S
steveandersen
Guest
exactly!
At the center, 4,000 miles away from where the observations are taken up here on the surface
and its’ not quite solid either
I believe that
- Status
At the center, 4,000 miles away from where the observations are taken up here on the surface
and its’ not quite solid either
Q
quasimodo
Guest
Let us pray…
Great and Glorious Father,
you are the font of all blesssings,
you are the font of all truth,
you are the font of all mercy.
Hear the cry of your people …
We beg you, have mescy and make this silly arguement go away and NEVER come back.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen
Great and Glorious Father,
you are the font of all blesssings,
you are the font of all truth,
you are the font of all mercy.
Hear the cry of your people …
We beg you, have mescy and make this silly arguement go away and NEVER come back.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen
T
trth_skr
Guest
The ancient Greek observers of Ptolemy’s time and before realized their observations were on the surface of a sphere.They treated the sphere as a solid reference frame. I still do not see an issue.exactly!
At the center, 4,000 miles away from where the observations are taken up here on the surface
and its’ not quite solid either
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
I must agree:
Great and Glorious Father,
Allow your Church to finally take some action almost 400 years later and settle this matter once and for all. Let your people know whether three of your popes and the fathers erred or modern man is in error.
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
K
Kathleen_Kelly
Guest
I’m just curious about what those people who voted “Science has definately disproven geocentrism”. Would anyone who voted that way explain why you voted that way. For most of my life I thought the same way. Thats because that is what I was taught all my life. Then along comes people like Mark and Robert Sungenis and I see that it isn’t as settled at all. At least as far as I understand the argument. If Geocentrism has been disproven, why are there logical arguments against that conclusion. Heliocentrism BTW is called a theory by scientists even.
KK
KK
P
PhilVaz
Guest
MrS << you have added little or nothing to this discussion. Perhaps someone will send you a box of chocolate covered charity for Christmas. >>
See post #29 in this thread and see these articles which I’ve posted a thousand times in a thousand threads.
Make that 13.7 billion times in 4.5 billion threads. I am not a physicist. Neither is Mark (truthseek).
Phil P
See post #29 in this thread and see these articles which I’ve posted a thousand times in a thousand threads.
Make that 13.7 billion times in 4.5 billion threads. I am not a physicist. Neither is Mark (truthseek).Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Kathy << Would anyone who voted that way explain why you voted that way. For most of my life I thought the same way. Thats because that is what I was taught all my life. Then along comes people like Mark and Robert Sungenis and I see that it isn’t as settled at all. >>
Very simple, I trust modern physics and astronomy. HECD (Alec) who is a Ph.D. has shown in previous threads (links above) Mark doesn’t understand the physics. Neither Mark nor Bob Sungenis have any science degrees. They’ve probably taken as much physics as I have in college (two courses). I admit I don’t understand the physics. However, from what I have checked from Sungenis on age of earth and evolution, he is totally unreliable in those areas.
You can read the objective articles in Wikipedia on Geocentric model and Modern Geocentrism. Physicists and astronomers don’t think much of this non-issue in the 21st century. There I’ve contributed something to the thread.
Phil P
Very simple, I trust modern physics and astronomy. HECD (Alec) who is a Ph.D. has shown in previous threads (links above) Mark doesn’t understand the physics. Neither Mark nor Bob Sungenis have any science degrees. They’ve probably taken as much physics as I have in college (two courses). I admit I don’t understand the physics. However, from what I have checked from Sungenis on age of earth and evolution, he is totally unreliable in those areas.
You can read the objective articles in Wikipedia on Geocentric model and Modern Geocentrism. Physicists and astronomers don’t think much of this non-issue in the 21st century. There I’ve contributed something to the thread.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
truthseek << Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett will explain all that and more in their upcoming book, Galileo was Wrong. >>
Yes and as I’ve pointed out before, they’re gonna have to write a hell of a lot of sequels:
Lyell Was Wrong
Darwin Was Wrong
Einstein Was Wrong
Dalrymple Was Wrong
All of modern physics, astronomy, geology, biology is wrong wrong wrong wrong. And that from people who don’t know anything about physics, astronomy, geology or biology. Makes little sense to me even if I don’t understand the physics. Forget Galileo, just write a book “Science is Wrong and Satanic” and be done with the whole mess.
