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

[razredge]

1. Being wrong about geocentrism may not in heliocentrics be treason to the faith. But calling people names or referring to them s undesirable company, even if otherwise Christian, and right on this issue, is a kind of treason. Of the brother in Christ, of his faith or charity if he gets into trouble, and of the possibility of conversion in an atheist.

Well, I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade - frankly I do prefer the company of a reasonable non-believer to certain believers. It’s quite ridiculous that we’re 23 pages into a thread arguing for heliocentrism; are we really in the 21st century?

1. It does NOT look the way that the earth goes around the sun. This is not a prima facie impression, but a counterintuitive interpretation.

So what, you’re saying is that there is no optical observational evidence that the Earth goes around the Sun?

Rossum posted two questions, one of which is revealing of this mindset: “what keeps the big mass of the sun in orbit around the small mass of the earth” or he might even have omitted twice “mass of”. Now, he is a western buddhist and seemingly a kind of atheist. To him, then, it is basically smallness of one mass that keeps it in orbit around bigness of other mass. To him that kind of question makes sense.

As I do believe in God and angels, it does not make sense to me, as an objectively pertinent question, once reiterated after the simple answer: “God or angels”. For daily rotation of universe around earth, the simple answer to that and to speeds involved is “God”. Which means I do not need earth to either rotate daily or to orbit a bigger orb to account for impressions that immediately say the opposite.

Wait, if you believe that - you don’t need science at all, God can be posited as the answer to everything and anything.

You might want to look into Intelligent Falling:
[Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory](Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New ‘Intelligent Falling’ Theory)

Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held “theory of gravity” is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

“Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, ‘God’ if you will, is pushing them down,” said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: “Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, ‘I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.’ Of course, he is alluding to a higher power.”

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world’s leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[excubitor]

There is no point trying to debate obscurantism. I’ll just make a few points:

1. excubitor completely misses the point of the flea example which is nothing to do with legs but shows that acceleration can be absolutely determined - it is unlike uniform motion which can only be determined relative to some other inertial frame - even if a little spring popped out of the earth and shot the flea in the air my point would stand: the rest frame of the flea is still the one doing the vast bulk of the accelerating

No, I admit I don’t get the point. You started in your other post talking about Kinematics and Dynamics. We are in complete agreement. I agree that a kinematic transformation is taking place. That is my whole point in this thread. When we study Kinematics which is the motion of objects without any consideration as the cause of the motion, then there is no difference between acentrism and geocentrism. It is only when we start studying dynamics that we start to favour one model over the other because we have made some assumptions, theories or wishes about the cause of the motion. Conventional science have settled on the gravitation/inertia model of the cosmos which in some ways favours acentrism, but even there, scientists cannot prove that the earth is not the centre of the gravitational mass of the universe. They might only prefer to regard that as unlikely for purely philosophical reasons.

So in your flea example, where you choose to ignore the fact that the flea has legs, surely you are just talking about Kinematics which we have already agreed are equivalent in both cosmological models. So really I don’t get your point, and I have been making a good effort to understand. I am not lazy, but to be quite frank, if you think that physics is not difficult then you must be a genius. I think 95% of people, not all of whom are lazy would find physics difficult, certainly the physics that you are describing.

You lost me long before I got to “the rest frame of the flea is accelerating”.

(3) excubitor’s claims about the celestial poles are not strictly true (changes occur due to equinoctial precession, nutation, and changes in obliquity to the ecliptic) but it is true that over the period of a few years the position of the north and south celestial pole against the star field does not change very much. However, that doesn’t show that the earth is static given that the diameter of the earth’s orbit (~300 million kilometers) is a tiny tiny distance in astronomical terms. In fact the earth’s orbit can be clearly distinguished through both stellar parallax and stellar aberration. With regard to the latter, I notice that excubitor has studiously ignored it.

I have never studiously ignored stellar parallax. In fact you will find a comprehensive thread written largely by me which points out that half the measurements of parallax are NEGATIVE (which should not happen). In my thread I expose the absolute fraudulence of scientists who have cooked the books to obscure the fact that half the measurements of supposed parallax are negative and of a similar magnitude as the positive measurements.
Here is the link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462165

As for proof that we are in the centre of the universe. A primary school student can figure it out. I will make a simple drawing to prove it and post it next time.

 

[excubitor]

I think that is the case here - the parallels extend to the fact that the doctrine of the antipodes was condemned as heresy in a particular case (St Virgil or Virgilius) but was never infallibly declared so by a Church Council or the pope declaring ex cathedra.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

This is a gross oversimplification of the debate. What was being proclaimed as heresy was that there was a separate race of men who were not descended from Adam, living on the other side of the world. This is the same heresy which is condemned in Humani Generis. Various opponents of the day used various logical arguments such as (men could not have traversed the vast oceans) to support their view that there was no race of men on the other side of the world. The logical arguments themselves were not the heresy, but the notion that men who were not descended from Adam lived on the other side of the world.

