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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hec, this is where your argument fails. You cannot presume that you understand the dynamics accelerations and forces fully.
We know the accelerations and forces in an orbital system to an exquisite degree of precision and have done since Newton set them out. All that we have learned since are small refinements to Newton’s great work. We know them because we measure the masses, we measure the orbital geometry, we measure the gravitational forces. It all fits together. It’s not a presumption but a conclusion of reason based on a vast body of evidence. To claim otherwise is pure obscurantism.
The gravitational/inertia model is merely one model amongst many which may or may not work.
Such as? We know the gravitational model works because it describes observation with an extremely high degree of precision, and because we use it to put satellites into orbit, to put men on the moon and to send probes to distant planets. What are these other models that work as well? If you put one forward be sure that you can show how it predicts the geometry of observed orbits to as a high a degree of precision as Newtonian mechanics or GR.
You have no proof that gravitation/inertia is the force behind the motions of the planets.
Overwhelming evidence.
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
Overwhelming evidence - the sun’s gravitational field hugely dominates at the earth - no extra-solar body or group of bodies has a gravitational field at the earth greater than a millionth that of the sun.
Nor can you prove that God is not supernaturally holding the earth in its central position.
No, I cannot. You are right there - postulates of supernatural and miraculous deeds always trump natural explanations, but they have no explanatory power. As I said to hans, if you are happy with angels or God acting supernaturally as an explanation, I don’t see why you bother with poor and garbled attempts to demonstrate your position by natural science.
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?
The vast majority of Catholics have no difficulty whatsoever in believing with all their heart, mind and soul in God’s establishment of a indestructible Church, while simultaneously being perfectly willing to accept the rotation, orbit and proper motion of the earth. Have you ever thought that your insistence that one relies on the other might be a defect of understanding on your part?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
excubitor, your questions will be addressed as I am able next week. But let’s at least address what’s already on the table. You wiggled out of your own views being condemned as heresy by invoking a very narrow interpretation of a definition. But when it comes to geocentrism it would appear that you are keen to interpret any statement, issuing from any Roman congregation or even a simple committee, as broadly as possible. Are you or are you not willing to accept the Church’s own canonical norms of interpretation as I quoted them above?

It would seem that you believe that geocentrism has been defined as a dogma of the Church by an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope. There are serious holes in that argument which I will present., God willing In the meantime, two points for your consideration over the weekend. It is generally acknowledged that there have been very few actual ex cathedra definitions from the Popes. It is reserved for the most serious matters. Could you tell us then, if geocentrism has been formally defined ex cathedra as a dogma of the Faith, how is it that you continue to consider it a matter of “less importance” so that you can wiggle out of falling under the heresy formally condemned in Auctorem Fidei? That is your only out, you know. So the more you play up this issue, the more you dig yourself into the heresy condemned in Auctorem Fidei.

And is it your contention that the successors of Urban VIII actually knew of their predecessor’s alleged ex cathedra definition, that they understood it to be just such a solemn definition, and that they were bound by it? Is that your contention?

If so, how then do you avoid the self-refuting conclusion that basically all of the Popes since then have been not only been misleading, but downright derelict in their duty? What of the actions of the Benedict XIV taking the Copernican works off the Index, of Pius VII explicitly approving permission to Catholics to treat non-geocentric views as established theses, of the removal even of Galileo’s works from the Index, of Benedict XV who explicitly states that this so-called dogma defined ex cathedra may not actually be true, of Leo XIII who adopted the very hermeneutic of Galileo and clearly applied it to this very controversy in a papal encyclical, of Pius XII who explicitly confirmed those principles of Leo XIII, of John Paul II who said publicly that the theologians of Galileo’s day erred, of Benedict XVI who honored Galileo with high praise? Does not any of this strike you as more than a little odd if they see what you claim is absolutely clear, namely that geocentrism has been formally declared as a dogma in the Church? If it’s so clear, as you allege, were they all completely incompetent, not to mention derelict in their duty to the Faith? Or is it just possible that you are the one who does not see rightly, who does not follow the Church’s canonical maxims, who applies how own private judgment to these matters?

