Heliocentricism

[trth_skr]

JimG:

If every frame of reference is equal, then how could geocentrism be any more “true” than standard cosmological theory which is essentially acentric, and a lot simpler?

Exactly! (Though I don’t know if acentrism is actually any simpler.) If you change your mode of thinking to the positive, and continue to develop your arguments, you will be making the geocentric case .

General relativity does not prove geocentrism, nor do I claim it does. But the important points are:

1. If general relativity is true, then geocentrism is a possible universe.
2. If general realitvity is true, and modern science accepts it, then modern science cannot say that geocentrism is impossible. And in fact looknig at the quotes I presented previously, it really has not.
3. If general relativity is not true, then we are basically back to raw observations, which supports both geocentrism and helio/acentrism. One could claim Newtonian theory takes over again, but that leaves to many things unexplained (like inertia and gravity).

So, in a nutshell, within science we only have theories as to what the cosmology of the universe is. We have no way to demonstrate which one is true since there is no known absolute reference within the universe. No one has yet demonstrated even something as basic as the earth rotating (as distinguished from the rotation of the universe).

Given the above, and given that Holy Mother Church under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit interpreting the Scriptures (i.e., Fathers) has declared that the earth is immobile and the sun moves [around the earth], I hold that geocentrism is the proper way to view the universe, regardless of the view secular (and largely atheist) modern science. At the least (given the ambiguous stance of the Church in recent centuries) I would hope that Cathocs would at least be open minded to it.

Mark

---

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:

Sun orbiting the earth? Isnt that proposal trangressing the law of gravity?

You are thinnking in terms of an isolated system of earth and sun in a static space. What is occuring is that the universe is rotating. The sun is near the center but not at it (the earth is). Like a whirlpool with earth at center, the sun is a patch soap scum rotating in the whirlpool near the center. The earth is stabilized by the power of the universe (see Part II for explanation of gyroscopic stabilization of the earth). Please do not try and take the analogy any further than this. It is only an attempt to help you visualize something.

If the earth and sun and planets were in an isolated static (nonrotating) universe, then the heliocentric unniverse may manifest itself (other possibilities are collisions or dispersion of some or all bodies- all depending on how the system started). The issue is that the sun, earth and planets are not in an isolated universe. This thinking is the basis of Mach’s principle (and Leibniz’s Mondalogy), which influenced general relativity.

Mark

---

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

 

[neophyte]

I haven’t had time to wade through this thread, and probably won’t, but since I was so vocal in slamming Bob Sungenis in past threads I’ll post anyway. I’ve thought about it a lot since then.

I e-mailed asking for the reference with the derivation of the “earth stabilizing” force of a revolving universe, and was told it’s in “Gravitation”, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (pp. 1119-1120). I got a copy of it but it’ll take quite a while to absorb the material if I really want to understand it, my formal training in math extends only as far as a bachelor degree in engineering.

The limit on the speed of light only applies in an inertial reference frame, if the frame is rotating then the limit does not apply. So this isn’t an valid argument against a rotating universe.

Objects in the reference frame of a rotating universe would be accelerating with respect to the earth, in which case we’d observe their clocks running slowly and they’d be red-shifted just as one would observe in an expanding non-rotating universe.

Look very closely at Bob’s challenge. It’s not that he has to prove geocentrism is correct and acentrism is not, because his whole point is that acentrism is just as unprovable as geocentrism. And I think he’s right, it’s a meaningless question to ask from within our space-time continuum.

What he’s doing is pointing out that since physics can’t speak to it one way or the other, then if the Magesterium has dogmatically defined a position then that position is true. Bob thinks that the Church has made such a declaration; I’m not convinced but then again I’m way to busy to study the matter very closely.

 

[trth_skr]

neophyte:

I haven’t had time to wade through this thread, and probably won’t, but since I was so vocal in slamming Bob Sungenis in past threads I’ll post anyway. I’ve thought about it a lot since then.

I e-mailed asking for the reference with the derivation of the “earth stabilizing” force of a revolving universe, and was told it’s in “Gravitation”, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (pp. 1119-1120). I got a copy of it but it’ll take quite a while to absorb the material if I really want to understand it, my formal training in math extends only as far as a bachelor degree in engineering.

The limit on the speed of light only applies in an inertial reference frame, if the frame is rotating then the limit does not apply. So this isn’t an valid argument against a rotating universe.

Objects in the reference frame of a rotating universe would be accelerating with respect to the earth, in which case we’d observe their clocks running slowly and they’d be red-shifted just as one would observe in an expanding non-rotating universe.

