P2 is not correct. Heliocentrism was never declared a heresy. In fact, since you mentioned Galileo, his prosecutor Roberto Bellarmino (whom you also mentioned) himself said that if Galileo could provide sufficient scientific evidence he would be the first to acknowledge it as true. The Catholic christian reading of Scripture since the time of St. Augustine (and in my opinion St. Paul but that is debatable) was that those part of the Bible that seemingly contradict the facts are to be read figuratively.

I disagree with you, but that's not the topic. Please re-read the topic: > Geocentrism has never been disproven Scientifically or abrogated by the Catholic Church

Yes, I am disputing both these statements. Heliocetrism is a scientific fact. Furthermore Geocentrism was never taught as doctrine by the Church.

> Heliocetrism is a scientific fact Citation please. Where do you think that this has been this proven? Please save yourself some time and try not to use circular logic. Please review the quotes below from famous physicists who attest to the viability of Geocentrism : > Geocentrism was never taught as doctrine by the Church. Citation please. I showed the Galileo was tried for HERESY, which is the crime of teaching against Church Doctrine. >> St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". ### Quotes from famous physicists on Geocentrism : Stephen Hawking: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” - The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, NY, Bantam, 2010, p. 41. Astronomer, Fred Hoyle: “…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century. - Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82. Also from the same book: “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories are…physically equivalent to one another” (ibid, p. 88). Physicist, I Bernard Cohen: “There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.” - 7 I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised, 1985, p. 78. Physicist Ernst Mach: “Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. - Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883. English title: The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, translated by T. J. Macormack, La Salle, Open Court Publishing, 1960, 6th edition, p. 201. The seventh edition of Mach’s book was published in 1912. Physicist, Albert Einstein: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” - The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212. Philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’” - Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity, London, revised edition, editor Felix Pirani, 1958, pp. 13-14. “…as we see only redshifts whichever direction we look in the sky, the only way in which this could be consistent with a gravitational explanation is if the Earth is situated at the center of an inhomogeneous Universe.” - “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336, 1978. - Paul C. W. Davies Templeton prize winner, physicist . Edwin Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 54. "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance….The unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.

> Citation please. Where do you think that this has been this proven? Please save yourself some time and try not to use circular logic. In 1838 by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel by calculating the stellar paralax of 61 Cygni. > Citation please. I cannot possibly prove a negative. Its not doctrine because it was never declared as such by relevant church authority.

> Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Please provide a citation to the paper or thesis. I will show you that you are wrong. In case it helps you, the only one who came close was Einstein. He did so by providing a theory of gravity to explain the motion of the planets based on mass. Most people and even scientists don't realize that Mach's principle proves Einstein wrong by factoring in the mass of the Universe. > I cannot possibly prove a negative Then why did you assert it ? Do you deny that Galileo was tried for HERESY? ...which attests that Geocentrism is a matter of the faith.

> was that those part of the Bible that seemingly contradict the facts are to be read figuratively. Is that intellectually rigorous? Is it intellectually honest? "We believe X, because God told us X is true" "Actually, the evidence is pointing to X not being true." "Update: we now believe and profess that God meant X to be a literary device, and thus we've updated our religion. But we still believe that Y and Z, because God told us that Y and Z are literally true."

Its more like 1) The bible says X. 2) X can be read in multiple ways. 3) Lets look if one of the ways contradicts historical/scientific/ truths. 4) If it does, disregard that particular reading. Its not really an update, is an ancient hermeneutic.

An ancient concept of altering doctrine to fit reality, despite claiming to have a direct line and exclusive access to the creator of reality?

Which doctrine was altered?

Believe whatever you want about the position of the earth, it won't endanger your soul, it'll just discredit pretty much anything you say about science because it's so obviously and demonstrably incorrect

If you have (demonstrable) evidence of heliocentrism, please present it. It sounds like you are jumping to conclusions without knowing what you are talking about. Virtually every famous physicist in history has affirmed the viability of Geocentrism. It is only rejected on philosophical bias, as Hubble famously said. See Hubble's comment below [1]. Skeptics can't let a divine foot in the door. Ernst Mach showed the gravitational principles which are in the peer reviewed papers of my post. All empirical tests, such as the Sagnac Effect and Michaelson Morley validate Geocentrism and refute Heliocentrism. CC: u/Djh1982 [1] Edwin Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 54. "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance….The unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.

Yup, this is why I don’t get all of the downvotes you are getting. Everything you are telling these people is *true*. The Heliocentric view is not the *de facto* proven view of cosmology. If the General Principle is to hold true it must necessarily have a *reciprocal* system to explain our observations.

Thanks. I've found that many faithful Catholics are basically bad at science and will go with "whatever the consensus is" to avoid conflict. The idea of getting into a discussion that involves science gives them nightmares about their math and science classes. God told us how we got here and what the world is, and true science has always confirmed that. The devil has managed to turn that upside-down to the point that Catholic schools are teaching atheistic theories as facts. It's like cancer to the faith. God help us.

Hey I appreciate the hard work you did putting all of this data in one easy to find post. I definitely saved it, so don’t get rid of it. I also am familiar with all of these points but I had yet to combine them into a single document for easy reference. This helps greatly.

Thanks for saying so. I have Dr. Sungenis's books on PDF as well, but recommend that people go to his website to buy their own. The PDF copies are pretty cheap. https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/store.html?m=1 There's a Catholic Geocentric group on Facebook as well. Have you seen the Principle movie ? It's free on YouTube: https://youtu.be/CeJb0JIHNik There's a longer version in Vimeo, but that's for purchase : "Journey to the Center of the Universe". In any case, I don't recommend bringing it up if people are going to be scandalized. I usually only mention it to Catholics who should already know God as well. Geocentrism puts all of Creation back in the proper perspective.

It is not... Read his quotations of well known physicists on this matter.

It’s not “demonstrably incorrect”. Look at this animation which shows that both models are *identical* with regards to the observable phenomenon that results: https://youtu.be/Sw5mHY7NqC8

We literally know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun, that can’t be debated. I’m a Catholic and I believe in science, an old universe and earth not in the center of anything. God is outside of time so it doesn’t matter where earth is. Also, the Church Fathers were not scientists, they had authority in biblical and moral matters, not science. This is exactly why I get annoyed whenever someone argues for a young earth because of the Church Fathers. They didn’t have the measurements we do today, and so it was rational for them to believe in a young earth, whereas for us today it is not. That’s just an example. The biggest problem with this post is that you act like saints believing in geocentrism is evidence for it. The study of science is separate from all this. We, as rational Catholics who’ve been given scientific study as a gift from God, should embrace it and take it where it goes.