As to the existence of antipodes, that was merely an opinion and conjecture debated amongst church men. There were saints on both side of the debate.

This is altogether different to Geocentrism which was uniformly believed by all the apostles, prophets, saints, popes, church fathers up until the days of Galileo and beyond. Galileo himself recanted his heresy in even more complete and utter terms than did the popes and offices of the Holy See who condemned Geocentrism. To this day, there is not a single saint or pope who has expressly stated that Geocentrism is false. Nor will there ever be because they know that they will immediately place themselves at odds with their predecessors who stated it was heresy in the clearest terms in the 1600’s and the fathers who expressed their belief in patristic writings reaching back to the earliest days of the church and even by the Jews and Old Testament prophets and patriarchs who all believed that the earth was stationery.

 

[Prophesy]

1. Do they now? And even if so, are they the only ones that do? Or does the physics spirit rules matter not make sense suddenly?

I’ve never heard of “physics spirit rules” but if it’s angel’s pushing the stars around, I would say it takes away from the majesty of the Creator who can cause a universe in which the stellar bodies can do that for themselves.

1. Are you taking that on faith from Laplace? He has been demonstrated wrong in his calculations.

I’m doing this on the faith that in university I was able to do calculations pertaining to the earth and moon in terms of gravity and orbit.

1. Why call it an intervention if He does so daily? Who says “not elsewhere”? Not me, for certain.

Because it’s the definition of an intervention. Any interaction of God upon the material universe is an intervention because He is intervening to the system. It doesn’t matter how often He does it (we both know that time isn’t a boundary on God in the first place). So if God is in the business of constantly moving stellar bodies, why not earthly bodies? Why didn’t God push the tsunami away from Japan, or Sri Lanka?

Do take a good look at this thread from beginning.

I’ve been watching this one go on and on and on for at least 4 days now.

-Prophesy

 

[excubitor]

Yes, absolutely correct Alec. As I’ve said repeatedly here, Catholics have freedom in this matter and that includes the freedom of a geocentrist to hold to geocentrism, precisely because none of these are matters of faith.

However, even someone such as yourself who is outside of the Church can see that excubitor sets himself as the judge of Scripture and Tradition. He can produce no decree of an ecumenical council, no document signed by any Pope, no doctrinal definition of any kind condemning Pythagorean heliocentrism, let alone more modern acentric cosmological views. He admits to being “no expert”. But this does not stop him from spreading confusion and scandal by insisting, based on his private judgment, that all non-geocentric views have been formally condemned by the Church.

Sungenis has a 400 page tome filled with all of these kinds of decrees documents, writings from sacred tradition and the scripture. You know this David. Cassini was an expert at present evidence such as this on this forum. I have also in previous threads on this topic, provided extensive citations such as you have alluded to here. However no soon as these documents are produced, not ten minutes later, we get a post fired back from granny or you saying that “you have failed to produce”. This has happened so many times I am just warn out by it. Because we are dealing with intellectual dishonesty. Honest men in who there is no guile would be presented these evidences and accept them.

I utterly affirm on the basis of this evidence that heliocentrism and any notion that the earth is moving is most certainly been formally condemned by the Church.

He proclaims loudly that he’s really the one who is faithful, the “true believer”:

Yes I loudly proclaim that I am a true believer. I call upon the rest of you to believe the scriptures, believe the sacred tradition and believe the rulings of the medieval church also.

He insists that non-geocentric views are not only wrong, they are the veritable root of all evil:

I never said that they are the root of all evil. Please provide evidence that I said that. I did not. However I believe exactly what the church stated in the papal condemnation of Galileo, that non-geocentric views are formally heretical, philosophically false, absurd and injurious to the faith.

Obviously he sees this as an absolutely core issue of the faith. He even compares it in importance to our Lord’s own Resurrection:

It’s not in the creed so I don’t regard it as core. Nevertheless I regard all truth as vital to be defended. Especially those truths that the church has spoken strongly in support of.
I never stated that geocentrism was as important as the resurrection. What I said was that if the Sun only appears to rise on Sunday morning and that it is all an illusion set up by God to trick mankind. Then maybe the Sun of Righteousness also only appeared to rise on Easter morning. John the Baptist himself likened Jesus Christ to the sun calling him the light of the world. The church too has many times likened Jesus to the sun. So It is ridiculous to criticise me from making similar comparisons.

 

[excubitor]

He has to admit that the Catholic Church does not present geocentrism to the faithful as a matter of faith. But he hopes that “in these latter times” he and his fellow neo-geocentrists will bring the Church back to her lost Tradition, adopting the very language of a proposition which was formally condemned in a papal bull approved in forma specifica, Auctorem Fidei:
Does anybody else see any material difference between his view and that which was condemned as heretical in Auctorem Fidei?:

1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”—heretical.

I don’t.

