So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

So you don’t find anything wrong with the derivation of Kepler’s first law of motion as given in:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler’s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Kepler.27s_first_law_2

If this is true, then, briefly, why would it not contradict what you are claiming?

Maybe it does not. If we knew the exact mass distribution of the universe, and applied Newtons Law to all the mass in the universe with its angular momentum, etc., maybe it would support a geocentric universe. Again, you cannot just apply it to the sun and earth (or even just the solar system) as though it were in isolation from the rest of the universe.

Read my blog. Especially Parts I and II if you are interested in the science.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Sacramentalist:

Aren’t you all going off topic? The purpose of this thread was not to disucss the validity of geocentrism, but whether this is an official Church teaching; or ever had the status of such a teaching. And if so, what implications this may have on the future changing of Church teachings.

Sacramentalist:

What are you doing on these forums? Shouldn’t you be off in a tralier park somewhere smooching your snaggle-toothed mom and/or sister?.

Aren’t you all going off topic?

We have been discussing that. But it comes down to whether the teaching is based in truth. I would presume that has some basis in its validity?

Or maybe more insults are needed now as that appears to be your specialty.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[stanley123]

trth_skr:

Maybe it does not. If we knew the exact mass distribution of the universe, and applied Newtons Law to all the mass in the universe with its angular momentum, etc., maybe it would support a geocentric universe. Again, you cannot just apply it to the sun and earth (or even just the solar system) as though it were in isolation from the rest of the universe.

I think that you might be forgetting here that the gravitational force is an extremely weak force. For example, if you hold a book up in the air and drop it, the amount of matter causing the gravitational pull on the book is the whole earth. Because the force due to gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of mass of the two bodies, the gravitational pull of the mass distribution of the universe on the planetary system is negligible in comparison with the gravitational force exerted by the sun. In any case, where is your mathematical demonstration, line by line, that the sun is revolving about the earth? I have given you a mathematical demonstration of Kepler’s first law of motion, which contradicts that. True we are assuming in the deomnstration that the gravitation force exerted by the other planets and the other masses in the universe is negligilbe in comparison with that exerted by the sun. But this is a reasonable assumption given that the gravitational force is so weak.

 

[BJRumph]

Sorry TS, but there are too many "maybe"s in your responses to legitimate questions to obvious issues in your responses regarding your position. Through the link provided on your blog to another discussion regarding this issue, you even go so far as to admit that the Earth would “appear” to rotate around the sun, as seen from Alpha Centuri. Your dodge of the issue of stars billions of lightyears away rotating around the Earth, completely hidden from any observation of known effects that such speed require phisically, in a mere 24 hours, while the planets you do admit revolve around the sun cannot sustain their orbits in so little a time around their primaries.

As is coming to the point here, and was made a point there (the other forum) by the Templar that bothered responding to it, you have moved this from a point of actual inquiry into Truth, and devolved it into mere legalism of a sort not readily appreciated in the NT Gospels.

The Church, regardless of the rhetoric used in its development of argument regarding the Galileo issue, has not made it a Die fide matter of theological Truth, as you appear to make it to be. It is not much speculation to assess that the Fathers you wish to support your determination would also throw out as heretical the current teaching of the Church regarding the various, non Mosaic, sources of the Pentatuch, despite the Tradition asserting the sole authorship being attributed to Moses himself.

Resorting to mere legalism is not a defense of Truth, for if it were indeed a truth, it would be verifiable, and have merit outside of the simple legalisms used to support it.

You argument about the plausibility of geocentricism itself is off topic from the originating question, which was regarding a spiritual principle well hidden now beneath all this tangental (if not wholly ridiculous) argument that Geocentrism is actually (as in absolutely) astronomically true.

Note, for a final issue of your biblical verses that “necessistate” geocentrism, in neither case did God assert that He stopped the sun’s rotation; in hezekia’s case, he simply shortened his shadow (without reference to anyone/things’s shadows also being shortened in the case of the Sun being reveresed in its course, as you apparently assume), which could be done directly without recourse to manipulating the Sun; and it was Joshua, under a poetic frame, who says it was God stalling the sun, a plausible “explanation” for an observer who also assumed a geocentric frame of reference as to being a true measure of celestial mechanics. With all your maybes and speculations, surely you cannot deny a reasonable one of my own: Should Joshua have experienced the same event, with a modern understanding of astronomy, he would likely have used (should he be trying to explaining concretely for his audience the miracle being performed as your assume) different terminology to describe it. Maybe so; maybe not. You cannot provide a better explaination for the totality of observation, then and now. In both cases, the lack of additional witness of what necessarily would be a globally observable event suggests a far stronger evidence to a local, non-solar, event, despite long held assumptions and literalizing poetic license.