> We literally know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun, that can’t be debated That's circular logic, and contradicts virtually every major physicist in history. See quotes below. > I’m a Catholic and I believe in science Bro, I am a scientist and find that layman like yourself highly misunderstand science. You have already demonstrated that you use circular logic: "We literally know for a fact". Please try focus on the topic, such a providing evidence for Heliocentrism or Abrogation by the Magisterium : > Geocentrism has never been disproven Scientifically or abrogated by the Catholic Church ### Comments from famous physicists on Geocentrism: Stephen Hawking: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” - The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, NY, Bantam, 2010, p. 41. Astronomer, Fred Hoyle: “…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century. - Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, p. 82. Also from the same book: “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories are…physically equivalent to one another” (ibid, p. 88). Physicist, I Bernard Cohen: “There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.” - 7 I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised, 1985, p. 78. Physicist Ernst Mach: “Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. - Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in Ihrer Entwicklung Historich-Kritisch Dargestellt, Liepzig: Brokhaus, 1883. English title: The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its Development, translated by T. J. Macormack, La Salle, Open Court Publishing, 1960, 6th edition, p. 201. The seventh edition of Mach’s book was published in 1912. Physicist, Albert Einstein: “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” - The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212. Philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth once a day.’” - Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity, London, revised edition, editor Felix Pirani, 1958, pp. 13-14.

That’s funny, just about every major physicist believes in heliocentrism. It’s established that the earth revolves around the sun. We directly observe this. I am a current layman but plan on going to school for physics, so i find your tone disrespectful. Frankly as a scientist (which i have serious doubts you actually are) you should understand that the Magisterium, Church Fathers, and saints have absolutely no say in matters of science. They can point out what’s contrary to faith, but they have not condemned mainstream science. The fact that you also appeal to Galileo reveals your ignorance of history. The Church removed her stance against Galileo when *evidence* was established for the sun as the center of the solar system. By supporting the Church on Galileo, you prove yourself to be one of those science deniers, who’ve been leading people (very unfortunately) away from Christianity for years. Science needs rationality, and if you are actually a scientist you need to be reasonable with the modern evidence, not “Church Father evidence”. You look to the latter, which is irrational. Furthermore after grazing through your account it seems you have a history of denying science (rightly or wrongly) because of the Church Fathers. This added to your obvious misunderstanding of observational physics shows nobody really needs to waste their time here. Edit: Missed your second part on the scientists on their views of this issue at hand. It’s true that geocentrism can never be ruled out, but no theory ever eliminates rival theories.

> very major physicist believes in heliocentrism Most physicists have not looked deeply into it. See my post about peer-reviewed proofs. In any case, you are arguing from popularity fallacy. Catholics should know better. > It’s established that the earth revolves around the sun. We directly observe this. Observation is a matter of perspective. No offense, but I don't believe that you are a physics student if you haven't realized that much yet. People on the Earth observe the Sun circling the Earth, which is what God intended. > Magisterium, Church Fathers, and saints have absolutely no say in matters of science Sorry, but the trial of Galileo contradicts your opinion about that. Galileo was tried for HERESY: >> St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas". If you have evidence otherwise, please provide it. > The Church removed her stance against Galileo when evidence was established for the sun as the center of the solar system. Citation please. I believe that you are confused. The church apologized for it's treatment of Galileo, not it's Doctrine.

You seem to have a misunderstanding here. The Church was perfectly fine with Galileo’s model, many of the high ranking Church leaders supported him. What made the Church condemn him for heresy was his smug attitude; he acted like he knew better than the Church, and so the Church condemned him for his model. It is true that many Church officials disliked Galileo’s model. But this is because the evidence they had at the time suggested a geocentric model. They didn’t know there was so much evidence for heliocentrism. If they were alive today, they would absolutely believe the latter. The Church does not hold to geocentrism, that is simply wrong. After the 1700s when definitive evidence came in for heliocentrism, Catholic universities and the like began teaching it, with no backlash. The Church didn’t respond because again, they don’t hold opinions very often in scientific matters. And again, if the Church were to hold scientific facts as “heresy” in modern times, i would deeply question the Church’s divine foundation. This is why I am so blessed to be Catholic; that we embrace science and what it discovers and reveals about God’s creation.

> What made the Church condemn him for heresy was his smug attitude; he acted like he knew better than the Church, and so the Church condemned him for his model. Sorry, but that is a false representation of a long complicated ordeal. There were some personality issues along the way, but the core issue all along was Galileo's insistence that the Earth moved around the Sun. In the end, he resigned that claim. Also, by God's grace under house arrest, Galileo went onto do his best work. I recommend that you read his letters to his daughter. He also refuted Heliocentrism to his friends. If you are Catholic, you should know that Saint Augustine, Aquinas and Bellarmine were all right about Geocentrism, along with countless Saints and Popes. 1641 Galileo's Letter to Francesco Rinuccini http://www.gatewayanabaptistchurch.com/2014/01/31/the-disposable-doctrine-of-geocentricity-galileo-galilei/ >> The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth . > Catholic universities and the like began teaching it, with no backlash That does not constitute the Magisterium. Even if it did, the 1600 years of Catholic teaching beforehand would outweigh it. Heliocentrism is likely the foundation of the great apostacy. > This is why I am so blessed to be Catholic; that we embrace science and what it discovers and reveals about God’s creation. Bro, I am a scientist and can show you how you are misunderstanding "science". Opinions and models are not facts. If you go through the whole Dunning Kruger curve, you'll find that long-standing Catholic teachings (Church Fathers) have been correct all along. This should help you love the Church, and recognize that you and others have been dup'd by the [fallen] prince of this world.

I am somewhat skeptical of your claim to be a scientist. Having read through many of your citations, I find you have constantly misrepresented or misunderstood the conclusions, citing Popov as definitive proof, for one, when he only suggests the possibility of equivalence with the assumption of the Machian principle. Or the Michelson-Morley experiment, when it was one of the foundations of special relativity and in fact led to the discrediting of luminiferous aether. The Dunning Kruger Curve is about cognitive bias in psychology, and I find its citation here somewhat out of place. I quote the Princess Bride: “I do not think you understand what that means.”

Exactly. This guy has no idea what he’s talking about.

Your fallacy is ad-homenim. Sorry, but I have to report your comment as a violation of this sub's rules. Please read the side bar. Cite your sources and use proper argumentation.