The document was talking about the more important truths of the faith. I do not regard these more important truths to have been obscured by the church, but the lesser important truth of geocentrism certainly has in these latter days. Whereas you have to admit that the church in the days of Galileo and in at least a hundred years following, made repeated colossal errors which have been never been formally corrected by the modern church.

It is excubitor who has to explain his private views in light of a formally condemned heresy.

Sorry David. You have it backwards. Heliocentrism/acentrism is the formally declared heresy. Please read the papal condemnation of Galileo.

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 Holy Scripture.

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

And in order that this your grave and pernicious error and transgression may not remain altogether unpunished and that you may be more cautious in the future and an example to others that they may abstain from similar delinquencies, we ordain that the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” be prohibited by public edict.

Signed by seven Cardinals on behalf of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1633

This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows: .

1. Formally heretical
2. Philosophically false
   3, Expressly contrary to the scripture.

Notice that this condemnation was given BY COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER and executed by his personal papal office the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, conmunicated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and enforced by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.

 

[grannymh]

Then pray tell, Granny - why you are so vehemently opposed to polygenism? Since the Ordinary Magisterium is fallible and Humani Generis was not an ex cathedra statement (or a council decree)?

The truth is that the infallible doctrine on human origin comes from Divine Revelation which means that the infallible doctrine on human origin comes from God. To get a better understanding of how this works in the Catholic Church, please review the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

Another good source for information is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 65-67. The following CCC sentence describes how the Gospel of John, Chapter 14 has worked from Pentecost forward. “Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made explicit; it remains for the Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” This simple sentence is accomplished through the Major Church Councils beginning with Acts.

Major Church Councils discerned and proclaimed many of the Catholic dogmas during the first 16 centuries under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. So where does the Catholic Magisterium come in? Why the confusion? Often the confusion (similar to the famous comedy routine of "Who’s on First) arises because some people do not use common sense observation and/or check the Catechism.

For example, the Magisterium is the living, teaching office of the Catholic Church, whose task it is to give as authentic interpretation of the word of God …Please read the rest of the definition in the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Right off the bat, people should recognize that living teachers are not the same as a number of major Church Councils held in various centuries.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that in order to teach, there must be a subject to teach about. In the case of the Magisterium, the usual subjects for teaching are Catholic dogmas of faith and morals. It is the content of the teaching which determines issues of infallibility. Can the Magisterium teach about other things? Of course.
Are the teachings (over past years, centuries) consulted when it comes to dogmas? Of course.

In other words, content and context make the difference. Over the centuries, there have been many teaching documents. A document can present dogmas and address issues, including speculations, surrounding a particular dogma. But in the end, the particular dogma remains as it was proclaimed and developed by the major Church Councils.

 

[grannymh]

Notice that this condemnation was given BY COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER and executed by his personal papal office the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, conmunicated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and enforced by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.

So noted. Obviously, this demonstrates that the papal statements took place outside of a major Church Council. Thus, no dogma.

 

[gentle_atheist]

So noted. Obviously, this demonstrates that the papal statements took place outside of a major Church Council. Thus, no dogma.

Are you Greek Orthodox? You don’t seem to acknowledge that the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.

 

[DavidPalm]

Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Notice that this condemnation was given BY COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER and executed by his personal papal office the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, conmunicated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, and enforced by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.

So noted. Obviously, this demonstrates that the papal statements took place outside of a major Church Council. Thus, no dogma.

Are you Greek Orthodox? You don’t seem to acknowledge that the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.

A longer reply is going to have to wait until my lunch hour, but it should be noted that excubitor’s big splashing “BY COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER” is misleading. It does not refer to the solemn promulgation of geocentrism as a dogma for the universal Church, which never happened. (I do think it’s only fair that “gentle atheist” let the Catholic Church herself determine what does and does not constitute a dogmatic decree by the Pope for the universal Church.)

Nor does it even refer to the 1633 decree against the person of Galileo–also not te promulgation of a dogma for the universal Church–although that is how it’s presented by excubitor.

Rather, it refers to formation of a theological committee back in 1616. And yes, we admit it–that committee was indeed formed “BY THE COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER”. I’ll even throw in some exclamation points to make it more clear !!!

More will have to wait until the lunch break.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Heliocentrism/acentrism is the formally declared heresy. Please read the papal condemnation of Galileo.

You got to be kidding me! Picking up where I left off on the previous page.