 

[trth_skr]

BJRumph:

Sorry TS, but there are too many "maybe"s in your responses to legitimate questions to obvious issues in your responses regarding your position.

There again is a presumption that there are no “maybe’s” in the current scientific viewpoint. At least I am honest about it. I have provided a reasoanble case on my blog for a geocentric universe. You are not adressing the issues I present there, so I can only presume you have not read it or understood it.

BJRumph:

Through the link provided on your blog to another discussion regarding this issue, you even go so far as to admit that the Earth would “appear” to rotate around the sun, as seen from Alpha Centuri.

I said if we fixed a coordinate system on Alpha-Centuri. In that case, the entire universe would appear to be rotating around Alpha Centuri. From that perspective the earth and sun would appear co-rotating. An observer would likely interpret it as the earth and planets rotating the sun, at least from a Newtonian perspective.

BJRumph:

Your dodge of the issue of stars billions of lightyears away rotating around the Earth, completely hidden from any observation of known effects that such speed require phisically, in a mere 24 hours, while the planets you do admit revolve around the sun cannot sustain their orbits in so little a time around their primaries.

I dodge nothing, read Part III in my blog.

BJRumph:

…The Church, regardless of the rhetoric used in its development of argument regarding the Galileo issue, has not made it a Die fide matter of theological Truth, as you appear to make it to be. It is not much speculation to assess that the Fathers you wish to support your determination would also throw out as heretical the current teaching of the Church regarding the various, non Mosaic, sources of the Pentatuch, despite the Tradition asserting the sole authorship being attributed to Moses himself.

Summarize those teachings, and show where the Church made it de fide.

BJRumph:

Resorting to mere legalism is not a defense of Truth, for if it were indeed a truth, it would be verifiable, and have merit outside of the simple legalisms used to support it.

If you read my blog I do much more than resort to mere legalisms.

BJRumph:

You argument about the plausibility of geocentricism itself is off topic from the originating question, which was regarding a spiritual principle well hidden now beneath all this tangental (if not wholly ridiculous) argument that Geocentrism is actually (as in absolutely) astronomically true.

So, basically you are saying that the whether a proclamation made by the Church is true or false has no bearing on its truthfulness? I’ll have to think about that for a while.

This is the crux of the issue. You are saying, basically, that we “know” geocentrism is false, so how do we explain what happened 300+ years ago? Well a reasonable alternate explanation is that geocentrism is true. I’m sorry, not only modernist twisting of reality is considered within Catholicism.

BJRumph:

Note, for a final issue of your biblical verses that “necessistate” geocentrism, in neither case did God assert that He stopped the sun’s rotation; in hezekia’s case, he simply shortened his shadow (without reference to anyone/things’s shadows also being shortened …of observation, then and now. In both cases, the lack of additional witness of what necessarily would be a globally observable event suggests a far stronger evidence to a local, non-solar, event, despite long held assumptions and literalizing poetic license.

Again, it is your personal opinion vs. the fathera, as ratified by three popes,and supported by many subsequent ones.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

I think that you might be forgetting here that the gravitational force is an extremely weak force. For example, if you hold a book up in the air and drop it, the amount of matter causing the gravitational pull on the book is the whole earth. Because the force due to gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the center of mass of the two bodies, the gravitational pull of the mass distribution of the universe on the planetary system is negligible in comparison with the gravitational force exerted by the sun. In any case, where is your mathematical demonstration, line by line, that the sun is revolving about the earth? I have given you a mathematical demonstration of Kepler’s first law of motion, which contradicts that. True we are assuming in the deomnstration that the gravitation force exerted by the other planets and the other masses in the universe is negligilbe in comparison with that exerted by the sun. But this is a reasonable assumption given that the gravitational force is so weak.

