If God both created the Universe and cares about humans, why did he make it so large?

[hecd2]

hecd2:

Your argument was about a Newtonian system. In a strictly Newtonian system, and given the relative strengths of the sun’s and other stars’ gravitational fields at the earth, an unmoving earth is not viable - a) the rest of the universe cannot “balance” the sun’s gravitational field (ie the earth cannot be at the L1 Lagrange point of the sun and the rest of the universe given the proximity of the earth to the sun) - am happy to provide numbers if you like - b) no extended object (ie earth) can remain permanently at the centre of mass of the universe - the existence of a fixed centre of mass in a Newtonian system of freely moving particles subject to gravitation and elastic interactions alone should not be confused with the claim that a point on an extended object (eg the earth) is at that fixed centre of mass, which it can be instantaneously but not for a finitely long time - and this ignores non gravitational forces such as electromagnetic interactions and non-elastic interactions which in any real system mean that even the centre of mass is not fixed.

First off - I said nothing about the earth rotating.

…and I said nothing about it in my reply - see above.

And unless you happen to know all of the masses (and their distances) in the universe - which you don’t, there is no way to calculate where the center of mass of the universe actually is. Or where it will be in an hour. Or where it was an hour ago. So to say that “It definitely wasn’t / isn’t / won’t be here” is not scientifically possible.

Yes, but what *is *scientifically possible is to demonstrate that the earth cannot permanently occupy that centre for the two reasons I laid out above, viz that in a Newtonian universe it cannot be at rest because it is far away from a gravitationally null field (the sun’s gravitational field at the earth is demonstrably and hugely greater than the rest of the universe’s) and because an object of finite extent and mass in a Newtonian many body system cannot occupy any single location in co-ordinate space indefinitely.

And even if you had all the masses and their distance and directions, it’s an impossible calculation anyway.

You don’t need to calculate where the centre of mass of the universe is, which is I agree is impossible to do also because we can’t see the fiull extent of the universe, to know that the earth cannot be at that point indefinitely.

But suppose you had a super computer that could do it. You’d have to know at what speed gravity (waves?) travel. Do you know?

The concept of a finite speed of gravity is a general relativistic one, so is moot in a discussion about a Newtonian system. But in any case you don’t have to know where the centre of mass of the universe is to determine for the two reasons I laid out that points in the earth can only coincide with it instantaneously. So you can say that it is possible in a Newtonian system that the earth can coincide with the centre of mass of the universe a finite number of times, but you cannot say that the earth is permanently at rest at that centre.

And even then, you are assuming that the center of the universe is the same as the center of mass of the universe - which I suppose is one way to look at it, but there are others I’m sure.

Sure there are, but you started this discussion with a post talking about the centre of mass of the earth-sun system - your logic was built on the assumption of centre of mass of the universe. You can imagine other definitions, such as the geometric centre of a spherically symmetric finite universe, but so long as whatever you define as the centre is at rest in a co-ordinate system, points in the earth cannot coincide with it except instantaneously.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[cassini]

I have been trying to follow this conversation but it is way too technical for me.

I have one question for the geocentrists. If the earth is at the center of the universe, then how do you account for the fact that man has used modern science and its equations to send man to the moon and spacecraft to other planets?