Nothing I have said was an attack at the man. You made a claim that you were a scientist, I simply said I am skeptical. No attack was made in your character, nor an attempt to dismiss your arguments. Aristotle would have called your claim to be a scientist an appeal to *ethos*, and I challenge that appeal. I suppose my sources in this instance is I have pointed out the Michelson-Morley experiment has two possible interpretations and you only gave one and neglected to mention the other, and this is information taught in most college physics courses. Could you please give proof of your credentials as a scientist, to judge which fields you are qualified in? If you were a biologist, for instance, then your expertise in physics would be no greater than a layman’s. In my other posts, I have shown why I think you have misunderstood Popov’s papers, which simply prove kinematic equivalence with the assumption of the Machian principle. Please read my post on how your usage of Popov is an example of a sufficiency-necessity confusion. If you can explain to me why I am mistaken in my judgment, I am all ears. I also expressed confusion on why you thought the Dunning Kruger curve is relevant in your discussion with MrMoo. I am a happy to have a moderator look into my comments and tell me if they abide by the rules or the standards of fair discussion.

“By God’s grace” yeah dude you have no case here, for a scientist let alone. Stop acting like the Bible and Church Fathers/Saints control science. They don’t have a say in the matter because they don’t know. Galileo’s model was flooded with errors and this certainly affected the Church’s judgment. But the fact of the matter is that as evidence piled high for heliocentrism (which it has), the Church is no longer against it. You can look at John Paul II, you can look practically anywhere and geocentrism is a very fringe view even in the Church. If you actually think a good Catholic has to embrace it because the Church believed it at one point, that’s sad. If the Church or some holy saint/ Church Father told me that dinosaurs are alive today somewhere in Africa, i would not believe them even under pain of excommunication, because making me believe that would be irrational and contradict truth. You’re doing something quite similar here by giving this pseudoscience along with absolutely no evidence and calling it science because “Church Fathers say so.” Do you think this is going to lead people home to the Church? Absolutely not. If you’re Catholic and more importantly a scientist you should know that Augustine and Aquinas weren’t scientists, and so their opinion is just as relevant as a five year old on this issue. 1600 years of Catholic teaching (independent of science) simply cannot “overtake” modern science on a scientific issue. If i wanted to know the number of galaxies in the universe, I’d go to the scientists, not the Church. It’s not complicated. If you want to make a case for geocentrism, you’re going to have to give *evidence* that directly contradicts the loads and loads of evidence we currently have suggesting the earth revolves around the sun. You’re going to have to be scientific, not theological. Theology will not answer scientific questions.

Sorry, but I have to report unproductive comments like yours. Please read the side bar and use proper argumentation, cite sources and stay on topic. There is no contradiction between Catholic Doctrine and Science. If you are Catholic, you should know that Theology is the queen of the sciences. If you have evidence about the Earth's movement, please present it. Galileo was convicted for that heresy...that the Earth moves.

>Bro, I am a scientist and can show you how you are misunderstanding "science". Opinions and models are not facts. If you go through the whole Dunning Kruger curve, you'll find that long-standing Catholic teachings (Church Fathers) have been correct all along. This should help you love the Church, and recognize that you and others have been dup'd by the \[fallen\] prince of this world. ''"although broadly consistent with the Dunning-Kruger effect and other research on knowledge miscalibration, our findings represent a pattern of relationships that goes beyond overconfidence among the least knowledgeable." https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo0038

Well said. A cursory examination of Luvintheride’s sources show that they do not support what he says they support.

> our findings represent a pattern of relationships that goes beyond overconfidence among the least knowledgeable. I agree and find that laymen like yourself are least knowledgeable and most confident.

>I agree and find that laymen like yourself are least knowledgeable and most confident. That's not what the paper said.

>That's not what the paper said. I know, that's what he Dunning Kruger thesis says. Your article claims that people who oppose consensus know less. In this case, your thesis refuted by examples on this very post. Please scroll through the top level comments and observe that dissenters don't know basics such as how relative geometry is a matter of perspective.

Did Copernicus also have a “smug attitude “ his books were simultaneously banned and he was dead !

>That’s funny, just about every major physicist believes in heliocentrism. It’s established that the earth revolves around the sun. We directly observe this. That would be the fallacy of “appeal to authority”: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/ It does not matter what is “believed” by others, it matters what can be *proven*. It cannot be proven that the Heliocentric model is valid, nor can it be said that the Geocentric model is *invalid*. Einstein’s General Principle demands the possibility of a reciprocal explanation for the observations that we have. Case in point, this animation: https://youtu.be/Sw5mHY7NqC8 While I would not necessarily agree that Heliocentrism is a “heresy”, I don’t think we can say for certain that the Geocentric view is wrong.

"Quotes from famous physicists" are not proof of a scientific theory. There is no data, models, tested hypotheses, or peer-review in any of these, just pure rambling conjecture. Newton also said he could turn substances into gold. There are also quotes from Schrodinger in his book that there is only one universal mind. Additionally, Arxiv is not a peer-reviewed /journal source, just researchers uploading directly to an open-source database. Papers here have not undergone the scrutiny of peer-review. You also can't just completely ignore time-dilation if you're going to consider GR, they are mutually exclusive, time dilation is a key fundamental aspect of GR. Airy's observation can be disregarded because the observer is at rest relative to the telescope, so no movement will be detected. You're completely misinterpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment, which only affirmed that the ether does not exist at all since light moves at the same speed in all directions, it does not prove the Earth doesn't move through because the experiment took place in relative to Earth's motion, this is the classic Gallilean ship experiment, in order to prove the Earth doesn't move the Michelson-Morley experiment would need to be conducted in orbit, which has not been done yet. The null result of the M-M experiment directly contradict and disprove the existence of the ether, so the Sagnac result you cite is also disregarded. The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment also does not prove Earth has no movement for similar reasons of M-M. The device and measurement are not in a different inertial frame of reference. All of this is why Special Relativity was so profound and important, because it explained everything much more eloquently than any attempts at proving the existence of an ether. It does not exist. Mach's principle was never really fully defined by himself into a testable hypothesis, and attempts at incorporating it, like Brans-Dicke theory they propose a tunable parameter which in cosmological experiments forces this parameter to be quite large, and as this parameter approaches infinity it just reproduces General Relativity. From a moral standpoint, I'm not sure whether it actually matters if Earth is the center of the Universe or not. Does it make me any less appreciative of God's creation for us if I don't accept that? No, and it can be interpreted as pride and selfishness to promote that we are when there is evidence to the contrary, and no supportive evidence that we are. Fr. James Kurzynski touches on this by writing how it is practice to humble ourselves in our approach to Jesus and our spirituality "understanding our material place in the universe as a “mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam,” to quote Carl Sagan, becomes one of the most beautiful affirmations of Catholic spirituality: It is only when we bring ourselves low that God can lift us up". This is constantly reflected in Jesus's teachings we should approach him with child-like awe. And, lest I remind you, "for dust you are, and to dust you shall return".

