Heliocentrism, No Thanks!

He Used Geocentrism as Example of a Wrong Scientific Consensus · Heliocentrism, No Thanks!

Levi J. Pingleton

May 24 at 5:19 AM

When it comes down to it, those faithful to the religion of Scientism rejected the Geocentric model of the Universe not based on the data, but in spite of the data. Since the Michelson-Morley experiment proved heliocentric Capernicanism false, and displayed the Earth is not revolving around the Sun, the Scientists of the main stream REFUSED to accept what the data has always shown...Geocentrism is evidenced by all the data. There was and is no reason for the Church to abandon the beautiful Theology of Geocentrism. Instead, they silenced and refused to publish anyone who questioned the atheistic cosmology. Instead of holding to the Truth, they settle for the lie and only in order to keep God out of their science, and thus out of their conscience. Modern Skepticism and mass Apostasy, as well as abuse and misuse of Scripture and Tradition is greatly influenced by the very science that forced its "certainty" down our throats in an attempt to erase God from our consciences that is now in a serious and embarrassing crisis and looking everywhere to save itself from Classical Theism. Will the science elites finally admit their fatal flaws of being horrendously and needlessly wrong about Cosmology, the theory of Evolution, the theory of Relativity due to faulty science and personal bias against Theists? They already have. We are in the middle of a Science revolution, especially in Cosmology, and heliocentric Copernicanism is falling and fast. They have been wrong, entire life works demolished, and all due to stubborn and obstinate refusal to acknowledge God! A hard lesson being learned the hard way for the scientists devoted to atheistic evolution and atheistic Cosmology. Let the revolution be magnificent and God be praised!

I

DrWilliam von Peters

Most people have been taught that Geocentrism is hokum, but even NASA uses a geocentric model to plan space shots.

To understand how the Christian Geocentrism was overthrown by atheistic heliocentrism see the film "The Principle" and the work of Dr. Robert Sungenis including his work "Galileo Was Wrong". As the

The Principle (2014 - Full Movie)
Robert Sungenis, "a year ago"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeJb0JIHNik

II

Joe Theranger

While I agree with this poster in a lot of ways, I sure don’t agree with this. Perhaps I have simply read this in a way that was not intended by its author.

It was always my belief that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a physical medium through which light could travel that was, at the time, called the ether. Interestingly, a thing called the Higgs Field seems to be taking its place.

Scientists in Galileo’s time asked a scientific question for which Galileo had no good answer. If it was the earth that was moving and not the sun, then where was the predictable parallax that should have resulted. Galileo using his telescope could not accurately demonstrate the angular differences at which stars could be viewed during, let’s say the winter solstice and the summer solstice. There were Academics, scientists who had objections, not just religious. When better telescopes were created, accurate measurements were made. Both those scientists who had objection AND the Catholic Church accepted heliocentism as more than a theory.

The Catholic Church was tasked with the preservation of the deposit of faith left to it by Christ and the Apostles. It has the authority to better explain it or apply it but never to change it. As St. John Henry Newman explained in his Development of Doctrine, truly developed doctrine can never deny or negate existing doctrine. So negating serious aspects of Revelation (e.g. Christ never was raised physically from death but only spiritually) is simply not a valid thing for the Church to do as it continued to teach and to baptize.

But the scientific method does allow for such negations, in fact, requires them if and when new information becomes available.

I agree with the poster that new information from the Webb telescope may require a re-thinking of how the Big Bang played out. But the Webb telescope also gave us the ability to see more solar systems in more parts of the universe. And we see time and time again, planets revolving around suns.

St. John Paul II made it clear in Fides et Ratio, faith and reason (science) are the result of how God made human beings in his image and likeness with an intellect (reason) and a free will (capable of faith). Each should support the other in the search for truth.

I don’t think science has shown how life randomly arrived from matter. I don’t think science has explained why there is something rather than nothing. I have heard recent talk of things suddenly bubbling up from the quantum. But if something ‘bubbles up’ from anything, that means that the ‘anything’ whatever it may be, a field, energy, whatever, is something. It is not nothing. Macro evolution has also not been proven in a truly scientific way. It probably can’t be but you never know. Micro evolution has been proven. It has also opened up a way for humans to intervene in the process. I just hope that intervention will be used for good (curing or preventing disease) and not for other purposes.

Religion, especially when it was tied to government has a poor record. Thousands and perhaps even several millions across the ages, have been killed in the name of faith. Islam is the current best example of that.

