sun and earth

[latin_rite]

“Do you agree with this statement that it proves that The bible says the sun revolved around the sun?”

Have a feeling that is a typo. Would you please re-clarify?

lol. Yes it is a typo. I guess that what happens when, someone starts talking to you, while you’re typing.
I don’t agree, with the statement. I feel that the verses in question are referring to God, in a metaphorical way. Saying how unlike the thrones of mortal men. He and his kingdom are unchanging or permament.

The question is more is that what it says?

When studying the Sacred Scriptures, like any text, it is essential one reads in context. What is the genre? What is the source? What is the purpose? Do you think that the purpose of the Bible is to inform us about astronomy?

Absolutely not. One of my pet peeves, is when people, whether they be Atheist or Christian, start using it as a scientific text.

 

[excubitor]

Yep, but you need to take Einstein at his word. He certainly is not advocating a geocentric universe. In fact, all he is pointing out here is that there is no preferred reference frame, i.e., all objects in the Universe are moving (i.e., there is no fixed point).

Which is my point exactly. In an infinite shapeless universe any position in space can be regarded as being the centre. If science does not demand that any position in space has a preferred reference frame then it follows that any person for any reason can choose any spot in the universe to be their preferred reference frame. In the case of the church, we should be choosing the earth to be the preferred reference frame, not necessarily for particular scientific or natural reasons (although we might choose also to do so) but in order to remain obedient to the revealed special revelation of scripture and the pronouncements of the councils of the church.

BTW, while either reference frame is equally mathematically valid, there is a practical difference, mathematically between the two reference frames. Using a geocentric model of the Solar System makes the math a lot harder (Which was essentially the problem with the Ptolemy’s model in the first place).

Making the math harder does not constitute truth. There is no principle in science or logic that insists that the simpler mathematical model is the actual truth. This was the argument of the church. They had no problem with Galileo modelling a heliocentric solar system to help understand the relative motion between the planets, moon and sun and earth. But they objected when he said that in actual fact this mathematical model was the true reality of the situation.

 

[excubitor]

Occum’s Razor. The math is a lot easier if we treat use a Heliocentric model, though we know, even in that model, that the Sun does not stand still, even if the rest of the Universe is ignored, the sun is pulled by the Earth and other planets in the solar system.

Aint that the truth. In fact heliocentrism which overturned a traditional belief of Christians and Jews held for over 4000 years and probably more was itself overturned in just a few hundred years. Now everybody knows that Galileo was basically wrong in most of what he said. He had no proof at the time. The prevailing view today is that heliocentrism is wrong and that the true situation is acentrism where there is no centre of the universe and the solar system swirls around in the milky way and the milky way drifts aimlessly through the universe. The conventional teaching is that the man is not special he is just another animal, the earth is not special it is just another planet, the sun is not special it is just another star. In fact the modern teaching has a striking similarity to the teachings of notorious heretic
One of the most abject heretics of our time was Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for his heresies by the Congregation of the Inquisition. He is roundly regarded today as the first martyr for science. He was a philosopher and cosmologist in 1600. It is hard to find a subject which this guy did not speak heretically about. Now notice his cosmology as given in wikipedia.

Quote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Bruno believed, as is now universally accepted, that the Earth revolves and that the apparent diurnal rotation of the heavens is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. He also saw no reason to believe that the stellar region was finite, or that all stars were equidistant from a single center of the universe.

Most dramatically, he completely abandoned the idea of a hierarchical universe. The Earth was just one more heavenly body, as was the Sun.

Space and time were both conceived as infinite.

Under this model, the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems

Notice how strikingly similar his teachings are to the beliefs advanced by modern science. This is what the world and it would seem the majority of the church believes. It shows how dramatically science changes whereas the truths of God are stable and unchanging throughout all the ages.

The striking alignment between Bruno’s cosmology and the modern teaching is evidence to me that much of the Science we get fed today has spilled well over into the philosophical arena and is no longer truly science. Its driven not by the physical measurable facts but rather is driven by a heretical and vain philosophy of the world into which the physical facts are manipulated and contrived to fit.

Today if we are to believe modern science we have to concede that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was wrong and that Giordano Bruno was right. And indeed we do. We fall over ourselves today making apologies for Giordano Bruno.

Such a situtation is completely untenable. I will NOT accept it. Its outrageous to suppose. Who is out there making some apologies for the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office ? Robert Sungenis is one such person who has written a book in two volumes entitled “Galileo was wrong: The church was right”. Volume 2 covers the entire historical background for geocentrism including proofs from scripture, citations from church fathers and the charges of heresy applied by the church against heliocentrism. I’m planning to buy it.

I might write a book myself entitled “Giordano Bruno was wrong: The Church was right”.

Here is irony for you… quoting one of the most famous atheists in science before Richard Dawkins to support your position . Like Einstein however, Hoyle would have said that neither model really is an accurate reflection of reality. Rather, either model can be accepted for mathematical purposes. The practical result is that for most cases, when dealing directly with the Solar System, the Sun is treated as the center… or rather, a point that is always inside the Sun.

Huh? You must be kidding. Helicentrists quote notable atheists all the time and take all their learning from notable atheists. The only reason that I quoted Hoyle and Einstein is that I am talking to people who have no respect for Saint Doctor Cardinal Bellarmine or the Mediavel popes or catholic apologists and so I am hoping that they might have some respect for atheists.