1. “I am pleased to greet this assembly of distinguished astronomers from throughout the world meeting in the Vatican for the celebration of the International Year of Astronomy, and I thank Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo for his kind words of introduction. This celebration, which marks the four hundredth anniversary of Galileo Galilei’s first observations of the heavens by telescope, invites us to consider the immense progress of scientific knowledge in the modern age and, in a particular way, to turn our gaze anew to the heavens in a spirit of wonder, contemplation and commitment to the pursuit of truth, wherever it is to be found. . . .” Pope Benedict XVI on October 30, 2009.
   vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20091030_specola-vaticana_en.html
2. Excerpts from The Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences-2003
   *ANTONINO ZICHICHI
   p. 89
   2.4. THE TRULY UNIQUE GREATNESS OF GALILEI
   In history books in the millenniums to come, Galileo Galilei will be
   celebrated for his true role as the father of science, the one who paved the
   way for humanity to understand how the world we live in is made. His
   work was founded on intellectual humility, rigour and reproducibility.

p. 90
SIXTEEN DISCOVERIES, ELEVEN INVENTIONS AND THAT’S NOT ALL…
It seems unbelievable that the same person could have been the author of so many discoveries,inventions and original ideas. One would have been enough to become famous.

Sixteen discoveries
Studying the logic of Creation on Earth, Galilei discovered: 1) the principle of relativity;
2) the principle of inertia; 3) the conservation of momentum; 4) the conservation
of energy; 5) the principle of action and reaction: for every action there is a corresponding
equal and opposite reaction; 6) that force is proportional, through inertial
mass, to acceleration and not to velocity; 7) that gravitational force is proportional to
gravitational mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity; 8) the proportionality
(and hence the close connection) between inertial mass and gravitational mass.
Studying the celestial bodies, he discovered: 9) the mountains of the Moon; 10)
sunspots; 11) the spinning rotation of the Sun; 12) that the Milky Way is composed of
a myriad of stars; 13) the satellites of Jupiter; 14) the rings of Saturn; 15) the phases
of Venus; 16) an apparently fixed star with very low luminosity, which was in fact the
eighth satellite of the Sun (Neptune).

Eleven inventions
And these are his inventions: 1) the inclined plane to measure the acceleration of
gravity; 2) the pendulum to study the motion of bodies ‘without’ attrition; 3) the
escapement, in the mechanism of pendular motion, that paved the way for the era of
pendulum clocks; 4) the high resolution telescope, capable of observing structures and
detailed features of the celestial bodies; 5) the hydrostatic balance, for measuring the
density of bodies, 6) the microscope; 7) the instrument for measuring the weight of
air; 8) the thermoscope, for measuring temperature and atmospheric pressure; 9) a
machine driven by animal power for transporting water to high levels; 10) the ‘proportional
compass’ for making calculations about the squaring of the circle and for
resolving mathematical and geometric problems; 11) the ‘celestial clock’, using the
satellites of Jupiter. . . .

p. 92
It is thanks to Galilei that we could, from the very beginning of Science,
distinguish clearly the three levels of scientific credibility. It is the first one
which makes Galilei the father of Modern Science. Each level needs
Inventions of new instruments, Discoveries and Basic measurements.
SCIENCE AND ITS THREE LEVELS
1st level
Invention: • Inclined Plane.
• Pendulum.
Discovery: • The Law of Inertia.
• F = mg .
• Action = Reaction.
• The Principle of Relativity.
Measurement: • ‘g’.
2nd level
Invention: • The Telescope.
Discovery: • The irregularity in celestial bodies:
the Moon (craters …); the Sun (spots).
• Jupiter’s Satellites.
• Saturn’s ‘ears’ (rings).
• The phases of Venus.
• The structure of the Milky Way.
Measurement: • The Time of the cosmic clock (Jupiter’s satellites).
3rd level
Invention: • Microwave Detectors (Penzias & Wilson).
Discovery: • The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Measurement: • The Black Body Spectrum at 2.7º K.

p. 103
THE POPE AND THE PRESIDENT OF ITALY
The Celebration of the 400th anniversary of the foundation of the first
Academy dedicated to the work started by Galileo Galilei in the study of
the world around us, where we live and of which we are an extremely
small part, has given to me the opportunity of illustrating a series of facts
which prove that Galilei has been considered a Divine man by authoritative
members of the Catholic Church in the past and so he is in the present
and will be in the future of Science.*vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/acta20.pdf

1. “The student who is able to discover the harmony between faith and science will, in future professional life, be better able to put science and technology to the service of men and women, and to the service of God. It is a way of giving back to God what he has first given to us.” THE RELIGIOUS DIMENSION OF EDUCATION IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL
   GUIDELINES FOR REFLECTION AND RENEWAL- CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19880407_catholic-school_en.html.

 

[Prophesy]

You got to be kidding me! Picking up where I left off on the previous page.

