Continued from Previous, Some Debate

1) New blog on the kid : St Augustine was - Literally - a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, and he was Right, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Diverging slightly from Sungenis, 3) From Catholic Cosmology Group, on Size of Universe, 4) Continued from Previous, Some Debate

Robert Sungenis

Wow. Who started this Facebook page on Geocentrism? Great idea. Hans, you have some fascinating contributions. Love your thought processes. What is your background?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Latin and Greek.

This means for one thing I was at a Classic Letters Seminar* and know:

• a) one can count with Roman Numerals, i e without zero,
• b) "irrational numbers" were well identified in antiquity, but called "alogoi logoi" or "rationes irrationales" (irrational ratios). They are NOT numbers.

Here is a little series, btw:

[Linking to previous.]

* Copenhagen 90 or more probably 91.

NS

Yes, Hans, I would agree with the perspective on the video which would reason that the Sun's size compared to the Earth is obviously massive, but insignificant when compared to the rest of the Universe. Therefore we can reason that Newton's laws of gravity need to be used with the whole Universe, not merely with our Solar System. The evidence for this need is more than plentiful...

Thanks for sharing all your insights, very enlightening!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

My answer is we are in no position to say anything about any mass or law of Newtonic gravity, since there can be angelic movers (and probably are).

Therefore, obviously, we are in no position to speak of stars as larger than the sun. It is called the Greater Light, and I think that is true absolutely.

Robert Sungenis

Hans, I'll have to disagree with you here. First, there is no evidence of angelic movers, either in Scripture or Tradition. Second, we can say something about the size and distanc of stars based on reasoning from known evidence from science.

Rick DeLano

Even if there were angelic movers, it is quite clear that they are operating in a way that reduces, on local scales, to a law of gravity, and on cosmological scales, does not.

In other words, science knows nothing of angelic movers, and even angelic movers are obeying the Logos in a way that is lawful, and hence knowable to a certain degree of precision, to science.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"First, there is no evidence of angelic movers, either in Scripture or Tradition."

Even in 66 Books there is Job [See previous to previous.]. In a Catholic Bible there is more [See previous to previous.]. Not totally unequivocal. Could also be a question of stars being ensouled, as St Jerome thought. But St Thomas Aquinas (Prima Pars, Q 70 on Day Four, I think Article 3) preferred angelic movers.

"Second, we can say something about the size and distanc of stars based on reasoning from known evidence from science."

If you consider PARALLAX as known evidence for stars distances (how come if you are geocentric?). Or if you consider self ignition by great gravitational pressure of a mass superior to Jupiter the ONLY way a star could come to start shining (how come unless you are an atheist?).

Otherwise, no.

"it is quite clear that they are operating in a way that reduces, on local scales, to a law of gravity"

Not quite clear either. This supposes we know the masses of heavenly bodies. THEN we could say the movements, except for Mercury, reflect Newton's laws of gravity. BUT the masses are concluded from the movements, with a presupposition of gravity and inertia being the agencies responsible for the movement.

"and hence knowable to a certain degree of precision, to science."

We have science of the movements. We have so much tried to explain these with gravitation, it has failed so often in new observed details, that Occam's razor favours, except to Atheists and Sadducees, saying angels move heavenly bodies.

hanslundahl - Neglected Angelology in the Angelic Doctor
http://hanslundahl.livejournal.com/964.html

Of course, there is the fact that gravitational caclulus did help discover Neptune. One Faà di Bruno, beatified by John Paul II or "beatified" by Wojtyla was involved in doing those.

However, Angels could have been so insulted by Newton they asked the Good Lord to allow them a practical joke.

You know the passage in Isaiah about "circles of the earth", with all quarrels on whether they are flat or global circles?

Same passage God is also described as destroying those who seek out secrets.

Astronomers involved in astrophysics might fall in that category.

THAT is exactly why I asked earlier on what the exact miracle of Faà di Bruno is. I have not yet got any answers.

Rick DeLano

Hans, gravitation describes motion quite well on solar system scales. It falls apart completely on scales larger than a stellar cluster. Therefore we know that, whether it is conceived of as a "force", or as the empirical outcome of angelic movers obeying the Immutable commands of the Logos-------we do not yet know what gravity is, or what the commands of the Logos might be, which the angelic movers are obeying. What we do know, is that science is legitimately entitled to pursue its answer from observation, hypothesis, and experimental test.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, in the microscope you can really actually TEST theories about bacteria. In electronic microscopy, you can test some but not all theories on molecules (difference between nucleus and electrons not tested as far as sightings in microscope are concerned, and if theory is right electrons will never be sighted by electronic microscopy). But astronomy has very little possibility of actually TESTING a theory.

Since you cannot - unlike bacteria - look at stars from ALL angles, the second best is to do so from clearly different ones. I have for my part proposed TWO tests, neither of which I have been given any answer on.

Here I have, since long ago, proposed watching Parallax from Mars:

HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html

To the best of my knowledge it has NOT been done yet.