Phil P
Yes and as I’ve pointed out before, they’re gonna have to write a hell of a lot of sequels:
Lyell Was Wrong
Darwin Was Wrong
Einstein Was Wrong
Dalrymple Was Wrong
All of modern physics, astronomy, geology, biology is wrong wrong wrong wrong. And that from people who don’t know anything about physics, astronomy, geology or biology. Makes little sense to me even if I don’t understand the physics. Forget Galileo, just write a book “Science is Wrong and Satanic” and be done with the whole mess.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
BTW, one more thing, not done yet. Mark, not only have I printed out but read your dumb series and you don’t even know how to spell Copernicus’ name. It is mis-spelled about a dozen times in your dumb series:
“As in Ptolemy’s model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations.”
Please an upstanding geocentrist and physics expert like yourself can at least spell the enemy’s name correctly:
Copernicus
You did spell Galileo right as far as I can see. Thank you I’m done. Now please close this darn thread unless HECD (Alec) wants to respond.
Phil P
“As in Ptolemy’s model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations.”
Please an upstanding geocentrist and physics expert like yourself can at least spell the enemy’s name correctly:
Copernicus
You did spell Galileo right as far as I can see. Thank you I’m done. Now please close this darn thread unless HECD (Alec) wants to respond.
Phil P
P
pnewton
Guest
Kathleen Kelly:
I voted that way, but would never word it like that. It is just the closest approximation to what I believe. I know of no credibility ever given to geocentrism and have always considered it a fringe. As far as the case not being closed, I do not view a few people how promote geocentrism to be relevant. The existance of a Flat Earth Society does not shake my belief inf the Earth being a spheroid.
T
trth_skr
Guest
In general, Phil, I will leave the spelling to you. Leave the physics to me.BTW, one more thing, not done yet. Mark, not only have I printed out but read your dumb series and you don’t even know how to spell Copernicus’ name. It is mis-spelled about a dozen times in your dumb series:
“As in Ptolemy’s model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations.”
Please an upstanding geocentrist and physics expert like yourself can at least spell the enemy’s name correctly:
Copernicus
You did spell Galileo right as far as I can see. Thank you I’m done. Now please close this darn thread unless HECD (Alec) wants to respond.
Phil P
Here are the correct spelling of Copernicus in my blog: (omitting quotes from other sources):
“Einstein went one step beyond Copernicus. Copernicus substituted the sun for the earth. Einstein substituted the velocity of light for the earth. What is coming next?”
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Then why don’t you listen to them?
modern scientists and astronomers:
The philosophy of modern science is that the earth is just “another planet”, and is summed up in the isotropic principle, which states that the universe basically looks the same anywhere in the universe. Is there any proof for the isotropic principle? No. Scientists basically say, ‘we see no proof to the contrary. Until we do, we will assume this’. Some call it humility (‘how arrogant to consider the earth as special’). Arrogant to whom? Lucifer? God made it clear the earth and mankind are special.
So, Phil, don’t go to modern science for answers to this question, nor expect to find a “popular book” on it; though you will find frank admission after frank admission that geocentrism cannot be disproven (if you take the time to look for them). Modern science refuses to even consider geocentrism. What did Edwin Hubble say when he saw redshifts extending radially from earth (implying earth at the center)?
Robert Sungenis and Dr. Bennet’s book Galileo was Wrong will have quote after quote as scientists discovered evidence leading to the conclusion that earth is at the center (up to current time), but rejected out of hand based on their “philosophy”. In all cases, cosmology would become more complicated and contorted in order to dispel observation after observation leading to the same conclusion- earth is at the center. The isotropic principle and related philosophies drive science, rather than the expected ‘science searches for the truth’.
Scientists and modern man do not want direct evidence of a God to whom they must answer.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogapot.com
Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
S
steveandersen
Guest
Kathleen Kelly:
A lot of us know this intuitively. If you stand out in a field it looks and feels just like you’re standing still and the sun is moving above you. So the modern proponents of geocentrism state that since any point of reference will do, then saying the earth is stationary is OK.