Look very closely at Bob’s challenge. It’s not that he has to prove geocentrism is correct and acentrism is not, because his whole point is that acentrism is just as unprovable as geocentrism. And I think he’s right, it’s a meaningless question to ask from within our space-time continuum.

What he’s doing is pointing out that since physics can’t speak to it one way or the other, then if the Magesterium has dogmatically defined a position then that position is true. Bob thinks that the Church has made such a declaration; I’m not convinced but then again I’m way to busy to study the matter very closely.

Nice summary.

Are you still “slamming” Bob Sungenis, or are you saying there is a reasonable case to be made for geocentrism? It sounds like you are saying the latter. Being skeptical until you study something is not a bad trait.

BTW, I also have a B.S. in engineering. It is more than enough to understand the basic concepts.

Mark

---

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

 

[neophyte]

trth_skr:

Nice summary.

Are you still “slamming” Bob Sungenis, or are you saying there is a reasonable case to be made for geocentrism? It sounds like you are saying the latter. Being skeptical until you study something is not a bad trait. BTW, I also have a B.S. in engineering. It is more than enough to understand the basic concepts…I think that to some extent Bob’s his own worst enemy on this one. It’s hard to take him seriously given some of his mathematical gaffes, such as when he made fun of the phrase “boundary condition at infinity” (which made him sound like he’d slept through numerical methods during his sophomore year).

Now, this is completely distinct from his apologetics work. I’ve listened to a few of his tapes on the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin, and it’s great stuff, was very helpful in my conversion from Protestantism (thanks, Bob!).

I don’t think that a reasonable physical case can be made for preferring geocentrism over acentrism. Sure, you can make orbital mechanics work out in a geocentric system, but the math is easier using acentrism. But Bob’s not basing his conclusion on physics, he’s basing it on the Magesterium, and so far I just don’t see that the Church has infallibly defined on the matter.

I’m sure that I can get through the math with some study, I got pretty good grades in all of my undergrad math-based courses. It’s just a matter of available time and learning new material. I don’t find “Gravitation” to be very readable.

trth_skr:

Scientism is a god…

Ain’t that the truth…

 

[trth_skr]

neophyte:

…
I don’t think that a reasonable physical case can be made for preferring geocentrism over acentrism. Sure, you can make orbital mechanics work out in a geocentric system, but the math is easier using acentrism. But Bob’s not basing his conclusion on physics, he’s basing it on the Magesterium, and so far I just don’t see that the Church has infallibly defined on the matter.

…

Most of what we believe as Catholics has not been defined infallibly. If this is the standard, then a lot of doctrine is gone.

Take a look through the blog articles I linked earler. Part III and the supplement deal with the Church position.

When you consider the Church Position, and the fact that science really cannot say one way or the other, it should give you reason to at least give it a chance (which obviuosly you are).

When it comes down to preferences, I prefer to go with the Church.

Mark

---

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

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the geocentric universe is just a big 3D sphere with the earth at the center, whereas the standard acentric universe is a 4D sphere with a 3D surface on which the galaxies are located, with an expanding surface.

Taking one planet of one solar system of one galaxy of an otherwise homogenous universe and making it a fixed point in the universe seems to me to be a needless complication.

And if string theory or M-theory turns out to be a reasonable hypothesis, how wouldl that fit into a geocentric universe?

 

[cowgirl]

wow…now that i am COMPLETELY confused i am still no closer to knowing how to respond to my prof.

for some of you this may seem silly, but for me, who has to listen to professors bash the Catholic Church, I need to respond with intelligence and reason. heliocentricism vs geocentricism…I’m not concernced with the science aspect of the matter, but what the Catholic Church did, or didnt do. please correct me if I am wrong:

The Catholic Church did make official statements about geo/helio centricism. The Church supports geocentricism, but it isnt a serious concern because neither one can be proven without a doubt. In retrospect, the Catholic Church was not wrong in the sense that non-Catholic historians/teachers/professors would have the world believe.

Rachel <><

 

[johnshelby]

cowgirl:

wow…now that i am COMPLETELY confused i am still no closer to knowing how to respond to my prof.

for some of you this may seem silly, but for me, who has to listen to professors bash the Catholic Church, I need to respond with intelligence and reason. heliocentricism vs geocentricism…I’m not concernced with the science aspect of the matter, but what the Catholic Church did, or didnt do. please correct me if I am wrong:

The Catholic Church did make official statements about geo/helio centricism. The Church supports geocentricism, but it isnt a serious concern because neither one can be proven without a doubt. In retrospect, the Catholic Church was not wrong in the sense that non-Catholic historians/teachers/professors would have the world believe.

