Gallileo was wrong!

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, Jun 23, 2003.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Catholic E-pologist Robert Sungenis.

    Robert Sungenis has part of his web site dedicated to proving that the universe is geocentic. (earth centered). Do other Catholics hold this view? Here is part of the article.

    R. Sungenis: Ken, you're missing one thing. Newton's law that smaller bodies revolve around larger bodies is true only in isolated systems in which there is one large body and one small body. (In fact, Newton had problems explaining what would happen if a third body, or even a multiple number of bodies, came between two bodies whose mutual force was originally calculated using the inverse square law).

    But the fact is our universe is not an isolated system. It includes innumerable galaxies. These galaxies directly effect the movement of the sun, which in turn would effect how the sun moves in relation to the earth.

    For example, in the heliocentric system to which you hold, you believe the sun is revolving around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000mph. What is it, in your system of mechanics, that holds the sun in this orbit? Obviously, it is the gravitational balance between the Milky Way and the inertia of the sun, according to Newton's laws. Thus, you would have to admit that the sun's movement is controlled by the stars in the Milky Way.

    That being the case, we can also create a Geocentric model of the universe. Using Newtonian mechanics, we can construct a mathematical model of the universe such that the earth is at the very center, the sun is in the middle, and the stars are on the rim. If all these bodies are positioned in the exact places they need to be, with the exact masses they need to have, it would result in a system in which the force of the stars carry the sun around a central earth, much like the rim of a spinning bicycle wheel carries the spokes around the axle. This would not be hard to design at all. A good computer could figure out what the proportions of distance and mass would have to be to satisfy both a Geocentric universe and Newtonian mechanics.

    So I'm sorry, Ken, but you haven't disproved Geocentrism. In actuality, you have allowed us to demonstrate once again that the same laws with which you work are the same laws that govern a Geocentric universe.


    Robert Sungenis
    Catholic Apologetics International
    March 12, 2003
     
  2. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    There probably are, just as there are a few Baptists and others that hold this view. [​IMG]
     
  3. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you give us a link to that web site.

    Until recently I would have not thought much of it except that Robert was having some fun, but in recent months I have read enough in scientific not religous periodicals enough to realize that I don't know enough to comment on what science can prove.

    I take no ownership of these thoughts I will just try to pass on what I have read

    In one magazine a few months ago I read that using Einsteinian math you could just as easily prove that the Sun revolves around the earth as the earth around the sun apparently it is all relative.

    In another more recently I read about this new model of the universe that has everyone all excited that may replace current model as it solves many of the previously unexplained problems. I know I don't have this one exactly right but I will try anyway. Imagine a ribbon put together to form a circle now connect the sides of the ribbon and form a cicular cylander, that is the universe pick any point along that ribbon and you are at the center.

    Sorry I don't have a reference I was thumbing thru the magazines at a book store.

    God Bless
     
  4. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the site. http://www.catholicintl.com/
    If you scroll down near the bottom you will see his section on geocentrism. It seem also that Sungenis holds to a more "Traditional Catholicism" and is accusing Karl Keating and Scott Hahn of being "neo-Catholics". THer are some very controversial articles there.
     
  5. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show me. I would be interested in scolding them.
     
  6. BrianT

    BrianT
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2002
    Messages:
    3,516
    Likes Received:
    0
    Show me. I would be interested in scolding them. </font>[/QUOTE][​IMG]

    There were some posting on this board a while back, but I can't find the threads right now. As for websites, probably the most well-known site is run by a Baptist and is at:
    http://www.geocentricity.com/
     
  7. Kathryn

    Kathryn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the little I see from looking over Robert Sungenis' site he holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis. [​IMG]

    God Bless
     
  8. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Does this mean that the earth is the center of God's creation and that Heaven rotates around the Earth? Or is heaven not constrained by anything of the earth?
     
  9. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wasn't there some nutcase on this board a ways back trying to assert that the universe is geocentric? Something about "if God makes the sun only appear to rise, then how do we know his Son only appeared to rise".

    Geocentricity, like flat earth proponents, are nothing more than biblical literal extremists attempting to insert biblical meaning that doesn't exist.
     
  10. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sungenis' motive is not to protect a literal interpretation of the Bible but to protect the Infallibility of the Roman Catholic church. You see, he knows that the church made a serious blunder when they made poor Galileo recant and infallibly declared the earth at the center.

    But what is the church' official position these days?
     
  11. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree wholeheatedly!

    I like Robert Sungenis and his Catholic apologetics, but I think he is wrong, wrong, WRONG here.

    Somewhere on that site, someone showed a bit of the math that has two masses attractive to one another.

    Assume two sphrical masses, both are equal in all respects, mass, diameter, etc. Without any rotating component added, they would both be attracted to each other and eventually come together in a collision!

    But if there is a rotational component, and for simplicity a circular rotation, both masses would rotate around each other equally!

    Try taking two balls, such as billard balls, of equal weight (say 1 lbs. each) and have them constrained by a strong string - two balls tethered on a string, say 3 feet apart.

    Now, if you take one of the balls and rotate the whole mess around and around and around, like you would do with an olympic throwing ball on a teather, and then let go.....

    While in flight, both balls would rotate around each other! Each orbit would be the same for each!

    Now, if two bodies in the universe were of equal mass, as say, nearly so in some double-star systems that have been observed, guess what?

    They rotate around each other! They have an imaginary "string" tethering each other, which is, of course, the mutual gravitational attraction to each other.

    This is not a perfect analog, as gravitational attraction is not a "rigid string" at full stress, but more like a bungie cord that stretches. But if you were to do that same expiment with a stiff bungie cord between your two billard balls, for example, you would get approximately the same result.