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Absolutely delighted to hear from a ‘reader’ los Angeles who is interested in the debate with an open mind. It gives me a chance to correct something very important in this debate, that it is too techhnical for anyone to follow. Indeed, the very idea that they, the heliocentrists, have convinced the world that it is too technical to judge the truth, is one of the weapons that was used to overcome the faith of the Fathers in their geocentric interpretation of geocentric passages in Scripture. Let me briefly give you the history of the victory of the Copernican heresy over the world.
The cult of the sun as master of ‘planet-earth’ originated in the main from the occult convictions of the post Noachian-flood Egyptians (2,941BC). It arises within the religion of Phallicism, the bond that unites all forms of idolatry into one great system. It stems directly from sun worship, heliolatry or light worship, e.g., Mithraism, condemed throughout the OT as diabolic. It is evident that the learned of the heliolaters viewed the sun as the life giver to all terrestrial creatures, the source of all life and therefore divine. Accordingly, this paganism literally strove to regulate all places, politics and religion in the image of their sun-deity. This cult was spread using alchemy and magic, that is, a gnosis, an esoteric knowledge, a mode of indoctrinating designed to overcome man’s created intellect and senses that clearly show a geocentric world.
Throughout the centuries after Christ, the reality of the senses remained and geocentrism prevailed. Nevertheless, the pagan cult with its ‘illuminated priests’ never died, the seeds of the belief system, this gnosis, having been inserted into the occult writings and practices of men now known as the hermetic, Gnostic and cabbalistic texts. Thus came into existence what could be called a ‘Holy Grail’, protected over the centuries by many ‘organisations’ and secret societies, for they knew there would come a time and generations more favourable to their cause. And so it was that with the re-emergence of the hermetic books in the 15th century in Florence, the heliocentric doctrine began to attract and fascinate new recruits. This magic then spread like wildfire, becoming an integral part of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment thereafter. Copernicus, Kepler and Bruno were deeply influenced by the hermetic cult of heliocentric magic as is witnessed in their writings.
Galileo became a heliocentrist way before his attack on the interpreters of Scripture, even while he pretended to be a geocentrist. He provided evidence that the planets really do orbit the earth just as the geocentrist astronomer Tycho de Brahe had figured out well before Galileo. Galileo presumed the earth also orbited the sun as in the H theory, and given the limits of human reason one can see how easy this presumption was for mankind to accept. But there was one obstacle to Galileo’s historic breakthrough, the Bible and the confirmation of its obvious and literal meaning by the Fathers throughout time. In other words the matter had now divided into a test for truth,
human reasoning v Catholic faith.

HUMAN REASONING
Philosophers through the centuries have know that in the medium of space, unless one knows of a body at rest, then the relative movement of the sun, earth and stars is impossible to know for certain. But more importantly the same applies to the laws of the universe.

‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude…to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ — Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859).

‘Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ ----Bertrand Russell: quoted in D.D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, Simon & Schuster, 1992, p.18.
continued:

 

[cassini]

CATHOLIC FAITH:
‘God, in his infinite power and wisdom could have caused the universe to move using whatever means He chose, and our human minds cannot pretend to a knowledge and certainty about nature that would limit and restrict His omnipotence.’ Pope Urban VIII 1632

Now given that man cannot determine the order of the relationship between the earth, sun and stars, and accordingly the laws and causes pertaining to these movements, How can the heliocentrists tell us geocentrism is impossible because of this or that, or that and this as post after post tries? So implanted is their H belief system they now consider their ‘laws and causes’ as facts that can falsify geocentrism. The non-technical minded ask, ‘how can the universe go around at the speed necessary for it to turn once every 24 hours?’ They put their limited fallible human reasoning up against the Omnipotence of God being able to create the world geocentric.

It was enough for the Church to place the truth in the G order based on faith alone, they knew science would never falsify the truth based on faith in the Fathers and revelation.

So what it boils down to Los is that you can forget the ‘technical’ arguments offered up by the Newtonians and Einsteinians, they operate on a secular plain of truth, placing their faith in unproven theories on effects and causes. This heliocentric science is nothing more that the guts of the theory and theories are no match for papal definitions as to what is the ultimate truth.

Finally, man has measured effects that prevail around the earth so know the speeds and directions necessary to get men on the moon and spaceships on to planets. Whether G or H cause these effects is irrelevant. Geocentrists would use the same maths to do the job.

letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.

‘Sir, …One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.
Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’

If any doubt how they calculate where the sun, moon, planets will be at any given time go to the Encyclopedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869) and you will find the following propaganda:

‘For this purpose it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed
and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

A geocentrist who accepts GR is a contradiction in terms: the centre of the universe has no meaning in GR, because in GR models the universe is unbounded in space-like dimensions, because in GR space-time is curved by the presence of massive objects, because there is no absolute standard for rest and because there are no global frames in GR. I have never come across a geocentrist who accepts (and understands the implications of) GR but I would be intrigued if you could point me to such a person.
Correct - but there *is *an absolute standard of frames which cannot be at rest because they rae accelerating or rotating.

