Latest topics
» Angelqueen.org???
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades


If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Go down

If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  Jehanne on Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:42 am

Question is, "Will Robert Sungensis give me the prize money?"

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120411.html
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 51
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:36 am

Does the earth rotating about its own axis violate the laws of geocentrism?
I asked this question before but no answer as yet.

If it's not possible to have a rotating earth in a geocentric cosmos then the explanation for what's going on in the video would have to be that the movement you see is the cosmos revolving round the earth. The man-made satalites would have to be circling the earth at the same speed the cosmos is revolving but in he opposite direction.

I don't think Sungenis will part with the money too easily. Smile
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:41 pm

I just had some of the above questions answered in a 3 part presentation by Robert Sungenis and a collegue of his (he can be a bit on the dramatic side when presenting but if you' can live with that it's actually quite good).
This should also answer your OP Jehanne.

The first part of the presentation can be found on Gloria TV.
http://en.gloria.tv/?media=275810

I've posted the other 2 parts below which I found on You tube.
The





avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:52 pm

Columba,

Incredible video posts on the love of God and creation of Earth for us,. What say all?

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:23 pm

George Brenner wrote: Columba,

Incredible video posts on the love of God and creation of Earth for us,. What say all?

JMJ,

George

I agree George.
All the obvious points of contention are very well covered. Even the one that I used to consider but thought would be too rediculous to ask; that is, Why do I not be blown away by a 700 mph wind when I step outside? haha. (I am Irish after all)
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:34 pm

Thanks, Columba; I will watch the videos, eventually. It may be awhile. It's good to see you on CathInfo.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 51
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:48 pm

Hi Jehanne,
I'm not a member on Cathinfo but I'd be interested to know the user name of the member there who might have the same slant as me. Smile
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:10 pm

Columba,

I think you will find the following interesting, This is the tip of the tip of the iceberg with heavy hitters and eternal say so later:

From Bigpedia.com:

Philosophical assumptions

All the same, many cosmologist agree that the Cosmological Principle is a philosophical choice rather than one mandated by observation. E.g. Edwin Hubble agreed that many observations were consistent with a view that the earth is at or near the center of the universe, but he rejected it on philosophical grounds:

Such a condition [these red shifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, ... But the unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs ... is intolerable ... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.
George Ellis agreed that the no-center axiom is chosen for philosophical reasons, but it would be possible to construct a geocentric model that would explain the observations:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “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.”.

May have to copy and paste this link:
www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong

substantiated by all sorts of empirical evidence:
Dr. Robert Sungenis
Mr. Mark Wyatt
Dr. Robert Bennett
Msr. Rick/Wyn Delano
Mr. Martin Selbrede
Dr. Gerry Bouw
Dr. Robert Sungenis [again]
Mr. John Salza
Dr. E. Michael Jones ( someone I see and talk to at Mass each Tuesday)
Mr. Hugh Miller

What a great topic... more to come from Steven Hawkins, Albert Einstein etc.....


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:51 pm

Thanks George.
Looks like there's a lot of interesting stuff to read there.

It seems that it has been proved beyond doubt that the heliocentric model has been accepted for philosophical reasons rather than scientific. One could say the same of geocentrism if it weren't for the fact that scientific reasoning actually agrees more with the geocentric view than that of heliocentrism. Even the practical application of physics (as in GPS satelites) works only when the geocentric model is used.

Even if it were the case (which it isn't) that science favored neither one theory over the other, one would still have to (if one were a Christian) choose geocentrism for the remaing philosophical reason; that being, geocentrism aligns more with sacred scripture than does heliocentrism.



avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:27 pm

It's nothing to get "bent out of shape" over. Here are the two condemnations issued by the Holy Office against Galileo:

1. The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

Okay, per the near-universal consensus of modern cosmology ("philosophical" considerations notwithstanding) the Sun does move. Indeed, the accepted value can be found here:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AngelaChan.shtml

Much faster than the Earth's speed:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/IlanaEpstein.shtml

217 km/s versus 29.17 km/s for those of you who do not wish to click the above links.

So, on "count #1" the Church was right and Galileo was wrong; on "count #2" the Church was wrong and Galileo was right, but as the Church never declared Proposition #2 to be formally heretical, the Church's infallibility (and, hence, indefectibility) was not impugned.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 51
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:49 pm


Thanks Columba and Jehanne,

There is an answer to this of course. Its is hard for me to believe that we live in no special place as some would say in a remote suburb on the edge of the universe. I believe that we are at the very center, ground zero of God's love and creation.


JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:54 pm

The Holy Office's condemnation of Galileo includes the following words, "..also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture..,"

The Holy Office is saying that, that which is being condemned in the writings of Galileo has already been declared a dogmatic truth of the Faith. How then can it now be permitted that a Catholic believe the condemned doctrine without incurring any ecclesiastical penalty?
Heliocentrism (to my knowledge) is taught today in every Catholic school.

Thanks for the links Jehanne. I'll read them in due course.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:04 pm

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Jehanne wrote:
on "count #2" the Church was wrong and Galileo was right, but as the Church never declared Proposition #2 to be formally heretical, the Church's infallibility (and, hence, indefectibility) was not impugned.

Do you mean that the Church was actually wrong on count 2 or do you mean she was wrong according to the modern-day concensus?
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:24 pm

Worth the read as follows:


Galileo Was Wrong is an evocative book. It evoked memories which have lain dormant since my undergraduate days: things like the disturbing conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiments; things like Leibniz’s critique of Newton’s system as shot through with appeals to occult properties; things like the fact that no one, least of all Newton, can explain what gravity is or refute the materialists’ conclusion that it is intrinsic to matter. In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners. They look all of the anomalies in the current cosmological system in the face without fear and come up with conclusions that will startle the followers of Carl Sagan out of their dogmatic slumbers. Truth to tell, Newton was turned into an idol to serve the political purposes of the Whigs, who used him to bring down the House of Bourbon across the English Channel. His cosmological system was used as a justification of the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it.


E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. Editor: Culture Wars


***********************************************************

Once upon a time, there was a big bang. It filled the sky with debris that formed into stars and planets. One planet developed a special slime that brought forth plants, animals, and men. The men became wise and discovered the truths of the universe. Or did they? Fairy tales have their place, but they should not be confused with science. Why has speculation come to replace observation as the basis of science? Galileo Was Wrong takes a critical look at the thesis that the Earth is flying through space. Here you will find a thorough review of the scientific observations along with a review of the scientists themselves. You will see how their unquestioning support of the thesis led them to redefine the nature of the universe. You will have the evidence to make up your mind for yourself. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have done a great service to science and to men of good will. Those who see the universe as the handiwork of the benevolent God need no longer be subservient to fairy tales.


Anonymous, Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology

*************************************************************

Galileo Was Wrong is an amazing work which opened my mind to many things in the field of astronomy and cosmology. I am grateful to Robert Sungenis and his co-author Robert Bennett for this lucid, philosophically powerful and meticulously documented work. Looking at cosmology from the point of view of the “discredited” geocentric theory is a remarkable educational approach, and one that could be applied with profit to many fields today. Western culture reveals a hardening of the arteries of thinking all across the spectrum, and the recovery and exposition of alternative and dissenting views will be necessary to its regeneration. By its very nature, the geocentric theory occupies a central axis in this sclerosis of imagination and imperviousness to reality that so degrades the intellectual functioning of Western leaders and elites today. Many bad habits and automatic assumptions sprang from the rejection of geocentrism, and even to detail these, as Galileo Was Wrong does, is an achievement in itself. But there is more than excavation here. Galileo Was Wrong is a model for the kind of scholarship we need today – intellectual understanding not as an end in itself, but as a commitment to reality, infused with moral passion, love for the earth, common sense and philosophical sensitivity. We don’t need ‘new knowledge’ – as the peer-reviewed science establishment keeps forever intoning – so much as the ability to do things, and see things, differently. In our moral darkness, Galileo Was Wrong opens up an important path to the reconnection of thought and life.


Caryl Johnston, M. Ed., M.L.S. Jefferson Medical College
Author: Consecrated Venom

************************************************************

The very mention that the earth is motionless at the center of the universe, with the sun and universe revolving about it each day, as outlined and defended from physics and astronomy in Galileo Was Wrong, elicits a profound initial disbelieving shock. This is not a matter of belief but of evidence and of demanding study. Accumulated evidence justifies the rational claim of the text. The authors refer to a pivotal point, already testified to by many before, where physics went astray in accepting the unnecessary, unfounded, and diversionary relativity theories. A replacement was already set in place by physicists and experimentalists as Michael Faraday, Andre Ampere, Wilhelm Weber, Ernst Mach, and currently Andre Assis. Weber unified electrostatics and electrodynamics in 1848 in an expression for the energy and force between charges. The expression is confirmed by experiments, and required their relative distance, velocity and acceleration to each other, and the speed of light. Weber presented a similar expression for energy and force between material bodies, which is an important extension of Newton’s law. Integration of this force between a daily revolving universe, represented as a shell, gives rise, in the proper observed proportion, to centrifugal and Coriolis forces on material objects at the center. There is no need for dependence on any formulation from general relativity.