The problems with this are:
(a) It is non-falsefiable and thus not a valid theory
(b) Einstein states that no one point of reference is any better than any other so while you’re perfectly free to pick the earth, you’re also perfectly free not to. The geocentrists sort of want to have it both ways
( c) they use the entire planet as their reference point which is fine for objects that are very far away but it is incompatible with observations on a smaller scale. The earth isn’t a point; it is 8,000 miles across so their model fails when used for close objects like the moon, airplanes, & satellites. So they really need to modify their model to hold the center of the earth or some other particular point stationary rather than the whole planet…then it would make perfect sense…. relatively
(d) There is a principle in science called parsimony (AKA Ockam’s Razor) which states that given two models that fit the existing data equally well we should chose the least complex one. Classical physicist abandoned geocentrism because, while you can describe the motion of the planets in terms of a stationary earth, the paths they would have to take are complex and convoluted with circles within circles and all manner of twists and turns. While this is fine according the relativity, there is no good model in classical physics to explain it, and it is just plain messy.
(e) There are some other reasons which since I’m not a physicist I can’t begin to approach but basically many modern geocentrists base their reasoning on a theological argument. This is fine for theologians but since physics is supposed to be the same whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or none of the above, scientist really can’t use that as part of their model.
And while rocket scientists use a geocentric model since the math is far easier if your space craft starts at velocity =0, I do not think that it is the same model as Sungenis uses
Kathleen Kelly:
One of the consequences of the Theory of Relativity is that no reference point is any better than any other. So that if you tripped you could just as easily say, “you fell to the floor” as “the ground rushed up to meet you”
A lot of us know this intuitively. If you stand out in a field it looks and feels just like you’re standing still and the sun is moving above you. So the modern proponents of geocentrism state that since any point of reference will do, then saying the earth is stationary is OK.
The problems with this are:
(a) It is non-falsefiable and thus not a valid theory
(b) Einstein states that no one point of reference is any better than any other so while you’re perfectly free to pick the earth, you’re also perfectly free not to. The geocentrists sort of want to have it both ways
( c) they use the entire planet as their reference point which is fine for objects that are very far away but it is incompatible with observations on a smaller scale. The earth isn’t a point; it is 8,000 miles across so their model fails when used for close objects like the moon, airplanes, & satellites. So they really need to modify their model to hold the center of the earth or some other particular point stationary rather than the whole planet…then it would make perfect sense…. relatively
(d) There is a principle in science called parsimony (AKA Ockam’s Razor) which states that given two models that fit the existing data equally well we should chose the least complex one. Classical physicist abandoned geocentrism because, while you can describe the motion of the planets in terms of a stationary earth, the paths they would have to take are complex and convoluted with circles within circles and all manner of twists and turns. While this is fine according the relativity, there is no good model in classical physics to explain it, and it is just plain messy.
(e) There are some other reasons which since I’m not a physicist I can’t begin to approach but basically many modern geocentrists base their reasoning on a theological argument. This is fine for theologians but since physics is supposed to be the same whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or none of the above, scientist really can’t use that as part of their model.
And while rocket scientists use a geocentric model since the math is far easier if your space craft starts at velocity =0, I do not think that it is the same model as Sungenis uses
Kathleen Kelly:
“model” would be a more correct term than theory. Remember “theory” isn’t a bad word. Germ theory is a theory but you still want your dentist to wash his hands after using the toilet don’t you?
T
trth_skr
Guest
True, but we can use simple logic to say that the former is the more “true” one. In the universe there is no absolute reference frame to compare to, so we cannot rule out geocentrism using this type of logic.
Just because you claim it is not falsifiable, does not mean it is not true. The idea of falsifiability is philosophical, not scientific.The fact that a theory may not be falsifiable, does not mean it is not true. It only means that those who subscribe to Popper’s philosophical stance will not consider it scientific. It can also mean it requires better definition.
quote=steveandersen Einstein states that no one point of reference is any better than any other so while you’re perfectly free to pick the earth, you’re also perfectly free not to. The geocentrists sort of want to have it both ways
[/quote]
What the “geocentrists want” is irrelevant to the facts. The fact is general relativity supplies the forces which would expalin a geocentric universe were it so.
quote=steveandersen they use the entire planet as their reference point which is fine for objects that are very far away but it is incompatible with observations on a smaller scale. The earth isn’t a point; it is 8,000 miles across so their model fails when used for close objects like the moon, airplanes, & satellites. So they really need to modify their model to hold the center of the earth or some other particular point stationary rather than the whole planet…then it would make perfect sense…. relatively
[/quote]
You do not know that. True we treat earth as a solid body. Relative to the size of the universe this is infintesimal. For “close” observations, we do not need relativity, and can just map observations realtive to the known diameter of the earth. You are mixing up concepts.