But keep in mind that science gets no pass on this. Communism was so accepted by the elites in Academia because finally it offered government without God based on reason alone (or so they claimed). The result? An estimated 70-90 million people killed by the Soviets, the Chinese Communists, North Korea and Pol Pot’s Cambodia. In short, between 1917 and the fall of the Soviet Union, a godless, reason-only government has killed more people in a shorter period of time using reason as their justification than all the deaths justified by faith in the last two millennia combined. Reason-only systems seem not only just as troublesome as faith-only systems but also more efficient. May God teach us to use the gifts He gave us, a reasonable intellect and a will that can be moved by grace, in a balanced fashion.

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"It was always my belief that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a physical medium through which light could travel that was, at the time, called the ether."

In fact, if there is an ether, Michelson-Morley disproves Heliocentrism. If Heliocentrism holds, it disproves the ether.

Saignac seems to prove there is an ether, so taken together, they would disprove Heliocentrism.

"If it was the earth that was moving and not the sun, then where was the predictable parallax that should have resulted."

More precisely one that has never been observed since then either.

If the earth is moving and the sphere of the fix stars is like a surface surrounding the solar system, inner surface of a sphere, the predictable parallax would involve a roughly speaking equal parallax for all stars in a given direction.

"When better telescopes were created, accurate measurements were made. Both those scientists who had objection AND the Catholic Church accepted heliocentism as more than a theory."

For the Catholic Church, this is false. While Fr. Anfossi OP was not allowed to ban the book of Settele SJ, he was also never asked to recant Geocentrism.

You forget that there was a very different generation of scientists and a very different generation of Catholic clergy. It was clear since both Aquinas and Riccioli that Geocentrism involved Tychonian orbits performed by angelic movers.

It was also a fact that at a certain moment, scientists abandoned the idea of created spirits regularly moving things within visible creation, to many, Benjamin Franklin had "proven" that lightning involves no spirits.

It was also a fact that the clergy in 1820 had been beaten very hard on the head by revolutionaries, in person if martyred, and vicariously in ways that would leave non-martyrs unwilling to pick EVERY battle.

The acts of 1820 and 1822 do not even involve an explicit permission to believe Heliocentrism. The act of 1822 definitely encourages debate, not wholesale acceptance of the new theory. This was alas not the reception, as again in 1909, as again in 1950.

"But the scientific method does allow for such negations, in fact, requires them if and when new information becomes available."

Denial of angelic movers is not new information. Observing (indirectly) a different parallax from the one predicted as consequence of Copernicanism is new information, but not any kind of proof against Geocentrism.

"But the Webb telescope also gave us the ability to see more solar systems in more parts of the universe. And we see time and time again, planets revolving around suns."

Do we? I think planets are detected primarily as vaccillations in the light from the star. Where we find them either way, they are also usually one non-luminous planet for a self-luminous star.

But even granted, that does not prove any parallel "about our solar system", since we have no indication that those other planets are inhabited, and therefore not that they are in God's purpose equivalent to Earth.

"faith and reason (science) are the result of how God made human beings in his image and likeness with an intellect (reason) and a free will (capable of faith)."

W H A T?

Reason is another name for intellect, not a virtue of it, and rightly you have not added "capable of" but it is actually our intellect, not our will that is capable of faith. Freewill guards faith, for instance against voluntary doubts, for instance against unwarranted paranoia against the medium of God's revelation (be it Bible or Magisterium), for instance against negligence, but it is till the intellect that performs the acts of faith.

"Micro evolution has been proven. It has also opened up a way for humans to intervene in the process. I just hope that intervention will be used for good (curing or preventing disease) and not for other purposes."

Even for preventing diseases, some ways of intervening in micro-evolution are highly sinful. They are called Eugenics and were condemned by Pius XI in Casti Connubii.

There is a paragraph in Mit brennender Sorge which indirectly recalls this, but the direct condemnation of Eugenics is from 1931, before there was an NS régime. It targets Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior, it targets certain states of Canada and of US, it targets the Nordic countries. It's only afterwards that Hitler chose to follow their bad example.

The idea actually came from Lenin, or was approved by him, and of all people, it was Lysenko and Stalin who stopped that shit from becoming a feature of Soviet administration. It's still part of Soviet mentality, though. Micro evolution is probably a bad name, but thanks for mentioning the phenomenon so called, since it is proof positive that space on the Ark would have sufficed. I think all 17 hedgehog species, in 5 genera, trace back to one couple on the Ark (at least they were one couple when the Ark took off).

"But keep in mind that science gets no pass on this"

You are giving intervention in micro-evolution too much of a pass, I think!

Author

Levi J. Pingleton

Hans-Georg Lundahl thank you for this response. I don't have the time to respond this thoroughly when I wish I did. You've done this comments section a GREAT service. A sound answer to Joe Theranger.