How can the universe, and the sun, revolve about us each day? There are theories to uphold this, in the never-ending desire to explain subatomic and galactic motions in the universe. What does remain is the reasonableness of the text’s thesis, from empirical sciences alone.


John Domen, MS Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

**************************************************************

Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.”

From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book Galileo Was Wrong meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic teaching and modern science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the center of the universe, then modern man must face his biggest fear – that there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and authority. This results in two more “frightening” consequences: Copernicanism (which was abandoned by Galileo before he died) is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind; and, modern man must retool his entire worldview by giving his primary allegiance, not to science, but to the Church, “the pinnacle and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).


John Salza, Esquire
Author: Masonry Unmasked
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  Jehanne on Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:18 pm

columba wrote:
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Jehanne wrote:
on "count #2" the Church was wrong and Galileo was right, but as the Church never declared Proposition #2 to be formally heretical, the Church's infallibility (and, hence, indefectibility) was not impugned.

Do you mean that the Church was actually wrong on count 2 or do you mean she was wrong according to the modern-day concensus?

The latter. It is not impossible that geocentrism could be correct. If materialism were true, then we should have “heard” (quite literally) from ET decades ago. That fact alone proves humanity's uniqueness.
avatar
Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 51
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:43 pm

Jehanne wrote:
The latter. It is not impossible that geocentrism could be correct. If materialism were true, then we should have “heard” (quite literally) from ET decades ago. That fact alone proves humanity's uniqueness.

Many theists hold the heliocentric view. I think the point that Sungenis and co were making is that holding this view is contrary to Holy Scripture.

As neither view (at present) can be ultimately proved scientifically correct, the only determining factor remaining in deciding which theory one should hold, is that of religious belief or lack there of.

The question is that of the inerrancy of Scripture vs a permitting of errancy in Scripture. The innerancy of Holy Sripture was precisely what the Church was upholding in the Galileo case. It was obvious that the Church read Genisis as an historically accurate account of creation, even while knowing and accepting that many other parts of Scripture were figurative.

How then is it permissible that today we can hold the same opinion as Galileo for no justifiable reason? As Mr Sungenis points out, the assumption that Holy Scripture can contain error, has repercussions concerning the Faith; all of them negnative.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:31 pm

How then is it permissible that today we can hold the same opinion as Galileo for no justifiable reason? As Mr Sungenis points out, the assumption that Holy Scripture can contain error, has repercussions concerning the Faith; all of them negnative.
And as St. Bellarmine pointed out, if science one day “proves” Scripture to be more figurative than literal with respect to geocentrism (for starters), then the Church would have to re-evaluate her own understanding of Scripture. As it is, there is no reason to abandon tradition.

Galileo was wrong, and the great joke coming to the proud as peacocks “the Church was [and is] wrong” science community who espouse the “science” of one absurd theory after another that are concocted to keep their big-bang materialistic quackery afloat, is that Scripture and the Church had it right all along.

My 8th grade R.E. teacher’s manual has this to say about the “Inerrancy of the Bible”:

… To understand what God is saying through these words [Scripture is the Word of God expressed in human words], we need to understand the historical and cultural situation in which they were written. Is some parts of the Bible, such as the Creation stories, the authors used figurative language to teach, not the facts about creation, but the truth that all creation comes from God and is very good.
Really? Well, as one priest said recently from the pulpit, the Creation stories (you know, "myths") originated with cave men types sitting around the campfire, which stories were then passed on through folklore and eventually made their way into Genesis. My takeaway was that Adam and Eve were part of these fantastical stories, and probably did not exist as our original parents who committed original sin. But why stop there, perhaps these same cavemen made up a story about a Redeemer who claimed He was of divine origin and who rose from the dead after having been put to death by Romans at the behest of the Jews. What’s important is that “creation comes from God and is very good” and that “Jesus loves us”.