First of all you are posing the issue from a Newtonian perspective. Within that perspective there is no explanation of what gravity is. Form earth it appears to be an attraction between mass. On the other hand, graviton type theories of gravity treat it as a pressure (corpuscular). They end up with the same mathematics as Newtonian.

You are positing that the stars do not matter. If they do not, what causes inertia? Mach’s principle tells us that inertia is caused by resistance to movement by the stars. If the stars are powerful enough to cause inertia, why wouldn’t they factor in in calculating the gravitational balance of the universe? Remeber, though the force from each star may be small, there are billions out there. Things do sum up.

If a corpuscular gravity is the reality, and the corpuscles are generated at the spherical outer edge of space and move radailly inwards (approximately), then gravity would tend to be an earthward force.

When talking about geocentrism you need to consider the possibility of rotational stability mechanisms (i.e., gyroscopic stabilization). Also, if the universe contains an aether as quantam mechanicists say (they don’t call it aether), then really it would be the aether field that determines the universal properties. Note that QM and relativity are incompatible because of this dichotomy (GR posits vacuum space, QM posits corpuscular space with density as high as 10^94 g/cc).

If the aether is stationary, than a Newtonian-like universe is possible. If it is rotating, then a geocentric-like universe is possible.

Please read Parts I and II of my blog. It is hard to get to detailed in a small space like this (or even on my blog, but there is more freedom and space there).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpsot.com

 

[alfredo123]

trth_skr:

First of all you are posing the issue from a Newtonian perspective. Within that perspective there is no explanation of what gravity is. Form earth it appears to be an attraction between mass. On the other hand, graviton type theories of gravity treat it as a pressure (corpuscular). They end up with the same mathematics as Newtonian.

You are positing that the stars do not matter. If they do not, what causes inertia? Mach’s principle tells us that inertia is caused by resistance to movement by the stars. If the stars are powerful enough to cause inertia, why wouldn’t they factor in in calculating the gravitational balance of the universe? Remeber, though the force from each star may be small, there are billions out there. Things do sum up.

If a corpuscular gravity is the reality, and the corpuscles are generated at the spherical outer edge of space and move radailly inwards (approximately), then gravity would tend to be an earthward force.

When talking about geocentrism you need to consider the possibility of rotational stability mechanisms (i.e., gyroscopic stabilization). Also, if the universe contains an aether as quantam mechanicists say (they don’t call it aether), then really it would be the aether field that determines the universal properties. Note that QM and relativity are incompatible because of this dichotomy (GR posits vacuum space, QM posits corpuscular space with density as high as 10^94 g/cc).

If the aether is stationary, than a Newtonian-like universe is possible. If it is rotating, then a geocentric-like universe is possible.

Please read Parts I and II of my blog. It is hard to get to detailed in a small space like this (or even on my blog, but there is more freedom and space there).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpsot.com

I am not clear as to what theory of gravity you subscribe to: Newtonian gravity, general relativity, corpuscular gravity, quantum mechanics, string theory, loop gravity theory, or whatever. Which theory are you positing and what are you deriving from it. It looks like you are just saying that there are many theories of gravity out there and so we cannot conclude that Kepler’s first law is correct. Actually, in a sense, you are correct, that the stars and planets do exert an influence on the planetary orbits which is not derived in the demonstration that I gave you. But the result is not what you say it is. The result of the remaining forces is that the planetary orbits are not planar elliptical as would be expected in the case of no perturbing external forces, but that they are slightly off, resulting in a slightly perturbed 3D type of ellipse which is not predicted by the demonstration that i referred to.
Still, i would be interested to know what theory of gravity it is that you subscribe to, and why you reject the Newtonian demonstration that the planetary orbits are elliptical with the sun as one focus.

 

[stanley123]

trth_skr:

First of all you are posing the issue from a Newtonian perspective.