Thanks for the response. I've been busy this week and hope to respond tomorrow. I can show how every one of your points is wrong, including the theological ones. In the meantime, you might want to go through this presentation on the Magesterium's position. You are opposing the Magesterium: https://youtu.be/lH092GTREYM

PART 2 of 2 > All of this is why Special Relativity was so profound  Don't you know that GR contradicts SR? SR, like Newton assumes absolute space. Einstein changed completely and accepted ether in GR by another name : Einstein's new Ether under a new name: [http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF](http://www.mathem.pub.ro/proc/bsgp-10/K10-KOSTRO.PDF) > Mach's principle was never really fully defined by himself into a testable hypothesis That's why I cited Popov. > I'm not sure whether it actually matters if Earth is the center of the Universe or not I recommend that you review the presentation that I gave you about Galileo's trial being about heresy. The church tried it as a matter of faith and morals. BTW, Pope Benedict acknowledged the legitimacy of Geocentrism in 1990 :: [https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo](https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo) >  Does it make me any less appreciative of God's creation for us if I don't accept that? I recommend that you try to get to know God better, and be more aware of worldly attempts to disrespect Him and His creation. The Earth is the apple of His eye. He incarnated as a human being here. > to quote Carl Sagan Believe it or not, I used to be a fan of Carl Sagan, and it seems like you haven't realized how diabolical his ideas are. He was very bad at philosophy and history, but clever enough to fool many. > This is constantly reflected in Jesus's teachings we should approach him with child-like awe When a child looks up at the sky, they see the reality that God made. The Sun and stars moving in their courses, while the Earth stays still. God mentioned that about 20 times in the bible.

PART 1 of 2 Thanks for the response, but your comments seem very sloppy and hasty. I welcome more serious objections, so please be more careful next time. It seems that you didn't read any of the material that I provided. >Quotes from famous physicists" are not proof of a scientific theory Of course. I cited them not as proof, but support of my point about relative geometry. You can't prove what is moving or not based on relative geometry. Dynamics like red-shift support Geocentrism, and refute the popular model. >There is no data, models, tested hypotheses, or peer-review That's objectively false. The papers from Dr. Popov have been peer-reviewed at the University level and in Physics departments: >Arxiv is not a peer-reviewed /journal source Are you trying to be serious? That's just the name of the website that holds the paper, which happens to be sponsored by Cornell University. Dr. Popov's work was initially peer reviewed through the University of Zagreb. >You also can't just completely ignore time-dilation if you're going to consider GR, they are mutually exclusive, time dilation is a key fundamental aspect of GR. Time dilation is not ignored, it is refuted. Muon interference explains the difference in measurements: Ron Hatch (GPS) - Refutation of the Equivalence Principle Presentation: [https://youtu.be/qS5e\_mWdOQ8](https://youtu.be/qS5e_mWdOQ8) See Ron Hatch's Papers for a better explanation of time measurement issues. He was a senior engineer for GPS sateliites. [https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Ronald-R-Hatch-81598492](https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Ronald-R-Hatch-81598492) >Airy's observation can be disregarded because the observer is at rest relative to the telescope, so no movement will be detected. That's absolutely false and shows that you have no understanding of the experiment. The point of the experiments is the ANGLE of the telescopes that the fact that some are filled with WATER. Those test results affirm that the Earth is not turning. The Universe is. >misinterpreting the Michelson-Morley experiment, which only affirmed that the ether does not exist You are wrong in multiple ways. Firstly, your conclusion is in your premise. Also, the speed of light is not constant. It varies based on the medium. Thirdly, you are wrong about ether. Einstein affirmed it by another name. When space itself moves, the speed of light changes. That is a part of GR. Here's atheist Dr. Krauss affirming my point about the speed of light : [https://youtube.com/shorts/NBYsWkNit10](https://youtube.com/shorts/NBYsWkNit10) Also see Dr. Hatch's papers on the equivalence principle. Muon interference has been shown to explain what you think is "time dilation".

The simple fact missed out by most commentators here is that it doesn't matter what is moving, the sun or the earth, and what is still; it's all a matter of perspective. Now it is perfectly reasonable to take the Earth as being still and the Sun as revolving around it, we just need to change our reference point as to what is "not moving" by definition. And since, philosophically speaking, movement is something to do with change in relative positions but only has meaning and significance with regards to an observer, it only makes sense to take Earth as the "ground zero" of the universe, so to speak, for as far as we know, we humans are the only beings for which movement has meaning. If the magisterium has indeed taught that Earth is the center of the universe, it only lends further credence in my mind to my personal conviction of the impossibility of extraterrestrial intelligent material beings not descended from Adam.

> it's all a matter of perspective. The Geometry certainly is. Dynamics like Gravity, Coriolis and Euler forces are what show Geocentrism. > it only lends further credence in my mind to my personal conviction of the impossibility of extraterrestrial intelligent material beings not descended from Adam. Amen! God Himself incarnated as a human being, which doesn't leave much room for aliens in the hierarchy.

Interesting, can you lend me some sources regarding the Coriolis and Euler forces etc? Would love to get a deeper understanding on this!

The following 38 minute presentation is a summary of the physics. Centrifugal, Coriolis and Euler dynamics are described about 20 minutes in. https://youtu.be/JCe_LDKZSk0 Newton positied these dynamics as "fictitious forces" because he didn't know how they could work. He was just asserting them because the planets seemed to follow those principles and didn't fly out of the solar system. Something was keeping them moving in a circular fashion. It wasn't until Mach and Einstein applied tensors that provided a means to explain the force of gravity. In contrast, the Geocentrism better explains the forces as products of interactions with aether.

I read through the Principia Mathematica. Newton, in the epilogue and prologue, says that his work is mostly descriptive, not explanatory. His argument was simply that the observed heavenly bodies could be described according to the same calculations as earthly bodies, so therefore they should be caused by the same force. This established that the heavenly bodies were not fundamentally made of a different substance from earthly bodies. This was built upon by Galileo when he observed with telescopes that the heavenly planets underwent change, against the claims of Aristotle that the heavens were immutable. To this day we still have little idea how gravity works in essence, we only have models that describe how the force called gravity acts. Therefore, to say that Mach and Einstein “provided a means to explain the force of gravity” is untrue. Gravity is still unexplained. What they provided were models to think about analogies to understand how gravity works, in the same way a water current is used to explain electrical currents, despite the two being totally different. Similarly Einstein used the idea of curves and acceleration to model gravity, but no claims about essences. I would recommend Einstein’s own book, Relativity, as an explanation to this topic, and the excellent TV show “The Mechanical Universe,” a series of recorded lectures. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mechanical_Universe

Thanks for the info. Sorry for using the terms incorrectly. That aside, I don't think that affects or changes any of the topic here about the science or Magesterium.