Brahe’s model is an improvement on Ptolemy, but it is, shall we say rather inelegant. Essentially, the Sun moves around the Earth, and other than the Moon, everything else in the Universe revolves around the Sun (Otherwise you can’t explain the observed parallex).​

Bill

And this is inelegant Why? have you seen the simulations? It is not inelegant I can assure you. It is quite beautiful.

 

[excubitor]

Maybe I should have held my mathematical reply from above until here, but as I showed above, as long as the Universe is larger than about 1.3 trillion miles in diameter, no naked eye observations will show any apparent movement in the poles.

BINGO. Now you know why the universe needs to be so ginormous. Not because there is any evidence that it is hyper enormous but so as to mask the fact the heliocentrism does not work. This is what I was saying before however believing a lie forces us to tell another lie to cover up our first lie. It is a lie that the universe is so enormous that light from the star cannot even reach Adam’s eye until thousands, millions, and billions of years after God created it. The notion that the earth orbits the sun is unproven theory, the notion that the closest star is 4.2 light years away is also unproven and relies upon the original theory that the earth shifts its position by 300 million kilometres during the course of the year. The result is that the closest star is 42,000,000,000,000 kilometres away. That is 42 trillion kilometres away. Now this is just absurd. I argue from a position of personal incredulity here. Now the sun is absolutely enormous and yet Alpha Centauri is said to be about the same size as our sun. It is 1.39 million kilometres in diameter. And yet by the time it is 150 million kilometres away it is not very big in the sky at all. And yet scientists want us to believe that if the sun moved 280,000 times further away than it currently is in the sky that we would still be able to see it. And that is the closest star. Some of the stars are hundreds of millions of times further away than is our sun. Its absurd. Its like expecting me to believe that if I shine my flashlight from Los Angeles to The top of Mt. Everest that someone on the top of Mt. Everest could see it.

Now having said that there are geocentrists who can still construct a geocentric model using almost all observations and arguments of astronomers. So if you don’t agree with me on this point that is still no reason to reject geocentrism. All I am pointing out is that the scientific fraternity is forcing us to take an entirely unnatural interpretation of what we see in the heavens that no average man could possibly come to.

Also as I explained above, for the Brahe model to work, it needs the stars to directly orbit the sun which means the geometry is the same regardless!

No this is not correct. The stars do not orbit anything in either the geocentric or heliocentric models. The stars rotate around the earth in the geocentric model and the earth spins in the heliocentric models. The motions of the planets are orbits. So the sun has a yearly orbit coupled with a diurnal rotation. Trust me, this is not simple to visualise but it results in an absolute motion of the sun which is like a spiral around the earth which extends from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn.

Unless we accept the fact that God doesn’t really care what we think about how the Universe is organized. The Bible is not a science book, and the Church’s authority does not extend to the ordering of the natural world (The ethics as to how research is performed is another issue).

If that is the case then why did the church so ardently proclaim heliocentrism as a heresy and ratify that proclamation directly by at least three popes and at least ten editions of the Index of prohibited books over several hundred years.

 

[excubitor]

lol. Yes it is a typo. I guess that what happens when, someone starts talking to you, while you’re typing.
I don’t agree, with the statement. I feel that the verses in question are referring to God, in a metaphorical way. Saying how unlike the thrones of mortal men. He and his kingdom are unchanging or permament.

Absolutely not. One of my pet peeves, is when people, whether they be Atheist or Christian, start using it as a scientific text.

The matter of whether or not the earth is in the centre of the earth is not a matter of science. It is a matter of philosophy and is therefore within the realm of religion. This is why the Popes often say there is no conflict between faith and religion, because they know that science is getting its nose stuck into matters which are in the domain of religion and so are stepping out of their proper domain. Not many people understand that. They think that when the Popes say there is no conflict between Faith and Science that therefore we must believe whatever science tells us. I would suggest that wherever there was conflict in the past between the Catholic church and science it was because science was dabbling in religion and therefore needed to be put back in its place.

As I have said. The only person who is in a position to observe absolutely what is the centre of the universe is somebody who is outside the moving frame of reference “outside and looking in so to speak” And that only person who is outside the moving universe is God, and in EVERY case through the scriptures and through the church he has revealed that what is readily observed by the senses is true, that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the heavens rotate around the earth.

The beauty of believing by faith that we are not moving means that we can now measure the universe and know that we are measuring from a stable platform we can then get some sensible results and not have to imagine up spacial anomolies like black holes, dark matter, curving and twisting space etc to account for why our mathematic formulas do not work out.

 

[excubitor]

I actually had the pleasure of taking a class with Brother Guy back in the early 1990s. I can assure you he is not a geocentrist. He is precise enough to admit that according to relativity, you can treat either the Earth or the Sun as being at rest, but really, neither really is at rest. Thus he is really neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist.

–
Bill

All you are doing is confirming what I said. The Vatican observatory will not come out and flat out say that the earth is NOT in the centre of the universe, this proves that the possibility therefore exists that it is.

 

[excubitor]

Has he also discovered the other big coverup. According to the bible, mass quantities of water is stored in the heavens and God opens floodgates to make it rain, then closes them to make it stop.

*Gn 8:2 -NIV - Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky.
*

Of course this was back when the Earth was still flat.