Rachel <><

right, the Catholic church wasn’t making theory, it’s not a
scientific entity… it was choosing the theory that most fitted
with church teaching… if at some later time, another theory
is proven right, then the church might, or might not make some
‘official’ statement concerning it…

that’s my feeling, anyway…

 

[neophyte]

trth_skr:

Most of what we believe as Catholics has not been defined infallibly. If this is the standard, then a lot of doctrine is gone.

Take a look through the blog articles I linked earler. Part III and the supplement deal with the Church position.

When you consider the Church Position, and the fact that science really cannot say one way or the other, it should give you reason to at least give it a chance (which obviuosly you are).

I’ve looked briefly at the blog before, and I agree that it’s a worthy topic of investigation. Ultimately I’d have to look at the source documents themselves. At least one your references conjoins Galileo’s rejection of geocentrism with his therory of heliocentrism, and in that case the Church leaders were correct. But that’s a different matter than acentrism.

The argument from the universal belief of the Church Fathers is compelling, but there’s something there that I’m missing. I find a consistency between the teaching on the “faith and morals” limit on infallibility and the idea that God does not intend the Bible to be a physics text. Presumably I could make the same argument to support a 6,000 year-old earth (or some such), and yet the Church today is not demanding such a belief and no one seems upset about that (maybe this is a red herring, I don’t know whether or not the Fathers spoke of the age of the earth but I’m sure you get my drift).

I certainly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in teaching what God wanted to teach, but the question is: did God intend Scripture to teach geocentrism? To answer that we must turn to the Magesterium, which by definition cannot definitively speak except on matters of faith and morals.

Given the clear teaching that infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals, it seems to me that the only way to bring a matter of science under the purview of infallibility is for either 1.) the Holy Father to make a clear ex cathedra statement defining that it is so, which hasn’t happened, or 2.) an Ecumenical Council in union with the Holy Father to make a similar clear statement, which also hasn’t happened.

Admittedly I haven’t delved very deeply into the blog or looked at the source documents, but a lot of your quotes sure look like they’re either dealing in matters of discipline or didn’t emanate from an Ecumenical Council (or Holy Father) in defining a dogma, or both.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that discipline is a serious matter, my point is that if the Church’s position was not what Bob thinks then it’s not as big a deal as he’s making it out to be.

trth_skr:

When it comes down to preferences, I prefer to go with the Church.

I’m with you there. There’s no mathematical reason to prefer one over the other, but if the Church says that there’s another reason to do so then I prefer what She wishes. Hopefully there would be a dispensation to do the math from an acentric point of view!

JimG:

It seems to me that the geocentric universe is just a big 3D sphere with the earth at the center, whereas the standard acentric universe is a 4D sphere with a 3D surface on which the galaxies are located, with an expanding surface.

Taking one planet of one solar system of one galaxy of an otherwise homogenous universe and making it a fixed point in the universe seems to me to be a needless complication…

One possible way to reconcile these positions is to consider that from within 4D spacetime it may well be that the universe has no center, but there may be a space dimension which we cannot detect and within which the universe has the earth as a center. But this, as well as string- and m-theory, is really beyond my competence.

 

[buffalo]

Has anyone considered that even though the Bible is not a science textbook it says many things scientific? If Revelation (if we have rendered it correctly) says that something is then something is, because God has revealed it to us.

 

[trth_skr]

buffalo:

Has anyone considered that even though the Bible is not a science textbook it says many things scientific? If Revelation (if we have rendered it correctly) says that something is then something is, because God has revealed it to us.

Thank you, buffalo. I think it is that simple.

“…Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus…”

(Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)

Remember, even as recently as Vatican II we were told that* the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to be confided to the sacred Scriptures. *

Mark

---

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

 

[neophyte]

trth_skr:

…Remember, even as recently as Vatican II we were told that* the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to be confided to the sacred Scriptures*

Great. So far I’ve yet to find a convincing reason to conclude that the Church teaches that God, for the sake of our salvation, wished geocentrism to be confided to the Sacred Scriptures.

This disagreement may well continue until the Church decides to clarify the matter.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

cowgirl:

wow…now that i am COMPLETELY confused i am still no closer to knowing how to respond to my prof.

for some of you this may seem silly, but for me, who has to listen to professors bash the Catholic Church, I need to respond with intelligence and reason. heliocentricism vs geocentricism…I’m not concernced with the science aspect of the matter, but what the Catholic Church did, or didnt do. please correct me if I am wrong:

The Catholic Church did make official statements about geo/helio centricism. The Church supports geocentricism, but it isnt a serious concern because neither one can be proven without a doubt. In retrospect, the Catholic Church was not wrong in the sense that non-Catholic historians/teachers/professors would have the world believe.