You could claim it, but you’d be wrong. In Newtonian mechanics and in SR, which have global reference frames neither you nor Boston are at rest - should you succeed to maintain this odd orbit (see below) you both occupy a rotating frame of reference which can be shown unambiguously to be rotating by the fact that a test point at rest in the frame experiences centrifugal and coriolis forces (there is other evidence such as stellar aberration which demonstrates that both you and Boston are accelerating by reason of earth’s annual orbit). And in GR, you can’t even define global reference frames. By the way, the scenario is unrealistic since there is no such thing as a free orbit which is stationary over Boston - all geo-stationary orbits are equatorial. Something in such an equatorial geostationary orbit could be considered to be in uniform motion (following a time-like geodesic) in GR.

Yes, but so what? The rest mass of any particle is defined as the mass-energy measured in the frame at which the particle is at rest. The rest mass of an atom of gold as it crosses the event horizon of a black hole is exactly the same as the one in the jewellery shop in Boston, provided you measure it in a reference frame in which the atom is at rest.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I confess I may have gone a bridge too far in suggesting you could claim the earth is at rest AND not rotating on it’s axis (though I’m still not sure, the mysteries involved in the WHY of centrifugal force and absolute rotation are still out there, unanswered). But the suggestion that you can claim that the earth is at rest, in the center of the universe, but rotating on it’s axis, still stands, you CAN take that position. With regard to my orbit over Boston, I’ll agree that that is an impractical orbit, so let’s move our suggested orbit to over the city of Quito in Equador. And I mispoke, obviously the rest-mass of an atom of Gold is the same anywhere in the universe, I meant that because of the factors of velocity and rest-mass involved in calculating the mass of an object, then the mass of the two gold atoms would be the same.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

ronnie bonigli, I don’t mind being your friend. It’s nice you made the gesture. I do wish to note that there has been distortion of truth by certain members as noted in previous discussions. Our kind readers can view my responses as noted on previous pages.

I’m rushed for time but wanted to contribute once again. Thanks to my friends at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration they have “Our Solar System for educators and Educators and Grades K–12+” which I think some people on this topic are in need of reviewing. Here’s the link:
nasa.gov/pdf/58275main_Solar.System.Lithograph.Set.pdf

I hope everyone understands that youth of today are very intelligent.

My puppy Grace is absolutley running rings around me. I have to go.LOL!

LogisticsBranch take that little guy out for a walk, and have a wonderful Sunday while you’re at it

 

[ricmat]

…and I said nothing about it in my reply - see above.

Your previous posts mentioned it quite a few times. I was just clarifying that it was not a claim I made.

Yes, but what *is *scientifically possible is to demonstrate that the earth cannot permanently occupy that centre for the two reasons I laid out above, viz that in a Newtonian universe it cannot be at rest because it is far away from a gravitationally null field (the sun’s gravitational field at the earth is demonstrably and hugely greater than the rest of the universe’s) and because an object of finite extent and mass in a Newtonian many body system cannot occupy any single location in co-ordinate space indefinitely.

Does the Newtonian universe include electrostatic effects? Does the Newtonian universe allow for differences in physical laws at different times and places in the universe?

Also, if the universe is changing (which I think you will agree to), then the “center” will also change.

You don’t need to calculate where the centre of mass of the universe is, which is I agree is impossible to do also because we can’t see the fiull extent of the universe, to know that the earth cannot be at that point indefinitely.

But as I said, if the distribution of mass is changing, then the center will change anyhow. Prove that the earth is not still at the center. You can’t.

Just for the record - in your post in general, and particularly in your portion below, you seem to think that Newtonian physics is the end all to end all. I’m not sure why you are so wedded to that concept.

