Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[hansgeorg]

I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, as I happen to be reading Nemesius of Emesa. You're approaching science the way ancient Greeks did (doubtless mediated via Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics), via logical speculation. Unfortunately for you, what seems to be logical (to you and the ancient Greeks) does not necessarily correspond with actuality. We've developed a much better method of doing science than the Greeks, based on hypotheses confirmed or disconfirmed via empirical observation.

You are wrong in saying the modern method of science is substantially other than the Greek and scholastic one.

Also, "confirmed" and "disconfirmed" is very firmly (pun intended) based on logic.

Also, the hypothesis of:

* Geocentrism true (not just apparent)
* Tychonian orbits true (not just apparent)
* God moving aether and celestial bodies with it each day (updated version of solid spheres, to make them compatible with Tychonian orbits and comets, which real solids are not)
* angels moving celestial bodies in more or less complex ways eastward, except for fixed stars
* angels moving fixed stars 20 arc minutes per annum (corr. aberration) and some minute variations (corr. to parallax and at maximum to proper movement)

is a hypothesis so far not disconfirmed.

But if you think Aristoteles and Scholastics hammered out pure a prioris on logic without observation, like Kant, Hegel and other German idealists, and didn't bother with observation, think again.

And I hope you don't limit "empirical observations" to exclude commonplace observations.

You are perfectly correct that I have read St Thomas much more than Aristotle, my Latin was St Thomas level well before I left university and my Greek just began to get headway in Aristotle, and I didn't have the occasion to keep Greek up much after leaving without a degree.

It was in fact in an attempt to brush up my Greek that I opened Photius' Bibliotheca and found the phrase "ho en tois hagiois Aougoustinos". Now I wonder if the occasion was some book not by that Saint, since I didn't find it on the list of authors and titles.

The ancient Greeks did at least confine their logical speculation to being compatible with the available knowledge of the physical world. Hansgeorg doesn't bother with that.

I very much do bother, that is why I am disconcerted to what seems a major discrepancy about the aether.

Obviously, even if aether has same angular speed (360° / < 24 h) at ground as at star level, it has a much slower linear speed than up there, and I thought this would account for Coriolis rather neatly.

Problem is, the linear speed at ground level would still be too high for Coriolis. Nevertheless, luminiferous aether seems according to Michelson Gale experiment (relying on research of other Geocentrics here) to have luminiferous aether moving at same angular speed as stars, approximately.

And if we say aether bends light more than solids, we are stuck about Geostationary satellites.

Not giving up because of that, though, when so much else confirms Geocentrism as a very viable option for a supranaturalist (obviously, a naturalist cannot accept God and angels and so cannot accept the "mechanism" availabel to Geocentrism - you are stuck with Heliocentrism, poor guys!)

[TheLurch]

You are wrong in saying the modern method of science is substantially other than the Greek and scholastic one.

No, he's not. I recommend reading this to find out a comprehensive list of ways in which they differ:
https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Sci.../dp/006175952X

Also, the hypothesis of:

* Geocentrism true (not just apparent)
* Tychonian orbits true (not just apparent)
* God moving aether and celestial bodies with it each day (updated version of solid spheres, to make them compatible with Tychonian orbits and comets, which real solids are not)
* angels moving celestial bodies in more or less complex ways eastward, except for fixed stars
* angels moving fixed stars 20 arc minutes per annum (corr. aberration) and some minute variations (corr. to parallax and at maximum to proper movement)

is a hypothesis so far not disconfirmed.

Yes, and we have not yet disconfirmed that little green pixies are sneaking around the LHC, tweaking the electronics so that it appears as if particle collisions were taking place. Yet nobody seems to be taking that idea seriously. I wonder why...

[oxmixmudd]

Unless, of course, the initial error in placing alpha Centauri 4 light years away, and so on, prejudiced the size estimates of standard candles (supposing such exist) and therefore warped the understanding of astrophysics.

Simple as that.

No. The sort of matter from which a neutron star is made can't exist outside the extreme conditions of ~1.2 solar masses compressed into a space a perhaps 20 km. These stars are very hot, have immensely strong magnetic fields which produce huge amounts of radiation, and are the result of the supernovae of a star much larger than our sun. To put such events and remnants at 1 light day is ludicrous. And to claim this could somehow be some smaller form of neutron star is not to understand the physics of such an object. Apart from the immense gravity well of this object, a substance made of pure neutrons simply can't exist for any useful period of time, much less the 1000 years since the supernova that produced the crab nebula pulsar.

Jim

[JonF]

And,of course there's SN1987A for him to ad-hocicate.

[oxmixmudd]

SN1987a indeed. But one thing at a time.

Jim

[DesertBerean]

No. The sort of matter from which a neutron star is made can't exist outside the extreme conditions of ~1.2 solar masses compressed into a space a perhaps 20 km. These stars are very hot, have immensely strong magnetic fields which produce huge amounts of radiation, and are the result of the supernovae of a star much larger than our sun. To put such events and remnants at 1 light day is ludicrous. And to claim this could somehow be some smaller form of neutron star is not to understand the physics of such an object. Apart from the immense gravity well of this object, a substance made of pure neutrons simply can't exist for any useful period of time, much less the 1000 years since the supernova that produced the crab nebula pulsar.

Jim

Do you mean one light DAY or one light YEAR?

[oxmixmudd]

Hansgeorg thinks the sky is a sphere around the earth one light day hence.


Jim

[DesertBerean]

Hansgeorg thinks the sky is a sphere around the earth one light day hence.


Jim

ah. I was thinking this was about Alpha Centauri still. OK.

[JohnMartin]

he 1633 Papal decree against Galileo,
Its true, Galileo was sentenced at that time for his disobedience against the Pope, and the sentence itself charged him with heresy. However, the document itself was not written by the pope, nor did it carry his signature, that would elevate the sentencing to a papal decree. The Church made no doctrinal stance during that trial.

The Church has later made it clear that heliocentrism may be taught both as fact and as being in no way a conflict of the faith.

The Papal decree of 1633 made it clear that it was a decision made under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The decision made it clear that the moving earth theory was heresy, and the decision was backed up by Pope Urban VIII and subsequent Popes. To claim the Papal Bull of 1633 had no Papal authority is only a claim not yet established. The claim that the Pope must sign a document for the document to have Papal authority s only a claim without any evidence.

2) the OT scriptural statements that say the sun, moon and stars do the moving and

That is a matter of interpretation. I leave that to better men than myself.

The Church fathers and the 1633 Papal Bull have already spoken on the matter in favor of the stationary earth.

3) the consent of the Church Fathers that favors a stationary Earth.
But they are wrong on this matter, and since the question of geocentrism touches on no article of faith, and no moral truth, they carry no infallible authority here. The Church Fathers believed many things we now know are wrong, they were also racists and misogynists according to the state of morality of the time. They did heroic work in striving above that, but they weren't perfect, and no one but a fool considers them perfect. They themselves certainly didn't.

The unanimous consent of the fathers is binding according to Pope Leo VIII. According to Pope Urban VIII the moving earth is a dogma of the faith as implied where the Papal bull claims that moving earth theory is heresy.

1) How do you account for the above sources saying the Earth is stationary if the Earth is moving?
This question is odd, by the two previous questions, you've already received your answers.

The question is pertinent if the sources of revelation say the earth is stationary. What then do you do with those statements within the sources, if you hold to a moving earth theory?

2) If the Earth is stationary, why not defend that truth as Robert is doing?

But the Earth is not stationary. All the evidence is against the notion. The Church approves of heliocentrism and has done so for centuries. Robert is convinced that all the moral failings of the Church can be blamed on not taking geocentrism seriously. I think that's highly naive. We want simple explanations to complex problems. The state of the Church in the world today is caused by thousands of things. Not one small mistake on natural philosophy.

Much of the scientific evidence is in favor of a stationary earth and much evidence is also found for the stationary earth in the sources of revelation. Robert is convinced that some of the problems within the church are based upon a silence in the church on the topic of the stationary earth. He is correct about that observation.

Mater Ecclesia has wisely chosen to stay out of the science debates because of their chaotic and earthly nature. As such don't hold your hats for an actual papal decree on cosmology.

A Papal decree has already been given in 1633, along the church fathers in previous centuries.

All that Sungenis has managed to do with his geocentrism is move himself out to a harmless fringe of cranks. Safely dismissed. He no longer engages and debates, instead he rants to people who already agree with him. His anti-zionism nonsense has cost him a lot of respect, without showing any good fruits.

You think Sungenis is a crank. Yet relativity theory is entirely crank science fabricated to explain the results of the interferometer experiments.

3) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know from science alone if Relativity theory says we cannot be sure of what body is moving past what body?
True its possible for the actual frame of reference of the universe, known only to the angels and God, where the Earth is stationary. Trouble is, this is one out of an endless number of possibilities. Without good reason for taking the Earth as such, we'd be forced to accept that its very improbable that we're the exact center of the universe. This is double so with general relativity, where the frame would have to exactly cancel out all motion forever so that the center of the earth remained static.

The possibilities are reduced to only one with the truth of a stationary earth as found in revelation.

But what you're claiming and what Sungenis is claiming, isn't merely that their position is that General Relativity has a possible interpretation with the Earth as the center of the universe. Both of you are claiming that relativity is bunk, and other evidence proves the earth is the center of the universe. That's the pseudoscience part. I'd have a much higher respect for you if you went the other route instead.

There can be nothing within science that contradicts the stationary earth. There can be some science evidence that supports the stationary earth. Some evidence includes the Airys failure, the small fringe shift in the interferometer experiments, the quantized redshift of the galaxies as discovered by Edwin Hubble, the evidence from WMAP and so on. None of the evidence is controversial, unless of course the geocentrist uses the evidence to support the stationary earth theory.

4) If the Earth is moving, how are we to know with certitude when Geocentrists claim modern Geocentric models account for all the phenomena that is classically presented as evidence for Heliocentrism? For example the existence of parallax, and aberration of star light is classically presented as strong evidence for the Earth's motion, but the new Geo models account for such motion with a stationary earth.
Modern geocentrists deny the theory of relativity. They have to in order for their current aether models to work properly.

This is not e relevant answer to the question. Geo models account for the phenomena used to promote a Helio model. So why merely believe the Helio model when there is no proof? You only have an opinion based upon the opinion of the academy.

5) If there is no proof from science that the earth is moving, why not consider the earth to be stationary and let the sources of revelation speak for themselves on the matter location and motion of the Earth?

Because the Bible has no clear answer on whether we are moving or not. At best a couple of citations can be found here and there, or you have the opinions of the Church Fathers which they themselves got not from revelation, but from whatever philosophy they grew up with.
In short, there is no revelation on it.

And taken as a natural philosophy the geocentric model is highly unlikely. Hence modern cosmology is the preferable answer.

You have no evidence that the church fathers got their opinion from philosophy, when the fathers made many comments about cosmology, based upon revelation. Modern cosmology has no more support than what you think the Geo model has. Modern cosmology is merely a guess regarding the nature of universal redshift. If the guess is wrong, then the modern standard model is fatally flawed.

6) If there is proof from science that the Earth is moving, what then is the proof?
People can look up the three 10000+ post long threads you started on this before. I have no desire or need to reproduce it.

Good. There is no proof for the moving earth from modern science.

JM

[Leonhard]

The Papal decree of 1633 made it clear that it was a decision made under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The decision made it clear that the moving earth theory was heresy, and the decision was backed up by Pope Urban VIII and subsequent Popes. To claim the Papal Bull of 1633 had no Papal authority is only a claim not yet established. The claim that the Pope must sign a document for the document to have Papal authority s only a claim without any evidence.

You can shout as much as you want, there's nothing that directly or indirectly that suddenly turns this into a Papal document. It remains entirely, and exclusively a document written by a bishop. It is true that this bishop has, by authority granted by the Papal See, the authority to carry out judgement, such as the judgement done to Galileo here. Such a judgement is not infallible, but it should still be obeyed. And as Galileo had been disobedient in matters regarding the way he used his heliocentric idea to challenge the Church. It is by and large a perfectly reasonable judgement.

But it is not a papal decree, binding on the faith of the believers.

And if you're referring to this document, then it is in no way a Papal Bull. It remains the judgement of a congregation of bishops who's task it was to pronounce sentence. I hold the maximalist view that their sentencing was just, given what was known at the time. However it in no way bound the conscience of believers.

Neither the 1616 decree placing Galileo's books on the Index of Forbidden Books, nor the 1633 condemnation of Galileo, carry the Pope's signature, nor that he in anyway declares the writing as his by the usual formula. There is not even any evidence that he even read it. But rather, like with hundred or thousands of other decisions of the Vatican, they are carried out by congregations given authority to handle these matters by the pope. Their decisions should be respected, but their positions are not irreformable.

No pope from Pope Urban VIII, to Pope Francis has in anyway spoken out in any sermon, or any public statement by their pen against the teaching of heliocentrism. On the contrary permission was later specifically granted for the printing of heliocentric books, and Pope Emmeritus Benedict XVI (who was pope in case you're one of the ridiculous Sedevacantists), spoke quite well of modern cosmology.

You keep insisting that there's a need for the Church to make an official statement that theories other than geocentrism are permitted. But there isn't a need for the Church to make clear that something is permitted that it has never made forbidden.

The Church fathers ... have already spoken on the matter in favor of the stationary earth.

Yes, they have. That is the one good reason I can see for anyone holding to geocentrism despite the evidence. And it was the argument St. Bellarmine used. Unfortunately it's not a truly and the argument that St. Bellarmine puts forth isn't all that strong either. At best he can argue that the plainest reading means that the sun is moving around the Earth, and the Church Father was of one mind in that. However he doesn't distinguish in principle between natural science, and statements of faith and morals. It is true that one isn't free to deny the number of sons of Abraham, but it doesn't follow from that the consensus of the Church Fathers is infallible on this point of science.

For the reason you precisely point out. The language of the Bible when speaking about the sun can be interpreted phenomenologically. The Church Fathers themselves spent almost no energy on cosmology. St. Augustine if he talked about there not existing antipodes, then it was simple to defend the important doctrine that humanity all descend from Adam and Eve.

Much of the scientific evidence is in favor of a stationary earth and much evidence is also found for the stationary earth in the sources of revelation. Robert is convinced that some of the problems within the church are based upon a silence in the church on the topic of the stationary earth. He is correct about that observation.

I believe he should submit himself to the present day bishops, stop talking about conspiracy theories on jews and geocentrism, and return to the apologetics he started out with, which was actually quite decent.

There is no scientific evidence in favor of geocentrism.

You think Sungenis is a crank. Yet relativity theory is entirely crank science fabricated to explain the results of the interferometer experiments.

Sungenis has become a crank, and you're quintessential crank.

There can be nothing within science that contradicts the stationary earth. There can be some science evidence that supports the stationary earth. Some evidence includes the Airys failure, the small fringe shift in the interferometer experiments, the quantized redshift of the galaxies as discovered by Edwin Hubble, the evidence from WMAP and so on. None of the evidence is controversial, unless of course the geocentrist uses the evidence to support the stationary earth theory.

You're offering things that have long been debunked. The hallmark of a crank is that when they're presented with answers, they ignore them and repeat themselves later. There are no fringe shifts in interferometer experiments, the quantization of redshifts doesn't exist in good modern day datasets of redshits, the (very weak) multiple of WMAP isn't there in the much better and more refined Planck datasets.

That's because you're a crank spinning around in your basement. Submit to the modern day magisterium and spend your time on something truly productive like the divine office.

Geo models account for the phenomena used to promote a Helio model.

Geo models don't account for anything. Geocentrists just invoke magical aether (or angels), and make sure the aether does in an artifical way, exactly what is needed to reproduce all the predictions that come naturally from better models.

So there's no such thing as a geocentric model. There's geocentric after-the-fact post-hoc explaining how modern day science results can be read in a geocentric way.
the nature of universal redshift. If the guess is wrong, then the modern standard model is fatally flawed.

May God bless you.

[shunyadragon]

Science of the mass of the earth.

Source: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/53437/20161202/total-mass-earths-technosphere-now-huge-30-trillion-tons-research.htm

The Total Mass Of Earth's Technosphere Is Now A Huge 30 Trillion Tons, Research Reveals

A team of geologists made the first estimates of the mass of the physical structure of Earth's technosphere. It approximately now weighs to an enormous 30 trillion tons.

The finding of the study is printed in the Anthropocene Review. It was led by Professor Jan Zalasiewicz from the University of Leicester, U.K. and other colleagues, according to Sci-News.

Peter Haff, a co-author of the study and a professor of geology and civil engineering at Duke University, and his colleagues explained that technosphere comprises of complex social structures together with the physical structure and technological artifacts that support information, energy and material flows that enable the system to work. This includes transmission lines, power stations, roads and buildings, tools, farms, plastics, ballpoint pens, airplanes and transistors.

Prof. Zalasiewicz added that humans and human organizations form a part of it, too. He further explained that technosphere is a system, with its own dynamics and energy flows, and humans must help keep it going to survive.

The team said that the mass of Earth's technosphere now weighs about 30 trillion tons. That is about a mass of more than 50 kg for every square meter of the Earth's surface. They further said that highly preliminary estimates of the major components of the Earth System co-opted into the technosphere suggest a mass of 30 trillion tons, equivalent to >50kg/square meter of the Earth's surface.

© Copyright Original Source

[JohnMartin]

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
The Papal decree of 1633 made it clear that it was a decision made under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The decision made it clear that the moving earth theory was heresy, and the decision was backed up by Pope Urban VIII and subsequent Popes. To claim the Papal Bull of 1633 had no Papal authority is only a claim not yet established. The claim that the Pope must sign a document for the document to have Papal authority s only a claim without any evidence.

You can shout as much as you want, there's nothing that directly or indirectly that suddenly turns this into a Papal document. It remains entirely, and exclusively a document written by a bishop. It is true that this bishop has, by authority granted by the Papal See, the authority to carry out judgement, such as the judgement done to Galileo here. Such a judgement is not infallible, but it should still be obeyed. And as Galileo had been disobedient in matters regarding the way he used his heliocentric idea to challenge the Church. It is by and large a perfectly reasonable judgement.

This is jumbled up thinking. You hold to the 1633 document as only from a bishop, but then also say the bishop had authority from the Pope. So which is it? Id the Bull from only a bishop, or from the Pope? If the bishop had authority from the Pope, how do you know the Bull was only from y from a bishop, when the document claims to from an inquisition that has universal jurisdiction and from the Pope? It seems to me that that you only hold to your opinions because you want to believe God has not revealed anything about the nature of the universe. If this is so, then it becomes more palatable to be a believer in the academy in the modern world. A world that has dropped all things Christian, including the geocentric universe.

But it is not a papal decree, binding on the faith of the believers.

It is a Papal decree issued by the congregation set up by Pope Urban VIII to investigate the moving earth theory. The findings of the inquisition were carried out by the Pope to ban the teaching of Galileo’s works as a safeguard of the faith.

And if you're referring to this document, then it is in no way a Papal Bull. It remains the judgement of a congregation of bishops who's task it was to pronounce sentence. I hold the maximalist view that their sentencing was just, given what was known at the time. However it in no way bound the conscience of believers.

The document refers to the Pope as the authority behind the congregation and makes the decision in the name of the congregation and of the Pope.

Neither the 1616 decree placing Galileo's books on the Index of Forbidden Books, nor the 1633 condemnation of Galileo, carry the Pope's signature, nor that he in anyway declares the writing as his by the usual formula. There is not even any evidence that he even read it. But rather, like with hundreds or thousands of other decisions of the Vatican, they are carried out by congregations given authority to handle these matters by the pope. Their decisions should be respected, but their positions are not irreformable.

The index and the congregation fall under Papal jurisdiction. The congregation that made the decision against the moving earth theory, did so with the authority of the Pope. The decision has never been reformed, even though you mistakenly think so.

No pope from Pope Urban VIII, to Pope Francis has in anyway spoken out in any sermon, or any public statement by their pen against the teaching of heliocentrism. On the contrary permission was later specifically granted for the printing of heliocentric books, and Pope Emmeritus Benedict XVI (who was pope in case you're one of the ridiculous Sedevacantists), spoke quite well of modern cosmology.

Popes say many things which are both true and false. Many things said are not binding and only express the opinion of the Pope. No Popes has ever formally recanted the decision of the congregation made under the authority of Pope Urban VIII.

You keep insisting that there's a need for the Church to make an official statement that theories other than geocentrism are permitted. But there isn't a need for the Church to make clear that something is permitted that it has never made forbidden.

The moving earth theory is forbidden by the 1633 decree and untenable for the theory contradicts the sources of revelation.

The Church fathers ... have already spoken on the matter in favor of the stationary earth.

Yes, they have. That is the one good reason I can see for anyone holding to geocentrism despite the evidence. And it was the argument St. Bellarmine used. Unfortunately it's not a truly and the argument that St. Bellarmine puts forth isn't all that strong either. At best he can argue that the plainest reading means that the sun is moving around the Earth, and the Church Father was of one mind in that. However he doesn't distinguish in principle between natural science, and statements of faith and morals. It is true that one isn't free to deny the number of sons of Abraham, but it doesn't follow from that the consensus of the Church Fathers is infallible on this point of science.

It is of faith that the scriptures are without error. So the moving sun and stationary earth as found in scripture are without error as well. To hold to the moving earth, you must overturn the fathers, the Popes, congregation, catechism of Trent, approved revelation of Hildegard. And you must do this without any authority, when all the Catholic authorities have already spoken in favor of the stationary earth. The only evidence you have for Catholic authorities speaking for the moving earth, is to point to informal opinions of Popes and other clergy. But that does not help your position because such statements are not authoritative.

Your position against the truth of the stationary earth is untenable.

For the reason you precisely point out. The language of the Bible when speaking about the sun can be interpreted phenomenologically. The Church Fathers themselves spent almost no energy on cosmology. St. Augustine if he talked about there not existing antipodes, then it was simple to defend the important doctrine that humanity all descend from Adam and Eve.

It was standard belief that the sun and moon do the moving and the earth stands still. The claim of phenomenological language only reinforces the weakness of the anti-geocentric position. The Joshuas long day clearly states the sun and moon stood still. If the same phenomena is observed from earth, then it follows that the norm is the earth is stationary. After all Joshuas long day does record a miracle, which infers the physics of motion is normally the sun and moon do the moving together around the earth, which is stationary.

Much of the scientific evidence is in favor of a stationary earth and much evidence is also found for the stationary earth in the sources of revelation. Robert is convinced that some of the problems within the church are based upon a silence in the church on the topic of the stationary earth. He is correct about that observation.

I believe he should submit himself to the present day bishops, stop talking about conspiracy theories on jews and geocentrism, and return to the apologetics he started out with, which was actually quite decent.

There is no scientific evidence in favor of geocentrism.

Geocentrists think otherwise, and geocentrists such as myself find the counter arguments against the scientific evidence for geocentrism to be sadly lacking. The matter of geocentrism is really only a matter of what you accept as an authority. Is your authority the Church, or theories of science? If the Church, then the Church has spoken along with God in the scriptures, and both say the earth is stationary. Many do not respect the church or the scriptures, so they think geocentrism is not worthy of consideration. But a Christian believer must make a decision. What are you going to follow? The authority will dictate your conclusion on the matter.

You think Sungenis is a crank. Yet relativity theory is entirely crank science fabricated to explain the results of the interferometer experiments.
Sungenis has become a crank, and you're quintessential crank.

There can be nothing within science that contradicts the stationary earth. There can be some science evidence that supports the stationary earth. Some evidence includes the Aireys failure, the small fringe shift in the interferometer experiments, the quantized redshift of the galaxies as discovered by Edwin Hubble, the evidence from WMAP and so on. None of the evidence is controversial, unless of course the geocentrist uses the evidence to support the stationary earth theory.

You're offering things that have long been debunked. The hallmark of a crank is that when they're presented with answers, they ignore them and repeat themselves later. There are no fringe shifts in interferometer experiments, the quantization of redshifts doesn't exist in good modern day datasets of redshits, the (very weak) multiple of WMAP isn't there in the much better and more refined Planck datasets.

That's because you're a crank spinning around in your basement. Submit to the modern day magisterium and spend your time on something truly productive like the divine office.

Again you only make grand claims about the data, which has been discussed and stated by men of science outside the geo community of believers. Men such as Max Tegmark and Lawrence Kraus have said it looks like the universe is focused in on the earth. Yet you must ignore such statements and claim there is no evidence.

Geo models account for the phenomena used to promote a Helio model.

Geo models don't account for anything. Geocentrists just invoke magical aether (or angels), and make sure the aether does in an artificial way, exactly what is needed to reproduce all the predictions that come naturally from better models.

This is only your opinion. Helio has big problems with satellites, the interferometer experiments, the quantized redshift of galaxies, the lack of support for dark matter and dark energy, the axis of evil and so on. Helio has no basis in revelation and is therefore merely a naturalist based theory of the cosmos which contradicts the super naturalist position of Christianity.

So there's no such thing as a geocentric model. There's geocentric after-the-fact post-hoc explaining how modern day science results can be read in a geocentric way.
the nature of universal redshift. If the guess is wrong, then the modern standard model is fatally flawed.

May God bless you.

Geocentrism has a long history of cosmological models. Those models have changed with the data known at the time. To claim there are no geocentric models requires that you ignore the history of geocentrism. You may be saying geocentrism has no functioning models, but that is only your opinion, because you are committed to the Helio model.

I can emphatically state there are no functioning Helio models that account for the data, because Geo and not Helio has been revealed by God. As Helio is not from God, and God is truth, then Helio will always be false.

God bless.

JM

[Leonhard]

You hold to the 1633 document as only from a bishop,

To be fair, a congregation of six bishops.

but then also say the bishop had authority from the Pope. So which is it?

As per Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council, "But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head." In other words if any congregation of the bishops, or any one bishop, or even the bishops together as one in a synod or an ecumenical council, they derive their authority by the Petrine Office. He can bestow and withdraw it as he sees fit. In regards to the congregation who condemned Galileo, it was their job, and they had the ability to do it. However its up to you to show that they also had been given the office of binding faithfuls, and everyone aside from you agree that they don't. The position of geocentrism is a fringe minority within the Church.

Id the Bull from only a bishop, or from the Pope? ... It is a Papal decree issued by the congregation set up by Pope Urban VIII to investigate the moving earth theory.

It was not a Papal Bull, which you have claimed it multiple times to be, and is quite indicative of the imprecision in your thinking. Nor was it a papal decree, as the pope in no way signed it in the way Pope's do when they've read a decree and wish to make it their own.

The index and the congregation fall under Papal jurisdiction.

All things fall under papal jurisdiction. However that does not mean that the Pope is in any way directly involved with any decision. The very fact that its impossible for one many to manage millions is not a new thing. Moses himself ran into the same problem, and was taught by God to responsible delegate authority to people, who would not have the same standing an authority as himself. One Moses underlings couldn't go on and make twenty new commandments.

The congregation that made the decision against the moving earth theory, did so with the authority of the Pope.

They did not make a decision against the 'moving earth theory', they condemned Galileo of heretical charges (mostly for quite disobedient behavior). You keep forgetting that the Pope had quite approved of him and his writings for a long time until he started getting antagonistic with the Church. He had been perfectly allowed to teach his postulations as that, but not as theory as he was unable to demonstrate the truth of them, and the Church at the time was engaged in the project of reading the Bible in light of Aristotle and the view of the Greeks.

The decision has never been reformed, even though you mistakenly think so.

The decision has never been globally binding on the conscience of believers.

Popes say many things which are both true and false. Many things said are not binding and only express the opinion of the Pope. No Popes has ever formally recanted the decision of the congregation made under the authority of Pope Urban VIII.

There is no need for a pope to formally do so.

It is of faith that the scriptures are without error. So the moving sun and stationary earth as found in scripture are without error as well.

That is true. But I'm not proposing that there are errors in the Bible. Saying that the miracle of the Sun is speaking phenomenologically, in no way denies that a miracle took place, just that we should take the language as describing what was seen. Not as teaching anything so useless to the faith as whether the Earth goes around the Sun, or vice versa.

To hold to the moving earth, you must overturn the fathers, the Popes, congregation, catechism of Trent, approved revelation of Hildegard.

The Church Fathers have no binding opinion on this matter, as again it does not concern faith or morals. No pope has ever formally declared that Catholics are forbidden from holding any view of cosmology contrary to geocentrism, the catechism of Trent is entirely silent on the matter. The approved revelations of Hildegard of Bingen are entirely irrelevant. Period.

No private revelation, even that of the Fatima, can ever bind the conscience of any Catholic.

Is your authority the Church, or theories of science?

That is a false dichotomy. There can never be a contradiction between what the Church teaches and science. Real science that is.

What are you going to follow?

The Church today is quite happy with General Relativity, its taught at Jesuit universities, and for hundreds of years there have been no declarations that students should avoid those subjects. If geocentrism is so essential to the faith, the Church has done an extremely poor job of defending it. Which is quite untenable.

Again you only make grand claims about the data, which has been discussed and stated by men of science outside the geo community of believers. Men such as Max Tegmark and Lawrence Kraus have said it looks like the universe is focused in on the earth. Yet you must ignore such statements and claim there is no evidence.

Very likely these gentlemen have been quote mined. The very weakly aligned multipole (and axis) data from WMAP, isn't there in the Planch dataset.

This is only your opinion. Helio has big problems with satellites,

On the contrary General Relativity perfectly accounts for the motion of the planets. Geocentric interpretations can't calculate even the simplest of orbits. At best they can look at what real scientists are doing and then post-hoc claim that aether wins going so and so, and angels pushing here and there, and putting the right epicycles in the right places, can just exactly produce the same result. But all that is post-hoc fallacious reasoning.

the interferometer experiments

The fact that interferometers in motion, and those standing still, both show the same result can only be accounted for by relativity. Geocentrists can at best only deny that this is the case.

the quantized redshift of galaxies

As I said the quantitization of redshifts is an artifact of bad measurements. Geocentrists ignore the much larger and much better datasets acquired with superior equipment. No quantization is apparent.

the lack of support for dark matter and dark energy

What has that got to do with geocentrism?

the axis of evil and so on.

Actually that one is a genuine anomaly, with an interesting discussion as to whether its a result of the foreground exclusion process, or whether it indicates something about the structure of the universe. However its just as much a problem for geocentrists as for modern cosmology, since geocentrists are quite incapable of accounting for it.

Hint, it in no way aligns with the Earth's rotation (or the sky's as the geocentrists considers it to be).

Geocentrism has a long history of cosmological models. Those models have changed with the data known at the time. To claim there are no geocentric models requires that you ignore the history of geocentrism. You may be saying geocentrism has no functioning models, but that is only your opinion, because you are committed to the Helio model.

Fallacy poisoning the well.

General Relativity is beyond the Heliocentric model. There is not 'center of the universe' in modern cosmology. Also what I'm saying is true. Unless you're talking about the mathematical models that required seventy epicycles to get the orbits the match somewhat (and even then they'd drift off over time). That's the closest geocentrism has ever been to having working models. Modern day geocentrics have zero working models. There is no way I can ask you guys what the orbit of Mercury will be, given geocentrism, looking forward the next five years, with answers precise down to meters. There's nothing like that.

Geocentrics take the results of modern day cosmology, and proclaim post-hoc that it can those results can be retro-fitted into a geocentric interpretation. That's simple how it works.

God bless.

I'm blessed by God more than I realize, great sinner that I am.

May God bless you.

[JohnMartin]

The congregation that made the decision against the moving earth theory, did so with the authority of the Pope.


They did not make a decision against the 'moving earth theory', they condemned Galileo of heretical charges (mostly for quite disobedient behavior). You keep forgetting that the Pope had quite approved of him and his writings for a long time until he started getting antagonistic with the Church. He had been perfectly allowed to teach his postulations as that, but not as theory as he was unable to demonstrate the truth of them, and the Church at the time was engaged in the project of reading the Bible in light of Aristotle and the view of the Greeks.

Quite clearly you are in error on the matter of the decision of the congregation against the moving earth theory. The decision was not primarily against Galileo's behavior, but about his moving earth theory condemned as heretical. The congregation stated -

We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

Clearly the congregation’s decision was focused on the moving earth theory as contrary to scripture and as a doctrine considered to be heresy.

The catechism of the Council of Trent also taught geocentrism and geostatism. The heavens do the rotating.

The words heaven and earth include all things which the heaven's and the earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of his fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety.

Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) (Kindle Locations 518-522). . Kindle Edition.

The Earth is said to be standing in the midst of the universe, which as shown above rotates around the earth.

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world [universe], rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them.
Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) (Kindle Locations 537-538). . Kindle Edition.

The heavens are said to have fixed motion.

But though God is present in all places and in all things, without being bound by any limits, as has been already said, yet in Sacred Scripture it is frequently said that He has His dwelling in heaven. And the reason is because the heavens which we see above our heads are the noblest part of the world, remain ever Incorruptible, surpass all other bodies in power, grandeur and beauty, and are endowed with fixed and regular motion.

Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) (Kindle Locations 7836-7839). . Kindle Edition.

The universe has a fixed and regular motion aound the fixed earth.

If the sun by its light, if the stars by their motion and revolutions, are of any advantage to man;

Catholic Church. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) (Kindle Locations 7910-7911). . Kindle Edition.

The stars have regular revolutions around the stationary earth.

The above quotes are made in the context of the same council that emphatically stated the scriptures are not to be interpreted against the universal consent of the fathers. The fathers and all the mediaeval theologians all held to geocentrism and geostatism as the revealed cosmology. Hence any attempt to reinterpret the above quotes to either down play or ignore the geocentric intent of the statements is both anachronistic and not in accord with the Trent’s teaching on the universal consent of the fathers.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Science of the mass of the earth.

Source: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/53437/20161202/total-mass-earths-technosphere-now-huge-30-trillion-tons-research.htm

The team said that the mass of Earth's technosphere now weighs about 30 trillion tons. That is about a mass of more than 50 kg for every square meter of the Earth's surface. They further said that highly preliminary estimates of the major components of the Earth System co-opted into the technosphere suggest a mass of 30 trillion tons, equivalent to >50kg/square meter of the Earth's surface.

© Copyright Original Source

Your post doesn't seem relevant to the thread.

JM