It is possible to model the entire universe in relativity as it is (composed of solid bodies, fluids,etc.) and it should work out. Some obj cts are close, some far. Forces between close objects would have to account for overlap of mass, but it is possible.
This is a non-issue you keep bringing up.
quote=steveandersen There is a principle in science called parsimony (AKA Ockam’s Razor) which states that given two models that fit the existing data equally well we should chose the least complex one. Classical physicist abandoned geocentrism because, while you can describe the motion of the planets in terms of a stationary earth, the paths they would have to take are complex and convoluted with circles within circles and all manner of twists and turns. While this is fine according the relativity, there is no good model in classical physics to explain it, and it is just plain messy.
[/quote]
First of all you are talking about philosophy, not science. Not everyone agrees that the simpler system is always the true one. This is a philosophical principle of questionable validity.
Next, the geocentric system is not necassarily more comlex than the current acentric one.You are thinkng about cartoon concepts of the solar system isolated from the rest of the universe. When you account for the entire universe, a rotating system could easily be simpler than a random ballistic eent (i.e., the big bang).
Also, if I ask what is the simplest way to set up the universe to satisfy God’s desire to put earth at the center, it is pretty clear.
quote=steveandersen There are some other reasons which since I’m not a physicist I can’t begin to approach but basically many modern geocentrists base their reasoning on a theological argument. This is fine for theologians but since physics is supposed to be the same whether you are Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or none of the above, scientist really can’t use that as part of their model.
[/quote]
Physics should conform to the will of the Prime Physicist- God. There is only one true God, the God of the Catholic Church.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
K
Kathleen_Kelly
Guest
PhilVaz: “You did spell Galileo right as far as I can see. Thank you I’m done. Now please close this darn thread unless HECD (Alec) wants to respond”
PhilVaz, when addressing me, it is Kathleen, not Kathy. My nickname is Katie, which is usually reserved for friends and family.
Now for the reason I’m writing this reply. You admit that you are not a physicist, I’m aware that Sungenis is not either. So as far as I’m concerned, you are starting from equal playing fields. However, I have been paying attention to this issue for a while and near as I can tell, Sungenis has studied the issue more than you. You state that heliocentrism is a fact. There is no way you can know this and for me the jury is out. But I must say, the person who wants to end the discussion first is suspect. I have been having a private discussion with an anti-Catholic a debate really. We are doing it via snail mail. This person’s charges against the Church have been answered. Once one charge is answered another charge is made, that is answered. Then another so I answered it and said please do not make any more charges against the Church until you deal with my defense. If I’m wrong please show me. This last note was sent many moons ago, I have yet to hear from this person. This person just wants me to go away because he cannot deal with truth. I’m suspicious that you want this to go away. If you think it so unimportant, why have you bothered to read up on the subject as much as you have?
KK
PhilVaz, when addressing me, it is Kathleen, not Kathy. My nickname is Katie, which is usually reserved for friends and family.
Now for the reason I’m writing this reply. You admit that you are not a physicist, I’m aware that Sungenis is not either. So as far as I’m concerned, you are starting from equal playing fields. However, I have been paying attention to this issue for a while and near as I can tell, Sungenis has studied the issue more than you. You state that heliocentrism is a fact. There is no way you can know this and for me the jury is out. But I must say, the person who wants to end the discussion first is suspect. I have been having a private discussion with an anti-Catholic a debate really. We are doing it via snail mail. This person’s charges against the Church have been answered. Once one charge is answered another charge is made, that is answered. Then another so I answered it and said please do not make any more charges against the Church until you deal with my defense. If I’m wrong please show me. This last note was sent many moons ago, I have yet to hear from this person. This person just wants me to go away because he cannot deal with truth. I’m suspicious that you want this to go away. If you think it so unimportant, why have you bothered to read up on the subject as much as you have?
