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/hanging-out-with-geocentrists-part-5.html

There is another very specific challenge on the table for the neo-geocentrists to do some real math instead of just hand-waving. In reply to Rick Delano’s claim that “Geocentrism perfectly accounts for LaGrange points”, Dr. Tom Bridgman issued the following challenge:
Really? Good. Then you won’t mind backing it up.

Among real scientists, such a bold statement implies this calculation has actually been done.

Since this is a fairly straightforward analysis in a Newtonian and non-geocentric framework that undergraduate physics students are expected to do (and I have done it), you are required to prove that this analysis has been done in the physically geocentric model.

Identify all five Lagrangian points using a strictly geocentric calculation with full mathematical detail FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES, i.e. the claimed geocentric physics behind it, presenting the equations of motion, etc. (Wikipedia - lagrange points). Post the solution on a web site and send me the link. The positional solutions must be identical to those found in Newtonian non-geocentric case and should properly identify the Lagrange points of the Earth-Sun system (STEREO @ L4 & L5, Sentinels of the Heliosphere at L1, WMAP @ L2), the Earth-Moon system (ARTEMIS at L1 & L2), and the Sun-Jupiter system (Trojan asteroids). Note that operating missions have made, or are making use of up to four of the five points. We’ve not yet found a good use for L3 points that warrants a visit.

And no cheating - claiming that the result is the same as the non-geocentric case with a coordinate transformation to the geocentric frame is physically indistinguishable from the frame of reference designation - which can be done anywhere in the universe and makes all frames equivalent. There is no universal or physically preferred rest frame by this method on any scale less than the CMB.

Bear in mind that if a professional scientist were to make a claim such as yours for a problem as trivial as this, and be unable to back it up, they would be suspected of fraud. However, I suspect a better term might be your own term: ‘blithering incompetent’. ;^)
dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/09/geocentrism-galileo-was-wrong.html?showComment=1293886127545#c392833789179925355

So far there’s been silence from the neo-geo camp. So who, I wonder, is deceiving whom?

Hey - I said posts ago someone should rerun Airey’s Failure.

 

[excubitor]

Ah yes. All the other massive bodies in the universe rotating on their axes. Less massive body revolving around more massive bodies in every other observable system in the universe. Polar wobble. Tidal deceleration. Equatorial bulges. Stellar parallax. Rotational boost. Geostationary points and Lagrange points. It’s all a deception to make us think that the earth revolves around its sun and rotates on its axis like every other planet in the universe. But we’re too clever to fall for that ruse.

You failed to explain how all three measurements, only one of which has to do with the moon, give the same results for rotation of the earth, nutation/precession, tidal deceleration, etc. Again, one is measured against the moon, but one is measuring against quasars and the other is measuring the Sagnac effect on lasers buried deep underground. So the whole universe wobbles, bobs, and weaves in just such a way that it looks like axial nutation and tidal deceleration? And it just so happens this bobbing and weaving of the whole universe just happens to look exactly the same no matter how you try to measure it? Really? That’s “most likely” compared to simply recognizing that the earth behaves just like every other planet in the universe? This is some sort of conspiracy to deceive people?
Why do this? The Catholic Church does not bid us believe any such thing as a matter of faith. As Catholics we have freedom in this matter.

95% of the people on the earth are not going to understand anything about nutation, quasars, parallax, rotational boost etc, etc. Therefore because we don’t understand therefore we feel that we have to believe the scientists.

In fact, mumbo-jumbo is the chief tool of deception of all arch-deceivers. I appeal to the 95% of humanity who can use their eyes and their senses and observe what is obvious.

It is obvious when we look into the heavens that all of the stars, moon and sun are moving around us each day. It is obvious that we are not spinning in space such that at the equator is travelling at 1000 mph. It is obvious that we are not zipping through space at 67000 mph around the sun because we can go outside on a still day and feel not a breath of movement.

It is only because we are spun an incredibly complicated lie with mumbo-jumbo that we can’t understand that we are prepared to forgoe our natural senses and believe something which is utterly preposterous.

It’s so obvious that we are not moving and that all the heavens are moving around us that in future generations we will be the laughing stock of the world that people could ever have believed anything so ludicrous.

vimeo.com/22439234

Here is a video which clearly shows the universe rotating around the earth. I suppose that someone could convince the world that black is actually white if a sophisticated enough argument could be touted.

However I will not take leave of my natural senses on the sayso of scientific gobbledegook which I can’t understand and very few people can actually understand.