I believe that we can easily provide cogent reasons to defend our position. I’d like for you please to stop dodging the hard questions and answer these things straight up.
 
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.
Sorry Granny, but excubitor makes a good case for why geocentrism should also be an infaillible, divinely revealed doctrine:
You have it backwards. Heliocentrism/acentrism is the formally declared heresy. Please read the papal condemnation of Galileo.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If the Church was fallible with geocentrism it was fallible with Humani Generis too.
 
The Pope is supreme over the church.
True.
Excubitor–the following comments are **not **directed to you personally. I see you as a person of sincere faith.
His authority exceeds that of councils
.
Provided, he exercises his authority in agreement with the supreme head of the Catholic Church Who is Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, some people off CAF like to sidestep the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Holy Spirit over 16 centuries when it comes to certain kinds of dogmas.
It is not necessary for him to form a council to pronounce dogma.
It is necessary for the Pope to study the proposed dogma in depth and to seek the advice of theologians, living and dead, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

When one studies the history of the Catholic Church, one discovers that many Popes and Saints were very active in proposing documents to major Church Councils. Often it would take years and more than one major council to bring proposed dogmas to fruition. While Galileo was the poster child for mischief making, his trial remains a local event.

Vatican 1 was quite clear on this point.
Here is Vatican 1
**1. “the Roman Pontiff” **
Unfortunately, some people off CAF conveniently ignore the fact that the Roman Pontiff has many roles, not all of them connected to the singular charism of infallibility

**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….”) **
Unfortunately, some people off CAF conveniently ignore all that goes with ex cathedra.
**3. “he defines” **
As said above, it is necessary for the Pope to study the proposed dogma in depth and to seek the advice of theologians, living and dead, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

**4. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals” **
Unfortunately, some people both on and off CAF, do not understand “faith and morals” which is why there is confusion.
  1. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)
Nothing there about having to form a council.
One of the major hindrances to explaining Catholicism is the insistence on either-or statements. Both a major Church Council and a Pope speaking from the** Chair of Peter** can declare a doctrine. However as shown above, it would be easier to predict the weather.

When I was reading Cassini’s early posts, I knew nothing about Sungenis. However, recently I followed some links to his writings. Wow–I figure he was the first seller of the Brooklyn Bridge. Unfortunately, he is hard to pin down because he conveniently ignores vital information about Catholicism. In my own humble opinion, it is easy to see how innocents can be fooled about Catholicism.

As for geocentrism – this is not a matter of faith or morals, so I have no comments. I have enough sins to account for without having to take a physics exam…

Blessings to all,
granny
 
Sorry Granny, but excubitor makes a good case for why geocentrism should also be an infaillible, divinely revealed doctrine:
Some people believe that a good case can overrule God. That’s life in the big city or in a little garden known as Eden.😉
You can’t have your cake and eat it. If the Church was fallible with geocentrism it was fallible with Humani Generis too.
Are you telling me that humans named Generis don’t fly or revolve around the sun? Dang! Now I am really cranky.

Blessings,
granny

:takeoff:
 
Some people believe that a good case can overrule God. That’s life in the big city or in a little garden known as Eden.😉

Are you telling me that humans named Generis don’t fly or revolve around the sun? Dang! Now I am really cranky.

Blessings,
granny

:takeoff:
Don’t evade the question Granny - heliocentrism was declared heresy in no uncertain terms by the Pope, the condemnation of polygenism was nowhere near as definite.

Can you show me where monogenism was declared infallibly? Or does it hold that status because the Ordinary Magisterium taught it universally?

If there is no such declaration or pronouncement - what then is the huge problem with following the evidence and believing polygenism?
 
Don’t evade the question Granny - heliocentrism was declared heresy in no uncertain terms by the Pope, the condemnation of polygenism was nowhere near as definite.

Can you show me where monogenism was declared infallibly? Or does it hold that status because the Ordinary Magisterium taught it universally?

If there is no such declaration or pronouncement - what then is the huge problem with following the evidence and believing polygenism?
If you wish to evade the answers given in many posts, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

As my Irish Mother would say: One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him [you] drink.
 
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.
Do you have more of this 1820 (I thought it was 1822) document?