KK
H
hecd2
Guest
Kathleen Kelly:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=810907#post810907
Anyway here I am goaded into it by Phil.
You want argument by authority? You have it: I am a professional PhD physicist and I can tell you that the reason that Sungenis and his acolyte Mark make the claims they do is because they simply do not have a science education. I have laid out these arguments at least 3.14157 times before on this board.
Mark’s catalogue of fundamental scientific error is extensive and a matter of record on the board. See these threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=383537#post383537
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=691473#post691473
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=700826#post700826
Well, that’s ‘three’ which is an acceptable approximation to 3.14157, at least for a physicist.
Let me summarise in 3.14157 sentences:
It doesn’t require many words or complex logic to demonstrate why Sungenis’s geocentric position is scientific blancmange. In a Newtonian model that incorporates an absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe for compelling reasons, many of which have been rehearsed in this and other similar threads (and I can lay them out again if you want). In a model based on Einsteinian General Relativity and the Machian principle that has no absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe because such a concept has no meaning.
There is no tenable cosmological model in which geocentrism can be true.
Neither Robert nor any of his acolytes have ever addressed this simple rebuttal of their position. The fact is that Robert’s geocentric idea is scientific claptrap, supported by nothing more than a hodgepodge of misunderstood and misapplied scientific ideas and his personal idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
There are many more arguments but you don’t want to hear about inertial frames of reference, the geodesic, the Machian principle, the cosmic microwave background, the peculiar motion of the Milky Way, Planck particles, space-time curvature, the Sachs-Wolfe effect, the Friedmann-Roberston-Walker metric and Minkowski space. Or do you?
By the way Robert does what no serious scientist would ever do - reject and argue against a hypothesis (General Relativity in this case) and then use the same rejected hypothesis as a central plank in one’s own argument. That’s illogical and perverse.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
Oh dear oh dear, I swore I’d never get involved with the crankery of Sungenis and geocentrism again, and I swore I’d never address Mark again after he called my country a wasteland run by idiots and imbeciles, and our administration a ‘filthy, murderous, liberal pile of garbage’ in the aftermath of the London terrorist bombings. While others sympathised and Britain mourned, Mark insulted… This is the person you are dealing with:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=810907#post810907
Anyway here I am goaded into it by Phil.
You want argument by authority? You have it: I am a professional PhD physicist and I can tell you that the reason that Sungenis and his acolyte Mark make the claims they do is because they simply do not have a science education. I have laid out these arguments at least 3.14157 times before on this board.
Mark’s catalogue of fundamental scientific error is extensive and a matter of record on the board. See these threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=383537#post383537
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=691473#post691473
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=700826#post700826
Well, that’s ‘three’ which is an acceptable approximation to 3.14157, at least for a physicist.
Let me summarise in 3.14157 sentences:
It doesn’t require many words or complex logic to demonstrate why Sungenis’s geocentric position is scientific blancmange. In a Newtonian model that incorporates an absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe for compelling reasons, many of which have been rehearsed in this and other similar threads (and I can lay them out again if you want). In a model based on Einsteinian General Relativity and the Machian principle that has no absolute space, the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe because such a concept has no meaning.
There is no tenable cosmological model in which geocentrism can be true.
Neither Robert nor any of his acolytes have ever addressed this simple rebuttal of their position. The fact is that Robert’s geocentric idea is scientific claptrap, supported by nothing more than a hodgepodge of misunderstood and misapplied scientific ideas and his personal idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.
There are many more arguments but you don’t want to hear about inertial frames of reference, the geodesic, the Machian principle, the cosmic microwave background, the peculiar motion of the Milky Way, Planck particles, space-time curvature, the Sachs-Wolfe effect, the Friedmann-Roberston-Walker metric and Minkowski space. Or do you?