1. “I am pleased to greet this assembly of distinguished astronomers from throughout the world meeting in the Vatican for the celebration of the International Year of Astronomy, and I thank Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo for his kind words of introduction. This celebration, which marks the four hundredth anniversary of Galileo Galilei’s first observations of the heavens by telescope, invites us to consider the immense progress of scientific knowledge in the modern age and, in a particular way, to turn our gaze anew to the heavens in a spirit of wonder, contemplation and commitment to the pursuit of truth, wherever it is to be found. . . .” Pope Benedict XVI on October 30, 2009.
   vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2009/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20091030_specola-vaticana_en.html

1. Excerpts from The Four-Hundredth Anniversary of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences-2003
   *ANTONINO ZICHICHI
   p. 89
   2.4. THE TRULY UNIQUE GREATNESS OF GALILEI
   In history books in the millenniums to come, Galileo Galilei will be
   celebrated for his true role as the father of science, the one who paved the
   way for humanity to understand how the world we live in is made. His
   work was founded on intellectual humility, rigour and reproducibility.

p. 90
SIXTEEN DISCOVERIES, ELEVEN INVENTIONS AND THAT’S NOT ALL…
It seems unbelievable that the same person could have been the author of so many discoveries,inventions and original ideas. One would have been enough to become famous.

Sixteen discoveries
Studying the logic of Creation on Earth, Galilei discovered: 1) the principle of relativity;
2) the principle of inertia; 3) the conservation of momentum; 4) the conservation
of energy; 5) the principle of action and reaction: for every action there is a corresponding
equal and opposite reaction; 6) that force is proportional, through inertial
mass, to acceleration and not to velocity; 7) that gravitational force is proportional to
gravitational mass multiplied by the acceleration of gravity; 8) the proportionality
(and hence the close connection) between inertial mass and gravitational mass.
Studying the celestial bodies, he discovered: 9) the mountains of the Moon; 10)
sunspots; 11) the spinning rotation of the Sun; 12) that the Milky Way is composed of
a myriad of stars; 13) the satellites of Jupiter; 14) the rings of Saturn; 15) the phases
of Venus; 16) an apparently fixed star with very low luminosity, which was in fact the
eighth satellite of the Sun (Neptune).

Eleven inventions
And these are his inventions: 1) the inclined plane to measure the acceleration of
gravity; 2) the pendulum to study the motion of bodies ‘without’ attrition; 3) the
escapement, in the mechanism of pendular motion, that paved the way for the era of
pendulum clocks; 4) the high resolution telescope, capable of observing structures and
detailed features of the celestial bodies; 5) the hydrostatic balance, for measuring the
density of bodies, 6) the microscope; 7) the instrument for measuring the weight of
air; 8) the thermoscope, for measuring temperature and atmospheric pressure; 9) a
machine driven by animal power for transporting water to high levels; 10) the ‘proportional
compass’ for making calculations about the squaring of the circle and for
resolving mathematical and geometric problems; 11) the ‘celestial clock’, using the
satellites of Jupiter. . . .

p. 92
It is thanks to Galilei that we could, from the very beginning of Science,
distinguish clearly the three levels of scientific credibility. It is the first one
which makes Galilei the father of Modern Science. Each level needs
Inventions of new instruments, Discoveries and Basic measurements.
SCIENCE AND ITS THREE LEVELS
1st level
Invention: • Inclined Plane.
• Pendulum.
Discovery: • The Law of Inertia.
• F = mg .
• Action = Reaction.
• The Principle of Relativity.
Measurement: • ‘g’.
2nd level
Invention: • The Telescope.
Discovery: • The irregularity in celestial bodies:
the Moon (craters …); the Sun (spots).
• Jupiter’s Satellites.
• Saturn’s ‘ears’ (rings).
• The phases of Venus.
• The structure of the Milky Way.
Measurement: • The Time of the cosmic clock (Jupiter’s satellites).
3rd level
Invention: • Microwave Detectors (Penzias & Wilson).
Discovery: • The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Measurement: • The Black Body Spectrum at 2.7º K.

p. 103
THE POPE AND THE PRESIDENT OF ITALY
The Celebration of the 400th anniversary of the foundation of the first
Academy dedicated to the work started by Galileo Galilei in the study of
the world around us, where we live and of which we are an extremely
small part, has given to me the opportunity of illustrating a series of facts
which prove that Galilei has been considered a Divine man by authoritative
members of the Catholic Church in the past and so he is in the present
and will be in the future of Science.*vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/newpdf/acta20.pdf

1. “The student who is able to discover the harmony between faith and science will, in future professional life, be better able to put science and technology to the service of men and women, and to the service of God. It is a way of giving back to God what he has first given to us.” THE RELIGIOUS DIMENSION OF EDUCATION IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL
   GUIDELINES FOR REFLECTION AND RENEWAL- CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
   vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19880407_catholic-school_en.html.

Good post. Those are the types of citations I like to see.

-Prophesy

 

[DavidPalm]

Sorry David. You have it backwards. Heliocentrism/acentrism is the formally declared heresy. Please read the papal condemnation of Galileo.

I have presented above the Church’s own maxim that In poenis benignior est interpretatio facienda—“The most favourable interpretation should be adopted with regard to penalties”. Along with this go the canonical principles Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari—“It is fitting that odious things be restricted and favourable ones extended”—and In obscuris minimum est sequendum—“in obscure matters it is better to make the minimum decision”. Thus decrees which contain condemnations, sanctions or penalties are interpreted strictly: as narrowly and as limited as possible.