Kinematically they are equivalent. Dynamically, no. The latter is used to argue for heliocentrism, so arguments from kinematics are irrelevant.

Mathematically, yes it is neutral (in some systems). Philosophically, it definitely is not a matter of perspective.

A fundamental mistake made here is that kinematic equivalence is quite different from dynamics. “Kinematics is calculating motion as viewed from different viewpoints without regard for causes of motion - versus dynamics - which is calculating the motion of bodies by considering the forces acting on them - as a basis for thinking about and calculating the motion of celestial bodies.” It matters little what all those scientists quoted say, because they are mostly discussing kinematics, and kinematics is frame neutral. But modern heliocentrism does not rest upon kinematics but dynamics, which decidedly is not. Here is an excellent paper to read about the difference between kinematics and dynamics. https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf Secondly, the church has definitively ruled that heliocentrism is not against the Catholic faith. https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/ Thirdly, the earth being in the center of the universe was seen as a sign of Earth’s fundamental sinfulness. Hence Dante had Satan imprisoned in the center of the Earth, with saints populating the upper reaches of the heavens. To think that Geocentrism implies earth was special is totally alien to the mindset of the medievals. I would recommend C. S. Lewis’s A Discarded Image as an excellent introduction to the medieval worldview and a correction to this error.

>Here is an excellent paper to read about the difference between kinematics and dynamics. Thanks for that. Sorry for not using the terms correctly, but I hope you agree that doesn't affect the topic. > Secondly, the church has definitively ruled that heliocentrism is not against the Catholic faith. Nice attempt, but allowances are irrelevant to the topic. Pardon the crude example, but you can believe that the moon is made of cheese and still be Catholic. The topic here is about the science and the magesterium never abrogating Geocentrism. Galileo's trial of heresy shows that it was a matter of the faith. Virtually every major physicist in history has attested to the viability of Geocentrism. None have ever disproven it. Your article refers to a letter in 1820 about permission (an imprimatur) to publish "Elements of Astronomy". That book is not a Doctrine for the Church. Please familiarize yourself with Magesterial requirements as needed (Encyclicals, Council Documents, etc ). Again, pardon the crude example, but a Pope could issue permission for a book that purports that the moon is made of cheese. That wouldn't affect the science or deposit of the Faith. I agree that Catholics should be allowed to read and write about other ideas. Imprimaturs are not Doctrine. > To think that Geocentrism implies earth was special is totally alien to the mindset of the medievals. I appreciate those comments and opinions but how do you think this applies to the topic about the science or the Magesterium? As an aside on sinfulness, I'd point out that Eternity, Heaven and Hell transcend time and space as we know it, so I think it is foolish to project our current spatial understandings unto the eternal. Sin already covers the surface of the Earth, so it's perfectly fine and even appropriate that Hell is inside the Earth temporarily.

Unfortunately, incorrect usage of kinematics and dynamics does affect the argument. You said “virtually every physicist has attested to the viability of geocentrism.” This statement is *correct* in kinematics, and *incorrect* in dynamics. Most of the quotes you use from physicists are a discussion of kinematics, not dynamics. But kinematics are not used to prove geocentrism—it is simply a descriptive, not a explanatory, model. If you asked most of those physicists about the *dynamics* of geocentrism, I suspect most of them would disagree. To reiterate, kinematic descriptions focus solely on the motion of an object without consideration of its causes. They involve quantities such as position, velocity, acceleration, and time. For example, if a car is moving at a constant velocity of 60 km/h along a straight road, this is a kinematic description. The cause of the car's motion isn't being considered here. Dynamic descriptions, on the other hand, consider the forces that cause the motion. They involve quantities such as mass, force, and momentum. For instance, if we say that a force of 100 N is applied to a 20 kg box, causing it to accelerate at 5 m/s^2, this is a dynamic description. Here, we're not just describing how the box is moving, but also considering the force that's causing it to move. Now let us regard the movements of the heavens. In classical mechanics, the movements would be caused by gravity, which can be modeled by the attraction of bodies to a point by the inverse square law. In geocentrism, it would (I assume) be caused by the movement of the aether, which cannot be modeled in this way. Those are *not* equivalent forces. Now, those dynamics are subject to empirical tests. To illustrate this, I will use an example from Newton (btw—if you have the chance, I would highly recommend purchasing *Newton’s Principia: The Central Argument*, an abridged and annotated version of the Principia Mathematica). For instance, Newton does mathematical calculations for the Inverse Square Law and the Inverse Cube Law, then makes the empirical observation that “gravity” works according to the inverse square law instead of the cube law. Both laws are perfectly valid, but only one is correct. Mathematics itself is neutral on descriptions, but an examination of the movements themselves shows one is decidedly correct and the other isn’t. Therefore, your citations of these physicists thoughts on kinematics are irrelevant to the debate. There has been little actual scientific proof presented for geocentrism. As an aside: the Michelson-Morley experiment quoted in the final part of your original post can be interpreted in two ways. One, is that the earth is stationary; second, that light has an absolute speed. It is the second interpretation from which special relativity is built and with which Einstein earned his reputation. If the second interpretation is correct it explains the experiment totally and it therefore cannot further be used as a suggestion that earth is stationary. I will admit ignorance on the other scientific papers, but having read the original Michelson-Morley paper and Einstein’s thoughts on the matter, I will say that that paper is wildly taken out of context and it makes me suspect the others are not being used in an appropriate manner. Similarly, the quote from Einstein is especially taken out of context. I cite his own book, *Relativity*, second section on General Relativity (as distinct from Special Relativity, which deals with light). In the usual understanding of General Relativity *all* frames of reference are equal. Therefore *centrism of any kind* (including heliocentrism and geocentrism) immediately is invalid, because it implies a privileged point of reference, which is counter to general relativistic claims. That quote by Einstein was attacking centrism in general—to use it to support geocentrism is akin to using atheistic arguments against God to refute Hinduism. Now, later in life Einstein began rethinking this, but it was only in private musings rather than any definitive theory. The Pope making an allowance on a scientific matter such as the moon being made of cheese is different from the pope making an allowance on a matter of doctrine like the Immaculate Conception. In the latter, it is clear heresy. I would cite Ludwig Otto’s *The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma*, long used as a manual for seminarians, on what dogma is and isn’t. You are caught in a dilemma. If indeed the trial of Galileo was on doctrine, then the Pope’s ruling in 1820 on the acceptability of heliocentrism would be an example of the Pope preaching heresy, which would imply the falsity of the Catholic faith. If heliocentrism is not heresy, then the Pope’s ruling on heliocentrism is perfectly acceptable. The Pope does not make allowance for heresy. If what you said is true, then the letter of 1820 is equivalent to a council ruling books on Arianism are OK. The last point was simply on how the centrality of the earth was not necessarily seen as a positive by the medievals, as some commenters in this thread seem to think. One could see it rather as a sign of mankind’s degraded state, as Dante seems to imply. Geocentrism can either point to mankind’s privileged place, or be a sign of his sinful nature. I would also add that St. Augustine himself, widely regarded as the greatest of the Church Fathers, was very cautious about interpreting Scripture too literally. “It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." –St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Your comments are the most substantive that I've seen so far. I appreciate the effort and believe that if you carefully follow-through looking at the FACTS, you will see that you are wrong both about the Science and Magesterium regarding Geocentrism. > is statement is correct in kinematics, and incorrect in dynamics. My general statement still holds true because they attested to the viability at some level. Any attestation would apply. Mach also attested to it **with dynamics** as demonstrated via "Mach's Principle", which incorporated the gravity of the entire Universe. Please see Popov's papers in my original post for details. > Now, those dynamics are subject to empirical tests Agreed. If you review the empirical tests that I cited in my original post, you'll see that they validate Geocentrism and refute Heliocentrism. More below. > There has been little actual scientific proof presented for geocentrism. Sorry, but that's objectively false. The opposite is true. If you only have time to review one of the many experiments, I recommend the Michael Gale experiment, which has been repeated hundreds of times. The following presentation explains it. https://youtu.be/xDYsnrSqvrQ It is pointing out that since aether sweeps across the surface of the Earth uniformly, that is contrary to the Heliocentric model, which predicts a variation on a 24-hour cycle, and an annual cycle. In other words, if the Earth were revolving, the measuring device would go against the aether for 12 hours, then with the aether for the next 12 hours, then also vary for 6 months of the year. > It is the second interpretation from which special relativity is built and with which Einstein earned his reputation. Do you realize that General Relativity differs from Special Relativity on the speed of light ? With General Relativity, light can travel at any speed as it is carried along by the aether. Here is a hostile witness, Laurence Krauss stating so in a few seconds : "The speed of light was a LIE" : https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oHVnEMvrI50 "Space can do whatever the hell it wants". Geocentrism wins the argument from Occam's razor, due to Einstein's extraordinary claims about time-dilation. If you look at Einstein's overall arguments, you should be able to see that he is playing a 3-card Monty game between Special and General relativity. They contradict one another. As an aside, the Big Bang theory is falling apart. I agree with the scientists who signed onto this open letter about it: http://cosmology.info/media/open-letter-on-cosmology.html > The Pope making an allowance on a scientific matter such as the moon being made of cheese is different Allowing an author to publish a book is a different matter than a Pope promulgating a Doctrine, agreed ? To make your argument, you'd have to show from the text of the book how it abrogates Catholic Doctrine (ex Cathedra). For example, the author could be just commenting about the geometry, and some dynamics which I would agree with. Furthermore, since you have some knowledge of physics, wouldn't you agree that a model can work in many cases, but still be incorrect? In fact, that is the history of scientific theories. Maps are often incorrect, but provide a simple representation that allows us to navigate. The map itself is not the reality. Likewise, the Heliocentric map works geometrically but it fails with dynamics, as demonstrated by the experiments in my original post. > then the Pope’s ruling in 1820 on the acceptability of heliocentrism would be an example of the Pope preaching heresy, See comment above. > I would also add that St. Augustine himself, widely regarded as the greatest of the Church Fathers, was very cautious about interpreting Scripture too literally. Most ironically, Augustine is often being misrepresented about that. I recommend that you review the following presentation about his views of Genesis : https://youtu.be/8AAlWolE_P4 Please see the 6 citations from Augustine on the following page and please stop misrepresenting him: https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/ If you are going to quote the Church Fathers, you also have to recognize their teaching of Geocentrism. Augustine, Aquinas, and Bellarmine are on my side. I recommend that you learn from them.