Joe Theranger

My thanks to you, Levi, for making this post from Mr. Lundhal available to me. That said, let me make a couple of comments to Mr. Lundhal.

If there is an ether (which I don’t believe), it would have caused the some impact on the speed of light. I am not a scientist but I am unaware that the ether, which was posited as a transport medium for energy such as light, had any impacting the speed of light. Any transport medium always seems to have an impact on what is being transmitted resulting from a form of resistance.

Three. You seem to be implying by your mention that you think Franklin was wrong when he said that angelic spirits. You certainly are not implying that, are you?

The location of the planets is what those vacillations allow. This allows science then to make some estimates of the makeup of the planets. The planets themselves have been scanned (via spectroscopy) and the material that the planet contains; ( e.g. hydrogen, oxygen, various metals)

Two. I have no idea what Fr. Anfossi did it did not do. Nor do I care what he did or did not recant. I do know that the Church ceased its prohibition on teaching heliocentrism as anything more than a theory once the stellar parallax issue was explained.

But, I am an open-minded person. So let me pin down what you are trying to say,
Are you saying that egocentrism is true or might be true? If you are saying that it might be true, well than you are allowed to have an opinion just like anyone else.
If you are saying it is true then I look forward to the peer-reviewed journal article that explains what experiments you ran and what their results were that led you to that conclusion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Theranger "If there is an ether (which I don’t believe), it would have caused the some impact on the speed of light. I am not a scientist but I am unaware that the ether, which was posited as a transport medium for energy such as light, had any impacting the speed of light."

Well, C is the speed of light through ether. You never see light passing through empty space, a thing which doesn't exist. Solids are ether with lots of atoms packed, liquids have atoms layered in graviational horizons within ether, gases are mainly ether and a few atoms, vacuum = ether.

"Any transport medium always seems to have an impact on what is being transmitted resulting from a form of resistance."

That's exactly why things, light and other, can get to higher speeds than C with the ether, which does not have this speed limit, so, stars circling around earth at approx 2piC is no problem.

"You seem to be implying by your mention that you think Franklin was wrong when he said that angelic spirits." [presumably: "do nothing to lightnings"] "You certainly are not implying that, are you?"

Well, yes. That lightning has a cause that can be studied physically does not mean that it has no cause that can be studied by metaphysical speculation.

"I do know that the Church ceased its prohibition on teaching heliocentrism as anything more than a theory once the stellar parallax issue was explained."

1) That's very different from adopting it as "more than a theory."
2) The prior ban had not been against teaching it as "more than a theory" but against more than a [mathematical/geometrical] "hypothesis" ... what we would call a mathematic model, not supposed to correspond in all to reality.

"Nor do I care what he did or did not recant."

You should. Because if he did not recant, Heliocentrism didn't become the doctrine of the Church.

"Are you saying that egocentrism is true or might be true?"

Geocentrism, not egocentrism.

"If you are saying it is true then I look forward to the peer-reviewed journal article that explains what experiments you ran and what their results were that led you to that conclusion."

You are my peer, review it here.

Experiment A:

I have several times stood on the ground or sat in chairs without feeling as if what I was on were moving (unlike when I'm on a train starting to move). Prima facie, this means earth is not rotating, unless stronger evidence should prove otherwise.

Experiment B:

I have several times looked up at the Sun or Moon at one angle, and somewhat later (perhaps after an hour's sleep) found them at a different angle. Prima facie, especially with previous, this means the heavenly bodies do move (I have even verified for Orion).

Experiment C:

I have gone through experiment after experiment that's supposed to prove Geocentrism wrong, either on the annual or the daily stillness, and seen by good logic it doesn't conflict with Geocentrism. Hence the experiments A and B ought to be taken at face value.

B

Author

Levi J. Pingleton

Joe Theranger I was simply inferring that the Michelson-Morley experiment still provides to this day, data that supports Geocentrism and an Earth with the Sun revolving around it. Yes, they've complicated things with more "theories" in order to deny the evidence for Geocentrism the Michelson-Morley experiment undoubtedly presented, things like dark matter, which they've never observed. Obviously, Scientism will not have a massive conversion, and they'll explain away anything that is evidence for Theism .. even as they scramble to pick up the pieces...as admitted in this bombshell video...

"There's No Going Back from This" James Webb Telescope Uncovers One of the Oldest Galaxies Ever Seen
Territory, 21 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmYE87AOqL8

Joe Theranger

Levi J. Pingleton I am aware of the video. I am a Dr. Kaku fan. I am also aware that it proves that science was wrong and, as science often does, states clearly that they have to revise their theories. It's not unscientific for science to be proven wrong. A clear example is that Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics (God does not play dice with the universe) but science is self-correcting when it finds itself to be wrong. The only problem is that it often takes forever to make that correction (the death of one department chairman at at time).

But this video is saying that science's understanding of how the universe began and the nature of its expansion is wrong. This is great. This is science at its best. It's admitting that it's wrong and seems to have started the process of greater investigations.

I have no idea why you have taken this video as a means of disproving heliocentrism. Consider this. You have taken a satellite which because of the laws of gravity rotates in orbit around the earth. It takes fabulous photos of galaxies far away. But it also takes wonderful photos of solar systems within our own galaxy. Each one of those systems shows planets revolving around suns, sometimes more than one sun. (Binary solar systems are the most common).

So you are taking this fabulous product of science which has followed the basic principles of science in displaying errors and calling for their correction. And you are happy to point out when this miracle of science (the Webb telescope) has done a very scientific thing by calling into question some claims of science ABOUT THE BEGINNING AND EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE. But you are unhappy when this same telescope confirms time and time again the truth of heliocentrism. You accuse those who use the results shown by this telescope, by the Hubble telescope and by just about all telescopes since Galileo of scientism.

Now I agree with you to some extent. Dark Matter and Dark Energy ar more matters of faith than of science. What these claims do however is make the equations work. There are some variables that science cannot yet account for in explaining why portions of the universe come together to form galaxies (Dark Matter?) and why the universe is continuing to expand at an ever faster rate rather than beginning to slow down (Dark Energy?). These two variable I consider to be place holders. I think of them as things that must exist in some way since it reliably predicts what is observed but that way is not yet fully understood.

But as Webb has pointed out, those predictions may no longer be working. I am interested in the Super Simulation that they are working on because a simulation is only as good as the programming that makes it up. Yes, this new simulation will consider many more variables. Can we ever be sure though that it considers all possible variables? How do we know that there aren't other dimensions of space and time that are having an effect? How do we know that there aren't parallel universes.

A basic premise of the scientific method is that the scientist stands apart from his experiments. The Copenhagen understanding of the double-slit experiment suggests that this is impossible. The fact that we do not stand apart from creation (we are part of it) shows that our tests and experiments will always be limited to include those things that exist in the portion of creation (3 dimensions of space and one of time in this particular portion of the multiverse, if there is a multiverse). Only the Creator stands apart (transcends) all of creation. I suspect that science will always be discovering new problems that require new questions that will seek new answers. I suspect that they will never be able to provide a complete answer for everything (including human consciousness). But I can't tell you how much I admire their efforts to know more and more.

Our revealed faith is not like that. It does allow for new questions and demands new answers. That happens all the time. But new answers can never do to the faith what Webb did to science. It can never negate a tenet of faith. Even Paul said that if Christ did not rise from the dead then all our beliefs are in vain and we remain dead in our sin. Reason seeks knowledge and knowledge requires only assent. Faith seeks a commitment of love and love requires so much more. It requires a total change in how we live. It requires metanoia. For that reason, Cardinal Fernandez worries me more than the findings of the Webb telescope.

Author

Levi J. Pingleton

Joe Theranger we agree more than disagree I think. I believe Geocentrism is plausible and reasonable, and gives a boost to Faith and historic Christianity. I find it's case compelling and spiritually beneficial...my argument is simply that. More a theological and spiritual emphasis will be promoted in my book, along with sound Apologetics for Geocentrism as a trustworthy cosmology that enhances and encourages Catholic Faith and Truth.

Joe Theranger

Levi J. Pingleton JP II said that we should never be afraid of the truth. I can’t ignore what is true.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Levi J. Pingleton "in my book,"

Hello, rival / colleague!

I'll probably promote it, will you promote my blogs to publishers or people who might enjoy becoming such and need a job and have some savings to start a business with?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Theranger There is no proof available that Heliocentrism or Modern Cosmology is true.

Given that, and given the appearances prima facie show forth Geocentrism, one can take Geocentrism as certain truth.

See my other reply to you for detailed answers to your argument.

C

Reine Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl Dr. Wolfgang Smith (double PhD by age 19, now 93 years old and on hospice) has thoroughly debunked scientism, evolution (even the “theistic evolution” of de Chardin), and highlighted the data from the Planck satellite survey data measuring the CMBR (showing a robust and directional anisotropic axis in the CMBR centered precisely on the ecliptic of the earth-sun plane, definitively establishing heliogeocentrism—the earth is the dead-center of the entire known universe—which most scientistic “scientists” have therefore dubbed as “the axis of evil” because the data utterly destroy their tightly-held paradigms).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Has he also debunked Deep Space and Deep Time?

For me, even making the universe so big that "Helio-Geo-Centrism" seems like Geocentrism is a mistake to fight.

Reine Lantz

Hans-Georg Lundahl the question of “deep time” is easy to debunk. I happen to subscribe to a modified form of “deep time” explained theologically at least by the catastrophic disruptions of material creation occasioned by the fall of Adam and Eve. Even Paul wrote that “all [of] creation groans” because of the fall. Rational embodied beings (humanity) once favored with perfections such as immortality-in-body-and-soul and other perfections (which, among humanity’s original perfections, included preternatural gifts such as possession of all of the knowledge and understanding possible for humanity ever to have, and was surrendered), no longer posseses the capacity to understand creation as it is. Therefore, all of the knowledge and understanding that humanity in the aggregate has been able to re-acquire post-fall is incomplete and distorted—including the measurement of “time” and the “passage of time”. Current carbon-dating and radiometric dating—and a few newly-emerging techniques—are admittedly crude and imprecise.

Hence, my use of the term “modified deep time”. The term “modified” carries with it an implied caveat that human “science” and “scientific methods” don’t really “measure” any such thing as “time”. The term “time” merely means “recognition of change”—and “change” began with the creation of the angelic realm—with creation of all that is “not-God”.

All causation is vertical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"all of the knowledge and understanding that humanity in the aggregate has been able to re-acquire post-fall is incomplete and distorted"

Incomplete, true enough, distorted, and all, no, sounds too close to Calvinist Total corruption.

"All causation is vertical."

in fact, that's called Occasionalism, and some versions of it are not condemned, but it is also not the favoured view of Catholic theologians, including traditionally.

It can be mentioned, in above, I used an argument from Sungenis and did not immediately acknowledge my debt to him. Let's repair the omission:

Levi J. Pingleton

Other status

If you aren't familiar with Dr. Robert Sungenis' massive works full of impactful theological, scientific, philosophical, and historical Treasure, I strongly suggest you do so. He is by far the most underrated and underappreciated theologian and apologist in Catholicism today. He should be a living legend, but of course he doesn't sing the establishment song, so he's been rejected and neglected by his colleagues. People talk alot of trash on him, and it's out of jealousy and spite most times I've come to find out. If you don't read this man's many incredible works, it is your loss.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I like him, but I think I am even more underrated, at least at times even by him.

He gratuitously invents a mechanism by which stars follow the Sun equidistantly so that parallax will still tell "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away" rather than saying nothing of the distance, or so that the universe has as many and as big galaxies [as] in Modern Cosmology.

I went to Geocentrism immediately because "parallax" not being parallactic in nature implies nothing of distances and therefore gets rid of the Distant Starlight problem.

I have promoted him and apart from this and his view (perhaps former) on angelic movers endorsed his views, and I am thankful for his observations on Michelson-Morley X Saignac. He has been less generous to me.

Readers, please note, while forgetting to mention a source for an important fact or argument or idea (when there is one) constitutes "academic plagiarism" which will get you penalised professionally at universities, it does not constitute "plagiarism" as a legal offense that can be punished by courts. My most often omissions are Robert Sungenis, for the combined argumentations of Michelson-Morley and Saignac, and A.J.M. Osgood for tying down Genesis 14 to the times when Amorrhaeans lived in Chalcolithic En Geddi. My motive is not at all taking credit for their findings, but simply ease of communication in certain situations where adding a footnote would be tedious, notably in dialogue.

Dr. Wolfgang Smith has arguably partially done parallel work to me, but gone less far. I have had little access to his texts and cannot recall occasions when I have used him, or arguments I owe him for. That said, best wishes for his final years, and let's thank Reine Lantz for bringing him up, so his deserved fame be not clouded! Or Damien Mackey for giving him credits for an argument:

The return to scientific reality
Damien Mackey, 27.V.2024
https://www.academia.edu/120065302/The_return_to_scientific_reality

Back to Sungenis, on why Earth stays in place, we differ. For Sungenis, it's the dynamo effect of all the mass of all the galaxies rotating around Earth, for me it's more like this:

Again, keeping Earth exactly in place is no problem for God Almighty. Before the Sun was created on day IV, nothing like this affected Earth. The second after the Sun was created, Earth could have been pulled 5.9 cm towards the Sun. Easy enough for God to stop—and continue stopping up to the present day.

New blog on the kid: Second Approximation
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 05:01, Monday 20 November 2023
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/11/second-approximation.html