We have seen excubitor apply these very principles to himself, as I knew he would. When faced with the fact that his own stance and words line up very closely indeed with a formally condemned heretical proposition, he insists that his own view differs in some way and therefore doesn’t fall under the sanction. For himself he insists on a strict, that is, narrow interpretation.

In 1820 the Holy Office took up this question of cosmology in light of the Galileo case. The strict maxims of canonical protocol were applied to the prior 1633 decision. The outcome of this deliberation was presented to the Pope, resulting in a general permission for Catholics to present non-geocentric views of the universe as established theses. Here are some of the salient points that came out of that reevaluation.

“The doctrine” (please note well the singular) of which the decree treats is a strict Pythagorean heliocentrism, in which the sun is the immovable center of the universe and everything else, including the earth, moves about it.

I am unaware of anybody who holds this view any longer. Applying a strict interpretation to this, it follows that modern views are untouched by this decree. So argues the commissary general of the Holy Office 1820:

One error must be immediately noted in the text of the full title of his [Anfossi’s] “Motives” (Sum., p. 98): “One must not allow Settele to teach as a thesis . . . the stability of the sun at the center of the world.” Along with modern astronomers, Settele does not teach that the sun is at the center of the world. (Retrying Galileo, 205).

I suppose if excubitor wants to contend that this strict heliocentrism, no longer held by anybody, is still formally condemned by the Church then we should just leave it to him. It’s a Pyrrhic victory at best. But he has no authority to extend this any further, against the Church’s own strict (that is, narrow) interpretation of the 1633 decree. He claims that the Church’s open allowance of non-geocentric views is only an accommodation to evil and rebellion, like that of our Lord to divorce. But he cannot cite even one Pope or bishop to support that claim, therefore it remains a product of his private judgment.

There are many distortions in excubitor’s mangled presentation of the 1633 decree presented above. He interprets as broadly as possible, contrary to the Church’s principles. Looking at the Holy Office’s application in 1820 of strict canonical interpretation as applied to the 1633 decree is enlightening and helpful (on that see Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 192-221). Little wonder that neo-geo apologists like Sungenis have to cast that action in light of yet another conspiracy theory and as an act of ecclesiastical “subterfuge”.

I had hoped to develop that more, but I have had less time today than I hoped and what I had is gone. I try not to post over the weekend in deference to my family responsibilities. But perhaps less is more.

I’ll leave you with a quote from an encyclical by Pope Benedict XV, writing in 1921, who focuses our attention on the bedrock principles that the Catholic Church still holds and teaches, bidding us not worry about other peripheral issues:

If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. (Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum 4)

Have a good weekend and God be with you all.

 

[grannymh]

Are you Greek Orthodox? You don’t seem to acknowledge that the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.

I am a Catholic.

What, when, why, how, do you mean by “the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.” ??? With all the junk info being passed off as Catholic by outsiders of CAF, I need to be careful of strawpopes.

 

[grannymh]

Are you Greek Orthodox? You don’t seem to acknowledge that the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.

I am Catholic.

I addressed the Catholic position regarding the protocol for defining dogma in earlier posts. There is nothing more I can add.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16 & 17

 

[hecd2]

No, I admit I don’t get the point. You started in your other post talking about Kinematics and Dynamics. We are in complete agreement. I agree that a kinematic transformation is taking place.

I am sorry that you don’t get the point which is probably my fault. I’ll try again. A kinematic transformation is not “taking place” (as though it happens on its own). Transformations from one co-ordinate system to another are made deliberately by people who apply the Galilean transformation in non-relativistic cases and the Lorentz transformation in relativistic cases.

It is correct that in a simple co-ordinate transformation (ie a kinematic transformation) all frames are equivalent. One cannot determine any absolute velocity (and perforce, absolute rest is a meaningless idea). However, when one considers dynamical systems, one needs to identify the forces causing accelerations and exquisitely accurate predictions of the behaviour of orbital dynamical systems are made by considering the underlying forces. When one considers the dynamics, accelerations and forces, one cannot propose sensibly that an object 330,000 times the mass of another, as the sun is to the earth, is orbiting the less massive object which remains motionless - the dynamics simply does not work. Another way of looking at this is that an orbiting body, including the earth, is undergoing radial acceleration as a consequence of the gravitational attraction between the bodies - an acceleration by definition, is a change in velocity, and no accelerating body can have any constant velocity nor can it be permanently at rest.