Here I have proposed a test about whether spatial sonds have been seen as if zigzagging, which would be predictable parallax if earth was moving in and out of the origo of the trajectories:

Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534

As for gravitation, IF Armstrong was on moon, that would be a positive test outcome against Aristotle's theory of "natural place of heavy objects". But by parallel from water droplets attracted to electrically charged knitting needle, gravitation is NOT a good explanation for orbits of any prolonged duration of repetition.

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

Count the number of orbits each droplet makes. I get between ten and twenty, medium fifteen.

Robert Sungenis

Hans, re angels moving planets, you mentioned Job? What verse are you referring to? You mentioned 66 books of the OT (but there are 73 in the Catholic Bible) but didn't cite any verse teaching angelic movers. As for Aquinas, he says in Reply to Obj. 5 [of Article 3 of Q 70]: "The heaven is said to move itself in as far as it is compounded of mover and moved; not by the union of the mover, as the form, with the moved, as the matter, but by contact with the motive power, as we have said. So far, then, the principle that moves it may be called intrinsic, and consequently its movement natural with respect to that active principle; just as we say that voluntary movement is natural to the animal as animal (Phys. viii, text. 27)." In Reply to Obj. 4 he refers to the mover as "intelligent power." I think we can all agree, as St. Paul says in Colossians 1:18, that God holds the universe together by his eternal power. Neither a bird falls from the sky nor an electron revolves around a proton, unless God permits it by his power. But that is different than saying that God actually moves the electron or kills the bird. Aquinas says such movements are "intrinsic" to the thing moving, but we all know there is an "intelligent power" behing every movement, but that power is indirect, not direct. As for Jerome's "ensoulment" of the stars, I'm afraid he has no support from either Scripture or Tradition for such speculation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"by contact with the motive power, as we have said"

Key difference. One school back in his time - Aquinas' - was saying God was moving Heaven westward, Angels were moving planets Eastward, Human Souls were moving human bodies, extrinsically, as a man moves a bike.

Another school said Human Souls were moving Human Bodies because they are united INTRINSICALLY as form to matter. And Angels similarily were souls of stars. AND God, or one Divine Person was the soul of Heaven moving daily Westward.

The fix points of Orthodoxy against these extremes are:

• God is NOT the soul of Heaven.
• Man's soul IS the soul, i e intrinsic form [or form=intrinsic mover], of his body.

Angels and stars could theoretically be movers and moved either way, BUT Orthodoxy in Paris settled for angels being extrinsic movers rather than intrinsic.

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones: Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://petitlien.com/tempier

Now, it is true that Scripture does not very directly support this idea of angels extrinsically moving the stars. Because it rather - taken very literally - supports stars having some kind of souls. THREE passages, as I mentioned above in the thread in a Catholic Bible, and ONE OF THEM left in the 66 book truncated version.

That one is Job 38:7.

That is actually taken directly better support for St Jerome than for Parisian Sorbonne Orthodoxy of 1277.

The other two are Daniel the COMPLETE chapter 3, namely where sun, moon and stars are enumerated between two mentions of SPIRITS of God, but Protestant Bibles lack the Song of the Three Young Men. And Baruch chapter 3. One which is, due to last verse, read each Holy Saturday in the Catholic Church.

You see, there are two schools of Geostasis, the Hebrew and the Greek one. In the Hebrew school, Heaven does NOT move, since it is empty space. Stars move westward under this non-moving empty space, which in its turn is under another Heaven, the roof of the universe and the throne of God. Generally stars are seen as ensouled.

God is Choreographer of the Angels. See for instance Josephus account on how Abraham figured out there was a one true God.

Greek view, Heavens move westward each day, but stars move eastward under it. BOTH movements have been - as I said - debated whether mover is extrinsic or intrinsic. In Sorbonne Orthodoxy God is extrinsically moving Heaven from East to West each day, while angels are, also extrinsically (like a man is extrinsic mover of a bike, and not like the will is extrinsic mover of his feet), moving their planets from West to East within Zodiac, Sun taking a year, Moon taking a month to do the trip and other planets other, somewhat erratic trips.

"we all know there is an 'intelligent power' behing every movement, but that power is indirect, not direct."

Now, that one is a bit rich. Have you really thought that one through?

Btw, there are not 66 or 73 Books of OT in any Bible, as far as I know. There are 66 in Protestant ones (excepting some Lutheran and Anglican editions), there are 72/73 in Catholic Bibles and usually even more in Eastern Separate Churches' canons. But not for OT alone, but for both Testaments.

Now, the three passages I referred to are all in OT, but two of them are not in the 66 book collection, even so one remaining is.

Which is of course overlooked by Protestants. My point is: if they have an excuse for overlooking just one passage, what is yours for overlooking three?

Update 9-IV-2014

HGL

It has been a bit silent for 24 hours and more. Perhaps this can help you out, at least as far asthe thoughts of St Thomas Aquinas are concerned:

I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic--that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion.

I, Q110, A3, corpus articuli
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm#article3