The concept of a finite speed of gravity is a general relativistic one, so is moot in a discussion about a Newtonian system. But in any case you don’t have to know where the centre of mass of the universe is to determine for the two reasons I laid out that points in the earth can only coincide with it instantaneously. So you can say that it is possible in a Newtonian system that the earth can coincide with the centre of mass of the universe a finite number of times, but you cannot say that the earth is permanently at rest at that centre.

See above. I’m not saying that it is permanently “at rest” in the center. I’m saying that it’s impossible to prove that it is NOT at the center.

Also, if you don’t know the speed of gravity (or is it infinite? Do you know? What do you assume if you attempt to calculate orbits?). It seems to me that a theory which relies on gravity to hold itself together should know what the speed of gravity is. Don’t you agree?

Sure there are, but you started this discussion with a post talking about the centre of mass of the earth-sun system - your logic was built on the assumption of centre of mass of the universe. You can imagine other definitions, such as the geometric centre of a spherically symmetric finite universe, but so long as whatever you define as the centre is at rest in a co-ordinate system, points in the earth cannot coincide with it except instantaneously.

Alec

My only reason for mentioning the earth-sun center of gravity was to point out that the earth does not revolve around the sun, as you claim. You laugh at people for believing that the sun revolves around the earth, and not vice versa. But your vice versa is also not the whole story either.

 

[Los_Angeles]

So what it boils down to Los is that you can forget the ‘technical’ arguments offered up by the Newtonians and Einsteinians, they operate on a secular plain of truth, placing their faith in unproven theories on effects and causes. This heliocentric science is nothing more that the guts of the theory and theories are no match for papal definitions as to what is the ultimate truth.

Finally, man has measured effects that prevail around the earth so know the speeds and directions necessary to get men on the moon and spaceships on to planets. Whether G or H cause these effects is irrelevant. Geocentrists would use the same maths to do the job.

Hmmm… these are interesting ideas, thank you for the introduction.

I have always been taught and believed that the Earth orbits the Sun becuase modern science has made predictions for the orbits and occasionally sends spacecraft to orbit the Earth and to fly to other planets under the assumption that the Earth orbits the Sun, but it is interesting to note that you make the claim that the math would be the same if you believed that the Earth is at the center. It is confusing trying to understand how the math or physics could be the same in this case without any problems.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[grannymh]

For example you single out my comment: “No, the Catholic faith is fundamentally and thus doctrinally rooted in the traditional interpretation of Scripture, and a fixed earth and moving sun is the traditional interpretation. Once you start to contradict the Fathers and the true meaning of Scripture, you contradict the very basis of the Catholic faith. The destruction of the Catholic Faith is what the DEVIL DOES, 24/7”

May I respectfully point out that the Fathers did do a lot of teaching and writing. But, their teaching and writing fell into two different realms. The most important realm was theological which is often referred to as faith and morals. Being intelligent and very curious people, these Fathers also explored their surroundings from earth to sky. Their observations and interesting opinions about the mechanics of the universe fell into the second realm known as the material/physical world of natural science.

Since the first Church Council in Acts, the leaders of the Catholic Church have come together in Councils to define certain matters of faith and morals as dogmas. These dogmas come from the theological realm of faith and morals. Regarding the realm of the material/physical world, God was declared as its Creator. However, the mechanics of this material/physical world were not declared as dogma.

The important thing to note is that even though the mechanics/operating principles of the universe are not part of the theological truths of Catholicism, they are very important as they give glory to God. Thus, Catholicism encouraged the progress of natural science as a means of understanding these wonders. And many rows did occur. However, these rows were not theologically based so consequently a council was not held to declare a dogma.

What did happen, because there was genuine concern about Renaissance science, is that Catholic clergy, including high ranking clergy and a future saint, worked to safeguard the people’s religion. Their actions remained in the material/physical realm.

Blessings,
granny

The Holy Eucharist Is
The Light, Strength, And Life Of Our Souls.