Rachel <><

Unfortunately you’re in the position of having to eat a little crow on this one.

Did members of the clergy teach geocentrism? Yes, they did.
Was geocentrism the prevailing “common wisdom” of the day? Yes, it was.

Did members of the clergy consign Galileo to house arrest? Yes, they did.

But, the Catholic Church never made geocentrism an article of faith - this is the unfortunate part in that it doesn’t carry any weight with opponents of the church. Because members of the church did not accept heliocentrism when it was first proposed and used the Bible to try to refute it, that’s all they will remember about it.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[trth_skr]

neophyte:

I’ve looked briefly at the blog before, and I agree that it’s a worthy topic of investigation. Ultimately I’d have to look at the source documents themselves. At least one your references conjoins Galileo’s rejection of geocentrism with his therory of heliocentrism, and in that case the Church leaders were correct. But that’s a different matter than acentrism.

Acentrism violates the principle of immobility of the earth for sure. I say it also violates the principle of the sun moving, because from Scripture thi is understood as the sun moving around the earth.

neophyte:

The argument from the universal belief of the Church Fathers is compelling, but there’s something there that I’m missing. I find a consistency between the teaching on the “faith and morals” limit on infallibility and the idea that God does not intend the Bible to be a physics text.

Again, this is a red herring argument for a number of reasons, including:

1. The test for doctrine is not infallibility. Much of what we believe as Catholics is not defined infallibly.
2. I showed in the original opinion of the eleven theological qualifers that they did find that the immobility of the earth is a matter of faith. This was ratified by Paul V. It was also written in the condemnation of Galileo by Urban VIII.
3. I also showedwhere Pius XII in *Divino Avante Spiritu *states that Scriptural references of physical things can have connections to matters of faith, and in fact that Scriptural truth is not limited to faith and morals, anyway.
4. The statement that the earth does not move is not to the level of a physics text. God intends what is in the Scriptures to be there.

neophyte:

I certainly believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in teaching what God wanted to teach, but the question is: did God intend Scripture to teach geocentrism? To answer that we must turn to the Magesterium, which by definition cannot definitively speak except on matters of faith and morals.

Again, I showed that Trent and Vatican I decreed that we should not interpret Scripture differently than the interpretation by the assent of the Fathers. Then this assent was qualified by the Holy Office, then approved by three Popes, one in a Papal Bull approved with Apostolic authority. What more do you want?

neophyte:

Given the clear teaching that infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals, it seems to me that the only way to bring a matter of science under the purview of infallibility is for either 1.) the Holy Father to make a clear ex cathedra

statement defining that it is so, which hasn’t happened, or 2.) an Ecumenical Council in union with the Holy Father to make a similar clear statement, which also hasn’t happened.

Hre is what I said in Part III:

…in order to reverse the decrees, the following would be at least expected (author’s opinion):

1. A bull or encyclical authoritatively reversing decrees against movement of the earth and a fixed position of the sun.
2. Explanations (likely in the bull or encyclical) as to how to explain:

• *The interprtation of the Fathers *
• *Trent and Vatican I position regarding interpretation of the Fathers. *

In any case, an action at least as authoritative as the action creating the decrees would be needed.

Again, I am not claiming it was infallibly decreed.

neophyte:

Admittedly I haven’t delved very deeply into the blog or looked at the source documents, but a lot of your quotes sure look like they’re either dealing in matters of discipline or didn’t emanate from an Ecumenical Council (or Holy Father) in defining a dogma, or both.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that discipline is a serious matter, my point is that if the Church’s position was not what Bob thinks then it’s not as big a deal as he’s making it out to be.

See Again Part III, and follow this with the supplement. I cover these issues pretty clearly.

Mark

---

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]

neophyte:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
*When it comes down to preferences, I prefer to go with the Church. *

I’m with you there. There’s no mathematical reason to prefer one over the other, but if the Church says that there’s another reason to do so then I prefer what She wishes. Hopefully there would be a dispensation to do the math from an acentric point of view!

Thre is a dispensation for practical applications. At the very beginning of this, the Church allowed Corpenicus’ writings to be published with the understanding that heliocentrism was hypothetical (not absolute). In fact Clement (X?) was interested in Corpenican theory because he was convinced (wrongly) that it would simplify the calender. Also, Newton’s works were permitted to be published with the following caveat:

Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.

So if you are launcing a probe to mars, start earth centered, then transform your coordinate system and go to mars (or sun) centered, as you please. Just seperate in your mind, heart, and soul the difference between truth (geostationism) and practicality.

Mark

---

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