tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post3902872003098834704..comments2023-09-23T10:03:52.824-07:00Comments on HGL's F.B. writings: Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-56529139243560409412013-03-05T09:38:19.032-08:002013-03-05T09:38:19.032-08:00And here is the comment:
Ver. 6. Sun. Here God se...And <a href="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id743.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> is the comment:<br /><br /><i>Ver. 6. Sun. Here God seems to reside, (Ferrand) and the magnificence of his works shines forth, insomuch that almost all nations have offered divine honours to the sun, and even the Manichees adored it, imagining that it was the very body of Jesus Christ. (St. Augustine, contra Faust. xiv. 12., and xx. 6.) --- Hebrew, "For the sun he has place a tent in them," the heavens, (St. Jerome; Haydock) or the ends of the world. The Jews supposed that the heavens rested, like a tent, upon the earth. (Calmet, Diss.) ---<b> The Hebrew preposition l, may have (Haydock) different meanings, ad solem posuit, &c. "He placed a tent in them, at or for the sun." The idea of the Vulgate is more noble, but we would not exclude the other, which is very good, (Berthier) and obviates the gross mistake of the Manichees. (Amama)</b> --- The Vulgate may admit the fig. hypallage, (M. Geneb.) as good authors say dare classibus austros, and thus it may signify "he placed the sun in his tent." (Haydock) --- This vast body stands in need of no vehicle, or tent, but itself. (Diodorus) --- It was placed in the firmament at first, (Genesis i. 16.) and still performs its revolutions exactly. (Haydock) --- Giant. Moderns would render "a strong man;" and Bythner remarks that the bulk of a giant would render him less fit for running, as if the stoutest wrestlers were not often the most active. (Berthier) --- The sun is represented as a hero at some of the ancient games. St. Augustine and St. Jerome explain all this of Jesus Christ, who diffuses the light and warmth of his grace throughout the world. (Calmet) --- He always resides with the Church, and is never divorced from her. (Worthington) <br /><br />Ver. 7. Circuit. So the Hebrew word is rendered "revolution." Septuagint and Vulgate, "meeting" occursus, may insinuate that the sun is found in the centre, while the earth moves daily and yearly round it, according to the Copernican system. But we must be more attentive to the life and motions of Jesus Christ, in whom the Deity resided corporally. (Berthier)</i><br /><br />We can be sure that Galileo used this second to last point - and that the Inquisition forbade that up to the 1820's. Galileo was as eager as his opponents to find support in the Bible text.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-25775672185610816552013-03-05T09:38:06.336-08:002013-03-05T09:38:06.336-08:00It also leaves out that the Church was not just bo...It also leaves out that the Church was not just bound by the Bible text, but by how it had been exposed by Church Fathers if they were unanimous. Now, Psalm 19 seems to attribute personality to the Sun. To Russell Griggs this might be the proof that the passage is "purely poetic" whatever that means (except that a Biblical Literalist needs not take Bible seriously when it is being purely poetic, according to Griggs), but to some minds this suggests the sun is some kind of angel:<br /><br /><i>1 The heavens declare the glory of God, <br />and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. <br />2 Day to day pours out speech, <br />and night to night reveals knowledge. <br /><b>3 There is no speech, nor are there words, <br />whose voice is not heard.</b></i><br /><br />In other words, Heavens communicating with each other was not purely metaphoric. It involves words that are heard. I admit I am for the moment a bit embarrassed by the following verse as believing earth is round and sun very far off:<br /><br /><i>Their voice goes out through all the earth, <br />and their words to the end of the world. <br />In them he has set a tent for the sun,</i><br /><br />So, I suspect Galileo tried this as proof this was poetry (I do not have the acts of the process before me, most people have not and yet most are required to form an opinion about it). But also that the point had been answered by some Church Father or Scholastic or even was answered by St Robert Bellarmine. <a href="http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id743.html" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is Douay-Reims version:<br /><br /><i>6 He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: *and he as a bridegroom coming out of his bride-chamber,<br />Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way:<br />7 His going out is from the end of heaven,<br />And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.