This is not to say however that I am utterly ignorant. It’s been necessary for me to confirm that the motions of the planets and geostationary satellites can be explained by the geocentric system. I have learned enough science to be convinced that these observable phenomena are compatible with a geocentric system, and that there is effectively no difference between the heliocentric and the geocentric system of Tycho Brahe. They are simply observing the same movements using a different frame of reference. It’s all relative.

So this is what supports my belief in Geocentrism.

1. My natural senses and observation.
2. My personal sense of incredulity at the notion of Heliocentrism and Acentrism
3. The teachings of the church and dogmatic declarations of the church in the middle ages.
4. The clear statements of scripture which emphatically describes a stationery earth and a moving sun
5. The sacred traditions of the church which for 1700 years believed that the earth was stationery and the sun was moving.

Why then would I change my view?

1. Gobbledegook and mumbo-jumbo of scientists who spout complex formulas and measurements of lasers in subterranean caves. Measurements which I cannot understand and have no way of verifying for myself.

I refuse to believe that the scriptures taught one thing, the early church believed it, the church emphatically declared it, and then it was overturned by Bruno Copernicus Kepler and Galileo.

Does God overthrow things believed by thousands of years of church history, writing and teaching and reveal such a great mystery to such men as Bruno Copernicus and Keplar?

No of course not. He speaks through men like King David, King Solomon who was the wisest man who ever lived, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus, and let’s not forget saint and doctor of the church St. Bellarmine, who is surely one of the most sorely neglected and brilliant doctors of the church.

Sorry DavidPalm, you can baffle us with scientific XX all you like . Just don’t think that because we can’t understand you that we have to believe you. We don’t. Truth and revelation does not come to the wise of this world, it comes to the simple folk, that appear foolish to the world. God has revealed his truths unto babes. And may we rejoice that it is so.

 

[hansgeorg]

I wasn’t asking about the great bulk of the Earth, I was asking about the centre of the universe. Where is it (to the nearest metre or so)? How do you measure this position?

Remember also that the centre of mass of the Earth will have moved slightly as a result of the Japan earthquake; the mass of the Earth is now distributed slightly differently. What effect will the movement of the centre of mass of the Earth have had on the rest of the universe? Show your working please.

We are not seeing it, fortunately.

The geometric centre of the universe is down in Hell. Below France, below Japan, below US, below Africa, below Australia.

I am not sure a shifting of masses on surface would shift gravitational centre. A thomist might even reply it did not shift, since the geometric centre is the natural place for heavy stuff anyway.

Up in Heaven - a far better subject - is of course the extreme periphery of the Universe.

 

[hansgeorg]

All the other massive bodies in the universe rotating on their axes.

We cannot observe that for all of them. You mean “all the seven planets”, I suppose?

Less massive body revolving around more massive bodies in every other observable system in the universe.

Optically observed exo-planets are a grand total of 18. In about 500 most are calculated, not observed.

Polar wobble.

Angels holding so called fixed stars dancing in time and direction with the moon.
*

Tidal deceleration.

Optically speaking measured by day timing it is rather a smallish acceleration of moon.
*

Equatorial bulges.

Polar flattening serves about same purpose from Creator’s view whether it is Universe rotating around earth or the reverse. We have not seen a process of polar flattening and equatorial bulge, remember.
*

Stellar parallax.

Some angels holding so called fixed stars dancing in time and direction with the sun.
*

Rotational boost.

Confess my ignorance on meaning of RB - unless it is in rocketry, then it has been answered by Sungenis.
*

Geostationary points and Lagrange points.

Has, I think, been answered by Sungenis too.
*

You failed to explain how all three measurements, only one of which has to do with the moon, give the same results for rotation of the earth, nutation/precession, tidal deceleration, etc. Again, one is measured against the moon, but one is measuring against quasars and the other is measuring the Sagnac effect on lasers buried deep underground. So the whole universe wobbles, bobs, and weaves in just such a way that it looks like axial nutation and tidal deceleration?

See above comments on angels dancing in time with moon and sun.

 

[rossum]

We are not seeing it, fortunately.

And I am not seeing your calculations. If you want us to see Geocentrism as science, rather than as theology, then you need to show us the calculations.

Where is the centre of the universe?

How far did it move as a result of the Japan earthquake?

Show you working please.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

95% of the people on the earth are not going to understand anything about nutation, quasars, parallax, rotational boost etc, etc. Therefore because we don’t understand therefore we feel that we have to believe the scientists.

In fact, mumbo-jumbo is the chief tool of deception of all arch-deceivers. I appeal to the 95% of humanity who can use their eyes and their senses and observe what is obvious.