 

[tonyrey]

May I respectfully point out that the Fathers did do a lot of teaching and writing. But, their teaching and writing fell into two different realms. The most important realm was theological which is often referred to as faith and morals. Being intelligent and very curious people, these Fathers also explored their surroundings from earth to sky. Their observations and interesting opinions about the mechanics of the universe fell into the second realm known as the material/physical world of natural science.

Since the first Church Council in Acts, the leaders of the Catholic Church have come together in Councils to define certain matters of faith and morals as dogmas. These dogmas come from the theological realm of faith and morals. Regarding the realm of the material/physical world, God was declared as its Creator. However, the mechanics of this material/physical world were not declared as dogma.

The important thing to note is that even though the mechanics/operating principles of the universe are not part of the theological truths of Catholicism, they are very important as they give glory to God. Thus, Catholicism encouraged the progress of natural science as a means of understanding these wonders. And many rows did occur. However, these rows were not theologically based so consequently a council was not held to declare a dogma.

There were also fierce theological disputes in the Councils - which is to be expected wherever there are human beings. The miracle is that the Church has survived intact for over two thousand years whereas other institutions have disintegrated long ago.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Answering the question in the title: because God’s really big and cares a lot!

 

[tonyrey]

Answering the question in the title: because God’s really big and cares a lot!

In other words our limited minds cannot possibly grasp His power and the glory. To use Rudolfo Otto’s words, we are confronted with the “Mysterium tremendum et fascinans” - which reduces anyone with discernment to silent awe, wonder, gratitude and love…

 

[hecd2]

I confess I may have gone a bridge too far in suggesting you could claim the earth is at rest AND not rotating on it’s axis (though I’m still not sure, the mysteries involved in the WHY of centrifugal force and absolute rotation are still out there, unanswered).

What mysteries? The forces are perfectly explained both qualitatively and quantitatively by the accelerations experienced by points at rest in a rotating frame, since such points necessarily experience accelerations.

But the suggestion that you can claim that the earth is at rest, in the center of the universe, but rotating on it’s axis, still stands, you CAN take that position.

You can take the position but you’d be wrong for two reasons that I’ve laid out over and over again but that both you and ric are failing to engage with. One is a reason which is a consequence of the earth’s actual situation in the universe and the other is a reason in principle. Here they are again:

1. You have several times in this thread correctly pointed to the fact that the hypothesis of the earth being at rest at the centre needs to be dynamically viable - ie if that were the case we need to be able to explain the causes of the motions that we do observe. Now, from a gravitational point of view, if we consider the earth is at rest then there is clear consequence - the sun must rotate around the earth once a day. The only way that can happen without the earth moving is if the the rest of the universe also moves in such a way that it exactly compensates for the sun’s gravitational field at the earth. If the earth is not to move then the sum of the external gravitational fields at the earth must be zero. But the gravitational fields available from the rest of the universe, given the inverse square law of gravitation, are hugely less than the gravitational field of the sun. For example, Alpha Centauri’s field is about 1.5e-11 (just over a hundred billionth), Sgr-A the supermassive black hole at the centre of the galaxy is 1.6e-12 (a trillionth), the entire Milky Way galaxy is 2.3e-7 (less than a millionth), and so on. So the gravitational field from the rest of the universe at the earth is not slightly but hugely less than the gravitational field of the sun, so the scenario where the earth is at rest because the rest of the universe balances the sun’s gravitational pull is not viable.
2. Even if 1 were not true: In a many-body Newtonian or SR universe, no body of finite mass and extent can occupy the centre of mass (or indeed any point at rest in an inertial frame) indefinitely. Although a body can pass through such a point and so be at that point instantaneously, all bodies of finite mass and extent in such a system constantly experience accelerations owing to non-zero gravitational fields, tidal gravity and physical interactions such as collisions - ergo all bodies constantly experience acceleration and therefore cannot be indefinitely at rest in any inertial frame.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Does the Newtonian universe include electrostatic effects? Does the Newtonian universe allow for differences in physical laws at different times and places in the universe?