Neither the bible nor the early church nor the medieval church believed that the earth was flat. Neither do I. If you read Walt Browns hydroplate theory you will learn that at Noahs time the crust of the earth sat upon huge reservoirs of water. At the flood the crust of the earth cracked resulting in high pressure water bursting from the deep at hypersonic speed into the upper atmosphere and potentially even into space as the plates of the earths crust fell pushing down on the reservoirs of water. The water falling from the atmosphere was a great deluge. If you read the www.creationscience.com web site Walt will explain it to you better than I can and then you might learn to have a bit more respect for the scriptures.

 

[Desertsailor]

How can anyone know the earth isn’t the center of the universe?

 

[mchale]

Which is my point exactly. In an infinite shapeless universe any position in space can be regarded as being the centre. If science does not demand that any position in space has a preferred reference frame then it follows that any person for any reason can choose any spot in the universe to be their preferred reference frame. In the case of the church, we should be choosing the earth to be the preferred reference frame, not necessarily for particular scientific or natural reasons (although we might choose also to do so) but in order to remain obedient to the revealed special revelation of scripture and the pronouncements of the councils of the church.

Except, we are not in either a shapeless universe, nor an infinite one. Science allows us to choose an arbitrary center for a different reason (essentially we are on the surface of a 4 dimensional space time sphere).

Choosing the Earth as the center of the Universe for the reasons you are listing is a metaphysical decision, not a scientific one.

Making the math harder does not constitute truth. There is no principle in science or logic that insists that the simpler mathematical model is the actual truth. This was the argument of the church. They had no problem with Galileo modelling a heliocentric solar system to help understand the relative motion between the planets, moon and sun and earth. But they objected when he said that in actual fact this mathematical model was the true reality of the situation.

Actually, there is a principle in science. Its called Occum’s Razor. Essentially it states that if you have two models that have equal predictive value, then the simpler model is more probably the correct one.

–
Bill

 

[excubitor]

Except, we are not in either a shapeless universe, nor an infinite one. Science allows us to choose an arbitrary center for a different reason (essentially we are on the surface of a 4 dimensional space time sphere).

Choosing the Earth as the center of the Universe for the reasons you are listing is a metaphysical decision, not a scientific one.​

Bill

Actually I choose the Earth as the center of the Universe for a religious reason, that is based on faith, the evidence of things not measured or discovered by natural methods. I believe by reason of faith, by the testimony of the scriptures, by the pronouncements of Holy Mother Church, that the Earth is the centre of the universe. And by happy consequence I find that my natural reasoning is also happily in obeisance to this rule of faith. The fact that this union of my natural reasoning with the rule of faith is conflicted by modern pop psychology and the kooky scientific theorems of atheists in white coats and crazy hairdos matters to me not in the slightest.

 

[mchale]

Aint that the truth. In fact heliocentrism which overturned a traditional belief of Christians and Jews held for over 4000 years and probably more was itself overturned in just a few hundred years. Now everybody knows that Galileo was basically wrong in most of what he said. He had no proof at the time. The prevailing view today is that heliocentrism is wrong and that the true situation is acentrism where there is no centre of the universe and the solar system swirls around in the milky way and the milky way drifts aimlessly through the universe. The conventional teaching is that the man is not special he is just another animal, the earth is not special it is just another planet, the sun is not special it is just another star. In fact the modern teaching has a striking similarity to the teachings of notorious heretic

It occurs to me that the sophistry you engage in is pretty remarkable for a man who claims to be standing for truth. You freely quote Einstein and others to support your position, but then attack them because they don’t really back your position.

And lets get things right… the conventional scientific models have the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy (not swirl around it), and the galaxy does not drift aimlessly through the Universe but rather is also moved by fundamental forces in the Universe (gravity and the Universe’s expansion mostly).

Actually, a more close examination of the data shows that the sun is not just another star; it is brighter than most, its a single star (Most stars are in binary or trinary systems), its planetary configuration is starting to look different than most (though that is still an open question). Certainly its in the only solar system we know of to harbor life and especially intelligent life.

Now, the point ultimately of science is neither to confirm nor deny humanity’s special place in the Universe, that is a philosophical and theological question. However, it is one of science’s purposes to describe humanity’s physical place in the universe.

One of the most abject heretics of our time was Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for his heresies by the Congregation of the Inquisition. He is roundly regarded today as the first martyr for science. He was a philosopher and cosmologist in 1600. It is hard to find a subject which this guy did not speak heretically about. Now notice his cosmology as given in wikipedia.

400+ years ago is our time?

Notice how strikingly similar his teachings are to the beliefs advanced by modern science. This is what the world and it would seem the majority of the church believes. It shows how dramatically science changes whereas the truths of God are stable and unchanging throughout all the ages.

Science does not teach truths, science teaches a method of looking at the Universe that is constantly subject to revision based on new data.

I agree that God’s truths are stable, I just don’t think he cares much what we think about how he ordered the Universe.

The striking alignment between Bruno’s cosmology and the modern teaching is evidence to me that much of the Science we get fed today has spilled well over into the philosophical arena and is no longer truly science. Its driven not by the physical measurable facts but rather is driven by a heretical and vain philosophy of the world into which the physical facts are manipulated and contrived to fit.