That is the simplest perspective. What is your perspective? You have thrown out a lot of theories, but you are not saying which theory of gravity you are subscribing to. Actually, I think that the Newtonian theory is good enough to use to illustrate the point, as in the everyday world of planetary motion, don’t the other theories reduce pretty closely to the Newtonian perspective? It is only in the world of the very small or in the world of singularities and time warps that the Newtonian perspective breaks down, which is not the case when we are discussing the planetary motions.
It is true that the demonstration that I referred to did not take into account the other masses of the universe, including the galaxies, other stars and the nearby planets. But I think that even if you take these other masses into consideration, that it would only result in a small perturbation from the 2D planetary elliptical orbit, so that what you would get (and what is actually observed) is a slightly perturbed 3d elliptical orbit, instead of a flat 2d elliptical orbit with the sun as a focus.
Still, rather than say that there are varying sorts of theories of gravity(which there are), I would appreciate it if you would describe what theory you are subscribing to and how line by line this implies the motion of the sun about the earth. And what is the equation of this motion of the sun about the earth and how is it derived from your postulates. I gave you a hard and fast demonstration from Newtonian first principles, that Kepler’s first law must be true. I want to see what you have to offer with reference to geocentrism and how you would describe mathematically these orbits, as they have been described already in the references that I gave mathematically and hard and fast by Kepler’s laws of motion derivied strictly and logically from Newton’s first principles.

 

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

That is the simplest perspective. What is your perspective? You have thrown out a lot of theories, but you are not saying which theory of gravity you are subscribing to. Actually, I think that the Newtonian theory is good enough to use to illustrate the point, as in the everyday world of planetary motion, don’t the other theories reduce pretty closely to the Newtonian perspective?

No, they do not. Especially in a rotating universe model. That is why I used the general relativity perspective as the simplest model in my blog.

stanley123:

Your claims that science left open the possibility that the earth stands still have been shown to be false, It is only in the world of the very small or in the world of singularities and time warps that the Newtonian perspective breaks down, which is not the case when we are discussing the planetary motions.

The Newtonian perspective is formulated specifically on a stationary absolute space, so precludes a geocentric universe from the get-go. Special relativity basically does too, as general relativity, but with general relativity it is possible to handle a rotating universe.

An aether universe may possibly be formulated Newtonian-like, but first we would have to understand the interaction between aether/baryonic-matter.

stanley123:

It is true that the demonstration that I referred to did not take into account the other masses of the universe, including the galaxies, other stars and the nearby planets. But I think that even if you take these other masses into consideration, that it would only result in a small perturbation from the 2D planetary elliptical orbit, so that what you would get (and what is actually observed) is a slightly perturbed 3d elliptical orbit, instead of a flat 2d elliptical orbit with the sun as a focus.

That is not true if the entire universe is rotating, and rotationally stabilized with earth at the center.

stanley123:

Still, rather than say that there are varying sorts of theories of gravity(which there are), I would appreciate it if you would describe what theory you are subscribing to and how line by line this implies the motion of the sun about the earth. And what is the equation of this motion of the sun about the earth and how is it derived from your postulates. I gave you a hard and fast demonstration from Newtonian first principles, that Kepler’s first law must be true. I want to see what you have to offer with reference to geocentrism and how you would describe mathematically these orbits, as they have been described already in the references that I gave mathematically and hard and fast by Kepler’s laws of motion derivied strictly and logically from Newton’s first principles.

The references you use only dealt with isolated systems. Kepler’s Laws do not deal with interplanetary disturbances.Newton’s theoretically could.

If you solved the equations of general relativity for the entire universe with the earth fixed at the center, you would have a force field description of the forces and interactions required to have the earth fixed at the center (else general relativity is not true). It sounds like a dichotomy, but it is an interpretation of the general principle of relativity.

In this case, gravity is Newtonian-like (actually warped space-time, but in static cases reduces to Newtonian). The forces which we feel on earth are caused by the distant rotating cosmic masses (as well as local ones). These will include a centrifigal force (keeping the universe from collapsing on itself), and gravity force (keeping the universe from dissipating outwards, a Corliolis force (as demonstrated by Thirring), etc.