Good questions - Newton’s laws of motion apply to accelerations caused by all forces no matter what their origin, so in a universe that obeys Newton’s laws of motion, electrostatics could be included. However, from an cosmological point of view, it is usually taken that the dominant force on cosmological evolution is gravity and that is certainly the case with regard to external forces acting on the earth. As for the uniformity of nature, it is taken as an axiom, but an axiom that is constantly tested by observation.

Also, if the universe is changing (which I think you will agree to), then the “center” will also change.

But as I said, if the distribution of mass is changing, then the center will change anyhow. Prove that the earth is not still at the center. You can’t.

This is wrong. The centre of mass in a Newtonian system is at rest in an inertial frame. As for showing that the earth cannot be at rest in an inertial frame, see my last post to ronnie - I’m not going to type it all out again.

Just for the record - in your post in general, and particularly in your portion below, you seem to think that Newtonian physics is the end all to end all. I’m not sure why you are so wedded to that concept.

I’m not. Your original claim was about demonstrating something in Newtonian mechanics (which confirmed in your post to cassini) and I’m responding to that. If you want to make a different point using a different dynamic theory then be my guest, but make sure you state what physical theory you are working with and why your point is valid in that system.

See above. I’m not saying that it is permanently “at rest” in the center. I’m saying that it’s impossible to prove that it is NOT at the center.

See above ditto - it can be instantaneously at the centre but it cannot be at rest at the centre (because it is not at rest in an inertial frame).

Also, if you don’t know the speed of gravity (or is it infinite? Do you know? What do you assume if you attempt to calculate orbits?). It seems to me that a theory which relies on gravity to hold itself together should know what the speed of gravity is. Don’t you agree?

Well, we’re talking Newtonian mechanics where the speed of gravity is taken to be infinite. In General relativity, the concept of a finite speed of gravity is introduced and is predicted to be the speed of light. Empirical data is consistent with this. What influence do you think the speed of gravity has on the question we are thinking about?

My only reason for mentioning the earth-sun center of gravity was to point out that the earth does not revolve around the sun, as you claim.

As I claim? If I say the earth orbits the sun, that does not imply that I think the sun is static and I have been explicit about the fact that I do not several times in this thread alone.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[GaryTaylor]

In other words our limited minds cannot possibly grasp His power and the glory. To use Rudolfo Otto’s words, we are confronted with the “Mysterium tremendum et fascinans” - which reduces anyone with discernment to silent awe, wonder, gratitude and love…

Yup, sounds about right.

Solve Gravity and I’ll be impressed. Once thats achieved we can then come back and discuss how wonderfully intelligent man is on a thread such as this.

While we are facinated with Dark Energy vs Dark Matter, we are still caught on basic stumbling blocks. Which in essence continue to remind us, just how little we really know.

What complicates matters is that by venerating science and rejecting God, we continue down the road of the destruction of mankind. With all our bold arrogance we can’t even descend to the possibility, that maybe, just maybe, we live in Gods Universe. While he continues to throw man crumbs of knowledge to show man that He could very well live and interact in the Universe. Yet that will not happen while we reject God himself and continue to kill Jews and Catholics on earth because why. they are Gods people? Wow, just an amazing senerio unfolds before our eyes.

In 2000 years “if” we or God hasn’t destroyed earth, those who inhabit will be talking about how barbaric we were. And God will still be showing them how little they really know. The “we” as in mankind seriously needs to get over itself. While its certainly warrented to pat yourself on the back for a success. Its not so grand to place oneself above God. Sounds like a “Port” weekend philosophy to me.

 

[grannymh]

There were also fierce theological disputes in the Councils - which is to be expected wherever there are human beings. The miracle is that the Church has survived intact for over two thousand years whereas other institutions have disintegrated long ago.

From what I am reading, which includes the intent of the science posts, the earth’s position is being discussed from two different perspectives, the realm of science and the realm of Catholic theology.

This comment from post 249 is one way of looking at the two realms.