So in your flea example, where you choose to ignore the fact that the flea has legs, surely you are just talking about Kinematics which we have already agreed are equivalent in both cosmological models

.No I am talking specifically about dynamics because I am making the point that, whatever the source of the accelerations, one can absolutely determine that the flea undergoes a vastly greater acceleration than the earth - in other words accelerations are unlike constant velocities in that acceleration can be absolutely determined whereas velocities are always relative and one inertial frame is as good as another. It does not make sense to talk about the sun orbiting the earth in the same way that it does not make sense to talk about the earth jumping off the flea - kinematically you can work in earth, sun or flea co-ordinates, but dynamically it is clear where and how large the accelerations of each body are.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[excubitor]

A longer reply is going to have to wait until my lunch hour, but it should be noted that excubitor’s big splashing “BY COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER” is misleading. It does not refer to the solemn promulgation of geocentrism as a dogma for the universal Church, which never happened. (I do think it’s only fair that “gentle atheist” let the Catholic Church herself determine what does and does not constitute a dogmatic decree by the Pope for the universal Church.)

Nor does it even refer to the 1633 decree against the person of Galileo–also not te promulgation of a dogma for the universal Church–although that is how it’s presented by excubitor.

Rather, it refers to formation of a theological committee back in 1616. And yes, we admit it–that committee was indeed formed “BY THE COMMAND OF THE HOLY FATHER”. I’ll even throw in some exclamation points to make it more clear !!!

More will have to wait until the lunch break.

Again David, you are manipulating the context of those words. The Holy Father did not just command that a committee should be formed. He commanded that a committee should be formed for the express purpose to proceed against the disorder, mischief and prejudice against the faith caused by the proposition that the sun is stable and the earth in motion.

That is very clear David, and the only people you will convince to your view are those who are prejudiced to believe the proposition that the earth is in motion. The reasonable man, unburdened by prejudice, will absolutely agree with me as the words are very clear and unambiguous.

I will reproduce my quotation.

“proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows”

 

[excubitor]

I am a Catholic.

What, when, why, how, do you mean by “the Pope can promulgate dogma on his own.” ??? With all the junk info being passed off as Catholic by outsiders of CAF, I need to be careful of strawpopes.

Granny, you are wrong. The Pope is supreme over the church. His authority exceeds that of councils. It is not necessary for him to form a council to pronounce dogma.
Vatican 1 was quite clear on this point.
Here is Vatican 1
1. “the Roman Pontiff” 2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”) 3. “he defines” 4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals” 5. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

Nothing there about having to form a council.

Nor is this ruling of Vatican 1 a new innovation. Vatican 1 was merely stating dogmatically an understanding that was apostolic in nature.

Now you need an army of canon lawyers to argue that in issuing the papal condemnation against Galileo from his own personal holy office by his direct command that he was

1. Not the Roman Pontiff
2. Not discharging his office as shepherd of Christians in his official capacity
3. Was not defining that heliocentrism was heresy
4. Was not ruling on a matter of faith, when he clearly stated that heliocentrism was prejudicing the faith.
5. Or that he did not intend for it to be held by the whole church.

Point 3 is clear because he could hardly accuse Galileo of being suspect of heresy if Heliocentrism was not defined as heresy.

Point 5 is clear because the Pope subsequently placed Galileo’s and other heliocentric work on the list of prohibited books.

 

[hecd2]

I have never studiously ignored stellar parallax.

No but you have ignored stellar aberration, and you are still ignoring it.

In fact you will find a comprehensive thread written largely by me which points out that half the measurements of parallax are NEGATIVE (which should not happen). In my thread I expose the absolute fraudulence of scientists who have cooked the books to obscure the fact that half the measurements of supposed parallax are negative and of a similar magnitude as the positive measurements.
Here is the link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=462165

Well, as someone who is open about the fact that he/she doesn’t find physics easy, you are getting into rather deep water here. Fraud is a very serious allegation, especially where a) the data is on-line for everyone to freely use (or misuse and misunderstand it as you have done), and b) you clearly don’t understand the data, how it was analysed or how scientists deal with experimental error. There are two catalogues based on the Hipparcos experiment. The Hipparcos catalogue contains the very high precision measurements with a typical precision in astrometry of 1mas ; the Tychos 1 and 2 catalogues were obtained from secondary instruments and their precision is typically 20 - 30 times poorer.

Let’s look at Tycho first - although there are some stars with sufficiently small standard errors to be significant, in almost all cases the standard error exceeds the measured parallax. What we see, a Gaussian distribution with mean of 4mas and standard deviation of about 50mas, is exactly what we would expect if the bulk of the stars measured had a true parallax of zero or close to zero and the standard error was of the order of 50 to 75 mas (as you can see if you look at outliers with large measured negative parallax - which outliers are also very faint, being typically fainter than magnitude 11).

The team are very clear about this. In the document which explains each field in the catalogue they say this:
“The trigonometric parallax, p, is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated
parallax is given for every star, even if it appears to be insignificant or negative (which
may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its error).”

