Heliocentricism

[trth_skr]

**Most people today would not use the Bible in a scientific controversy, but that wasn’t the case in the seventeenth century. **Many leading thinkers of that day believed that the Bible taught that the earth cannot move. For example, the great observational astronomer Tycho Brahe, himself a Lutheran, thought this way. He believed that this agreed with the physics of motion as then understood. And remember, there was simply no compelling evidence of the earth’s motion. For people at that time, if physics and the Bible seemed to agree, that constituted strong reasons to reject the motion of the earth.(from the article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp )

Most people today would not use the Bible in a scientific controversy. In Galileo’s time, it was the Church which made that mistake. Now, it seems that current geocentrists are making the same mistake.

Jim:

Science has still yet to demonstrate that the earth moves (as distinguishable from movement of the universe).

Where does that leave us?

Show me one official document of the Catholic Church (an encyclical, Papal Bull or ecumenical council) wherein it is stated that the Catholic Church made a mistake regarding geocentrism (and, no, JP II’s speech to the PAS is not an official document). You cannot.

You are the one in error. You have no support for your statements.I have official declarations of the Catholic Church by three Popes. Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit. Here is what CArdinal Ratzinger said inn Donum Veritatis even about disciplinary decrees:

*One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. *

The arguemnts I am using are official ones of the Church. Yours are your private opinions.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[JimG]

trth_skr:

Jim:

Science has still yet to demonstrate that the earth moves (as distinguishable from movement of the universe).

Well, I would be curious as to what percent of scientists accept that statement. I know Robert Sungenis agrees with it, but I’m not sure of his standing within the scientific community.

 

[MrS]

JimG:

Well, I would be curious as to what percent of scientists accept that statement. I know Robert Sungenis agrees with it, but I’m not sure of his standing within the scientific community.

It just depends on which conmunity one would prefer he stand with. Diverse opinions, diverse communities. Neither one able to disprove the other,.

 

[johnshelby]

trth_skr:

Yes, the authors of Catholic Encyclopedia. The authors of the article you linked condemend Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander the VII as being in error.

Funny thing is no Pope has done so in an official manner, but maybe in private opinion (i.e., JP II’s speech to the PAS).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

i’m a newbie, and i’m not really up on all the details of the office
of the Pope, and of his powers… ect…

but…

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

Galileo. As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained – which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Well, I would be curious as to what percent of scientists accept that statement. I know Robert Sungenis agrees with it, but I’m not sure of his standing within the scientific community.

Since when is truth a matter of democracy?

I can demonstrate all day long that objects 2’ off the surface of the earth fall to the earth (and at 4’, 8’, … to some point); therefor I can claim some concept known as gravity has been demonstrated.

Science cannot demonstrate that the earth moves (as distinguished from movement of the universe).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[Magicsilence]

JimG:

Well, I would be curious as to what percent of scientists accept that statement. I know Robert Sungenis agrees with it, but I’m not sure of his standing within the scientific community.

Whether or not they agree, it is, nevertheless, unprovable that geocentrism is wrong, or heliocentrism correct.

However, I see no reason why God would lead three popes into claiming error.

I support geocentrism.

 

[trth_skr]

johnshelby:

…i’m a newbie, and i’m not really up on all the details of the office
of the Pope, and of his powers… ect…

but…

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB

Galileo. As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained – which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

If you read the three part series (plus supplement) I wrote, I have not claimed Papal infallibility. Keep in mind that most of what we believe as Catholics has not reached the required definition to be called infallible, so this is a red herring argument to start with.

Notice also, that the article you quoted does not mention the Bull of Alexander VII, which comes very close to reaching the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility- some authors claim it actually does reach it. I quote from it in the blog.

I am not interested in “forcing” people to accept geocentrism. My interest is the truth of the matter.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[trth_skr]

Della:

Scroll down through this article on Copernicus to the Ptolemaic system on down to see that Copernicus didn’t have it right, either. Although he put the sun at the center of the solar system he was wrong about the movement of the other heavenly bodies. Yet, the Church never had him before the inquisition because he didn’t say that the Bible must be wrong and the Church had to accept his theories as correct. Thank goodness the Church never accepted anyone’s theories as totally correct because NONE of them were completely right.

This is a very important point. None of the scientific theories are correct, they are all approximations to some degree. All scientists know this and do not hide it.

But, Scriptures are without error in what they do proclaim (yes, even in physical things). That is why the Church relies so much on Scriptures (and interpertation by the Fathers).