</i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-78419327486943866582013-03-05T09:37:03.103-08:002013-03-05T09:37:03.103-08:00Another blooper about history is from Russell Grig...Another blooper about history is from <a href="http://creation.com/the-galileo-twist" rel="nofollow">Russell Grigg:</a><br /><br /><i>... They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings. This was because: The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day. etc.</i><br /><br />Not true at all, your honour. The Ptolemaic worldview was on many items contradicted by:<br /><br />- the theory of Tycho Brahe (a Scanian, that is a compatriot of mine),<br /><br />- certain findings of Galileo which he was not at all required to repudiate.<br /><br />Tycho Brahe basically identified the Sun with the epicentre of Ptolemy, but Ptolemy had acknowledged no real physical epicentre, only an ideal point. So, on Tycho's view every planet - planet in the old sense, excluding earth, including anything between Earth and Zodiak, anything that would take different positions in the Zodiak - except sun and moon were directly centred on the sun, which in its turn was centred (in a yearly movement) on earth.<br /><br />Galileo was not forced to repudiate Milky Way consisting of only stars and no interstellar matter, where he seems to have been wrong and found out by the Jesuit Clavius at the process of 1616 - he was called as an expert by St Robert Bellarmine - and he was not forced to repudiate the spots on the sun, although they contradicted Aristotle's teaching of total perfection of all heavenly bodies above the moon, he was not forced to repudiate the moons of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn either.<br /><br /><i>They clung to the 'majority opinion' about the universe and rejected the 'minority view' of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong.</i><br /><br />Tycho Brahe was still more minoritarian than either Ptolemy or Copernicus or either of their followers in 1616. Galileo had not proven Tycho Brahe wrong (Kepler would prove him wrong on shape of orbits, substituting elliptics for circles), and the view of Tycho Brahe was not condemned.<br /><br /><i>They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the 'risen' sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun 'set' (Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God's spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about. And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe </i>motion relative to the most convenient reference frame,<i> which in this case is the earth. See the sub-article Sunspots, Galileo and heliocentrism.</i><br /><br />This leaves out the two passages - mainly one was discussed - where sun ceases to move normally in order to stand still (Joshua's miracle) or to get some lines backwards (Hezekiah ordered this to happen when a prophet told him to).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-40173983973596176222012-11-01T08:27:40.652-07:002012-11-01T08:27:40.652-07:00Robert Sungenis talks on questions either involved...<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo" rel="nofollow">Robert Sungenis talks on questions either involved in this or not, but like most of above on Geocentrism:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-10503196623680271802012-05-29T07:44:28.254-07:002012-05-29T07:44:28.254-07:00New, better, bilingually noted diagram on:
Geo vs ...<a href="http://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/" rel="nofollow">New, better, bilingually noted diagram on:<br />Geo vs Helio<br />hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-44246415112675675972012-05-17T11:18:17.011-07:002012-05-17T11:18:17.011-07:00Also many of C.S. Lewis' books take a unique v...<i>Also many of C.S. Lewis' books take a unique view of medieval astronomy, in particular his Cosmic Trilogy.</i><br /><br />They admit physical causes or not the only possible ones, but they adhere to heliocentrism. I prefer Narnia in that mode.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-75552194358354457912012-05-17T11:16:17.806-07:002012-05-17T11:16:17.806-07:00Basically, I do not think there's a point in a...<i>Basically, I do not think there's a point in attempting to prove that geocentrism is more accurate than heliocentrism, though I must say have done an excellent job doing that! I cannot debate with you on the physics or astronomy part of it though as I'm definitely not qualified.</i><br /><br /><b>vs.</b><br /><br /><i>Geocentrism, as imagined by medieval thinkers rather than yourself, was more based upon theology I think then upon observable science.</i><br /><br />Which is it? Are you saying you are not qualified or are you saying geocentrism was not based on observable science? If you are not qualified, how are you to know that?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-9976704669210701942012-05-17T11:14:04.596-07:002012-05-17T11:14:04.596-07:00To me, it's similar to how medieval maps will ...<i>To me, it's similar to how medieval maps will show Jerusalem to be the centre of the world. Now did they really believe this was the geographical centre? I don't think so...it was the centre of the world in a theological sense rather than a literal one.</i><br /><br />Or rather it was thought of as having the straightest connection to a point in the starry heavens where souls pass through when going to Heaven. The point where the Father looked down on the Son hanging on the Cross to share with us the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />But Jerusalem as centre of Earth is admittedly a theological position. Geocentrism is simply common sense - or used to be until it became uncommon sense.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-21607416329124850172012-05-17T11:11:21.955-07:002012-05-17T11:11:21.955-07:00Of course the earth revolving around the sun by no...<i>Of course the earth revolving around the sun by no means indicates that humans are no longer the focus of God's salvation. However in purely symbolic terms that's what it meant to Church theologians at the time.</i><br /><br />Where did they state that?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-74110696580584895142012-05-17T11:10:49.338-07:002012-05-17T11:10:49.338-07:00So when Copernicus and later Galileo proposed that...<i>So when Copernicus and later Galileo proposed that it was the sun at the centre rather than the earth, it startled many Church thinkers since it seemed to challenge the idea that mankind was at the centre of God's plan.</i><br /><br />Why was that not what they complained about then?Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-91689034266716670932012-05-17T11:09:34.525-07:002012-05-17T11:09:34.525-07:00Now I don't know if these medieval thinkers be...<i>Now I don't know if these medieval thinkers believed that the earth literally was the centre of the universe (perhaps, since they had no concept of how big space was)</i><br /><br />Oh boy ... yes they did AND yes they had AND no they would not have seen the hugeness of universe as any real reason to doubt earth is in its centre. Here is CSL on Medieval Astronomy:<br /><br />[The fact that ...] ...the height of the stars in medieval astronomy is very small compared with their distances in the moder, will turn out not to have the kind of importance you anticipated. For thought andimagination, ten million miles and a thousand million are much the same. Both can be conceived (that is, we can do sums with both) and neither can be imagined; and the more imagination we have, the better we shall know this. The really important difference is that the medieval universe, while unimaginably large, was also unambiguously finite. And one unexpected result of this sis to make the smallness of earth more vividly felt. In our universe she is small, no doubt; but so are the galaxies, so is everything--and so what? But in theirs there was an absolute standard of comparison. The furtherst sphere, Dante's maggior corpo, is quite simply and finally, the largest object in existance. The word "small" as applied to Earth thus takes on a far more absolute significance. Again, because the medieval universe is finite, it has a shape, the perfect spherical shape, containing withing itself an ordered variety. Hence to look out on a night sky with modern eyes is like looking out over a sea that fades into the mist, or looking about one in a trackless forest--trees forever and no horizon. To look up at the towering medieval universe is much more like looking at a great building. The 'space' of modern astronomy may arouse terror, or bewilderment or vague reverie; the spheres of the old present us with an object in which the mind can rest, overwhelming in its greatness but satisfying in its harmony. That is the sense in which our unierse is romantic and theirs was classical.<br /><br />C. S. Lewis<br />The Discarded Image:<br />An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature<br />(Cambridge 1964) pp. 98-99 (cited after E. Grant Studies in Medieval Science and Natural Philosophy)Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-3864160526487475952012-05-17T11:05:08.647-07:002012-05-17T11:05:08.647-07:00I got a response on this article, leaving out name...I got a response on this article, leaving out name (for present) I will quote and respond: he is hardly making a real personal confession.<br /><br />However, first I correct a red herring:<br /><br /><i>Also, I found your comparison to linguistics to be confusing as well...to me it is a non sequitur. One of my undergraduate double majors was in linguistics and yet even I could not see the parallel.</i><br /><br />I did not make a parallel to linguistics. A linguist made a point using creationism and geocentrism as examples of disproven things, because he wanted to make the point his opponents are disproven by linguistics as much as geocentric creationists in biology and physics. I was using that as a point about the social status of what I propose as true. Not as an argument about its truth, but as a preliminary before arguing.<br /><br /><i>Now to me, the theory of geocentrism was more based on medieval Christian theology rather than observable science. The theory that the earth is in the middle of the universe was an illustration that mankind is central to God's plan. The human race, as seen in Genesis, was the highest of all earthly created beings. This is why humans were created in His image and as a final crescendo, and why God saw His creation to be at that point to be “very good” (Gen. 1:31) as opposed to just “good” (see verses 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25).</i><br /><br />Well, no. Geocentrism was believed true on virtue of observation. Earth under us does not look like moving or feel like moving except when we know we are. It is close, we can check it. Sun and moon look like moving and are far enough for us not to be able to check directly, but since either has to be moving and earth which is checked by two senses seems not to move, and the heavens seem to move, medieval men concluded earth is still and heavens move.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-37799574420734772392012-04-19T08:59:32.548-07:002012-04-19T08:59:32.548-07:00Further discussion on the Catholic Forums site, th...Further discussion on the Catholic Forums site, the thread for which I was excluded:<br /><br /><a href="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534" rel="nofollow">Has Cassini-Huygens Disproven Geocentrism<br />forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534</a><br /><br />Cassini-Huygens should be Voyager 10, or maybe 11, which has a straighter trajectory on the diagram featuring solar system as presently believed centered on sun.<br /><br />I have forwarded the thread and the question to one representative of NASA on FB, also to NASA team as such, and gotten no answer so far.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-89580110884660097332011-05-11T06:15:25.953-07:002011-05-11T06:15:25.953-07:00I did some research. There are apparently instrume...I did some research. There are apparently instruments able to check this - as Hubble telescope.<br /><br />But are they the most commonly used method?<br /><br />I also found this:<br /><br /><i>In order to calculate the angular distance in [[arcseconds]] for [[binary star system]], [[extrasolar planet]]s, [[solar system|solar system objects]] and other [[astronomical object]]s, we use [[orbital distance]] ([[semi-major axis]]) in [[Astronomical unit|AU]] divided by [[stellar distance]] in [[parsec]]s.<br /><br />:\theta = \frac {a}{D} </i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-88174158892718546922011-05-09T04:06:49.737-07:002011-05-09T04:06:49.737-07:00I posted a comment that may appear on this one but...I posted a comment that may appear on <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2011/04/geocentrism-does-nasa-use-geocentrism.html" rel="nofollow">this one</a> but was also posted on page 11, debate 4.<br /><br /><br />1) You have about some 10.000 heliocentric astronomers calculating things like the position of Jupiter on a given date. And presumably getting it right.<br /><br />You have about one or two geocentrics or even 100 criticising this as an argument for heliocentrism. Like Sungenis who is into natural sciences, and me, who am not very much so (I am more of a Classics scholar, and defending what I can of Aristotle and Euclid and Boëthius is part of my fun, but does not give me professional access to recorded positions of Jupiter).<br /><br />2) Ptolemy got planets correcter than Aristotle. He used an excentric, which Aristotle did not (I do not think Aristotle even attempted predictions or astronomical tables). Copernic got it correcter than Ptolemy (I think), basically identifying excentric with sun and inverting stillness and orbit between sun and earth, streamlining earth with planets like Jupiter and Mars. Then Tycho reverted the last operation, and, still identifying excentric with sun, got exacter than Copernicus. Kepler reverted again, to Copernicus, and corrected circular orbits to elliptical ones. A correction which modern geocentrics like Sungenis and me accept.<br /><br />The point is: this history proves that a true prediction or a truer prediction than before can be reached irrespective of which of either helio- or geocentrism the predictor uses for his calculations, therefore this question of accurate astronomic prediction - at least within solar system - proves nothing about the issue.<br /><br />3) Look here if you like to see some geocentric thought brought unto "betting ground": from Mars modern cosmology and one form of geocentrism really can (as far as we can figure out beforehand) be sorted out:<br /><br />[link to this page]<br /><br />Speaking of technical perspective: how do you measure angles in "parallax"?<br /><br />Direct measures seem very awkward. The proxima Centauri "parallax" is less than one arc second. Like some two poles sticking vertically from ground (meeting precisely in center of earth) at a distance of about 30 m. And that is a "distance" just beyond one parsec. I roughly did some trigonometric approximations, but I am not sure, would that be some 0."05 / two poles at 1.5 m metting in center of earth for the 20 parsec, or did I get the trig wrong?<br /><br />Anyway, I do not think you measure such angles practically in any situation on earth.<br /><br />What came to mind is: you do say that this distance between two stars is so many degrees, than you check what portion in that distance the star is in on the solstices or equinoxes. Right?<br /><br />But if so, this cannot disprove geocentrism with angels moving stars: since in that case it could be the other stars that had slightly moved. Fix a bee in a swarm, it seems to move regarding the others, but did it move or did they? With angles like 0."76 down to 0."05, it is really hard to check.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-44710884708459829642011-05-09T03:34:53.064-07:002011-05-09T03:34:53.064-07:00More recent debate on thread of Catholic forums, p...More recent debate on thread of Catholic forums, p. 11 of n° 4 on this pages of links:<br /><br /><a href="http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/thread-from-catholiccom-more-may-be.html" rel="nofollow">Threads from Catholic dot com</a>.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-48071661539019734542011-05-04T02:50:22.997-07:002011-05-04T02:50:22.997-07:00From link:
So, for reviewing our understanding ab...From link:<br /><br /><i>So, for reviewing our understanding about the parallax, try to answer these questions:<br /><br /> 1. ...<br /><br /> 2. Assume we can measure parallax from Mars (with the same technology that we used here on Earth). Assume that we can measure accurately using parallax method until 200 parsec from the Earth (distance limit). Determine the distance limit if we conduct the measurement of star's distance using parallax method. Given that the distance of Mars from the Sun is about 1,52 AU.<br /><br /> 3. ...<br /><br /> 4. If you measure the parallax of a star to be 0,1 arc seconds on Earth, how big would the parallax of the same star for an observer on Mars?<br /><br /> 5. ...</i><br /><br />"Assume we can measure parallax from Mars" = as yet we cannot in practise, though it would be theoretically possible.<br /><br /><b>Caution: the blog post I link to is from 2008.</b>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-27391189707210045852011-05-04T02:43:21.726-07:002011-05-04T02:43:21.726-07:00Seems I was right about observation not yet being ...<a href="http://hansgunawan-astronomy.blogspot.com/2008/09/parallax-distance-measurement.html" rel="nofollow">Seems I was right about observation not yet being made (click link!)</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-15967236397280392002011-05-03T04:48:14.986-07:002011-05-03T04:48:14.986-07:00Another star to look at from Mars would be R136a1....Another star to look at from Mars would be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1" rel="nofollow">R136a1</a>. Estimated mass: 265 solar masses.<br /><br /><i>"Distance 165,000 ly"</i><br /><br />indicates that from earth this star does not move annually. So, if it is really beyond the limit of observable parallax or movement in distance, it would not seem to move from Mars either. That is compatible with hypothesis 2, of course, and 1a (as for that star!) and 1c, and even many values for 1b (closer than the 165,000 ly). But in hypothesis "1b radically close", like 1/12 of a ly, a "light month" away, one may predict a very clear heliomartian-geocentric parallax: a complex movement inverse of suns annual around earth, and mars' longer one around sun.<br /><br />And, as said for estimated closest star, proxima Centauri, experiment has not been done as far as we have been told.<br /><br />If from Mars <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1" rel="nofollow">R136a1</a> moves, it is a clear proof for geocentrism.<br /><br />We have historic events, as the dancing of the sun in Fatima too or the sun standing still for Joshua or moving back 2 lines for a King of Judah. Theologians accepting heliocentrism may argue those are simply local phenomena without astronomic significance, yet ancient Egyptian astronomers said recorded funny positions for the sun four times in a space of 10,000 years. Including probably fake events and fake time, according to Biblical chronology, but the phenomenon was not unheard of - and they may be answered that in that case parallax as such may be just a local phenomenon in telescopes on and around earth.<br /><br />Actually Dom Stanley Jaki did argue what happened 1917 in Fatima was a local phenomenon without any corresponding real movement in the sun. I will not mention his name on this note alone, since he was rightly praised by Fr Bryan Houghton for saying basically:<br /><br />- if Universe has a beginning, common sense says before that there was something else from all eternity and on which the universe depends, which we call God;<br />- but Universe has a beginning, since if it had no beginning, one could not explain where all the hydrogen comes from (under modern cosmology hydrogen is consumed and fusions to helium or even heavier stuff every moment that any star is burning);<br />- ergo, God exists.<br /><br />Where does Fr. Bryan Houghton adumbrate this? It is in the same part of his autobiography extended edition with tracts Unwanted Priest (Preêtre rejeté) where he also outlines sketchily my argument against evolution from <a href="http://o-x.fr/hspi" rel="nofollow">Chromosomes numbers</a>. I must say, even if I respect Dom Stanley, I cannot call Fr. Bryan Houghton inferior.<br /><br />Completed, Inventio Crucis/3 May 2011<br />Hans-Georg LundahlHans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-10054340048904132132011-04-28T01:36:27.399-07:002011-04-28T01:36:27.399-07:00For any star that from earth shows no motion annua...For any star that from earth shows no motion annually whatsoever, under hypothesis 1 and especially if anywhere near as close to us in a more or less thick or thin sphere of fixed stars, as proxima Centauri, will from Mars show parallax for Mars' own complex movement, sun lagging behind the zodiak annually and Mars going around sun every two years and passing earth on outside. If there is a sphere of fixed stars one light month away or closer (radically hypothesis 1 b), if proxima Centauri moves by own movement, there is from Mars not just parallax for Proxima Centauri inverse to its real movement, there is also a real parallax on the really immobile stars. Such a phenomenon would certainly refute Heliocentrism and validate Geocentrism.<br /><br />Under certain modifications of hypothesis 1, this could be also compatible with stars showing no annual movement from earth not showing it from Mars either: but that would involve giving Galileo one right, saying there are stars for which parallax foreseeable is not observable, though as Geocentrics we say it is from Mars that we would foresee a really parallactic movement.<br /><br />Under hypothesis 2, modern cosmology being true, not only each star with observable parallax from earth would have as simple but greater and slower parallax from Mars, proportionally for each of the ten thousand stars that from earth show the 1838 phenomenon (known as parallax by Heliocentrics), but for most of the 100.000's stars showing no parallax from here there would be no parallax from Mars either, the closest of them would be showing the smallest observable parallaxeis, as small as the ones from observed from earth or nearby space stations (SOHO I think I recall), whereas the stars showing them from here would have greater and slower parallaxeis from Mars. But such a phenomenon, though not refuting Heliocentrism, but corroborating it, would not refute directly Geocentrism either, though this would not be a corroboration of Geocentrism.<br /><br />But, as said, the experiment seems not to have been done. Were astronomers lazy, have they had difficulties not yet solved with placing telescopes on Mars, have they been gentle to us Geocentrics, or have they been gentle to themselves as Heliocentrics by shirking the experiment?<br /><br />Has the experiment already been done in silence, showed one or other and been hushed up out of such genteel feelings for one or other side of debaters?<br /><br />That one, I do not know.<br /><br />What I do know is that the omnipotence of God, arguable as a consequence of Geocentrism (God being the ultimate source of cosmic movement, daily around earth), has been shown in other ways, historically, by miracles. Like dead restored to life.<br /><br />Should Geocentrism one day be really refuted as Columbus refuted flat earth though it was already refuted by Eratosthenes as Geocentrism is so far not - as in space fantasies like Lanfeust des étoiles, Valérian, agent spaciotemporal, Star Trek, Star Wars, and so on - one would be able to say as Christians "well, our argument was wrong in detail, but indirectly similar to real argument". I do not think that likely, I find it as likely that Geocentrism remains a valid option. At least. A radical version of it, like hypothesis 1 b, can be refuted or confirmed from Mars. And has so far, as far as we have been told, been neither refuted nor confirmed.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-16881093796527013802011-04-21T12:21:37.908-07:002011-04-21T12:21:37.908-07:00It has been sugggested that Geocentrism is just a ...It has been sugggested that Geocentrism is just a weird view of heliocentric universe: I have suggested now geocentric-tychonian models which for the so callled fix stars are clearly different from heliocentric modern cosmology.<br /><br />And how from Mars the one or the other could be ruled out. As far as I know, it has not so yet. But it could, in a way not foreseen by St Robert Bellarmine, since flight in space - even unmanned ones - were not reckoned possible for men.<br /><br />After that, either way the experiment goes, it is up to people whether to believe the results or suspect they were tampered with, one cannot have the same certitude as with one's own eyes.<br /><br />But for now, it seems the experiment has not even been done.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-39281109698123232542011-04-21T12:14:24.590-07:002011-04-21T12:14:24.590-07:00Otherwise, the kind of check I suggested for alpha...Otherwise, the kind of check I suggested for alpha Centauri could be made also for other stars which have on earth a clearly observed annual back and forth movement, and in the case it could be ruled out if stars form roughly "inside surface of a sphere" or more like spread all over volume of the universe.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-63764532105525460012011-04-20T09:48:19.507-07:002011-04-20T09:48:19.507-07:00Back to science, a few info plus a link from wikip...Back to science, a few info plus a link from wikipedia:<br /><br />Axial tilt 23°26'21".4119 - Earth [obviously reckoned from heliocentric assumption that earth orbits sun and "untilted" axis would be perpendicular to plane of orbit, meaning there is really 23°26'21".4119 tilt between the perpendicular of zodiak and earth/universe axis of daily rotation, whichever thing be doing the tilting of the two]<br />Axial tilt 2.11′ ± 0.1′[7] Mercury<br />Axial tilt 25.19° Mars - Currently the orientation of the north pole of Mars is close to the star Deneb.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.arm.ac.uk/~aac/mars/Information.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.arm.ac.uk/~aac/mars/Information.html</a><br /><br />- No info about observation of parallaxeis. Nor about the equipment, i e whether there are telescopes able to check such out out there. As observations tend to be pretty completely covered, this makes me suspect there is none.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-39880169995556152222011-04-20T01:42:29.619-07:002011-04-20T01:42:29.619-07:00Oh, I was nearly forgetting to mention the Sun at ...Oh, I was nearly forgetting to mention the Sun at Patmos and Fatima honoured Our Lady.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3413387109542176983.post-89118387958063663462011-04-20T01:41:17.940-07:002011-04-20T01:41:17.940-07:00If then the Sun is a spirit guiding the burning ba...If then the Sun is a spirit guiding the burning ball of hydrogen and helium, and if that spirit notes anything about what goes on on earth, does this speak for Pagan sunworship or for Christianity?<br /><br />Obviously, if Christianity is true, and the sun is a spirit, he might enjoy better to be cited among causes for praising the creator (song of the young men in the furnace, a k a Benedicite, or St Francis' praises of the Creator), or remembered for obeying Joshua or for mourning over Calvary, than getting Egyptian or Aztek style worship.<br /><br />Egyptian worshippers of Horus eventually did see that voluntarily. Azteks were stopped from continuing their idiotic take on heart transplants to the sun, and it has shone on for nearly five hundred years after that cessation of sunworship too.<br /><br />By the way, as far as I can see, Eostra as goddess of dawn was a very minor goddess among German pagans, just as Aurora and Eos enjoyed not very much cult among Greeks and Romans. Homer uses her as a background for an Epic, and the English and Germans used her name as a way to commemorate Resurrection. I think, if she is a person, she is very content to honouring Our Lord, her creator and ours, in that way.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com