Mr. Keating threatened by Geocentrism?

[Markjwyatt]

Phil Vaz taunts:

No, the moderators of Catholic Answers who apparently agree with me since they shut down the geocentrism threads (like this one, shortly ) and left open almost all the creation-evolution-Darwinism threads the past 8 months. There are about 50 of those btw, much more interesting than the geocentrism stuff.

Gee, Phil aren’t we smug today. What counts is who wins, not finding the truth. Well let me be the first to congratulate you. If this thread gets shut down, your view wins (on this forum).

I am not prepared to debate you on evolution. I suggest you challenge Robert Sungenis.

On Geocentrism, you are completely unprepared. I am not an expert in cosmology, but have learned enough the last several months to see that your arguments are completely out of line with what even the knowledeable opponents of Geocentrism hold to be true. I suspect you know evolution. I would stick to it.

Mark Wyatt

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Markjwyatt:

Galileo (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Corpenicus (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Einstein {choir of angels singing, with halos and wings fluttering, etc.} have the clear opinion it is untrue? Clearly the catholic church has the wrong priorities .

Yes…too many Catholics, in their mad rush to stay “modern” and stay current with modern enlightened scientific fads, reject the mystical visions and prayers of many saints as unfactual while they rush to believe in Einstein and his “scientific” buddies and university prof descendants.

Clearly the Protestants are backward…Catholics have always believed all that science has to teach ala that we “come from” monkies (I mean the common ancestor of us and the monkies–wink wink)

Although…I have to say…it seems we do revolve around the sun

 

[MrS]

PhilVaz:

Mark << Who are “we”. The self appointed censors to the Holy See? >>

No, the moderators of Catholic Answers who apparently agree with me since they shut down the geocentrism threads (like this one, shortly ) and left open almost all the creation-evolution-Darwinism threads the past 8 months. There are about 50 of those btw, much more interesting than the geocentrism stuff.

Phil P

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_1_24.gif

Hi Phil… they work for this site, not because they agree with you…and I wonder what their “views” are if they have any at all on this subject.

 

[Markjwyatt]

El Catolico says:

There is nothing wrong with “Geocentrism”- as the planet which holds God’s special creation, man, the Earth is worth infinitely more than every other object in the universe combined. A man’s is worth more than all the solar system. So, in this sense, geocentrism is correct- and everything in the universe would seem to “revolve” around the earth. Physically speaking, the Earth and all the planets revolve around the sun, but the Sun was made to be a energy source for the planet which would contain God’s special creation- man.

I agree with the sentiment. However, even todays cosmologists ultimately have to admit that the heliocentric system is only their preference. Einstein’s relativity will not allow them to state absolutely this is so, since they say there is no absolute spot in the universe to look down and see the solar system in.

There truly is no proof that the earth rotates around the sun. Therer are only opinions.Think about the consequences.

Mark Wyatt

 

[trevor]

"

MrS:

Sorry, Mark is right on. There are no hockey sticks cuz there is no pro hockey."

How 'bout this? H E double straws…or H E crutches…or H E double toothpicks.

“The owners think hockey revolves around them, and the players think hockey revolves around them. You know, they both could be right!”

If you follow scientific circles like me, the theory surrounding owners is known as “IOWNYOUCENTRISM”…the theory for players is known as “WHERESMYMONEYCENTRISM”.

My brains tired,
Trevor

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Markjwyatt:

Phil Vaz taunts:

Gee**, Phil aren’t we smug today**. What counts is who wins, not finding the truth. Well let me be the first to congratulate you. If this thread gets shut down, your view wins (on this forum).

I am not prepared to debate you on evolution. I suggest you challenge Robert Sungenis.

On Geocentrism, you are completely unprepared. I am not an expert in cosmology, but have learned enough the last several months to see that your arguments are completely out of line with what even the knowledeable opponents of Geocentrism hold to be true. I suspect you know evolution. I would stick to it.

Mark Wyatt

You’re wrong about Phil…he’s smug everyday…LOL

Mark,

what exactly is the theological probelm with the Earth not being the center of the entire universe?

I see why the evolution of humans from apes cannot be true and how it clearly contradicts the Bible and the teachings of the Church…but how does the exact location of the Earth do the same?

thanks for your time,

Tom

 

[Markjwyatt]

Phil Vaz asks:

Okay, Mark, I guess the following still defines the Church’s official policy about loaning money with interest, too.

I believe the Church CHANGED its position on usury in an official way. The censures of Galileo and Corpenicus have never been retracted in any official way.

Removing of Corpenicus’ book from the index occured after the book was republished with starements indicating that heliocentris was a theory, as required by the Inquisition.

John Paul II’s speech to the PAS also is not an official retraction of the censures.

Mark Wyatt

 

[MrS]

"

MrS:

Sorry, Mark is right on. There are no hockey sticks cuz there is no pro hockey."