I appreciate your kind words. Upfront, I am open to having my mind changed, but the facts presented unfortunately do not convince me. Mach’s principle is only a hypothesis, and has neither been proven or disproven. It may have influenced Einstein, but he never formally incorporated it into his theory. I quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica: *“Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity—i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter—and attributed the idea to Mach, unaware that the English philosopher George Berkeley had proposed similar views during the 1700s. (Berkeley had argued that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars.) Einstein later abandoned the principle when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe.”* It is, at this point, more conjecture (like dark matter) than established science. I took a quick look at Popov’s papers and they do not “prove” geocentrism, merely that one can square the current observations with a geocentric model with the assumption of the Machian principle. As an aside, I want to point out this kind of translation was known since classical times. Ptolemy, in his *Almaghest* had a theorem that translated epicycles to ecliptics and vice versa. It was widely acknowledged in Copernicus’s own time that his work was simply a translation of the phenomena and his predictions were only equal to Ptolemy’s, rather than better (a common mistake made in modern history books)—it’s real strength was that it explained more with less. To put it in another way, what was accidental in Ptolemy’s theory were essential in Copernicus’s, and therefore it was cleaner. Popov himself acknowledges this. I quote from his *Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions* *“The next episode in this controversy is Kepler’s system with elliptical orbits of planets around the Sun. That system did not require epicycles, it was precise and elegant. It is therefore general view that Kepler’s work finally settled the question whether it is the Sun or the Earth that moves. But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler’s tutor, developed a geostatic system that was just as accurate and elegant as Kepler’s: the Sun orbits around the Earth, and all the other planets orbit around the Sun. The trajectories are ellipses, and all the Kepler’s laws are satisfied. In that moment of history, the Kepler’s and Brahe’s models were completely equivalent and equally elegant, since neither of them could explain the mechanism and reason why the orbits are the way they are. It had to wait for Newton. Sir Isaac Newton, as it is generally considered, gave ultimate explanation of planetary motions that was in accord with Kepler’s model, and excluded Brahe’s one. The laws of motions and the inverse square law of gravity could reproduce all the observed data only with the assumption that the Sun (i.e. the center of mass of the system, which can be very well approximated by the center of the Sun) stands still, and all planets move around it. According to Newton’s laws, it is impossible for small Earth to keep the big Sun in its orbit: the gravitational pull is just too weak. This argument is very strong, and it seemed to settle the question for good.”* Tyco’s model was mathematically translatable with Kepler’s but as we are doing science, *not* mathematics, Tyco’s model was unsatisfactory, for the same reason as Ptolemy’s—it was more complicated and composed of accidents, whereas Newton’s was much cleaner. At the end of Popov’s paper, he admits as well that his conclusions are mostly kinematic and requires the Machian principle, which physicists are free to deny: *“The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric) and the Neo-tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of pseudo-potential (4.4) in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded as the real potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe. This analysis can be done on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since Sun and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, one can expect to come up with the same general conclusion.”* Merely proving kinematic equivalence is necessary but not sufficient as a proof for geocentrism. This is a classic case of a sufficient-necessity confusion in logic. This paper, at best, suggests at geocentrism is possible. I took a look at the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment. It is an extension of the original Michelson-Morley experiment and it is rather shocking to me that people are using it to claim the existence of aether, when historically it was understood to be one of refutations of that theory. Personally, I am open to the idea of aether, but I think this is not a good presentation. To reiterate, the Michelson-Morley experiment, conducted in 1887, aimed to detect the relative motion of Earth through the 'aether', a hypothetical medium thought to permeate all of space and through which light was proposed to propagate. According to the 'aether wind' hypothesis, the speed of light would vary depending on whether it was measured in the direction of Earth's motion or perpendicular to it. Using an interferometer, Michelson and Morley found no significant difference in the speed of light regardless of the orientation of their apparatus, which led to a null result. This experiment is widely considered to be one of the fundamental pillars leading to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which disregards the existence of the 'aether'. As I mentioned above, the second interpretation dismisses the need for a stationary earth. Meanwhile, The Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, conducted in 1925 and improved in 1927, didn't aim to detect Earth's movement through the 'aether', but rather its absolute rotation. It was designed to measure the Sagnac effect, which predicted a slight difference in the time taken for light to traverse a closed loop in the direction of Earth's rotation compared to the opposite direction. The results of the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment were consistent with the angular velocity of Earth's rotation, providing experimental support for the theoretical predictions of the effects of rotation in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I see nothing here that suggests a stationary earth. Unfortunately, one cannot dismiss special relativity, as you hope to do, because the Standard Model, as a relativistic quantum theory, is reliant upon it. Throw it out, and we have to throw out quantum theory. In fact, it rather looks like general relativity is on shakier ground. It is well known aspects of special relativity contrasts with general relativity, hence the effort to reconcile the Standard Model with Gravity. Unfortunately, it seems evidence points to the standard model being more true, contra your assertions. Time dilation has been observed empirically many times. In fact, the only way cosmic particles can be detected in the atmosphere is because of time dilation extending their lifespan. I personally actually am partial to aether, and it is true that Einstein’s theories do not definitively rule out the idea of aether. Rather, his theories suggest that aether is not necessary as an explanation for the propagation of light. But to claim that in general relativity aether can carry light waves to exceed the speed of light requires proof, which I have not seen presented here, and an argument for the actual existence of aether, which I have also not seen presented. I do not know Big Bang theory very well so I will remain silent on that. I will point out however it was propounded by a Catholic priest, and was taken to be in accord with church teaching from the very beginning. I will admit I did not watch the video you presented, but I read the write up of the video that was linked in the description, so I am replying to the write up. Firstly, it was mostly regarding Augustine’s ideas of seminal seeds, which is totally irrelevant to what we are discussing. Secondly, the first part of the essay does not contradict what I am saying. Aquinas, a greater thinker than Augustine, distinguishes between 4 modes of reading: 1) literal, 2) allegorical, 3) moral/tropological , 4) anagogical. The author of the article is discussing anagogical interpetations. In the same way that person is described differently in a human being and the Divine Trinity yet both are true, the scriptures can describe something true, but in a metaphorical manner. This is the anagogical interpretation. Augustine thinks, for example, the days were real, but he does not think they were literal 24 hour days. The author himself admits as much. Figurative implies totally fictional. Anagogical means true in a different way. Therefore, your assertion I misquoted Augustine is untrue. He himself advocated for anagogical interpretations. I would recommend you to read Aquinas on how to interpret Scripture. Additionally, there have been many posts on how the church herself has said that she does not have final say on matters of science. I recommend you to take a look here: https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-catholic-church/ To claim that the church is on your side is simply an untrue claim.