I still recommend you read my blog (if you have not done so). Especially Parts I and II.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

…It is true that the demonstration that I referred to did not take into account the other masses of the universe, including the galaxies, other stars and the nearby planets. But I think that even if you take these other masses into consideration, that it would only result in a small perturbation from the 2D planetary elliptical orbit, so that what you would get (and what is actually observed) is a slightly perturbed 3d elliptical orbit, instead of a flat 2d elliptical orbit with the sun as a focus.
…

Let me add that in the modern Tychonic model, the planets (i.e., earth not included) do orbit the sun with Keplerian (like) orbits. Since the universe is revolving around the earth, the sun rotates with the universe, and the planets orbit the sun independently (though there would be disturbances from the earth, as well as between the planets). Because the earth is so small compared to the universe, the planets are not going to rearrange, since this would entail rearranging the entire universe (which in turn stabilizes its center of mass- the earth).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[stanley123]

trth_skr:

Let me add that in the modern Tychonic model, the planets (i.e., earth not included) do orbit the sun with Keplerian (like) orbits. Since the universe is revolving around the earth, the sun rotates with the universe, and the planets orbit the sun independently (though there would be disturbances from the earth, as well as between the planets). Because the earth is so small compared to the universe, the planets are not going to rearrange, since this would entail rearranging the entire universe (which in turn stabilizes its center of mass- the earth).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

It is not clear the the universe is revolving. The stars in the milky galaxy are in a swirl, but with reference to the other galaxies there are competing theories, for example, one says that there is an expansion going on, while another might say that there is an oscillation back and forth. In any case, the expansion of the universe is seen from every planet star or galaxy and there is no preferred reference point that would put the earth at the center of the expansion or assumed rotation. You seem to admit now that “the planets orbit the sun independently” which is all that I wanted to point out. The other material is relative to the observer, so from the point of view of science, it makes no sense to posit a preferred point such as earth as the origin or center of the universe.

 

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

It is not clear the the universe is revolving. The stars in the milky galaxy are in a swirl, but with reference to the other galaxies there are competing theories, for example, one says that there is an expansion going on, while another might say that there is an oscillation back and forth. In any case, the expansion of the universe is seen from every planet star or galaxy and there is no preferred reference point that would put the earth at the center of the expansion or assumed rotation.

Actually, we do not know that the expansion would look the same from every star. We presume so. This is the unproven isotropic principle.

stanley123:

You seem to admit now that “the planets orbit the sun independently” which is all that I wanted to point out. The other material is relative to the observer, so from the point of view of science, it makes no sense to posit a preferred point such as earth as the origin or center of the universe.

I never denied it. All I deny is that the earth also orbits the sun. If you read Part I of my series, I talk about the Tychonic system. I understood you to say, that since planets orbit the sun, that the earth must also be (by virtue os the “law” of Newton or Kepler).

You are starting to get the picture, and understand how relativity plays into this.

It does make sense if it turns out to be the truth.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[BJRumph]

TS, what happened 300 years ago has already been addressed by others:

The then current leaders of the Church were more conscerned about scandal than astronomy, and they, as human beings, made a similarly tainted descision. And that it was confirmed every now and then only proves the human element of the process, an element the Church officially recognizes.

Also, it is not twisting reality to aknowledge the same principle that you utilize to sustain your geocentric principle: there is no absolute astronomical frame of reference with which to say the earth does/does not move. You cannot collect your own reward for “proof” that you demand of others.

However, one thing you fail to recognize is that, while it is true that from an outside static frame of reference, mamely some other star, like AC you mentioned, from any of those points of veiw, you can indeed determine the validity of which moves about which: the sun or earth. Additionally, how does such a veiw have anything to do with some so-called “newtonian perspective”. It is simple Geometry at that point, not a matter of gravity (which a “Newtonian perspective” would make contextual sense). No one needs to discuss the gravitational whys to make the observation that one does indeed orbit the other. You have even admitted that the earth, like the rest of the planets, revolves around the sun.

All I can conclde is that you are arguing for the mere sake of arguing.

Obviously, and in contradictions to your own admissions, you will never be satisfied until we set up an observatory on AC that the earth, does indeed, orbit the Sun, you will just have to content yourself with the “modern twisting of reality” to help uphold your rejectionist veiw of reality.

And my scriptural “interpretations” are simply the reflection of what it actually present, which is supported (though in no way dependant upon) by the Church’s own research as well as the most reasonable analysis of available scientific knowledge. Is Science alone enough? No. Is it supreme or even absolute? No; but it is a legitimate feild of inquiry, and has its uses.

At any rate, the originator’s question has been addressed, and this discourse has moved beyond it, and into a pointless argument for its own sake that upholds a position that the Church does not claim (that is Die Fide teaching of Geocentrism), which as another poster already pointed out, is as much a detriment to Faith as it was assumed to be 300 years ago.