In Galileo’s time, people generally believed in a sphere of fixed stars much like the planetary spheres, Saturn being the one closer in. And that each was fixed in its place.

If so, parallax would have looked otherwise than what was discovered 1838. Either no parallax at all (for geocentrism) or a pretty even parallax proving the heliocentrism noted in 1822 as condemned in 1633.

So even if modern cosmology was not condemned in the act of 1633 (I think it contained two condemnations, not just one, and the second was against a moving earth), neither was the parallax seen 1838 the one that could have proven any alternative to geocentrism.
maximum amount of the aberrational displacement of a star is approximately 20 arcseconds in right ascension or declination. Although this is a relatively small value, it was well within the observational capability of the instruments available in the early eighteenth century.
Aberration should not be confused with stellar parallax, although it was an initially fruitless search for parallax that first led to its discovery.[1] Parallax is caused by a change in the position of the observer looking at a relatively nearby object, as measured against more distant objects, and is therefore dependent upon the distance between the observer and the object.[1]
In contrast, stellar aberration is independent of the distance of a celestial object from the observer, and depends only on the observer’s instantaneous transverse velocity with respect to the incoming light beam, at the moment of observation. The light beam from a distant object cannot itself have any transverse velocity component, or it could not (by definition) be seen by the observer, since it would miss the observer.
Like stellar parallax as discovered 1838, the aberration discovered in previous century could be really due to real movements on part of the stars - if they have angelic spirits to move them.

Someone said it was more majestic in God to create a universe able to move on its own than to let angels move them.

Now, to me that sounds very like the argument for deism. A material universe without any intervention of either God or angels is according to some the perfect testimony to a majestic God, and a God who makes miracles (like incarnating himself in a virgin or resurrecting his body) is to such somehow less majestic.

Material stars are Gods creatures. So are living angels. And angels being spirits, I see no way how it could be less majestic of God to let spirits rule matter, in this case each angel a star. God is indeed a God of order, but not a God of disorder. Is this less brought out by an angelic choreography than by a gravitational mechanism in matter?
A particular Sungenis nonsensical idea is his reference to the ‘gyroscopic rotation of the universe stabilising the earth at its centre of mass’. First of all, this confuses solid body dynamics with many-body kinematics.
This is from “flogging a pink unicorn”.

evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Here we have a man saying one particular geocentric confuses solid body dynamics with many-body dynamics. Wonderful.

But claiming orbits are physically determined by gravitation “acting as a string” and mass and inertia “acting as stone on a string” is somehow not confusing solid body mechanics (a string is after all a solid body) with “forces-between bodies” mechanics or what is in quote above referred to as many-body mechanics?

I was told the theory of angelic choreography could predict nothing. It can predict that as long as choreography stays the same, movements will continue the same as observed.

The other theory has been praised for predicting the actual movements to great perfection. Well, Satan is both an angelic spirit and a liar. As an angelic spirit, no longer dancing with the stars, he knows their choreography very well. As a liar he can devise an alternative theory to “predict” what he knows will happen for other reasons. So, predictive values of modern theory are not exactly a valid argument for accepting them. Apollo predicted Oedipus’ sin correctly - but correctly to people fulfilling it because trying to avoid it. So, Apollo is not God, yet the pagans thought him so.

As I have stated elsewhere, there are a few experiments where a close universe like a sphere of fixed stars, but without the fixedness of the stars, would look clearly other than a universe with stars spread all over space. Or one: observing parallax (and why not aberration too) from Mars. If it has been done, I have not seen the results. Or any analysis of them by people knowing better than me what each value means and should mean on either view.

hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html
 
Point 5 is clear because the Pope subsequently placed Galileo’s and other heliocentric work on the list of prohibited books.
*GALILEO-ROME Apr-8-2011

Academy in Rome celebrates historic stargazing with Vatican astronomer

Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, an astronomer with the Vatican Observatory, is seen at the American Academy in Rome April 7. (CNS/Paul Haring)

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) – Top Renaissance scientists and scholars gathered on a grassy hill overlooking Rome one starry spring night 400 years ago to gaze into a unique innovation by Galileo Galilei: the telescope.