The last is all true, but my students will learn a bit more than that, and what the Church actually teaches.

Columba, Rick Delano’s presentation may be a bit “dramatic”, but I appreciate his enthusiasm and passion.

Columba wrote:
2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Does the earth rotating about its own axis violate the laws of geocentrism?
I asked this question before but no answer as yet.
I don’t know, but my logical guess is that it does not, since, first of all, if I am not mistaken, Sungenis makes the case for a diurnal rotation.

And if that is true, it only tends to support the second point, and that is we tend to exaggerate the authority of the Roman Congregation in its subject condemnations, which document (1633) did not contain the Pope’s signature (it was issued “in forma communi” versus “in forma specifica”). The Catholic Encyclopedia states:

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope's signature. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm)
Fr. Brian Harrison also places this issue in perspective (even if I believe he exaggerates its seeming insignificance):

In the case of Rome's 17th-century insistence on geocentrism, we have a teaching which: (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office; (c) was endorsed by the papacy for only 141 years (1616-1757); (d) was never greeted with the emphatic and morally unanimous endorsement of the world's Bishops, only a respectful acquiescence; and (e) never in any case affected the concrete lives and destinies of any more than a handful of professional scientists such as Galileo. (Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html)
Perhaps so, but Galileo was still wrong, and Scripture (and the Church) will be vindicated.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:50 pm

George,

Bad link.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:18 pm


Mike,

Will the link not connect? When I am signed in it connects fine.



JMJ,

George

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:50 pm

MRyan wrote:
Columba, Rick Delano’s presentation may be a bit “dramatic”, but I appreciate his enthusiasm and passion.

Yea.. I do believe his animated presentation was due to his enthusiasm and passion.
Be interesting to see the movie/documentary he mentioned. Wonder when it's due to be released.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
Does the earth rotating about its own axis violate the laws of geocentrism?
I asked this question before but no answer as yet.

I don’t know, but my logical guess is that it does not, since, first of all, if I am not mistaken, Sungenis makes the case for a diurnal rotation

I will take a second listen Mike. I think Sungenis is of the view that the earth is motionless. Diurnal rotation -the heliocentrist would explain- is the perceived motion of the stars around the earth which they attribute to a revolving earth. Sungenis (I think) explains that the motion of the stars is an actual motion with the earth remaing motionless and the heavens revolving round the earth. If I remember correctly, Delano explained how the practical functioning of GPS relies on a motionless earth (though this fact of course is never admitted by the mainstream scientific community).



avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:41 am

avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:21 am

Columba,

I’m sure you’re correct; I may have misunderstood his comments on the earth’s “diurnal” rotation on its axis (which would cause the apparent daily motion of stars around the Earth) as being in favor of, rather than in opposition to such a rotation (as his analogy of the heavens to a turning wagon wheel would suggest); thus, he holds with Tycho Brahe that the Earth is static.

In fact, some years ago I asked Sungenis about the geocentric theory of the late Fernand Crombette, “a French Catholic scholar of extraordinary genius whose work is only now becoming known … who came to the conclusion on the basis of studies of Scripture and hieroglyphs that the earth in fact not motionless.

He maintained that it turns in place on its axis once every twenty-four hours, while at the same time traveling a very small yearly orbit ‘at the pace of a man walking,’ around the universal center, which its circumference touches at all times. The sun, traveling around the same universal center in a much larger orbit in the company of the planets, would therefore be revolving around the orbiting Earth as well, in true geocentric style.”
(Solange Hertz, Beyond Politics, pp 54-55)

Sungenis didn’t place much stock in this theory. However, the point is, as Solange Hertz says:

Many geocentric systems besides those of Aristotle and Ptolemy have been developed, Tycho Brahe’s being perhaps the best known. The different arrangements each uses to explain the celestial movements may or may not be true, but all agree on the centrality of Earth, which around everything takes place. That Earth is immovable does not necessarily mean that it is stationary, but only that it occupies an immovable position at the center of the universe. (Pg. 54)
Here again is the controversial condemned proposition of the Roman Congregation:

2. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith.
Therein is a hierarchy, if you will, of condemned propositions:

1. That the earth is not the center of the world
2. That the earth moves
3. That the earth moves also with a diurnal action

I would suggest that the primary proposition being condemned is number one. Numbers two and three fall into this category if such movements of the earth take it outside its central position.