It is obvious when we look into the heavens that all of the stars, moon and sun are moving around us each day. It is obvious that we are not spinning in space such that at the equator is travelling at 1000 mph. It is obvious that we are not zipping through space at 67000 mph around the sun because we can go outside on a still day and feel not a breath of movement.

It is only because we are spun an incredibly complicated lie with mumbo-jumbo that we can’t understand that we are prepared to forgoe our natural senses and believe something which is utterly preposterous.

It’s so obvious that we are not moving and that all the heavens are moving around us that in future generations we will be the laughing stock of the world that people could ever have believed anything so ludicrous.

vimeo.com/22439234

Here is a video which clearly shows the universe rotating around the earth. I suppose that someone could convince the world that black is actually white if a sophisticated enough argument could be touted.

However I will not take leave of my natural senses on the sayso of scientific gobbledegook which I can’t understand and very few people can actually understand.

This is not to say however that I am utterly ignorant. It’s been necessary for me to confirm that the motions of the planets and geostationary satellites can be explained by the geocentric system. I have learned enough science to be convinced that these observable phenomena are compatible with a geocentric system, and that there is effectively no difference between the heliocentric and the geocentric system of Tycho Brahe. They are simply observing the same movements using a different frame of reference. It’s all relative.

So this is what supports my belief in Geocentrism.

1. My natural senses and observation.
2. My personal sense of incredulity at the notion of Heliocentrism and Acentrism
3. The teachings of the church and dogmatic declarations of the church in the middle ages.
4. The clear statements of scripture which emphatically describes a stationery earth and a moving sun
5. The sacred traditions of the church which for 1700 years believed that the earth was stationery and the sun was moving.

Why then would I change my view?

1. Gobbledegook and mumbo-jumbo of scientists who spout complex formulas and measurements of lasers in subterranean caves. Measurements which I cannot understand and have no way of verifying for myself.

I refuse to believe that the scriptures taught one thing, the early church believed it, the church emphatically declared it, and then it was overturned by Bruno Copernicus Kepler and Galileo.

Does God overthrow things believed by thousands of years of church history, writing and teaching and reveal such a great mystery to such men as Bruno Copernicus and Keplar?

No of course not. He speaks through men like King David, King Solomon who was the wisest man who ever lived, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, St. Irenaeus, and let’s not forget saint and doctor of the church St. Bellarmine, who is surely one of the most sorely neglected and brilliant doctors of the church.

Sorry DavidPalm, you can baffle us with scientific XX all you like . Just don’t think that because we can’t understand you that we have to believe you. We don’t. Truth and revelation does not come to the wise of this world, it comes to the simple folk, that appear foolish to the world. God has revealed his truths unto babes. And may we rejoice that it is so.

For the record.
#3 above is not historically correct regarding Catholic Church protocol safeguarded by the Holy Spirit.

So-called dogmatic declarations made in a local trial regarding a local individual did not have the power of infallibility in the middle ages.
Not one of the many, many documents presented on CAF is a true dogma.

 

[DavidPalm]

In fact, mumbo-jumbo is the chief tool of deception of all arch-deceivers. I appeal to the 95% of humanity who can use their eyes and their senses and observe what is obvious.

It is obvious when we look into the heavens that all of the stars, moon and sun are moving around us each day. It is obvious that we are not spinning in space such that at the equator is travelling at 1000 mph. It is obvious that we are not zipping through space at 67000 mph around the sun because we can go outside on a still day and feel not a breath of movement.

So you’re in a car with blacked out windows. The car is traveling at some speed. How fast is it going? 10 mph? 50 mph? 100 mph? 1000 mph? The fact is that unless it accelerates or decelerates, you can’t tell. To use your word you would feel “not a breath of movement” even if the car was travelling at 10,000 or 100,000 mph.

Similarly, consider that you’re standing on the moon or on Mars, which I think you would agree rotate on their axes and revolve around the Earth/Sun. Do you believe your sense experience would be any different there than on the Earth? Because they rotate on their axes, the whole universe would appear to be revolting around you. And even though they are indeed speeding through space at tens of thousands of mph (as you would have to admit) you would “feel not a breath of movement”. I have seen neo-geocentrists deny that we’ve sent men to the moon and landers to Mars just to avoid these very obvious problems for their view. How about you?

As you have alluded to, it’s not sufficient for neo-geocentrists to glom onto the matter of relativity and say, “Oh, relativity says it doesn’t matter which center we pick, so we can just pick the earth”. No, you’re making a very specific claim, that the Earth and only the Earth is motionless. It’s no good pointing to a bunch of things that would be true for any point in the universe. Neo-geos have to point to things that would only be true for the Earth and no other body in the universe. And that is where all the special pleading and conspiracy theories kick in.