“This was really an exciting event. This was the first time that Galileo showed off his telescope in public to the educated people of Rome, which was the center of culture in Italy at that time,” said Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, Vatican astronomer, as he stood on the same knoll.

The original gathering April 14, 1611, was sponsored by the world’s oldest scientific academy – the National Academy of Lincei – of which Galileo was a member.

Today, the grassy hill is part of the American Academy in Rome, which wanted to celebrate its connection to Galileo with a number of events that included an April 7 discussion of faith and science with Brother Consolmagno.

Christopher Celenza, the director of the American Academy, told Catholic News Service that the Renaissance scholars “gathered here to celebrate Galileo and the invention of what they termed at this meeting, the telescope. It was the first time the word telescope was used” to refer to the device Galileo had perfected in 1609 and started using to study the heavens.

The Renaissance men gathered on the Janiculum hill included Jesuit scholars, such as Jesuit Father Christopher Clavius, who helped devise the Gregorian calendar 40 years earlier.

Celenza said a 17th-century newsletter archived at the Vatican Library reported what had happened that night: The men looked through Galileo’s embossed leather telescope in an effort to see what he had been reporting – a number of celestial bodies circling Jupiter.

Brother Consolmagno told CNS that the unveiling of the telescope was so significant because “this is the first time that science is done with an instrument. It’s not something that just any philosopher could look at. You had to have the right tool to be able to be able to see it,” because one’s own eyes were no longer enough.

“People then wanted to look for themselves and see if they were seeing the same things Galileo was seeing,” he said.

People often don’t realize that Galileo was in very good standing with the church and with many church leaders for decades before his trial in 1633, he said.

Just a few weeks after he demonstrated his telescope on the Roman hillside, Galileo was “feted at the Roman College by the Jesuits, who were really impressed with the work he had done. At this point, he had burst onto the scene as one of the great intellectual lights of the 17th century,” Brother Consolmagno said.

“Even at his biggest point of trouble, Galileo was always a faithful son of the church – his two daughters were nuns – and he was friends with many of the people of Rome, including future popes,” he said.

Brother Consolmagno said the real reason that Galileo was eventually brought before the Inquisition and found guilty of suspected heresy is still a mystery. Numerous authors have proposed different findings and the trial is still “a great puzzle for historians,” he said.

Thanks to having many friends in high places, Galileo for years managed to evade any problems for maintaining that the earth revolves around the sun, the Jesuit said.

Galileo received permission, including from the pope’s personal censor, to publish his book, “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,” he said.

“He’s done everything right, he’s followed all the rules and suddenly out of nowhere he’s called to trial,” he said.

Galileo was willing and eager to make any corrections to the text, he said, but the inquisitors would not allow it. They were unable to find him guilty of heresy, however, “so they changed the verdict at the last minute to found guilty of vehement suspicion of heresy,” Brother Consolmagno said.

“All of which makes me suspect that the trial was a political setup that had nothing to do with philosophy,” he said.

“The Spanish ambassador to the Holy See had accused Pope Urban VIII in public of being a closet Protestant because he wasn’t vigorously enough supporting the Spanish” side in their fight against the so-called Protestant side, he said.

Punishing Galileo was a way to “pay off some people who were mad at Galileo anyway; to send a message to the Medici (the ruling family of Tuscany) to stay out of the war; and to show the Spanish that ‘look, I really am not a closet Protestant,’” he said.

Whatever the political reasons were behind the trial and its verdict, he said the “terrible mistake” was that the church had used its religious authority for political ends.

Galileo’s reputation was restored in 1992 by a special Vatican commission established by Pope John Paul II.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101417.htm*
 
Like stellar parallax as discovered 1838, the aberration discovered in previous century could be really due to real movements on part of the stars - if they have angelic spirits to move them.
This is so - you can explain any observation whether astronomical or terrestrial by calling on the agency of angels. If I were you I wouldn’t expect your epistemological approach to resonate with many people. In practice you are quite happy to enjoy the products of those who are not content to explain the behaviour of electrical flow in semi-conductors as the action of angels.