However, I'm not sure that the proposition which says the earth is the center of the world, that it occupies an immovable position at the center, but that it may move upon (rotate around) its axis and/or revolves around, without moving from, the center, was condemned.

If it was, it cannot be held as "erroneous to the faith".

Of course, neither is a heliocentric universe "erroneous to the faith" in any formal heretical sense, as the Magisterium clearly does not hold it as "condemned" (and seems to give its nod to heliocentrism as the more "common" opinion).

But, the Fathers had it right all long.







avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:33 am

George Brenner wrote: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

proper link
Thanks, George, that's an excellent summation and argument for geocentrism.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:13 pm

columba wrote:
If I remember correctly, Delano explained how the practical functioning of GPS relies on a motionless earth (though this fact of course is never admitted by the mainstream scientific community).
Yes, and I would like to see how the mainstream scientific community responds to this apparent fact. Here’s a sampling from http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-71985.html:

“Moonbat” wrote:

There are other coordinate systems such as the Global system, Universal Transvere Mercator, Military Grid Reference System, World Geographic Reference System, Universal Polar Stereographic and others. All the reference systems are fixed earth. In other words all these systems use the geocentric reference system and not the acentric nor heliocentric systems. Each system works and is used by organisations such as NASA and the FAA.
“Triggy” responds:

For the lurkers:

Moonbat martin continues his dishonest and deliberate misrepresentation of scientific concepts.

All of the above are local reference frames that deal with Earth only geographic locations. Using local reference frames is done strictly for convenience and ease of calculations. The rotation of the Earth, and the orbit of the Earth around the Sun are not considered because they are not necessary for the reference frame to produce its desired results. NONE of the above reference frames imply that the Earth is actually fixed and non-rotating.

Imagine you are on a bench seat on a rotating merry-go round. If you wish to toss a tennis ball to the person sitting next to you (and ignoring air resistance), you don't have to account for the rotation of the merry-go-round. You can use your seat as a fixed local reference to judge your toss, because you and the target and the seat and the ball are all rotating with the same speed. Just because you can ignore the rotational effects locally doesn't mean the merry-go-round is fixed and not rotating globally.

Now imagine you try to toss the tennis ball from the moving merry-go-round to a person standing on the ground beside the ride. You can no longer use your bench as a fixed reference frame, because your target is not included in the same reference frame. Now you have to take into account the merry-go-round's rotational speed when making your toss. This is why the launch of an orbital booster must account for the Earth's rotational velocity, but a local stationary reference is OK for terrestrial navigation.

The U.S. Postal Service also uses a fixed reference system, a map with city street coordinates, when delivering mail to my house. Does anyone think that means the USPS endorses Geocentricity?
Hmmm….
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  MRyan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:33 pm

From the same website, a poster wrote:

Here’s some reasons I'm a BB cosmological skeptic.

As of yesterday, the world suddenly was alerted to the fact that Einstein's theory of Relativity may not be, and probably is not, correct. It’s been all over the news. Here we are, on the verge of the 100th anniversary of Einstein's celebrated theory (1905-2005), and two scientists from Australia report in the most prestigious science journal on the planet, Nature, that the speed of light is not constant - the bedrock of Einstein's theory of Relativity.

But that's not all. Here are the dire ramifications of what these two astrophysicists from Australia have given to us. As I stated on our website, Einstein's theory of Relativity was formulated for the express purpose of relieving the world of having to believe that the earth was standing still in space. Here's what Einstein's biographer, Ronald J. Clark, says in his book, Einstein: The Life and Times (page 109-110):

"The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space, a possibility which had already been ruled out to the satisfaction of the scientific community by a number of experiments, notably those of English astronomer James Bradley. The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again."
Notice the import of what Clark is saying. One of Einstein's options concerning the results of the Michelson-Morley ether experiment of 1887 was to conclude that the earth was standing still, motionless in space. But that idea, of course, would be a severe embarrassment to science which, for 600 years, kept telling everybody that the earth was moving around the sun. Surely Einstein would not consider upsetting the great Copernican revolution, even though the evidence from Michelson-Morley dictated just that.