Science was, until the 19th century, regarded as a branch of Philosophy, in fact, in some respects it still is (Thats why the highest degree in science is a PhD, or a Doctor of Philosophy). Therefore, it can’t have spilled over into Philosophy, it always has been part of Philosophy.

Your problem is that you equate metaphysics with physics. Man’s place in the Universe, from a Metaphysical perspective can be completely unrelated to his place in the Physical Universe… not that you see it that way.

Today if we are to believe modern science we have to concede that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was wrong and that Giordano Bruno was right. And indeed we do. We fall over ourselves today making apologies for Giordano Bruno.

The Church was wrong about something to which its teach authority does not extend? I am shocked, I am horrified… oh wait, no big deal.

As for Bruno, sure I think we should feel bad about burning heretics. Ultimately, it should be left for God to punish if that is his will. Otherwise, we are going to have to burn an awful lot of people.

Such a situtation is completely untenable. I will NOT accept it. Its outrageous to suppose. Who is out there making some apologies for the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office ? Robert Sungenis is one such person who has written a book in two volumes entitled “Galileo was wrong: The church was right”. Volume 2 covers the entire historical background for geocentrism including proofs from scripture, citations from church fathers and the charges of heresy applied by the church against heliocentrism. I’m planning to buy it.

Oh, well, now that we know you won’t accept it, I guess we can all throw out the last 400 years of scientific advancement.

Here is the basic fact… The Church stepped out of this argument a long time ago, recognizing rightly that it could only do itself harm by trying to teach natural philosophy (Now known as the physical and biological sciences) from the Bible. It wisely followed Saint Augustine’s advice about teaching contrary to what physical evidence showed us. Its only guys like you and Sungenis who are trying to keep this torch alive (with but one ember left, and that half cold).

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

I might write a book myself entitled “Giordano Bruno was wrong: The Church was right”.

Huh? You must be kidding. Helicentrists quote notable atheists all the time and take all their learning from notable atheists. The only reason that I quoted Hoyle and Einstein is that I am talking to people who have no respect for Saint Doctor Cardinal Bellarmine or the Mediavel popes or catholic apologists and so I am hoping that they might have some respect for atheists.

I have plenty of respect for Saint Bellarmine, and for Popes (well, depending on the Pope, there were a few Medieval Popes its hard to have respect for).

Here is the thing, being a saint, even a doctor or a cardinal of the Church does not make you infallible. Even the Pope is only considered infallible in matters of faith and morals, not natural philosophy.

As for Catholic Apologists, there are good ones and there are bad ones. I have respect for the good ones. Frankly, Sungenis is not a good one.

My point was simple. If I am quoting an atheist, I am not using the atheist to support my theological position, when clearly the atheist does not support that position. I am supporting a scientific model.

And this is inelegant Why? have you seen the simulations? It is not inelegant I can assure you. It is quite beautiful.

Yes, I have seen simulations… and no, it is not elegant, particularly when you try to explain it all (or even describe it) mathematically.

–
Bill

 

[excubitor]

Except, we are not in either a shapeless universe, nor an infinite one. Science allows us to choose an arbitrary center for a different reason (essentially we are on the surface of a 4 dimensional space time sphere).

Choosing the Earth as the center of the Universe for the reasons you are listing is a metaphysical decision, not a scientific one.

Actually, there is a principle in science. Its called Occum’s Razor. Essentially it states that if you have two models that have equal predictive value, then the simpler model is more probably the correct one.

–
Bill

How can something that calls itself science rely upon probabilities. The fact that Occums Razor appeals to the probability of an event proves that it is not science at all but a philosophy. Even if we state that it is 99% probable that the simpler model is true, it still does not constitute proof, because it is still possible that the 1% probability is the truth. True science is verifiable to 100%. The fact that this concept has been lost is utter proof that modern science is a misch masch of true science and philosophy. In fact if you go back 100 years the two subjects were very clearly differentiated. Today philosophy is virtually untaught and is severely neglected because philosophy has been absorbed incorrectly into the sciences. As I have repeatedly stated. The issue of geocentrism is not a matter of science, but is a matter of philosophy. Philosophy deals with blurry probabilities and likely or unlikely scenarios. Therefore religion and in particular the Catholic religion is the authority to bring proof and certitude to settle the competing ideas of philosophy. As was the case for a thousand years where the Catholic religion settled the geocentric issue which was first proposed by the pagans eg. Pythagorean philosopher Philolaus (d. 390 BC) and got quashed by the church long ago only to be resurrected again by the neo-pagans of this anti-Catholic age. You see we think we are clever, that we are coming up with incredible novelties in this technological age. But in fact its the same tired old story thrashed out over and over again. Like Solomon says. “There is nothing new under the sun”. Solomon of course was the wisest man who ever lived according to the scriptures

29 And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. 30 And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. 31 For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. 32 And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. 33 And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. 34 And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

So God gave him all this wisdom but sadly God did not give him enough because Solomon spoke foolishly about the motion of the heavens when he said by divine inspiration I might add “‘the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.’” Silly old Solomon, didn’t he know that God was pulling the blinkers down on him, making him think the sun was moving when actually the earth was moving. Clearly God did not give him enough wisdom and it was left to Copernicus and Galileo and Einstein the cleaner and Stephen Hawking to receive the proper wisdom.

 

[mchale]

BINGO. Now you know why the universe needs to be so ginormous. Not because there is any evidence that it is hyper enormous but so as to mask the fact the heliocentrism does not work.