And if someone like me points to solid, physical, repeatable observations like three separate measuring methods all confirming the motion of the earth (rather than the entire universe), excubitor starts complaining about mumbo-jumbo and hansgeorg deploys legions of angels to tamper with the instruments and/or the heavenly bodies. I’m sorry gentlemen, but this is precisely that scenario that St. Augustine described in which Catholics make a totally unnecessary laughingstock out of the Christian faith.

1. The teachings of the church and dogmatic declarations of the church in the middle ages.

I echo what grannymh quite rightly pointed out above. There are no dogmatic declarations by the Catholic Church concerning geocentrism. See Neo-Geo Double Standards and Exaggerations on Magisterial Documents.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Simple, certain small minded and childish people relish the idea of being smarter than all these know-it-all scientists with all their university degrees and research.

Or, they can’t face the thought of the Bible or Church being wrong on anything and would much rather simply ignore the problem (aided by conspiracy theories and pseudoscience) and hope it will go away.

Hello razredge. You are very correct. It seems to me that in order for things like young earth creationism and geocentrism to be true, we would have to believe in a wild conspiracy theory about the successful subjugation of the scientific method and its development, and how atheists have used it to feed the world false information.

 

[DavidPalm]

1. The sacred traditions of the church which for 1700 years believed that the earth was stationery and the sun was moving.

As I pointed out in a previous post, I have not seen one single citation from any of the Fathers in which they indicate these these matters were for them a matter of faith, as opposed to natural philosophy. And as I think I demonstrated, there are but a handful who say anything about the earth as the immovable center of the universe, there is exactly one Father who cites Scripture in any connection to this question, whereas there are several who cite the various pagan natural philosophers of their day. The indication is that this was for them, as for St. Thomas, a matter of natural philosophy and not of faith. It is an exaggeration to speak of “sacred traditions of the church [sic]” or, as others have, a unanimous consent of the Fathers in this regard.

But you have touched on an interesting wrinkle of this whole discussion. It’s hard for us to get our heads around it, but in fact Galileo had not presented an overwhelming case with regard to the physical evidence and he had not answered some of the very objections you raised, such as how the movement of the Earth would not result in a “devastating motion” that would lay waste its surface and spin off its atmosphere. Thus for those initially confronted with his views it remained, in my opinion, understandable that they were regarded as “absurd and false philosophically” (by which is meant, of course, natural philosophy, i.e. scientifically). And to insist that Scripture teaches something “absurd and false philosophically” is indeed a theological error.

But today even neo-geocentrists have to admit that there is nothing “absurd and false philosophically” about the earth revolving around the sun or rotating on its axis. Thus even they would have to admit that the theological qualifiers erred in 1616, in fact if not in their specific historical context, in their assessment of this proposition.

But in the Catholic Church condemnations are always interpreted strictly, that is, “restrictive laws must be narrowly applied. . . . Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible” (James A. Coriden, An Introduction to Canon Law, p. 202-3.) Thus if those matters of natural philosophy/science are addressed, if it is no longer a matter that is “absurd and false” that is being ascribed to sacred Scripture, then the view is no longer theological incorrect either and may be held by Catholics (this is admitted, at least hypothetically, even by Cardinal Bellarmine.) That is how the Congregation of the Holy Office ruled in 1820 and this received the approval of the Pope. Then, of course, Leo XIII and later Pius XII ruled officially in favor of St. Augustine’s and St. Thomas’ view that no such details of the nature of the physical universe were put into sacred Scripture by the Holy Spirit at all. Thus these are not matters of “sacred tradition” or doctrines of faith and as Catholics we have freedom.

 

[hansgeorg]

And I am not seeing your calculations. If you want us to see Geocentrism as science, rather than as theology, then you need to show us the calculations.

Where is the centre of the universe?

How far did it move as a result of the Japan earthquake?

Show you working please.

Some things are obvious before any calculations. Like 2+1=3 or like centre=point furthest from limiting circumference.

Below us, and it did not move.

Needs no working.

 

[hansgeorg]

But today even neo-geocentrists have to admit that there is nothing “absurd and false philosophically” about the earth revolving around the sun or rotating on its axis. Thus even they would have to admit that the theological qualifiers erred in 1616, in fact if not in their specific historical context, in their assessment of this proposition.