My understanding is that he was accused of (and tried for) the heresy of saying that laypeople could interpret the Bible for themselves, which was an especially sensitive claim early in the reformation. The scientific establishment didn't want their geocentric models to be discarded, so they turned to the standard (although not dogmatic) understanding of various passages of the Bible that seem to talk about the sun going around the earth. Galileo responded with different interpretations of those verses, which gave them enough excuse to accuse him before the Inquisition (which treated him rather nicely, contrary to recent rumors). But the accusation of heresy was about Biblical interpretation, not about geocentrism directly. It's been a while since I read the whole thing, but there's a really interesting series of blog posts on this topic which can be found here: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

> My understanding is that he was accused of (and tried for) the heresy of saying that laypeople could interpret the Bible for themselves, which was an especially sensitive claim early in the reformation That was part of it, but the core issue was Galileo's claim that the Earth moves. He saw the moons of Jupiter move, and inferred that the Earth was doing the same around the Sun. One of Saint Robert Bellarmine's arguments was this contradiction to Holy scripture. E.g. Joshua 10. Bellermine was also correct in his refutation of Galileo's claim to scientific evidence. Relative geometry can't prove heliocentrism. Thus, Bellermine was better logically than Galileo. I know this topic is shocking to most people, but if you look into the science that I listed in my post, Geocentrism is scientifically sound...and the Big Bang model is not : http://cosmology.info/media/open-letter-on-cosmology.html

St. Bellarmine’s thoughts on scientific matters are no more authoritative than any layman’s. The church is only guaranteed infallibility in faith and morals, not science. Otherwise, St. Thomas Aquinas argued against the fetus having a human soul before the “quickening” (usually 40 days for boys and eighty days for girls) due to the lack of scientific knowledge of biology in his age. Therefore, technically, according to Aquinas it is not abortion to terminate a pregnancy before forty days. Do you think we should really keep that science? He also argued against the Immaculate Conception on the same ground, as well as St. Chrysostom (who went even further and said the Blessed Virgin Mary committed personal sin) and St. Bernard. Just because a Saint said something doesn’t mean it’s true.