I don’t consider a couple of trillion miles to be so large. Certainly the evidence of parallax on stars and then standard candles suggests the Universe if far, far larger still (Billions of light years across, with each light year being about 6.5 trillion miles).

This is what I was saying before however believing a lie forces us to tell another lie to cover up our first lie. It is a lie that the universe is so enormous that light from the star cannot even reach Adam’s eye until thousands, millions, and billions of years after God created it. The notion that the earth orbits the sun is unproven theory, the notion that the closest star is 4.2 light years away is also unproven and relies upon the original theory that the earth shifts its position by 300 million kilometres during the course of the year. The result is that the closest star is 42,000,000,000,000 kilometres away. That is 42 trillion kilometres away. Now this is just absurd. I argue from a position of personal incredulity here. Now the sun is absolutely enormous and yet Alpha Centauri is said to be about the same size as our sun. It is 1.39 million kilometres in diameter. And yet by the time it is 150 million kilometres away it is not very big in the sky at all. And yet scientists want us to believe that if the sun moved 280,000 times further away than it currently is in the sky that we would still be able to see it. And that is the closest star. Some of the stars are hundreds of millions of times further away than is our sun. Its absurd. Its like expecting me to believe that if I shine my flashlight from Los Angeles to The top of Mt. Everest that someone on the top of Mt. Everest could see it.

If you are going to argue from personal incredulity, then at least bother to do all the math!

The Sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.73, The Alpha Centauri system (there are two stars there after all) has an apparent magnitude of -0.27. Now this is just a fancy way of saying that the sun appears about 38 million times brighter in our sky than Alpha Centauri system. Now, brightness falls off with distance following an inverse square law, so, if we assumed that Alpha Centauri was as bright as our Sun (which it is not, The primary is somewhat brighter and then there is another star in the mix, so it is a fair bit brighter) then it would have to be 193 thousand times further away. Once we allow for the fact that the system is brighter, 280 thousand times further away actually is pretty reasonable.

Now having said that there are geocentrists who can still construct a geocentric model using almost all observations and arguments of astronomers. So if you don’t agree with me on this point that is still no reason to reject geocentrism. All I am pointing out is that the scientific fraternity is forcing us to take an entirely unnatural interpretation of what we see in the heavens that no average man could possibly come to.

I would advise you, if you are going to try to maintain a geo-centric argument, that you do in fact take into account all the observations astronomers have made. If your model can’t explain stellar parallax, then don’t even bother.

No this is not correct. The stars do not orbit anything in either the geocentric or heliocentric models. The stars rotate around the earth in the geocentric model and the earth spins in the heliocentric models. The motions of the planets are orbits. So the sun has a yearly orbit coupled with a diurnal rotation. Trust me, this is not simple to visualise but it results in an absolute motion of the sun which is like a spiral around the earth which extends from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of capricorn.

Rotating around something, is an orbit! If you are going to engage in this argument at least understand your terms! In the only sustainable geocentric model, the stars orbit the sun once a year, and the Sun orbits the Earth. That at least explains the observed parallax (you still end up with a enormous universe though, at least by your standards).

If that is the case then why did the church so ardently proclaim heliocentrism as a heresy and ratify that proclamation directly by at least three popes and at least ten editions of the Index of prohibited books over several hundred years.

For the same reason that the Church Leadership thought that the Crusades were a good idea, that telling the Kings of Europe how to run their countries were a good idea, etc. When the Church steps out side the bounds of faith and morals, it is as subject to error as anybody.

 

[mchale]

Ok, I am going to bow out of this thread now. It is clear that no argument, no evidence, no matter how powerful and persuasive is going to persuade excubitor that he is wrong. Shoot, I imagine if God himself showed up and told him he was wrong, he would tell God that he didn’t have respect for the Holy Office or what was in the Bible!

Ok, perhaps I am being a little uncharitable here. It is however very frustrating when arguing with someone who is essentially trying to make the Church not just an authority on Faith and Morals, but on everything. The fact that positions such as this discredit the Church in the eyes of others bothers me intensely. There are times when the Church absolutely should get involved in science; when moral issues are at stake. The rest of the time, we should recognize that the Church is not an authority on the Natural World.

To anyone, who might be reading this thread, I hope you understand that excubitor’s position is definitely outside the mainstream of Catholicism and that in general it is up to the individual to decide which model for the Universe they wish to believe in (if any). Indeed, while Excubitor might call the modern theories of the Universe Neo-Paganism, many Catholics were deeply involved in developing our modern views.

Anyway, I will see you all around in other parts of the forum.

–
Bill

 

[excubitor]

I don’t consider a couple of trillion miles to be so large. Certainly the evidence of parallax on stars and then standard candles suggests the Universe if far, far larger still (Billions of light years across, with each light year being about 6.5 trillion miles).

The furthest stars visible to the naked eye are said to be 4000 light years away which is 370,000,000,000,000,000 give or take a few zeros which is 360 million trillion kilometres away. Sorry guys I don’t buy it. I just don’t believe that we could see the stars if they were that far away. But the main point I was making is that the size of the universe is predicated by the unproven theory that the earth is not in the centre of the universe but that it is orbiting the sun and is therefore displaced in position by 300 million kilometres during the course of the year. All redshift, parallax, luminosity and other measures use this as a base for their calculations. So it is all relative, by making the earth in the centre of the universe we end up with all our calculations being exactly the same relative to one another except that they are not extrapolated from a base of 300 million kilometres change in the earth’s position, but from a base of zero movement. As a result we will find that the universe is dramatically closer than astronomers are telling us even though all our calculations are relatively equivalent.