By the way Robert does what no serious scientist would ever do - reject and argue against a hypothesis (General Relativity in this case) and then use the same rejected hypothesis as a central plank in one’s own argument. That’s illogical and perverse.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Kathleen << This person just wants me to go away because he cannot deal with truth. I’m suspicious that you want this to go away. >>
Excuse me, Kathleen but
Who the blazes accepts geocentrism today? As I’ve pointed out in another thread, this is as relevant a “debate” in science as the “four biles” of ancient medicine or the “turning everything into gold” idea of Alchemy. Yes I want it to go away because it is boring and physics is a tough subject. You make me so mad I want to go out and get a couple of quick Ph.D.'s in physics writing my doctoral dissertation on the history of geocentrism.
As I’ve mentioned, thousands of times in thousands of threads, I have examined the Sungenis material on the age of the earth and evolution, and I have shown he is totally unreliable in those areas (geology and biology and Church teaching on those). Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
So I am allowed to believe he doesn’t understand the physics either. BTW, I deal in Email with folks like you mention all the time. I am an “apologist” also in my spare time.
Phil P
Excuse me, Kathleen but
Who the blazes accepts geocentrism today? As I’ve pointed out in another thread, this is as relevant a “debate” in science as the “four biles” of ancient medicine or the “turning everything into gold” idea of Alchemy. Yes I want it to go away because it is boring and physics is a tough subject. You make me so mad I want to go out and get a couple of quick Ph.D.'s in physics writing my doctoral dissertation on the history of geocentrism.
As I’ve mentioned, thousands of times in thousands of threads, I have examined the Sungenis material on the age of the earth and evolution, and I have shown he is totally unreliable in those areas (geology and biology and Church teaching on those). Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
So I am allowed to believe he doesn’t understand the physics either. BTW, I deal in Email with folks like you mention all the time. I am an “apologist” also in my spare time.
Phil P
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Thank you Alec. To my rescue again.
I can handle age of earth and evolution here and there (the anti-geology and anti-biology threads), you can take care of the dumb anti-physics threads when they crop up every few months.
We also need to assign someone to the anti-medicine and anti-gravity threads as well. I advise people to read the Catechism paragraphs 159, 283-284 again.
Phil P
I can handle age of earth and evolution here and there (the anti-geology and anti-biology threads), you can take care of the dumb anti-physics threads when they crop up every few months.
We also need to assign someone to the anti-medicine and anti-gravity threads as well. I advise people to read the Catechism paragraphs 159, 283-284 again.Phil P
M
miguel
Guest
Why can’t popes be wrong about science?
T
trth_skr
Guest
Obviously you did not read this in my blog: London Bombings
This was writtten before the thread you are referring to. Clearly this has nothing to do with geocentrism, but it is an easy way to smear me.
In any case, most countries know that London has harbored terrorists,and allowed them to work freely in collecting money, planning terrorist activities, etc. Some countries have even complained to the UN about it. I was attacking the apparatus within London that allows terrorists to be there WITHOUT regard to the effect on the people in London who ended up getting killed. If you read it with that in mind, you may find it less objectionable.
Perhaps I was over zealous in my presentation of this, but unfortunately it is still true.
Dr. Robert Bennet is a PhD as is Gerardus Buow.
I agree that I made a couple of errors regarding specfic issues with the CMB and redshift. I also mis-stated a couple of things. Still you are taking it for granted that you were right in all your criticisms, and I still disagree on some points. For instance, you still have not answered this: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=702458&postcount=105. The other issue is I think we were talking about two different anisotropies of the CMB at one point (quadrapole vs. 10^-5).
General realtivity does supply the forces that would be necassary to support a geocentric model, regardless of your philosophy of how relativity should be used. You know and I know that if the news ever reported a story that somehow it was confirmed that the earth was stationary, every relativist and his graduate advisor would be on CNN, Fox, ABC,… talking about general realtivity and distant rotating cosmic masses.
Which rebuttal are you referring to? The one where you claim with no support that “There is no tenable cosmological model in which geocentrism can be true.”. Wow, that shakes my faith in geocentrism.
Many of those actually support the possibility of geocentrism. Stop trying to intimidate by dropping heavy concepts.
I think you will find that relativity is less of a central platform in *Galileo was Wrong *Than it is in my blog. I was presenting the minimalist case- science cannot reject geocentrism (or at least demonstrate it is false), the Church has declared it so. Robert will go into much more detail on observations, etc.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status