How 'bout this? H E double straws…or H E crutches…or H E double toothpicks.

“The owners think hockey revolves around them, and the players think hockey revolves around them. You know, they both could be right!”

If you follow scientific circles like me, the theory surrounding owners is known as “IOWNYOUCENTRISM”…the theory for players is known as “WHERESMYMONEYCENTRISM”.

My brains tired,
Trevor

My solution to the strike… while a player is contracted to a team, he “owns” a portion of the club and resulting income as part of his “salary”. Good team plays well and sells merchandise means more money. Leave the team, and get a new contract with the new team… money and incentive (both to play well, increase income, decrease expenses.) The only way to make a full dollar go into the till is to cut a dollar of expense.

 

[trevor]

MrS:

My solution to the strike… while a player is contracted to a team, he “owns” a portion of the club and resulting income as part of his “salary”. Good team plays well and sells merchandise means more money. Leave the team, and get a new contract with the new team… money and incentive (both to play well, increase income, decrease expenses.) The only way to make a full dollar go into the till is to cut a dollar of expense.

That would be awesome but both sides would have to give something up and we both know that’s not going to happen. That is known as “IMAGONNAGETYOUSUCKACENTRISM”.

To be honest with you, I didn’t even know they still played hockey.

Who’s going to win? Pats, Steelers, Eagles or Falcons? For all I know, my house is the center of the universe. Let’s talk about something really important…like football.

Go Pats,
Trevor

 

[Markjwyatt]

Tom of Asissi asks:

what exactly is the theological probelm with the Earth not being the center of the entire universe?

I see why the evolution of humans from apes cannot be true and how it clearly contradicts the Bible and the teachings of the Church…but how does the exact location of the Earth do the same?

First of all, the Bible has always been interpreted as Geocentric. Secondly, the Fathers all unanimously supported this postion. Thirdly, two popes made definitive statements against the notion that the earth moves. Fourthly, science has not (and this is the hardest to believe, but I am finding it to be true) proven that the earth moves. In fact many experiemnts supporting geostationism have been performed. Many of these led to Relativity as a reaction. Fifthly, no pope, council or other official act of the Church has retracted the previous statements.

See my earlier posts (in the previous Geocentric threads), I provided links to a couple of documents which explain a lot of this. Also, go to Robert Sungenis’ website for more info. (www.catholicintl.com).

God Bless,

Mark Wyatt

 

[Digitonomy]

Markjwyatt:

I noticed that Therese Martin closed Michael Forrest’s thread on Geocentrism. I figured, perhaps it had gotten too big, and by policy it got closed. I started a second thread, Geocentrism Continued.

It is helpful to readers to include links when you mention particular threads.

Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism

Geocentrism Continued

I haven’t grasped what Markjwyatt’s beef is about geocentrism, but I do think that except in extraordinary circumstances, moderators should explain why they are locking a thread. It helps to reinforce what the rules are, and if a line has been crossed, lets everyone know where that line is (or even that it exists).

 

[John_Higgins]

Markjwyatt:

Secondly, the Fathers all unanimously supported this postion.

Sorry, Mark, this isn’t anything to hold onto. Augustine believed in ensoulment. Early Church fathers thought the man’s sperm contained the whole baby in miniturized form. Pick a century, Mark, can you say 21st?

John

 

[trevor]

Markjwyatt:

Tom of Asissi asks:
Secondly, the Fathers all unanimously supported this postion.

Hi Mark,

The early Fathers also thought Big Boom during a thunderstorm was God bowling.

Let’s just cut to the chase and get to the part where the Popes have infallibly declared that the earth is flat.

God bless,
Trevor

 

[Markjwyatt]

I provided the following quote to Phil Vaz, here I correct the citations:

Quote:
Albert Einstein to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913:

If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by the shell experiences an accelerativeforce. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolisforce arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around…

Einstein citing Thirring in his 1914 paper:

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” andthat the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown,this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating fromthe motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotationaleffect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated asbeing at rest.

Sorry for the error.

Mark Wyatt

 

[PhilVaz]

Mark << I am not an expert in cosmology, but have learned enough the last several months to see that your arguments are completely out of line >>

All right, you can go ahead and give me the list of books you have read on this topic, and articles, etc and I’ll try to catch up. If you’ve already provided such a list, just send me a link to your post on that. And you can do this privately. I am hoping for mainstream scientific books by university or other scientific publishers defending geocentrism, etc and articles in Science or Nature defending geocentrism, etc, not web articles written by other geocentrists. Something substantial written by mainstream scientific publishers would be nice.