If you are going to argue from personal incredulity, then at least bother to do all the math!

The Sun has an apparent magnitude of -26.73, The Alpha Centauri system (there are two stars there after all) has an apparent magnitude of -0.27. Now this is just a fancy way of saying that the sun appears about 38 million times brighter in our sky than Alpha Centauri system. Now, brightness falls off with distance following an inverse square law, so, if we assumed that Alpha Centauri was as bright as our Sun (which it is not, The primary is somewhat brighter and then there is another star in the mix, so it is a fair bit brighter) then it would have to be 193 thousand times further away. Once we allow for the fact that the system is brighter, 280 thousand times further away actually is pretty reasonable.

Here is a very scientific work (which I don’t understand) which supports my personal incredulity that we could see the sun if it were 280 000 times further away than our sun is.
realityreviewed.com/Stellar%20distances.pdf
In this paper the Doctor presents the anatomy of the human eye and various trigonometric calculations of incredible complexity to show that the human eye could simply not detect the sun if it were more than 1.74 light-days away from us. And yet scientists tell us that the nearest star the size of our sun is over 4 light-years away from us. Therefore I have solid scientific support for my contention that Adam could see the light of all the stars on the day that he was created two days after the stars themselves were created.

Also you have made many assumptions in your post which expose the circular reasonings of astronomers.
You see we don’t actually know how big the stars are or how bright. That is reasoned out based upon the projected distance and luminosity of other stars based on their parallax measurements. So how bright is a star? It is determined by how far away it is. And how far away is the star? It is determined by how bright it is. And so we have a circular reasoning which is not science at all but is guesswork based on previously made unproven assumptions being correct. So if it is true that Alpha Centauri is 38 million times brighter than the sun, then this can only be calculate by applying the inverse square of light based upon the distance that you have already decided that it is from you. You have no other evidence that it is in fact 38 million times brighter than the sun. Now when you can corroborate the width and brightness of a star by another independent means you are then able to make calculations of distance based on luminosity. But this is not possible because nobody can go right to the star and measure its brightness and width.

 

[excubitor]

I would advise you, if you are going to try to maintain a geo-centric argument, that you do in fact take into account all the observations astronomers have made. If your model can’t explain stellar parallax, then don’t even bother.

You have no evidence that the movement of the star is proof that the star is not moving but that the earth is moving. Many stars move in position for a variety of reasons according to science. When I see a star move on the photographic plates I conclude the most intuitive simpler conclusion that the star has moved; not so scientists. They see the same thing and conclude that we have moved. Again, this is circular reasoning. There needs to be an alternative measurement which proves that the star has not moved in position relative to the other stars before we can prove that what we observe is stellar parallax and it is the earth which is moving.

Perhaps there is another explanation which accounts for the movement of the stars. However we would never know the likelihood of any alternative hypothesis because no study would ever be undertaken to attempt to affirm it because the assumption has already been made that what was being observed was stellar parallax. In fact it is quite conceivable that someone might discover an alternative explanation for the movement of the star and it would be hushed up and mothballed in order to defend the status quo teachings of astronomy. This is how establishing a conventional theory as being the truth can actually stifle learning because it focuses all study upon what is already held as conventional as being true, and rejects anything which might threaten the established position.

This myopia was observed by Robert Sungenis who approached every University in America to do his Thesis on Geocentricity and the science which supports it; and was KNOCKED BACK every single time. This is because the education system is established entirely to defend its ideology and philosophy. This is also why Halton Arp was dumped and had all his grants cut and telescope time taken away because he discovered that Redshift was not evidence that distant objects were retreating away from us. He discovered that star clusters which were obviously gravitationally bound together, all exhibited different redshift values. But this was an intolerable observation for the establishment because Redshift is about the only way astronomers can guess the distance of stars, because the vast majority of stars have NO PARALLAX.

What is also not told to the general public is that half of the stars which exhibit parallax actually exhibit NEGATIVE PARALLAX. The notion of negative parallax is INCOMPATIBLE with heliocentrism or acentrism and virtually proves to the natural mind that of the minority of stars which can be perceived to be moving that half of them are moving left-right-left relative to the earth and the other half are moving right-left-right. I confess that I don’t understand why this would be under the geocentric model but perhaps if astronomers would investigate on the basis of the theory that the stars are moving then they might discover some explanations. Personally I suspect that the cause is the motion of the sun. In a vastly smaller universe with the stars in a nearby stellatum the sun would drag with gravitational force upon the stars in the stellatum. The stars in the stellatum which are closer to the sun are dragged more than the greater bulk of the stars which are in the middle of the stellatum and less so upon the stars in the outer regions of the stellatum. Then as the sun comes back round in its orbit the stars are pulled back towards it the other way. This of course is a wild but not completely implausible theory which I believe is permissible because it does not argue the point against special revelation which teaches that the earth is in the centre of the universe and does not move. If only science would pour its billions of dollars of research into theories which support the special revelation of the scriptures, then we might find sensible answers to these mysteries.