Which brings me to a point to establish the level of your credibility as to your assessment of the Church’s current take, or potential take, on the issue: Do you, like Sungenis, believe the seat of Peter is being illegitimately held, and therefore essentially vacant?

 

[BJRumph]

From Truth Seeker:

From that perspective the earth and sun would appear co-rotating. An observer would likely interpret it as the earth and planets rotating the sun, at least from a Newtonian perspective.

Again, the “newtonian perspective” thing is a red herring; being an issue of gravity, not geometrical observation.

The problem is, you could say the same from any and every star you use as a static point of reference. However, if you observe the earth to be rotating around the sun, relative to all other points of reference, in every case, then how can you possibly conclude that the sun moves around the earth?

You cannot, regardless of what gravitic theory you wish to expound (newtonian, relativistic, or even the expansion theory), logically deny the actual observable GEOMETRY (which does not care what you call gravity as it has nothing to do with the observation itself).

Either the earth moves about the sun, or the sun moves about the earth. As long as you are not standing on either one, and use the entirety of the remaining extra-solar objects as a stationary point of reference, you can determine the absolute Geometry of the motions being questioned. If the sun, and all reference stars remain motionless, while the earth completes a circular path about the sun, then the result is obvious. Likewise, if the earth stays put, and the sun completes an orbit about the earth, then the answer is also observationally conclusive.

 

[trth_skr]

BJRumph:

TS, what happened 300 years ago has already been addressed by others:

The then current leaders of the Church were more conscerned about scandal than astronomy, and they, as human beings, made a similarly tainted descision. And that it was confirmed every now and then only proves the human element of the process, an element the Church officially recognizes.

That is not what the declarations from the popes say. This is imputed to them using a technique much like deconstructionism. Using such techniques one can conclude that Leonardo da Vinci was gay, etc. I.e., it is very uncertain. What is certain is what was recorded and declared by the popes.

BJRumph:

Also, it is not twisting reality to aknowledge the same principle that you utilize to sustain your geocentric principle: there is no absolute astronomical frame of reference with which to say the earth does/does not move. You cannot collect your own reward for “proof” that you demand of others.

I require no reward.

BJRumph:

However, one thing you fail to recognize is that, while it is true that from an outside static frame of reference, mamely some other star, like AC you mentioned, … like the rest of the planets, revolves around the sun.

All I can conclde is that you are arguing for the mere sake of arguing.

Obviously, and in contradictions to your own admissions, you will never be satisfied until we set up an observatory on AC that the earth, does indeed, orbit the Sun, you will just have to content yourself with the “modern twisting of reality” to help uphold your rejectionist veiw of reality.

Let me explain the AC analogy. I am imagining a person sitting on the N pole of AC on a rotating chair. They are pointing the cross-hairs of a telescoipe on the star (our sun). What do they see? They see little reflectors apparently moving around it. In a sense, they have transformed their coordinate system to a fixed sun one.

Now, if they were to fix the cross-hairs on the earth, they would see the sun and planets move around the earth. If they fixed it on jupiter, they would see the sun, earth, and planets move around jupiter.

I.e., they are in the same “boat” we are- no absolute reference. I never intended the analogy to be a complete description. I was just trying to explain coordinate transformations.

BJRumph:

And my scriptural “interpretations” are simply the reflection of what it actually present, which is supported (though in no way dependant upon) by the Church’s own research as well as the most reasonable analysis of available scientific knowledge. Is Science alone enough? No. Is it supreme or even absolute? No; but it is a legitimate feild of inquiry, and has its uses.

Do not forget the fathers.

Trent:

holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published…

nor … receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers…

"…In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture…against the unanimous consent of the fathers…

BJRumph:

At any rate, the originator’s question has been addressed, and this discourse has moved beyond it, and into a pointless argument for its own sake that upholds a position that the Church does not claim (that is Die Fide teaching of Geocentrism), which as another poster already pointed out, is as much a detriment to Faith as it was assumed to be 300 years ago.

Which brings me to a point to establish the level of your credibility as to your assessment of the Church’s current take, or potential take, on the issue: Do you, like Sungenis, believe the seat of Peter is being illegitimately held, and therefore essentially vacant?