If someone wants to claim that the Earth is the centre of the universe for theological reasons, I have no problem with that, but if someone misuses and misinterprets science in an attempt to show that the geocentric claim as laid out above is scientifically viable then I do have to take issue with it.
Alec

From where I stand, I would say if someone wants to claim that the Earth is the centre of the universe on a scientific basis then I have no problem with back and forth discussions based on scientific evidence and/or scientific theories. I do have a problem when people and websites misuse and misinterpret Catholic theology as scientific evidence for the material/physical position of the earth.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey,

 

[LogisticsBranch]

First off, I’m not a heliocentrist or geocentrist, and I did take notice that Alec and other scientists aren’t either. I also support what NASA Official: Dr. Edward J. Wollack on 12-16-2010 has endorsed, “The Big Bang theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. It explains the observed facts; it has made successful predictions; it has stood the test of time; and there is no alternate theory that the professional scientific community deems valid.” The Big Bang Theory confirms that there is no center of the universe. I also support The National Academy of Sciences statement, “Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

P.S. To Ronnie: My little female puppy Grace is doing great. The Vet told me she is going to be approximately 5 weeks old at the end of this week, at which time she will get her first puppy vacination. Until then I walk her in a small section of my backyard. Maybe I will post a picture of her later. She’s a purebred Springer Spaniel. Her mother and siblings died when she was two weeks old. A friend gave me her on Christmas day as a gift. At first I was hesitant and surprised. Nervous and well…I’ve come to love her dearly. I plan on taking on airplane rides with me. First class!

 

[grannymh]

“,But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.”

May I respectfully point out that this bit of hype is really ignoring the inherent goal of both science and religion and the required provisions to attain that goal. In my humble opinion, there is an important something which sound bites cannot address. Furthermore, human experience is based on human nature which in itself uniquely combines the material and spiritual worlds according to the Catholic worldview.

Maybe human nature is one of the many reasons that the universe is so large.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

May I respectly point out that I have invalidated granny’s message 275 by my message 276! Also, noted is the fact that granny’s use of “human nature” is quite different from the scientifically minded. Bye the way Granny, the catechism isn’t a science book. It is foremost an instruction book for Bishops (religion). From what I understand it is going to be updated this year. Foremost, science doesn’t use God to explain the natural world.

Good to review this as well:

Furthermore, contrary to stereotype, one certainly doesn’t have to be an atheist in order to become a scientist. A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found that more than 48% had a religious affiliation and more than 75% believe that religions convey important truths.2 Some scientists — like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and George Coyne, astronomer and priest — have been outspoken about the satisfaction they find in viewing the world through both a scientific lens and one of personal faith.

This is not to suggest that science and religion never come into conflict. Though the two generally deal with different realms (natural vs. spiritual), disagreements do arise about where the boundaries between these realms lie when dealing with questions at their interface. And sometimes, one side crosses a boundary in its claims. For example, when religious tenets make strong claims about the natural world (e.g., claiming that the world was created in six days, as some literal interpretations of the Bible might require), faith and science can find themselves in conflict.
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/science_religion

 

[grannymh]

Bye the way Granny, the catechism isn’t a science book. It is foremost an instruction book for Bishops (religion). From what I understand it is going to be updated this year. Foremost, science doesn’t use God to explain the natural world.

Thank you for this information.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teachings are found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

But the suggestion that you can claim that the earth is at rest, in the center of the universe, but rotating on it’s axis, still stands, you CAN take that position.

You can take the position but you’d be wrong for two reasons that I’ve laid out over and over again but that both you and ric are failing to engage with. One is a reason which is a consequence of the earth’s actual situation in the universe and the other is a reason in principle. Here they are again:

1. You have several times in this thread correctly pointed to the fact that the hypothesis of the earth being at rest at the centre needs to be dynamically viable - ie if that were the case we need to be able to explain the causes of the motions that we do observe. Now, from a gravitational point of view, if we consider the earth is at rest then there is clear consequence - the sun must rotate around the earth once a day.

Are you kidding me?

I just said “you can claim that the earth is at rest, in the center of the universe, but rotating on it’s axis” and you come back with “the sun must rotate around the earth once a day” You don’t see a problem with this chain of logic?