As it is, if we are to persist with the notion that what we are witnessing is an effect of parallax caused by the movement of the earth then we must conclude that the stars which exhibit negative parallax measurements are actually further away than the greater bulk of the stars which form the background of stars. This however is completely incompatible with the conventional model of astronomy which teaches that the furthest stars exhibit no parallax because of their great distance from the earth. So the problem of parallax is actually a worse problem for conventional astronomy than it is for geocentrism. In fact the conventional astronomical community are in open fraud because they completely ignore negative parallax readings, explaining them away as measurement errors, at the same time as they happily use positive parallax readings to “prove” their theories in opposition to geocentrism. That is intellectual skulduggery of the worst kind and is basically a lie. If negative parallax readings are “errors” then what is cause have we to assume that positive parallax readings are not also “errors”.

I can’t explain it as well as Dr. Neville Thomas Jones Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons) so please read this web page which also has some useful diagrams.
realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

 

[excubitor]

In fact the almost total lack of stellar parallax was the main reason why astronomers and philosophers for thousands of years generally held a geocentric viewpoint. For all intents and purposes the stars do not move. It is only in recent generations that equipment has become sufficiently advanced that the most sophisticated of astronomers can now detect some infinitesimal movements of the stars?

Furthermore I would like to mention what I regard as an accusation against God by heliocentrists that he is a deceiver. Why would God provide a universe that appears to the common man who lacks sophisticated equipment to be geocentric and allow him to persist in that false notion for thousands of years, not correcting mankind through Moses, or Solomon or Jesus Christ or the apostles? And then in this last few decades thousands of years later reveal the truth of the universe through sophisticated equipment and highly educated atheistic astronomers who reckon that they can detect parallax?

It does not make sense. It makes God out to be a deceiver.
Therefore I contend that the heavens are exactly as they appear to our naked eye and general observation.
The earth is the centre of the universe.
The sun and all the heavens rotate around the earth in a diurnal pattern
The sun orbits around the earth in a yearly cycle at an angle which generates the seasons.
The stars are smaller than the sun, much dimmer and much further away than is the sun.
The planets are orbiting the sun and have no light of their own but reflect the light of the sun back to us.
The moon orbits the earth making it different to a planet which orbits the sun.
This perfectly explains the hierarchy of the heavenly creatures which was believed by Christians of ages passed. As the scripture says, there is one kind of glory for 1 Cor 15:41 One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars.

Each after its own kind just like the animal world is created each after its own kind. The other advantage of my system which was believed by all men prior to Copernicus is that the stars are within one or two light days distance. I believe this primarily because I believe that Adam who was made on the 6th day of the literal creation week saw all the stars which were made on the 4th day. This is a personal belief that saves me from having to make up absurd theories as do the creationists, that God made the light of the stars in transit or some other equally fanciful notion. So at least I am consistent in believing a literal interpretation of scripture. In fact I believe that the light of the stars arrived at earth on the same day that they were created. However given that the speed of light is so incredibly fast it still means that the stars are 12,000,000,000 kilometres away which is still 80 times further away than the sun and twice the distance of Pluto. This begs the question. Why would God make a solar system and then dump it in space with all this incredibly huge area of blank space with nothing in it for light years distance. We have a solar system with plenty of action with moons, planets, comets, asteroids, and then once we get past Pluto (Nothing) just emptiness for trillions upon trillions of kilometres. In my scenario which is not mine by the way but the teachings of the ancients, the whole universe is full of creatures. Just outside our solar system is not “nothing” but all the stars and galaxies and perhaps other planets and moons.

By the way while I think of it, can I point out that previous to Copernicus the ancients showed models of the universe with the stars in a circular fixed plane around the earth. This fixed plane was called the stellatum. However with the advent of heliocentrism a new concept came into being called the Solar System. Previously this term was not even known of. But the point is that after the introduction of the Solar System, what is missing? The stars. They have taken the stars out of all the models. They have basically taken them out of the picture entirely by moving them unfathomable distances away. Why have they done this? It is because heliocentrism DOES NOT WORK unless you move the stars out of the picture entirely. Therefore we must conclude that because we can see the stars that the stars have a great many things that God wants to reveal to us. One of these things must be that the earth is the centre of the universe. If God had wanted us to believe heliocentrism then he would not have made any visible stars whatsoever to lead us astray. He would have taken them out of the picture altogether just like the heliocentrists did.

 

[excubitor]

Rotating around something, is an orbit! If you are going to engage in this argument at least understand your terms! In the only sustainable geocentric model, the stars orbit the sun once a year, and the Sun orbits the Earth. That at least explains the observed parallax (you still end up with a enormous universe though, at least by your standards).

I know that my scienctific understanding is gravely limited, however I am convinced that it is superior to yours if you think that the stars orbit the sun once per year in either the heliocentric or geocentric model. In the conventional system the stars are basically stationary. What we perceive to be the stars rotating around us are said to be the earth rotating beneath the stars. You are completely deficient of geocentric teaching if you think that it teaches that the stars orbit the sun once a year. Obviously you have rejected something before you properly understand it. Geocentric teaching is that the earth is stationary, the sun orbits the earth annually and that the universe rotates around the earth once per day. If you want to be technically geometrically correct it is true that the stars orbit around the earth once per day in the geocentric model. However to avoid confusion I choose to use the word orbit to describe the annual motions of the planets, and rotate to describe the diurnal motion of the stars around the earth. I think that this is a fairly standard convention in the geocentric/heliocentric debate.