. . .Instead, as Clark reports, Einstein settled on "scrapping the current views of light, electricity and magnetism, and starting again," so that he could save the world from having to believe that the earth was motionless. In order to do that, Einstein, literally, had to reinvent physics. He had to postulate that time warped; that mass increased to infinity; that one twin sent away from the other at the speed of light would one day find his brother old and decrepit while he enjoyed the pleasures of youth. Yes, Einstein had to change every fundamental law of physics to save us from believing in geocentrism, but there was one dimension he had to keep the same, and that was the speed of light. It had to constant, or nothing would work in the new universe Einstein was giving us. Everything else in the universe was "relative," but light had to be constant -- otherwise, he would have to admit, as biographer Ronald Clark tells us, that the earth was standing still. . . http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/pink-einstien-print.htm

Here’s another

“. . .there is one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model [big bang]. Underlying all the calculations described in this chapter is the cosmological principle, the assumption that the universe is homogenous and isotropic.” Stephen Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (Bantam Books NY, 1977), p.111.
Here’s another

“The conservation of energy principles serves us well in all sciences except cosmology. . . . To the question where the energy goes in an expanding universe and where it comes from in a collapsing universe the answer is nowhere, because in this one case energy is not conserved.” Edward Harrisn, The Science of the Universe p276.
Here’s another

“The big bang theory of cosmic wavelength expansion demands a non conservation of energy loss equal to a gargantuan 30 million times the mass of the visible universe.” See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf
Here’s another

“Halton Arp collected a number of exceptions to hubbles law that do not take place in an expanding space model: inversions and periodicity of the red shift.” Dr Arthur Gohin and Dr. Christian Bizouard, Weaknesses of the Bog Bang Model, International Catholic Symposium on Creation.
Here’s another.

“The Big Bang Never Happened : A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe”, by Erik Lerner http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067974049X/104-1732830-5337556?v=glance&n=283155
Or another

As the following paragraph was written on another thread I'll repreat it again.

There is enough evidence against the dominant theory to require a new model to be forthcoming. Why not start with a geocentric universe using the red shift observations of Hubble that indicated the universe has a centre? An alternate assumption was made that the universe started at a big bang has been expanding ever since, hence the Friedmann-Lamaitre expanding space time solution to the Einstein field equations. The BB theory has now been proven wrong with its unresolvable problems. An alternative solution would be to start with a universe that’s static with a centre (perhaps the earth) and go from there.

avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  George Brenner on Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:27 pm

To All;

I am thoroughly fascinated with this subject. I defer truth on this to our God. I can not help but see the impact of the Earth being the center of the universe and thus an even deeper relationship and love for God our creator. We are fortunate that Jehanne started this thread and even more appreciative of Columba posting the two video links.Robert Sungensis does a great job of explaining Geocentrism in fairly easy to understand terms. As far as Rick Delano, I really enjoy his passion and ability to verbally highlight important points. I often wandered about the subject of geocentrism and now we are having this great discussion. I could not fathom what seemed like nonsense to me concerning the big bang and the earth having no significant place in the universe. The Church and the Bible and science all must mesh in truth in the perfection and design of God.

This subject can only deepen our Faith and help us all to be better Catholics. It is as if this allows us to take a spiritual time out as we pause together in thanksgiving to God in order to know, love and serve Our Father with more depth and trust than ever.

I believe that the Earth is the center of the entire universe. I see the entire universe including, sun, space, stars and moon rotating around the earth in a 24 hour period demonstrating and visibly manifesting God's creation before us. I believe that the sun rises and that the Earth does not need to move to meet the rising Sun but that the Earth for all intent is at complete rest. I believe that the rising Sun today will not meet that exact point again for 365 days and thus the changing of seasons as the suns movement and distance from the earth changes every day. I do not feel the need to be completely correct on this for I defer to God, Genesis, the Church and science but certainly not to the likes of Galileo and Hawkins.

JMJ,

George
avatar
George Brenner

Posts : 604
Reputation : 674
Join date : 2011-09-08

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  columba on Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:46 pm

Indeed George, this is a facinating subject.

My interest in the matter was ignited a few years ago by listening to a sermon on Audio Sancto (posted below). The priest giving the sermon was himself involved in science before his calling to the priesthood.
He explains how scientifically, the BB theory has no credibility.

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20080420-Big-Bang-Fizzles-Moses-Sizzles.html

Mike,
It seems like heliocentrism is experiencing a long overdue onslaught of truth.
avatar
columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: If the Earth doesn't move, explain this.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum