tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post115724332064925443..comments2023-09-08T04:22:48.330-07:00Comments on Unity of Truth: The New Geocentrismlove2learnmomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10548471887979257624noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157840685856124182006-09-09T15:24:00.000-07:002006-09-09T15:24:00.000-07:00I have responded in a new post, at the moderator's...I have responded in a new post, at the moderator's request. Please see "The New Geocentrism - Part III." Thank you.ScienceMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09086909718651210352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157607108340937852006-09-06T22:31:00.000-07:002006-09-06T22:31:00.000-07:00Briefly (it is difficult to answer so many issues ...Briefly (it is difficult to answer so many issues in this space), it does matter what the underlying mechanism of gravity is. If we do not understand something so basic how can we extrapolate out to claim we understand the make-up of the universe- especially given that "gravity" does not always work the way it is claimed (i.e., Pioneer 10, galaxy rotation, etc.). <BR/>Never the less, I agree that geocentrists are faced with the same issues.<BR/><BR/>Yes, general relativity can be viewed as an improvement, but general relativity also gives complete respectibility to geocentrism. <BR/>Within general relativity, rotation at superluminal speeds <I> relative</I> to the earth is not an issue, nor is it a feat. Think of it this way (general relativity, Machian mechanics or whatever): gravity would tend to cause the universe to collapse; rotation causes a centrifigal force which balances this gravitational force and stabilizes the universe.<BR/><BR/>Finally, the Pontifical Bible Commission did not mention geocentrism when discussing this general principle. You are applying a general principle, which <I>in general</I> but not always is true to something that the fathers, and three popes already addressed explicitly. A general principle stated without reference to a specific issue without ecclesial backing does not trump specific ecclisial actions. I.e., you (nor I) am the magesterium. The magisterium is.<BR/><BR/>Read <I>Galileo Was Wrong</I>, or at least check out the 4-part series Geocentrism 101 on my blog. <BR/><BR/>Mark Wyatt<BR/>veritas-catholic.blgspot.comMark Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624130143770417948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157582364327831912006-09-06T15:39:00.000-07:002006-09-06T15:39:00.000-07:00It would be much more precise to say that the univ...It would be much more precise to say that the universal law of gravitation was derived from the empirical data <I>without making any assumptions</I> about the nature of gravity. One observes that the force has thus and so relation between objects of various masses and at various separations and bingo -- law of gravitation. This means that should it turn out that gravitational forces are indeed produced by magical invisible forklifts (or "corpuscles" if you prefer) pushing people and planets around, Mary's analysis would still hold.<BR/><BR/>Or to put it another way, the <I>behavior</I> of gravity is extremely well understood, and it is that <I>behavior</I> that determines the motions of the planets. Its metaphysical (or even physical) nature is irrelevant to this question. Incidentally, the understanding has progressed quite a bit beyond Newton, whose equation the commenter cites. The corrections provided by the general theory of relativity bring the accuracy pretty much to the limits of our present instrumentation.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, to use the word "foist" in this context is analogous to its use in the following sentence: "We must understand what makes the zygote's cells divide into specialized tissues or you are just <I>foisting off</I> its humanity on us on the basis of something you don't understand."<BR/><BR/>Next, it is the geocentric model that requires that the universe spin around at tremendous speeds, such that it makes a complete circuit in 24 hours. The heliocentric model -- remember the claim is only that the solar system is sun-centered -- <I>requires no such spectacle</I>. Thus it is the proponents of the geocentric model that must take on the challenge of explaining the incredible forces needed for such a feat, which among other things would require the said motion of the universe to significantly exceed the speed of light.<BR/><BR/>Finally, it is a disservice to turn a matter of physics into a matter of faith. The Church has already spoken on the issue of Biblical literalism -- the basis of the geocentric claim -- and she is not persuaded. cf <I>The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church</I>, section F, from the Pontifical Biblical Commission. I quote: "Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. ... [It] likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith."ScienceMomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09086909718651210352noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157579600027566492006-09-06T14:53:00.000-07:002006-09-06T14:53:00.000-07:00>>Really, no one can explain what is [sic—gravity]...>>Really, no one can explain what is [sic—gravity] is, can they? <<<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Therefore...? If we cannot explain what something “is,” then it is not worth discussing? Might we apply that to all your arguments? <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>>>Yes we have an equation that works for a pretty good size range of objects, F=Gm1m2/r^2. But, this equation can be derived assuming the matter attracts other matter, or that corpuscles are pushing the objects together. You get the same equation whether you assume pushing or attractive gravity.<<<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Therefore...? I suppose, by your argument, we must start with matter, assuming that matter exists. We can then invent all kinds of things (your “corpuscles,” the “ether” in space, phlogiston) to temporarily fill gaps we do not understand. As understanding increases, we replace these fillers with real things that do exist, or drop them entirely if our understanding changes. So, do your corpuscles exist? And if they do, can you explain what they are? If you cannot explain what they are, can you use them as part of your argument? Given your criterion, we simply cannot get beyond elementary metaphysics.<BR/><BR/>>>So, you are going to foist the proof for heliocentrism on a phenomenon with no explanation?<<<BR/><BR/> <BR/>Any high school physics class can explain (and demonstrate) gravity. But by your narrow definition explanation (what a thing “is”), can anyone “foist” any proof of anything on anyone?MacBeth Derhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10412194989845229808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157569908227635372006-09-06T12:11:00.000-07:002006-09-06T12:11:00.000-07:00hedgemaker says:"...The point is that, while the u...hedgemaker says:<BR/><BR/>"...The point is that, while the ultimate nature of gravity remains mysterious, the action of gravity is lawful and the laws are well-enough understood to make geocentrism permanently obsolete. The Earth is not the center of gravitational motion in the Solar system. It is not the center of Solar or planetary orbits, and the entire solar system certainly has zero centering relationship with universe motions outside the Solar system..."<BR/><BR/>Again, you are ignoring all the gravitational forces manifested by a rotating universe. Second, geocentrists are talking about more than just the solar system. True if the solar system was the universe (i.e., there were no other objects), and space was not rotating, then perhaps your simple argument would make sense, but you are ignoring the rest of the universe.<BR/><BR/>I hope you take the time to read <I>Galileo Was Wrong</I>, then finish your critique. I think you will find your points well expained, plus much more.<BR/><BR/>Mark Wyatt<BR/>veritas-catholic.blogspot.comMark Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624130143770417948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14592128.post-1157485876315540722006-09-05T12:51:00.000-07:002006-09-05T12:51:00.000-07:00Gravity:Really, no one can explain what is is, can...Gravity:<BR/><BR/>Really, no one can explain what is is, can they? Yes we have an equation that works for a pretty good size range of objects, F=Gm1m2/r^2. But, this equation can be derived assuming the matter attracts other matter, or that corpuscles are pushing the objects together. You get the same equation whether you assume pushing or attractive gravity.<BR/><BR/>So, you are going to foist the proof for heliocentrism on a phenomenon with no explanation?<BR/><BR/>The real main issue is not even gravity, but rather that you are ignoring all the forces which would be present if the universe were rotating! These forces would make the miniscule gravity in the neighberhood of the earth insinificant.<BR/><BR/>Take a look at my blog, then get a hold of the new book Galileo Was Wrong by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett. They explain all this in great detail.<BR/><BR/>Mark Wyatt<BR/>veritas-catholic.blogspot.comMark Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624130143770417948noreply@blogger.com