It is very hard to visualise the actual motion of a satellite or the sun or a planet in the geocentric model. You have to break it down. First of all imagine the sun revolving around the earth with the planets revolving around the sun. It is a great help to find a computer simulation of Tycho Brahe’s geocentric system. Get these motions in your head and then cut an apple in half, preferably on an angle to emulate the angle of the tilt of the earth relative to the sun. Now you have a flat round surface of the apple which you imagine you are looking at your geocentric model upon. Try to visualise the annual motions of the moon, sun and stars and planets upon the flat surface of the apple. Now put the apple together and spin the apple to emulate the diurnal motion of the universe. Now what is the absolute 3D motion of the sun in this scenario? It is like a spirograph type shape a kind of spiral that turns about the earth each day as it moves along from one tropic to the other and then back again. Exactly what we see in real life. The motions of the planets is even harder to comprehend, and when you get to the Satellites which often orbit the earth many times a day at strange angles to the earth the absolute flight path is wild and complex because the orbit around the earth is coupled with the rotation of the universe. In the case of geocentric satellites however the orbit of the satellite is a daily orbit which travels in the opposite direction to the direction of the daily rotation of the universe. As a result the geocentric satellite remains in the same position relative to the earth.

Here is another illustration which provides an easier 2D top down representation of the motion of the sun.
Lets say we have a fob watch with a second hand that ticks around once per minute. We will regard this for the sake of the argument as the revolutions of the sun around the earth. Now we put the fob watch on the table and spin it like a spinning top. This would be considered the rotation of the universe. The pin which is at the centre of the second hand is effectively the earth. The arrow at the tip of the second hand is the sun. The numbers on the dial of the fob watch would be effectively the stars. Now putting aside the notion that the earth does not rotate along with the universe let us try to imagine what the absolute motion of the various elements we have described here. Firstly the centre pin is stationery as it is the fulcrum around which everything else spins. The motion of the sun in this 2D representation is quite simple it is merely offsetting the speed of the second hand comparative to the speed of the rotating fob watch. But now imagine the cogs inside the fob watch as being planetary systems. When the fob watch is not spinning these motions are easily observed, but when the entire fob is spinning the absolute motions of a given tooth on a given cog becomes very complex and that is just in the 2D plane. So of course we like things to be simple so we don’t work on a fob watch while it is spinning. But the truth of the matter is that even though the shape is complex, that is ACTUALLY what is happening. The fob watch is rotating in combination with the movement of the second hand and the cogs. Stopping the fob watch from spinning helps us to conceive the absolute motion of the arrow on the second hand relative to the pin in the centre, but that is not the truth of the matter if in fact the fob watch is spinning.

So the cogs in the fob watch represent planetary systems with their moons and satellites which are embedded in the rotating frame of reference which is the universe. Of course in real life this is more complex than this because the planetary systems are themselves orbiting the sun.

Sorry I know that this is an inadequate illustration. What I really need is the film makers of Avatar to build this model for me so that we can see it in full 3D glory. Even the 2D models on the PC screen do not fully convey the motions of the sun, planets and moon. One day someone will do it and everyone will go aahhh and they will be able to see how it all works. Sadly my text based models are inadequate and tedious but hopefully someone will take the time to think them all through. I know it was really hard for me to do. It took me weeks to properly get my head around it.

 

[Evan]

Neither the bible nor the early church nor the medieval church believed that the earth was flat. Neither do I. If you read Walt Browns hydroplate theory you will learn that at Noahs time the crust of the earth sat upon huge reservoirs of water. At the flood the crust of the earth cracked resulting in high pressure water bursting from the deep at hypersonic speed into the upper atmosphere and potentially even into space as the plates of the earths crust fell pushing down on the reservoirs of water. The water falling from the atmosphere was a great deluge. If you read the www.creationscience.com web site Walt will explain it to you better than I can and then you might learn to have a bit more respect for the scriptures.

I’m glad you’re able to respond to my sillyness with sillyness of your own. I didn’t read in my bible anywhere that the flood burst from below, but that the flood fell from the sky in the form of rain. It seems quite laughable to try to fit such a bizzare notion into the idea of science. I’ve worked 30 years in hydraulics and hydrology (the science of water and stuff like that). I also am a doctor of philosopy… in math. It just reaches far beyond the reasonable. But if you like that theory, I prefer the simpler one of a universe of fixed stars in a crystal sphere with water outside where the floodgates are opened when it rains. As, perhaps, the people believed at the time the oral tradition that led to the first 11 chapters of Genesis was developed. There was no church, medieval, modern or ancient. So maybe they believed in a flat earth. After all, you can still prove the earth is flat if you carefully define flat (like a table top extended without limit) And a table top is flat if a marble, at rest, will not roll.

O now we are getting into geodesics. An Einstein’s theory references positions remaining on a geodesic. We, on the surface of the earth, are not on a geodesic. For that we need to be falling freely. I don’t know who was bringing up relativity, but it’s nice to verify the hypothesis are true before one begins to quote conclusions.

It’s comforting to know, whatever we say, none will be convinced and none of us are ‘right’ and none of it matters.