Robert Sungenis holds no such position. Gerry Matatics, perhaps. But Robert Sungenis defends the papacy. I do recognize our current pope, if you must ask.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Quote:
From that perspective the earth and sun would appear co-rotating. An observer would likely interpret it as the earth and planets rotating the sun, at least from a Newtonian perspective.

BJRumph:

Again, the “newtonian perspective” thing is a red herring; being an issue of gravity, not geometrical observation.

As explained above for AC. What I mean by “Newtonian perspective” is if they did the experiment moving the cross-hairs to all the bodies, they still may conclude that the smaller rotate the larger, as Newton would predict. What they would actually see depends on where they fixed their frame of reference.

BJRumph:

The problem is, you could say the same from any and every star you use as a static point of reference. However, if you observe the earth to be rotating around the sun, relative to all other points of reference, in every case, then how can you possibly conclude that the sun moves around the earth?

You cannot, regardless of what gravitic theory you wish to expound (newtonian, relativistic, or even the expansion theory), logically deny the actual observable GEOMETRY (which does not care what you call gravity as it has nothing to do with the observation itself).

Either the earth moves about the sun, or the sun moves about the earth. As long as you are not standing on either one, and use the entirety of the remaining extra-solar objects as a stationary point of reference, you can determine the absolute Geometry of the motions being questioned. If the sun, and all reference stars remain motionless, while the earth completes a circular path about the sun, then the result is obvious. Likewise, if the earth stays put, and the sun completes an orbit about the earth, then the answer is also observationally conclusive.

There is no absolute observed geometry. Theoretically if one could find an inertial referecne frame, one may be able to conclude what is rotating and what is not. The question is if it is possible that the universe is rotating, where is an inertial referecne frame? We are told everything in the universe is rotating around something (planets, galaxies, clusters, super clusters, etc.).

Remeber this quote from Scientific American:
George Ellis:

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

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

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

BJRumph:

The original poster asked:
original poster:

So, we’re supposed to believe geocentrism?

I see two components (the main question and dependent secondary questions) to the question:

Main Question: Is geocentrism true or false?

First Dependent Question: Did the Church define it as theologically certain?

Second dependent question: Is it infallible?

Third dependent question: Is it reconcilible with current scientific opinion?

If the first one is false, there are consequences. If the first one is true there are consequences.That is the discussion. To answer the question asked, we need to establish the possibility of the main question, then if true (i.e., geocentrism is possible) the dependent questions come into play. If false (i.e., geocentrism is not possible) then the answer is ‘NO’. However, it is clear that geocentrism is at least possible, thus requiring discussion of all the dependent questions to satisfactorily answer the original poster’s question.

You cannot just arrogantly say that since science’s OPINION (without demonstration) is that geocentrism is false, that we can dismiss the Church (and Holy Spirit)- unless this is an apologetics site for the modern pantheon, which I argue it is not.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

---

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

 

[trth_skr]

Oops. Here I did a bad job quoting Trent in one of the quotes. I said:

“…holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published…”

(I was trying to shorten it.)

Here is the full quote from my blog:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published…”

This should be clearer,

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[stanley123]

trth_skr:

There is no absolute observed geometry.

Since this is true, you cannot say that geocentrism is true based on any observation. It is only an opinion that you are giving, as explained in the quote you gave:“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” But then again, you cannot prove it either. But what can be proven, is that Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion follow from Newton’s laws of motion.
So in fact, this is what is held by just about every professional astronomer alive today.

 

[trth_skr]

stanley123:

Since this is true, you cannot say that geocentrism is true based on any observation. It is only an opinion that you are giving, as explained in the quote you gave:“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” But then again, you cannot prove it either. But what can be proven, is that Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion follow from Newton’s laws of motion.
So in fact, this is what is held by just about every professional astronomer alive today.

Neither system can be proven. This is true.

Kepler’s three laws are applied to the sun and planets as they revolve around the earth with the universe. So this is consistent. Kepler’s and Newton’s laws are too general, without specifically applying to a rotating universe situation to say that geocentrism is impossible. In other words, just by quoting the general form of the laws does not disprove geocentrism. These laws apply in geocentrism locally just as in heliocentrism.

That is why I say neither system can be proven scientifically, and the rest is theology (i.e., what was revealed by God and verified by first the fathers than the popes).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com