I have quickly discovered that all the Sungenis material on the age of the earth, and on evolution (the two subjects I have studied pretty carefully the past 2 years or so) is complete bunk scientifically, based on the discredited and demolished ICR or AnswersInGenesis “arguments” and material which represents the creationism of the 1970s and 80s, but I’m willing to study this geocentrism issue as well. Send me a list of books, in private if you like. PhilVaz@aol.com

Sungenis and Age of the Earth
Sungenis and Evolution

These two not done, but almost…

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

Secondly, the Fathers all unanimously supported this postion.

I think these quotes by Augusting are worth using in full:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation”

“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly,if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation”

Sounds like this Church Father believed that rational faculties took precedence over Scriptural accounts of observable scientific data. In fact, he obviously had some pretty harsh words for those who took Scripture in opposition to observable scientific reality.

 

[Markjwyatt]

John Higgins said:

Sorry, Mark, this isn’t anything to hold onto. Augustine believed in ensoulment. Early Church fathers thought the man’s sperm contained the whole baby in miniturized form. Pick a century, Mark, can you say 21st?

First, what I gave was a summary. I have provided links to get more info.

Second, the Fathers weren’t dummies. They had to defend Geocentrism against heliocentrism of the Greeks.

As far as sperm containing “minature babies”, ever heard of DNA?

The issue is that the fathers were unanimous on this. Obviously if they held a view proven wrong, this would need to be considered. The father’s statements are one part of the evidence, not absolutes.

To argue that the debate between Geocentrism and heliocentrism is similar to “dark age” mysticism is just not true.

Mark Wyatt

 

[All4lifetoo]

All4Lifetoo says:

Quote:

Why would the satellite in space operate different that an ICBM in space? An ICBM has a three gryoscope stablized inertia measurement platform that remains fixed in attitude in space while the missle yaws, pitches, and rotates around it. The measurement of that movement around the stable IMU platform gives rise to navigation information.

A gryoscopic stablized satellite would also maintain its attitude in space. An object that has a stable attitude and is following another object in an orbit must necessarily move its tracking instrument to maintain its sight of the target (or, in the case of a rotating aether, not move its tracking instrument). Either way, the rate of change of the tracking instrument can be used to test both theories.

One satellite following another in orbit is dissimilar to one car following another around a race track. No matter what the speed of the cars, the following car always points at or toward the followed car and there is no change in observational azimuth by the following car (as long as the speeds are matched). The following satellite however does not point at the followed satellite, but points to an imaginary reference point established by the gryoscope. There is a change in observational azimuth to the followed satellite by the following satellite and the rate of change is related to the orbital speed of the satellites. If the rate of change is zero then the satellites are stationary in a rotating aether. If the change is 27.32 days for 360 degrees then the Moon is orbiting the Earth in 27.32 days. If the change is 24 hours for 360 degrees then the Moon is orbiting the Earth in 24 hours.

Markjwyatt:

The diffeence here is the following:

The moon is embedded in the aether;

The aether is rotating around the earth;

The satellite is also in the aether; though not quite embedded, because it is not massive. On the other hand, as long as it does not resist the aether, it will more or less follow its rotation;

The moon and satellite are both in a rotating aether reference frame. They are stationary to each other relative to the reference frame. To use an insufficient analogy, they are both cast into a crystalline (read optically clear and rigid) sphere. The sphere is rotating on the earth’s axis. The moon and satellite do not know they are in the crystalline sphere. An observer on the satellite sees a stationary moon and an apparent rotating earth (on its axis). An observer on the moon sees a stationary satellite and an apparent rotating earth (on its axis). An observer on the earth sees a satellite and moon moving together and moving across the heavens from east to west at a fixed angular velocity.

The satellite does not rotate. The moon does not rotate. They both orbit the earth.

Pictures and animation would help (not of the sarcastic type offered by Mr. Vaz).

Mark Wyatt

You have supported the reason for the experiment. In the situation that you describe, the angular rate of change between the satellite and the Moon would be zero or very nearly so. The reason for the zero rate would be that the reference plane (or the imaginary point of reference) of the gryoscopically stablized satellite would be rotating with the aether. If this turns out to be the case then your position has gained empircal support. The experiment needs to be conducted to determine if the angular rate of change of the line of sight to the Moon is zero, 360 degrees in 24 hours, or 360 degrees in 27.32 days.

 

[JimG]

Enough of geocentrism already. Why not discuss something important like why the *four humours * (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) are the basis of all medicine,
being derived from the four basic elements of earth, air, fire, and water, and also related to the four seasons and the four personality types?

 

[MaggieOH]

trevor:

I saw the other thread before it was closed down. It seemed to be alot of todo about nothing to me. I can barely work my can opener at home so I definitely do not have time to worry about Geocentrism.

What is there to get so worked up about? In the end, the only thing that matters is your relationship with God. Your relationship and that’s it.

Use the KISS method and stop worrying about where Pluto is. That’s what we’re talking about right .

Adios,
Trevor