In Volume 4, “The construction of the Tycho catalogue” they say this:
“The individual parallaxes in the Tycho Catalogue are generally of low
significance. Figure 16.17(a) shows the distribution of measured parallaxes. The
negative wing contains 44 per cent of the stars. The overall median value is 4.0 mas, see Figure 16.18 which shows the median parallax across the sky. Figure 16.17(b) shows the distribution of the parallax divided by its standard error. Because the true parallaxes are generally much smaller than the error, we would expect an almost normal distribution.The dashed curve is a Gaussian distribution centred at 0.2 and with a standard deviation of 1.33. This suggests that the internal standard error should be increased some 30 per cent to produce the external standard error…”

You’ll probably won’t understand this, but what it means is that the parallax measurement for the bulk of the Tycho catalogue is measuring noise, not signal.

Turning to the Hipparcos catalogue, the situation is very different. Only 26 measurements out of 120,000 showed parallax less than -20mas, with a minimum of -40mas, and these were all faint stars with a standard error of bewteen 10 and 80mas. However 39 entries show a positive parallax between 200 and 750mas and these are almost all high precision measurements with standard errors around 1mas. In other words, these are the nearby stars where the measured and true parallax greatly exceeds the error - here we are seeing signal, not noise. The parallax of most of the nearest 100 stars have been measured over and over again to great precision. For example the Research Consortium on Nearby Stars posted this list.You’ll note that the nearest star has a parallax of 768mas and that number 100 on the list is 152mas. You’ll also notice that the standard errors are less than 2mas and in many cases much less than 1mas - a signal to noise ratio generally much better than 100:1

I don’t think it’s good for your soul to accuse people of fraud when you really don’t understand what it is that you are reading.

As for proof that we are in the centre of the universe. A primary school student can figure it out. I will make a simple drawing to prove it and post it next time.

Make sure you make your simple drawing to scale. So for example if you draw the sun and earth an inch apart you need to put the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, 260,000 inches or 4.1 miles away.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[excubitor]

I am sorry that you don’t get the point which is probably my fault. I’ll try again. A kinematic transformation is not “taking place” (as though it happens on its own). Transformations from one co-ordinate system to another are made deliberately by people who apply the Galilean transformation in non-relativistic cases and the Lorentz transformation in relativistic cases.

It is correct that in a simple co-ordinate transformation (ie a kinematic transformation) all frames are equivalent. One cannot determine any absolute velocity (and perforce, absolute rest is a meaningless idea). However, when one considers dynamical systems, one needs to identify the forces causing accelerations and exquisitely accurate predictions of the behaviour of orbital dynamical systems are made by considering the underlying forces.

When one considers the dynamics, accelerations and forces, one cannot propose sensibly that an object 330,000 times the mass of another, as the sun is to the earth, is orbiting the less massive object which remains motionless - the dynamics simply does not work.

Hec, this is where your argument fails. You cannot presume that you understand the dynamics accelerations and forces fully. The gravitational/inertia model is merely one model amongst many which may or may not work. It is just a theory. You have no proof that gravitation/inertia is the force behind the motions of the planets. Even if it is, you have no proof that other masses in the universe offset and counterbalance the motions of the solar system in order to keep the earth positioned in the centre of the universe. Even if we cannot identify these masses should not worry us. Scientists invent masses all the time, like dark matter in order to make their theories work.

Nor can you prove that God is not supernaturally holding the earth in its central position. Let’s say, all things being as the scientists argue, that the dynamics of the solar system are exactly as they say they are. What would happen if God supernaturally held the earth in an immovable place? The sun would start orbitting the earth because the earth had effectively become of infinite mass due to the fact that God was holding it in position.

You cannot prove that God is not holding the earth in an immovable place. In fact the scripture states exactly that. I’ll ask you the same question God asked Job. But remember you are not answering me, you are answering God who asked this question.

Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer [1] thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast [2] understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations [3] thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Corner stones are laid so that a structure will not move. So if God’s cornerstone for the earth was ineffective and so now the earth spins and wizzes throughout the solar system and the universe, then how can we have any confidence in the cornerstone that God laid for our church?

Where were you hec, when God laid the foundations of the earth? Where were these brainy scientists? Who do they think they are to challenge the words and statements of God.?

Another way of looking at this is that an orbiting body, including the earth, is undergoing radial acceleration as a consequence of the gravitational attraction between the bodies - an acceleration by definition, is a change in velocity, and no accelerating body can have any constant velocity nor can it be permanently at rest.

.No I am talking specifically about dynamics because I am making the point that, whatever the source of the accelerations, one can absolutely determine that the flea undergoes a vastly greater acceleration than the earth - in other words accelerations are unlike constant velocities in that acceleration can be absolutely determined whereas velocities are always relative and one inertial frame is as good as another. It does not make sense to talk about the sun orbiting the earth in the same way that it does not make sense to talk about the earth jumping off the flea - kinematically you can work in earth, sun or flea co-ordinates, but dynamically it is clear where and how large the accelerations of each body are.

Alec
evolutionpages.com