The absurd thing number one is claiming it without any direct evidence on authority of loads of non-conclusive because equivocous evidence and contrary to the most obvious one.

The obvious evidence that surrounds all of us everyday should be believed unless in some matter totally proven false, and that means geocentrism is true.

Once you deny this you get into absurdities like “3i * 3i = -9” because even negative numbers need square roots. As if number and negative were in the relation that negative numbers exist as such.

Or further absurdities like rossum asking me to prove the obvious with calculations, because calculations are his fav method of proving the counterobvious.

 

[hansgeorg]

Hello razredge. You are very correct. It seems to me that in order for things like young earth creationism and geocentrism to be true, we would have to believe in a wild conspiracy theory about the successful subjugation of the scientific method and its development, and how atheists have used it to feed the world false information.

Not to mention the conspiracy by which atheists have fed the world with a prejudice of mind being a by-product of either a brain or - “somewhat less complex and not self-conscious” - of a computer working correctly. Duh!

Conspiracies to keep a prejudice going include:

• compulsory schooling (if not in formal law in US at least in application for most, and in many European countries in formal law too)
• compulsory science in the schools of secondary level prepared even on primary level
• compulsory exclusion of theology and theological explanations from science teachers and scientific academies
• = same as previous = compulsory training of scientists in certain prejudices
• compulsory (by now) ridiculing of conspiracy theories including classifying above as anything other than healthy pruning of kooks and detours from scientific debate with healthy information of fact to the general public

 

[hansgeorg]

So you’re in a car with blacked out windows. The car is traveling at some speed. How fast is it going? 10 mph? 50 mph? 100 mph? 1000 mph? The fact is that unless it accelerates or decelerates, you can’t tell. To use your word you would feel “not a breath of movement” even if the car was travelling at 10,000 or 100,000 mph.

Similarly, consider that you’re standing on the moon or on Mars, which I think you would agree rotate on their axes and revolve around the Earth/Sun. Do you believe your sense experience would be any different there than on the Earth? Because they rotate on their axes, the whole universe would appear to be revolting around you. And even though they are indeed speeding through space at tens of thousands of mph (as you would have to admit) you would “feel not a breath of movement”. I have seen neo-geocentrists deny that we’ve sent men to the moon and landers to Mars just to avoid these very obvious problems for their view. How about you?

On Mars we have landers. I have actually asked NASA to provide data if the landers had Newton-meters to measure accelerations and decelerations in its movement.

Why so? If geocentrism is true, being on the moon in that case is no faster than what heliocentrics say about being on earth. And since moon revolves directly around earth, “the ride” is pretty and the daily radius around earth not very different around the month.

Mars, however, provides two criteria that could just maybe disprove heliocentrism. Beyond its prima facie absurdity.

1. verification of so called parallax as being such - as far as I know not yet done:
   hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html
2. Mars changes daily radius around sun pretty violently or at least pretty radically since - if we are correct - it is moving around sun which moves around earth:
   hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/moontruth-why.html

On Mars we have landers but no men. On Mars we have astronomical observations (its North Pole points to Deneb, I think it is called), but not the ones that involve measuring parallax from Mars, as far as we have been told.

Though I did not include it in the quote, you said one thing I will answer too:

Neo-geos have to point to things that would only be true for the Earth and no other body in the universe. And that is where all the special pleading and conspiracy theories kick in.

Only earth has six billion pairs of human eyes, i e only earth is normal God-willed observation point for mortal men in their flesh.

hansgeorg deploys legions of angels to tamper with the instruments and/or the heavenly bodies.

YOU make yourself and us a laughing stock.

Creed says God the Father has created all that is visible (material) and invisible (spiritual, angelic). It is not laughable for a CHRISTIAN that legions of angels exist. It is not laughable for a CHRISTIAN that all matter (including the sun) is inferior to at least some angels. It is not laughable for a CHRISTIAN that every visible body over us is under an angel.

What is laughable in you is that you forget such basics of Christian metaphysics and accept wholeheartedly an atheist metaphysics when dealing with astronomic bodies, but still call yourself a Christian, what is laughable in us is we have lost support of serious Christian intellects such as yours. Obviously they will prefer you to notice the latter laughter. And obviously their laughter at you will be masked as them felling you are ridiculous not because you are we, but because we still exist.

That is conspiracy theory on a fairly basic level of sociology.

As I said yesterday, I prefer Georg Friedrich Händel to Hans-Georg Gadamer as in preferring music to sociology any time.

hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.com

To a musician or music lover stars being dancing angels or angels dancing with fire balls is not ridiculous. But hilarious in a better and older sense of the word.