Now I have no more energy for discussions with someone who answers every natural observation and rational argument with an appeal to the supernatural. Your epistemology is so radically different from mine, and from that of most Catholics, that there can be no useful outcome. I will just make a comment on this:
As I have stated elsewhere, there are a few experiments where a close universe like a sphere of fixed stars, but without the fixedness of the stars, would look clearly other than a universe with stars spread all over space. Or one: observing parallax (and why not aberration too) from Mars. If it has been done, I have not seen the results. Or any analysis of them by people knowing better than me what each value means and should mean on either view.
There are very many reasons why the hypothesis that the stars lie on a sphere relatively close to the earth was abandoned long ago. There is absolutely no motivation for anyone to carry out what would be an extremely expensive experiment at the prompting of the minute number of those who still think, against all the evidence, that it remains a possibility. And especially when one considers that the finding is likely to be explained away by those like you who will appeal to an angelic or miraculous explanation to continue to justify your faith-based cosmology.

But for those who have a more reasoned approach to determining truth about the natural world, note that stellar aberration has been measured from satellites to be different from what it is on earth. For example the pointing accuracy of Gravity Probe B is critical. This is from the Stanford University description of the mission:
“While constantly tracking the guide star, IM Pegasi, the telescope on-board the spacecraft was always in motion—both orbiting the Earth once every 97.5 minutes and along with the Earth, the spacecraft and telescope have been orbiting the Sun once a year. These motions result in two sources of aberration of the starlight from IM Pegasi. The first is an orbital aberration, which has a maximum angle of 5.1856 arcseconds, resulting from the spacecraft’s orbital speed of approximately 7 km/sec, relative to the speed of light. (In the case of orbital aberration, the relativity correction is insignificant.). The second is the annual aberration due to the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun, which when corrected for special relativity, amounts to an angle of 20.4958 arcseconds.”

Astrometry satellites such as Hipparcos as discussed higher up this thread and the current new Gaia mission also measure stellar aberration which has an orbital component and so is different from that measured on earth.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm
 
This is so - you can explain any observation whether astronomical or terrestrial by calling on the agency of angels. If I were you I wouldn’t expect your epistemological approach to resonate with many people. In practice you are quite happy to enjoy the products of those who are not content to explain the behaviour of electrical flow in semi-conductors as the action of angels.
I do explain terrestrial observations calling on agency of angels. Aristotle said that every terrestrial thing (except possibly man’s soul) happened by necessity under the stars which were themselves more likely to harbour spirits. But St Thomas says that “we Christians believe many things on earth happen without necessity” … read up in Summa, Prima Pars.

I do not deny angelic and demonic agency may determine or even always ultimately determines electrical flows. If so, they have their chess rules for movements, thus making computers built by humans possible. Agreeing calculations of purely materialistic reasoners (if such) were correct does not mean agreeing they were correct to view even electronics as purely materialistic. Especially as it is not them saying so but you saying so about them.
There are very many reasons why the hypothesis that the stars lie on a sphere relatively close to the earth was abandoned long ago.
Rather two or three:
a) Newton’s belief in Bruno’s cosmology
b) “parallaxes” on one hand show that if due to parallactic view from an orbiting earth, that stars are widely differring in distance from sun, on the other hand were discovered when angelic explanation of stellar movements was abandoned - without any precise reason.
There is absolutely no motivation for anyone to carry out what would be an extremely expensive experiment at the prompting of the minute number of those who still think, against all the evidence, that it remains a possibility. And especially when one considers that the finding is likely to be explained away by those like you who will appeal to an angelic or miraculous explanation to continue to justify your faith-based cosmology.
Convenient for you, inaccurate about me.
But for those who have a more reasoned approach to determining truth about the natural world, note that stellar aberration has been measured from satellites to be different from what it is on earth. For example the pointing accuracy of Gravity Probe B is critical. This is from the Stanford University description of the mission:

“While constantly tracking the guide star, IM Pegasi, the telescope on-board the spacecraft was always in motion—both orbiting the Earth once every 97.5 minutes and along with the Earth, the spacecraft and telescope have been orbiting the Sun once a year. These motions result in two sources of aberration of the starlight from IM Pegasi. The first is an orbital aberration, which has a maximum angle of 5.1856 arcseconds, resulting from the spacecraft’s orbital speed of approximately 7 km/sec, relative to the speed of light. (In the case of orbital aberration, the relativity correction is insignificant.). The second is the annual aberration due to the Earth’s orbital velocity around the Sun, which when corrected for special relativity, amounts to an angle of 20.4958 arcseconds.”

Astrometry satellites such as Hipparcos as discussed higher up this thread and the current new Gaia mission also measure stellar aberration which has an orbital component and so is different from that measured on earth.
Interesting. I do however know too little about the orbit (either in heliocentric or geocentric terms) of that satellite and have done too little calculations to make this as yet a criterion for me, however you might have the kindness to explicitate a few consequences. As you are willing to spare costly material (which one could have had if less abortions and psychiatric treatments had been done, not to mention wars) from getting to Mars, this will be a welcome occasion for you to show your skill as a calculator:

a) describe orbits of earth and that satellite as seen by you who are heliocentric and why the aberration fits;
b) describe orbit of that satellite as seen by a tychonian geocentric, and calculate why aberration measured would be other;
c) do also make both calculations WITHOUT special relativity corrections;

THEN come back with the four calculations.
 
… Quoting:

“All of which makes me suspect that the trial was a political setup that had nothing to do with philosophy,” he said.

“The Spanish ambassador to the Holy See had accused Pope Urban VIII in public of being a closet Protestant because he wasn’t vigorously enough supporting the Spanish” side in their fight against the so-called Protestant side, he said.

Punishing Galileo was a way to “pay off some people who were mad at Galileo anyway; to send a message to the Medici (the ruling family of Tuscany) to stay out of the war; and to show the Spanish that ‘look, I really am not a closet Protestant,’” he said.

Whatever the political reasons were behind the trial and its verdict, he said the “terrible mistake” was that the church had used its religious authority for political ends.

Galileo’s reputation was restored in 1992 by a special Vatican commission established by Pope John Paul II.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1101417.htm
To clear oneself from accusations of being closet Protestant, it was not very wise for Pope Urban VIII to make a trial in which he agreed with the reformers about Copernicus.

As for political ends, it seems at least possible, even probable that rather giving in to heliocentrism and darwinism have served political ends. Pius VII had had a concordate with Napoleon. Leo XIII faced anticlerical moods in France, with Foucault’s pendulum centering among other issues on Galileo case. Pius XII faced Communist persecuations when writing Humani Generis, which is less condemning of Darwinism than was the Biblical Commission of Pope St Pius X.
 
Book of Joshua? And Joshua said “sun stand still” and the sun stood still.

Galileo had gotten across this as confirmation that sun usually revolves daily around earth. Since this got against his theory, he devised an alternative explanation. And that was where his writings ceased to be mere astronomy and became a matter for Pope Urban VIII and for Cardinal Bellarmine and other inquisitors.
You are incorrect. Review all that I have contributed on this thread.😃 You will have to go thumbing through some pages. Read pages 22, 23, 24, and 25! Also, my guardian angel is guiding me in the right direction. I don’t accept what you have said about angels or ‘angelic and demonic agency may determine or even always ultimately determines electrical flows’ from p 25 that you said to Alec (hecd2) . This is what I think about geocentrists.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1997. 26:263–89, ANTIEVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM IN THE UNITED STATES by Eugenie C. Scott, The National Center for Science Education:

"Geocentrists are somewhat more liberal YECs. They accept that the planet is a sphere but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system. Like Flat Earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics and chemistry as well as biology. Geocentrism is a somewhat larger but still insignificant component of modern antievolutionism. Still, at the Cleveland Bible-Science Association creationism conference in 1985, the plenary session debate was held between two Geocentrists and two Heliocentrists (Bible-Science Association 1985).

“Flat Earthers and Geocentrists believe in a universe and planet that are only a few thousand years old, much as did Bishop Ussher and John Lightfoot. Technically, they are YECs, but within antievolutionist circles the term YEC is usually reserved for the followers of Henry Morris, founder and recently re- tired director of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and arguably the most influential creationist of the late twentieth century. Few of these so-called classical YECs interpret the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible lit- erally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the earth. They deny biological descent with modification.”

scribd.com/doc/20400685/Scott-Anti-Evolution-and-Creationism-in-the-United-States

Bye the way, I’m not a creationist! 😃
 
Quoted in start of following quote:

*Book of Joshua? And Joshua said “sun stand still” and the sun stood still.

Galileo had gotten across this as confirmation that sun usually revolves daily around earth. Since this got against his theory, he devised an alternative explanation. And that was where his writings ceased to be mere astronomy and became a matter for Pope Urban VIII and for Cardinal Bellarmine and other inquisitors.*
You are incorrect.
Nope. Church took it pretty cool until Galileo started getting into exegesis - even if it was in response to exegesis. Specifically the miracle in the book of Joshua came up.
Review all that I have contributed on this thread.😃 You will have to go thumbing through some pages. Read pages 22, 23, 24, and 25!
Just did that. What you wrote are a few irrelevant passages to this, and some quotes where Galileo affair is skimmed at but not at all told from beginning to end.
Also, my guardian angel is guiding me in the right direction.
There are not just angels among spirits confronting us mortals on earth. Confer a title of a Dan Brown novel, and I do not mean da Vinci Code.
I don’t accept what you have said about angels or ‘angelic and demonic agency may determine or even always ultimately determines electrical flows’ from p 25 that you said to Alec (hecd2) . This is what I think about geocentrists.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1997. 26:263–89, ANTIEVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM IN THE UNITED STATES by Eugenie C. Scott, The National Center for Science Education:

*"Geocentrists are somewhat more liberal YECs. They accept that the planet is a sphere but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system. Like Flat Earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics and chemistry as well as biology. Geocentrism is a somewhat larger but still insignificant component of modern antievolutionism. Still, at the Cleveland Bible-Science Association creationism conference in 1985, the plenary session debate was held between two Geocentrists and two Heliocentrists (Bible-Science Association 1985).

“Flat Earthers and Geocentrists believe in a universe and planet that are only a few thousand years old, much as did Bishop Ussher and John Lightfoot. Technically, they are YECs, but within antievolutionist circles the term YEC is usually reserved for the followers of Henry Morris, founder and recently re- tired director of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and arguably the most influential creationist of the late twentieth century. Few of these so-called classical YECs interpret the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible lit- erally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the earth. They deny biological descent with modification.” *

scribd.com/doc/20400685/Scott-Anti-Evolution-and-Creationism-in-the-United-States

Bye the way, I’m not a creationist! 😃
I agree that ICR is wrong in accepting heliocentrism. One classic of YEC I read when younger is marred by inexplicable take on days before creation of sun. Like - what was earth in orbit about before that?

Ussher is wrong in accepting Masoretic text as basis for his chronology, he should have taken Septuagint.

Flat Earth society happens to be wrong. Since Church Fathers were divided on the issue, I will not call them heretics. But neither - for same reason - can their take be dogma. Saint Augustine and St Basil opposed them. And they did have an explanation for first few days and for where on the globe sun days started.

Church Fathers were not only Geocentrics but Young Earth Creationists as well during first millennium, whenever they adressed issues. And that includes St Ambrose citing book of Joshua, agreeing exactly on scenario without any heliocentric reinterpretation.
 
Interesting. I do however know too little about the orbit (either in heliocentric or geocentric terms) of that satellite and have done too little calculations to make this as yet a criterion for me, however you might have the kindness to explicitate a few consequences. As you are willing to spare costly material (which one could have had if less abortions and psychiatric treatments had been done, not to mention wars) from getting to Mars, this will be a welcome occasion for you to show your skill as a calculator:

a) describe orbits of earth and that satellite as seen by you who are heliocentric and why the aberration fits;
b) describe orbit of that satellite as seen by a tychonian geocentric, and calculate why aberration measured would be other;
c) do also make both calculations WITHOUT special relativity corrections;

THEN come back with the four calculations.
Perhaps you missed what I said in my last post: “Now I have no more energy for discussions with someone who answers every natural observation and rational argument with an appeal to the supernatural. Your epistemology is so radically different from mine, and from that of most Catholics, that there can be no useful outcome.”.

I have no idea why you think that I would waste my time presenting all the detailed information on these aberrations for you to explain away by the angelic jiggling of stars. My comment was not to you but to others, pointing out that the aberration measured from a satellite is different from the aberration measured from earth - both are non-zero but we would measure zero aberration from a static non-rotating earth.

If you want to do these sums, all the information about the orbits of the satellite and the formulae for calculating aberration (with and without the special relativity correction - which is small by the way) is available on-line - do the sums yourself and I’ll promise to correct any mistakes that you make.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
If you wish to evade the answers given in many posts, then there is nothing more I can do for you.

As my Irish Mother would say: One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make him [you] drink.
More evasion - execubitor pointed out in direct response to your post on infallibility that the same premises you hold for a teaching to be infallible are also true for geocentrism.
 
Hecd, Palm, Moritz and Granny:

I’ve had a breakthrough.

Hans, Razredge and Excubitor are all just a need breed of chatterbots designed by a cabal of Jewish Masonic anti-Catholics. It’s part of a new, growing anti-Catholic, anti-science conspiracy.

Read:

manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Does that or does that not sound quite a lot like Hans, Razredge and Excubitor?

I challenge Hans, Razredge and Excubitor to prove that they’re not a new breed of chatterbots or involved in the massive Jewish Masonic anti-Catholic, anti-science conspiracy. What better way to keep people from the Catholic Church or to lead them out of it than to convince them that the Catholic Church teaches what they claim. It’s brilliantly demonic, really.

Now watch the conspirators deny the charge or laugh it off as nonsense…which is exactly what you’d expect Jewish Masonic anti-Catholic, anti-Science conspirators to do.
 
Hecd, Palm, Moritz and Granny:

I’ve had a breakthrough.

Hans, Razredge and Excubitor are all just a need breed of chatterbots designed by a cabal of Jewish Masonic anti-Catholics. It’s part of a new, growing anti-Catholic, anti-science conspiracy.

Read:

manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Does that or does that not sound quite a lot like Hans, Razredge and Excubitor?

I challenge Hans, Razredge and Excubitor to prove that they’re not a new breed of chatterbots or involved in the massive Jewish Masonic anti-Catholic, anti-science conspiracy. What better way to keep people from the Catholic Church or to lead them out of it than to convince them that the Catholic Church teaches what they claim. It’s brilliantly demonic, really.

Now watch the conspirators deny the charge or laugh it off as nonsense…which is exactly what you’d expect Jewish Masonic anti-Catholic, anti-Science conspirators to do.
You completely misunderstand my position, I am not a geocentrist - my issue is with Granny who for a few years now has been vehemently opposed to any Catholic who accepts polygenism on the grounds of infallible teaching - yet of course, this seems to depend on if the teaching in question is personally acceptable to her as she of course does not believe in geocentrism - despite the geocentrists showing quite definitively that heliocentrism was condemned in no uncertain terms.
 
You completely misunderstand my position, I am not a geocentrist - my issue is with Granny who for a few years now has been vehemently opposed to any Catholic who accepts polygenism on the grounds of infallible teaching - yet of course, this seems to depend on if the teaching in question is personally acceptable to her as she of course does not believe in geocentrism - despite the geocentrists showing quite definitively that heliocentrism was condemned in no uncertain terms.
In other words, this granny cannot be fooled when it comes to the Catholic Church. Thank you for the recommendation.
 
In other words, this granny cannot be fooled when it comes to the Catholic Church. Thank you for the recommendation.
Find don’t acknowledge your contradictory stance on the two scientific topics, on one you ignore prior Church teaching and go with the evidence and current teaching, for the other you don’t - though I suppose if the Church changed its teaching on monogenism to reflect the evidence (like it did with heliocentrism) you’d have no problem with that - would you?

If so, then we are simply ahead of the curve - since inexorably the Church sooner or later will change its teaching on monogenism once the evidence becomes impossible to ignore, just like it did with heliocentrism or evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top