Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler

Geocentrism defended,
A against reasons Geocentrism Defended Against FrJerome Zeiler
B against ad hominems Geocentrism vs "Simon Skinner"

FrJerome Zeiler

20.VIII.2023

12th Lord's Day after Pentecost

Two things in support of heliocentrism:
1. With the exception of Venus (due to the greenhouse effect) the mean temperature of the planets is as follows: sun at center: 2nd hottest planet, 1st hottest planet (due to the greenhouse effect), 3rd hottest planet, 4th hottest planet, 5th hottest planet, 6th hottest planet, 7th hottest planet, 8th hottest planet, 9th hottest planet. Geocentrists cannot begin to explain this. According to geocentrism, the sun must be between Venus and Mars. So Venus should be hottest (due to the greenhouse effect) and Mars should be second hottest, contrary to NASA's local measurements.
2. If Isaac Newton is correct, the fact that Jupiter orbits the earth (according to the geocentric model) violates the law of gravity. Because Jupiter has a mass that is 318 times that of the earth. And a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's laws.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"1. With the exception of Venus (due to the greenhouse effect) the mean temperature of the planets is as follows: sun at center: 2nd hottest planet, 1st hottest planet (due to the greenhouse effect), 3rd hottest planet, 4th hottest planet, 5th hottest planet, 6th hottest planet, 7th hottest planet, 8th hottest planet, 9th hottest planet. Geocentrists cannot begin to explain this. According to geocentrism, the sun must be between Venus and Mars. So Venus should be hottest (due to the greenhouse effect) and Mars should be second hottest, contrary to NASA's local measurements."

First, what does the Ptolemaic system (which I don't believe) actually say?

It doesn't say the Sun is between Venus and Mars, it says the Sun is in a sphere that is between the spheres of Venus and Mars. As often as Mars is far from Sun in its spheres, like on opposite sides of Earth, Mars would be further from the Sun.

Now, the clincher is, most Geocentrics today (me included) are not Ptolemaics, we are more or less Tychonian. I am Tychonian-Ricciolian, Sungenis is neo-Tychonian. Either view, the Sun is epicentre for all planets except the Moon (which is directly centred on the actual centre), and therefore each planet has a typical range of distances from the Sun, and some would when aligning on the Earth side come between Sun and Earth (in order Mercury, Venus), some would aligne outside Earth, opposite the Sun (Mars, asteroid belt, Jupiter and so on).

Problem solved.

"2. If Isaac Newton is correct, the fact that Jupiter orbits the earth (according to the geocentric model) violates the law of gravity. Because Jupiter has a mass that is 318 times that of the earth. And a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's laws."

The remark supposes that the only things affecting orbits are gravity.

This is more than Newton being correct about gravity, this also involves one of two propositions very well outside his (purported) scope:

a) God and angels don't exist
b) God and angels don't meddle with celestial bodies, but leave them working out their physics like automata.

The former is directly opposed to the Christian faith, and the latter is not supported by it and basically a weakened form of the former.

The Sun doesn't orbit Earth because Earth is heavier, but because an angel moves it along the Zodiac over the year, and it participates in a daily motion God is giving the univers around Earth each day.

Problem solved.

Jez Austin

Hans-Georg Lundahl But isn't it interesting that the motion of the planets can be explained & predicted without reference to the meddling of angels?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1) Not after all the studies of the motions.

The Heliocentric people who would want to explain it EXCLUSIVELY without the "meddling" of the angels have had so much time to study the regular movements, they'd be pretty incompetent if they were predicting something different from the known movements.

2) There is the fudge factor of the masses of the sun and earth and planets.

There is no independent weighing of any of them. Each is consider to have its mass known from the movements, the orbits, and the orbits are predicted from the so "known" masses.

3) Your "meddling" presupposes that God created astronomic objects to work on their own, and that angels moving them would involve "meddling" - the positions of Thomas and Riccioli agree that the angelic movers are what God meant for the regular movements.

All of them, according to Riccioli, or all except the daily motion of heaven (done directly by God) according to Thomas.

4) The things predicted as orbits are predicted as Heliocentric (roughly speaking, one focus of an ellipse situated usually in the Sun but not the centre of the Sun, and in the case of Jupiter even outside the Sun). What we see are Tychonic-Ricciolean orbits. So, the angelic explanation matches what we directly see better.

Four other answers to FrJerome Zeiler

the latter two by admins, this order to accomodate the distinction

A

Michal Paszkiewicz

This would only be true in a very simplistic understanding of the Ptolemaic model. The Ptolemaic epicycles were almost as large as the deferent, so the orbits actually interweaved. Given today's known parameters, the Ptolemaic model could be constructed such that the order of distances of planets from the Sun matches their order of surface temperature.

But in the late 16th century, the Tychonic model took over as the Geocentric option - the non-Earth planets orbited the Sun, which orbited the Earth. The distance order from the Sun was corrected at that time.

Then the Tychonic model was improved. For example, Riccioli added elliptic orbits to a Tychonic model.

Contemporary academic Geocentrics however have to account for the wider knowledge of the universe. They will rather resort to either Mach's principle, or to an alignment of all the celestial objects preserving Earth as the centre.

B

Steve Szabo

> a body of larger mass cannot orbit a body of smaller mass according to Newton's law

Newton didn't account for the dynamics of the gravity of the entire Unvierse that Ernst Mach later worked out. See Luka Popov's 2013 papers on Orbital mechanics and Dynamics:

Luka Popov January 2013 - "Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions"
https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6045 -> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf
Luka Popov - April 2013 - "The Dynamical Description of the Geocentric Universe"
Abstract : https://arxiv.org/abs/1304.7290v1 -> PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.7290v1.pdf

C

Scott Blacker

Admin

And on a flip side for starters sometimes NASA use Geostationary 0.0.0 refrence frame to launch rockets.

D

Johnny Proctor

Admin

So disappointing that a priest defers to the opinions and unprovable theories of atheists and secular scientists above the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Such is the scourge of Modernism!