    Try doing that with a billard ball tied to a bowling ball with a stiff bungie cord. Twirl the combination by the smaller ball (as the bungie cord gets longer and longer in it's stretching) and let go. In flight, the billiard ball will be rotating it's head off, almost exclusively around the bowling ball!

    As I have done with the billard ball/bowling ball experiment, as one body is made lesser and lesser in mass, it's motion around the other body is less and less, until a case is found where the smaller body is rotationing nearly exclusively around the larger.

    In fact, while the earth is much smaller in mass then the sun, there is an almost imperceptable "wobbling" in the orbit of the sun caused by the gravitational tug by the earth. But because the Sun is of much greater mass, the earth MUST rotate around the sun for the reasons given.

    How's that for some amateur celestial medhanics without using a bit of math? [​IMG]

    One further thing: there was a discussion of receeding space crafts leavng the solar system for outer space. (An open orbit where they will not come back.)

    All one has to do is measure the tiny frequency shift that occurs in the space craft's radio signal to see the rotation of the earth around the sun! As the earth moves toward the space craft, the signal's frequency would shift upwards slightly, and when receeding a half-year later (and receeding away from the space craft) the radio signal would lower in frequency.

    This is called the DOPPLER effect!

    The effect effects sound, light and radio signals as well.

    While riding in a train, notice the sound of a ringing warning bell at a vehicular crossing. As you approach the crossing, the "ding, ding, ding" is higher pitch, but rapidly lowers as you pass adjacient to it and go beyond.

    And I have ridden in enough trains to notice the effect! [​IMG]

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
     
  12. Kathryn

    Kathryn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose Geocentricity has fruitcakes just as Heliocentricity has fruitcakes. However if Geocentricity proponents can scientifically show that their positions are as sound as Heliocentics positions then there might be something to it. Albert Einstein was not infallible and much of what we accept about how the universe works is taking his formulas as written in stone. There is some evidence that what he believed to be true, may not be true...such as the speed of light being constant.

    Don't get me wrong I am not a proponent of Geocentricity, but I don't think we should right them off either. We really may be the center of the universe. Makes sense to me, but I am not a scientist. Anyone here believe in the Big Bang? Do you guys know that the father of the Big Bang Theory was a scientist and devout Catholic priest.

    Before his theory gained acceptance, the scientific community believed the universe to have no beginning and to have no end..... No God involved. Fr. Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang with a little alteration to Einstein's theory. It is said that Einstein listened to his presentation and at the end stood up and clapped and said it was the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation for creation he had ever heard. The Big Bang theory shattered the myth that the universe did not have a beginning and would not have an end.

    The scientific theories are interesting, but my faith is not dependent on any of them. God is the Creator and as far as I am concerned the earth and humans are the center of His creation.

    God Bless

    [ June 23, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]
     
  13. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    This also from Sungenis:

    "It effects your view of the Church because if it can be proven that, after the Church clung so tenaciously to the view that the sun revolves around the earth, but that now the Church finally has to admit she was wrong about one of its more authoritative teachings in the seventeenth century, this does not bode well for convincing modern man to abide by the Church's official teaching on ANY issue. Unfortunately, this is precisely the attitude we have seen from modern man. Man, because he has convinced himself that his "science" has turned Scripture into superstitious myths and fables; and the Church into a mere purveyor of the same; has become so cock-sure of himself in the little world he has created, that he not only has no need for God, he has attacked, and thinks he has destroyed, the very foundations of that belief. The modern Church, because she has been weak in fighting this issue, and indeed, ever since the days of George Terrell and Teilhard de Chardin has been infiltrated by free-thinking evolutionists, it totters to-and-fro, in one instance apologizing and condoning, and in other instances drawing back and distancing itself, resulting in no sure-footing for the world to rest upon. Meanwhile, a recent poll of young people in Europe reveals that 47% of them attribute their spiritual apathy to the difference between the theological and scientific explanations for the origin of the world. As for the Church's previous condemnations of Copernicanism and Galileo, here are the facts: The Inquisition of 1615 in Rome declared the position of Galileo to be "scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it" (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 6, p. 344). Following this was a decree from the Congregation of the Index on March 5, 1616, prohibiting various heretical works, and among them were those advocating the Copernican system. As for the Pope at that time, Paul V, "there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided" (Ibid, p. 344). To Galileo's dismay, the next Pope, Urban VIII, would not annul the judgment of the Inquisition. The Encyclopedia concludes: "That both these pontiffs [Paul V and Urban VIII] were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did" (Ibid, p. 345). So despite what anyone says, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the Copernican theory and no pope has ever annulled the decrees of Paul V or Urban VIII. The only thing the Church has done is apologized for the treatment of Galileo in a 1992 address by John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Science.
     
  14. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kathy concluded her message with:

    AMEN, Kathy!

    And interestingly, the physical laws are of God's creation as well, which goes against the idea the the Grand Canyon is no older them about 6,000 years. Bah, humbug! [​IMG]

    But that's another thread, another on-going argument - Creationism V. Evolution.

    I better stop while I am ahead! [​IMG]

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Well at least he got "one thing" right.

    After all - if the Genesis 1-3 story is "myth" the Gospel is corrupted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. Major B

    Major B
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/6069.jpg>

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    The former slave preacher John Jasper, who was a very successful pastor in Baltimore up until the early 1900s, was the author and preacher of one of the most-often preached sermons of his time. He reportedly preached, "De Sun Do Move," over 3500 times, supporting the geocentric theory.

    But that was the 19th century...
     

Share This Page

Loading...