True, Scriptures are not a science book- I do not hear anyone claiming it is. But Scriptures do state things of physical significance:

1. Adam was the first man.
2. God created the earth first, then the sun and moon …
3. God stopped the sun over Ajilon and stayed the moon…

These are all things that God put in the Scriptures for the sake of our salvation (everything in the Scriptures is by definition).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[JimG]

The Church speaks infallibly only on matters of faith and morals, not science. So I don’t see why Church pronouncements are even an issue.

Frankly, the enormous faster than light velocities required of stars and galaxies to rotate around a stationary earth in current geocentric theory are more difficult for me to believe than miracles in the bible.

When geocentric theory was first proposed in earlier centuries, astronomers and others simply had no idea of the actual size of the universe. If they had, I think the theory would have been untenable from the outset.

 

[trth_skr]

MrS:

It just depends on which conmunity one would prefer he stand with. Diverse opinions, diverse communities. Neither one able to disprove the other,.

MrS:

Regardless of what a majority of scientists believe, the truth stands. A majority of scientists do not work in cosmology. Od those that do, many would agree that we have not directly demonstrated that the earth moves (as distinguishabvle from movement of the universe).

Here are some quotes:

---

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,…For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.

W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

---

This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:

“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view … . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.”

---

Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

---

Einstein himself also says:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. – Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[Magicsilence]

I think it all boils down to - " if geocentrism can be proven correct, it means the world would have to accept Catholicism (or at least a religion), therefore in order to stay sinning, they work out every possible method to prove the world is not stationary.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

The Church speaks infallibly only on matters of faith and morals, not science. So I don’t see why Church pronouncements are even an issue.

The fact that the Popes acted on it indicates that in their judgement it was a matter of faith and morals.

How could Galileo be *vehemently suspect of heresy *for something not dealing with faith and morals?

Finally, Paul V and Urban VIII thenselves said (using the same theological opinion):

“…The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith…”

JimG:

Frankly, the enormous faster than light velocities required of stars and galaxies to rotate around a stationary earth in current geocentric theory are more difficult for me to believe than miracles in the bible.

This is expalined in Part II of Geocentricity 101. Tihs also deals with the size of the universe.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[trth_skr]

Magicsilence:

I think it all boils down to - " if geocentrism can be proven correct, it means the world would have to accept Catholicism (or at least a religion), therefore in order to stay sinning, they work out every possible method to prove the world is not stationary.

I am glad there are people out there that understand the significance of this issue .

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[johnshelby]

trth_skr:

If you read the three part series (plus supplement) I wrote, I have not claimed Papal infallibility. Keep in mind that most of what we believe as Catholics has not reached the required definition to be called infallible, so this is a red herring argument to start with.

Notice also, that the article you quoted does not mention the Bull of Alexander VII, which comes very close to reaching the Vatican I definition of Papal infallibility- some authors claim it actually does reach it. I quote from it in the blog.

I am not interested in “forcing” people to accept geocentrism. My interest is the truth of the matter.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

you claimed Papal infallability when you accused the Catholic
Encyclopedia… " The authors of the article you linked condemend Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander the VII as being in error."…

if the statements they made weren’t covered by Papal
infallability, then they could have been in error… and as
for proving that the Earth moves, that is far beyond me,
as i’m not even an avid star gazer, much less an astronomer…

but, the astronomers we have now, do star gaze and do
study, and they believe that the earth revolves around the
sun, and they use this ‘belief’, to compute the paths of
comets and stuff, with amazing accuracy… now, if they were
intentionally lying and saying they were using the “path of
the earth”… and were actually using the “path of the sun”…

wow… talk about a coverup of massive proportions…

not saying it’s not possible… but… wow

and as i said, i’m not a real star gazer, but i did watch haley’s comet…and yes, it came close enough to make you think… but
i wasn’t really worried, because the people who made the
calculations, had reassured us that of it’s path, where to
look to see it, when to look, and how long we would be
able to see it… and they were pretty much dead on…
using whatever calculations they used… and i don’t believe,
but i’m no math whiz either, that they used a geocentric model
to make the predictions…

 

[trth_skr]

johnshelby:

…
wow… talk about a coverup of massive proportions…

not saying it’s not possible… but… wow

…

You are starting to appreciate the impact.

The thing is since science cannot say one way or the other the scientists themselves are not necassarily covering up. They probably do truly believe the earth goes around the sun.

As far as comets (and satellites, spacecraft, etc.) they would still follow the same *relative *paths. What we believe is moving and what we believe is stationary is of no real significance for many practical things (such as launching spececraft). This sort of underlies the theary of relativity.

That is why the Tychonian solar system is just as accurate observationallyas the Corpenican (or the modern Tychonian is just as accurate as the Keplerian).

Take a look at the quotes (from scientists) that I responded to MrS with (here). These scientists mean exactly what they are saying.

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

 

[johnshelby]

Magicsilence:

I think it all boils down to - " if geocentrism can be proven correct, it means the world would have to accept Catholicism (or at least a religion), therefore in order to stay sinning, they work out every possible method to prove the world is not stationary.

why??

do you believe in God?? does He exist?? is the
Catholic church ‘the’ church God instituted??

how can other people not believe, when we know
these are facts?..

because it’s not a matter to be decided in a laboratory…
it’s a matter decided in your heart, and in your mind…

geocentrism, that would have to be proven in a lab…

Jesus said, blessed are that that haven’t seen, and still
believe… the proof is in you and me and the truth seeker…
not in a lab…

 

[johnshelby]

trth_skr:

You are starting to appreciate the impact.

The thing is since science cannot say one way or the other the scientists themselves are not necassarily covering up. They probably do truly believe the earth goes around the sun.

As far as comets (and satellites, spacecraft, etc.) they would still follow the same *relative *paths. What we believe is moving and what we believe is stationary is of no real significance for many practical things (such as launching spececraft). This sort of underlies the theary of relativity.

That is why the Tychonian solar system is just as accurate observationallyas the Corpenican (or the modern Tychonian is just as accurate as the Keplerian).

Take a look at the quotes (from scientists) that I responded to MrS with (here). These scientists mean exactly what they are saying.

Mark

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

lol… yeah, if you launched a space ship from a stationary place,
even i could estimate the return path… lol

there are many, good Catholic and Protestant astronomers
and scientists who ‘know’, the earth isn’t stationary…

and, i’m sorry, but i didnt’ read your whole blog… i don’t read
blogs too often… too hard to chase down quotes and credentials
and facts…

but, this belief, geocentrism, is like… trying to decide whether
Jesus is comming back before the tribulation, or after… it’s
not something that is important to my soul… i just know i’m
ready… (( i believe after, even believed that before i became
Catholic… lol ))

 

[johnshelby]

trth_skr:

You are starting to appreciate the impact.

The thing is since science cannot say one way or the other the scientists themselves are not necassarily covering up. They probably do truly believe the earth goes around the sun.

As far as comets (and satellites, spacecraft, etc.) they would still follow the same *relative *paths. What we believe is moving and what we believe is stationary is of no real significance for many practical things (such as launching spececraft). This sort of underlies the theary of relativity.

That is why the Tychonian solar system is just as accurate observationallyas the Corpenican (or the modern Tychonian is just as accurate as the Keplerian).

Take a look at the quotes (from scientists) that I responded to MrS with (here). These scientists mean exactly what they are saying.

Mark

---

no, you don’t understand… they would all have to be in on it…
have to… because even with relations to ‘relativity’… the
actual formulas for determining the path’s, based on a
moving or stationary earth, would be different…

so, if they say, we have used this formula to place the
comet at this point on ‘our trip around the sun’… they
would have to be lying…

so, it’d have to be a coverup, ignorance couldn’t be an
excuse…

or, that’s the way i see it…

 

[MrS]

trth_skr:

MrS:

Regardless of what a majority of scientists believe, the truth stands. A majority of scientists do not work in cosmology. Od those that do, many would agree that we have not directly demonstrated that the earth moves (as distinguishabvle from movement of the universe).

---

Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.

Don’t read me wrong… I do agree with you.

Additionally, Truth and Reason will always go hand in hand. And it is reasonable (to me IMHO) that the earth is the center, and God The Son came to earth to save us.

Helio Geo

 

[johnshelby]

MrS:

Don’t read me wrong… I do agree with you.

Additionally, Truth and Reason will always go hand in hand. And it is reasonable (to me IMHO) that the earth is the center, and God The Son came to earth to save us.

Helio Geo

it wouldn’t bother me if it were true , but then,
it doesn’t bother me that i don’t believe it is…

but, here is another thing then… does that mean, if
life is discovered somewhere else, you won’t believe
in God, anymore??

i don’t think so… but, what if we weren’t the only people
God created… would we be the center of his universe, and
they be just… kinda drifting along outside, or would they
have the opportunity to be the center, just as we are?