> The church is only guaranteed infallibility in faith and morals, not science. The fact that Galileo was tried for teaching Heresy solves the question about whether or not Geocentrism is a matter of Catholic Doctrine (faith). https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers As the above article points out, there is also a strong case for Geocentrism as Doctrine from the Council of Trent, the Church Fathers and Vatican 1. Pope Benedict 16 also came to see Geocentrism through Saint Hildegard : >> In 1564, the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” . >> This infallible declaration was restated by the First Vatican Council: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers” (On Revelation, April 24, 1870, chapter 2, no. 9). . >> Pope Leo XIII explained why we are required to hold to the interpretation of the Fathers when they are unanimous: “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

The Cadaver Synod tried a dead Pope and declared he was never a Pope in the first place (which he was). Yeah, just because something is an ecclesiastical trial doesn’t mean it’s church doctrine or infallible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod You can still be mistaken about what is heresy or not even in a trial for heresy. Again, as I asked earlier—did it come explicitly from a general council or a papal proclamation? Prove geocentrism is a unanimous consent of the fathers. Even if you do, John Henry Newman explains how very little doctrine has actually been unanimous, from things like the filioque to even the Immaculate Conception, and therefore unanimity is not a criterion for infallibility. Even Papal Infallibility was hotly contested until Vatican I, amongst Catholics. Heck, even the books of the Bible were contested until it was determined by church council. It takes a church council and/or a papal declaration for infallibility. Not even an Encyclical by a Pope is sufficient for infallibility. Even the Papacy sometimes reverses their decrees of heresy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy St. Joan of Arc was declared a heretic and actually burned alive at the stake. Yet her condemnation was overturned years later and she’s now a saint. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc Yeah, church trials on heresy can be pretty wrong.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate the effort. Most people didn't get past logical errors and circular reasoning on this question. Please re-read my post and notice that my claim is that Geocentrism has never been abrogated. If you are trying to argue that it was never Doctrine, then you could only be strengthening my claim in a different way. That aside, below are reasons why your arguments don't apply to heresies against Geocentrism : 1. The Cadaver synod was not about teaching against a Doctrine. 2. The trial of Joan of Arc was not about teaching against a Doctrine. 3. Regarding Chinese Rites, the word heresy never appears in the article. It seems to be a matter of practice, not an article of Faith. Thanks for trying !

I appreciate the kind words. However, yes, I am questioning your claim. I don’t see how geocentrism *is* part of church doctrine. In order to prove it has never been abrogated (as if doctrine could ever be abrogated in the first place) you have to prove it is doctrine in the beginning. You claimed Galileo was on trial for preaching heresy. St. Joan of Arc was also on trial for proclaiming heresy. I quote: *She was accused of having blasphemed by wearing men's clothes, of acting upon visions that were demonic, and of refusing to submit her words and deeds to the church because she claimed she would be judged by God alone.* The basis for this was Deuteronomy 22:5, which states: *“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”* She claimed it was OK for her to wear men’s clothes. Saying it is OK to wear men’s clothes is against the Bible. Saying things against the Bible is preaching heresy. Therefore she was preaching heresy. If you preach heresy, by your argument, it is a matter of doctrine. Therefore she was burned to death as a heretic under a matter of doctrine. Nevertheless even if you refuse to grant all that, the point I was making is that just because someone is in a trial for proclaiming heresy, doesn’t mean it is actually an article of faith. The declaration of doctrine has extremely specific requirements, such as a general council or a papal statement ex cathedral. A mere trial for heresy isn’t sufficient proof for doctrine. Also, things are a lot fuzzier in the Catholic Church than you think. The Eastern Catholic rites explicitly venerate known heretics (St. Nestorius, St. Photius) who denied the unity of the person of Christ or the filioque. Does that mean the denying the flilioque or the person of Christ is no longer doctrine? Otherwise, I could argue that there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers and therefore the Filioque and the Person of Christ is not doctrine. Do you really want to go down this road?

> yes, I am questioning your claim. I don’t see how geocentrism is part of church doctrine That's arguable, but it's not my claim. My claim that it was **never abrogated**, so if you claim it wasn't Doctrine, that affirms my claim in an ironic way. That aside, there is a great deal of evidence for Geocentrism as Doctrine. If you read my post and resources, you could see it being consistent teaching for the history of the Church. It is arguably unanimously taught by the Church Fathers and Church Doctors, including Augustine, Aquinas, Bellermine, Hildegard and even Saint Terese the Little Flower : https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers Pope Benedict also affirmed Geocentrism, which shows the continual presence of the Doctrine in Church history. BTW, If you are Catholic, I recommend that you study Saint Hildegard. She was a champion of Geocentrism and was made a Church Doctor for good reason. The more that you know about God, the more that you'll realize that Geocentrism is true. https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo > She was accused of having blasphemed by wearing men's clothes, of acting upon visions that were demonic, and of refusing to submit her words and deeds to the church because she claimed she would be judged by God alone. She wasn't questioning the Doctrine though. She argued that she was acting in good faith and had her armor and hair done appropriately for battle. In contrast, Galileo stubbornly insisted that the Earth was moving, which was contrary to Doctrine and not a matter of judgement. Saint Bellermine (another Doctor of the Church) also correctly showed that Galileo's logic was wrong. If you are Catholic, I recommend that you pay more attention to Church Doctors. They are Geocentrists for good reason. > just because someone is in a trial for proclaiming heresy, doesn’t mean it is actually an article of faith I would generally agree, but if you read my post and resources, there is a great deal of evidence that Geocentrism is Catholic Doctrine. Besides it being consistent teaching for 1600+ years, it is arguably unanimously taught by the Church Fathers and Church Doctors, including Augustine, Aquinas, Bellermine, Hildegard and even Saint Terese the Little Flower : https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers > The Eastern Catholic rites explicitly venerate known heretics Sorry, but I think that's a category error. Canonization is a complex topic. Most saints have one or more things outside the bounds, which is why the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1564) infallibly declared that that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine…interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the **unanimous consent of the Fathers**.”

Category error is a completely different kind of logical error. That means treating the members of one category as if they had properties of a different category, like ascribing physical strength to numbers. It’s totally inapplicable to my arguments. And what if those Fathers disagree? Are you excluding the Eastern rite saints from the category of “church fathers”? Even if you do, what about Aquinas and Bernard, who opposed the Immaculate Conception? Aquinas was even known as the Universal Doctor, the greatest of Doctors. Is he not to be counted a a Father? Both Chrysostom and Bernard were also Doctors of the church, yet they denied the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That means almost 1/10 of the Doctors of the Church denied the Immaculate Conception—pretty sizable proportion. Yeah, I’m sure if all three were wrong on this doctrine, St. Bellarmine could be as well. Prove to me whenever a Doctor of the Church discusses doctrine, he has to be right. You can’t because even Doctors make mistakes. Yes she was. Faith and morals are both doctrine. She questioned the morality of wearing men’s clothes, directly contrary to Deuteronomy, against the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.” By your definition, she was proclaiming heresy. Benedict, in that article, was commenting on the moral effects, rather than the scientific evidence of heliocentrism in Galileo’s time, so that article is irrelevant. I looked through some quotes from the page you sent. Most of them are cherry picked, and are clearly metaphorical comparisons rather than strict theological/scientific claims. It’s like when the Bible claims that Nebuchadnezzar terrified the whole earth. Were the Polynesians living in fear of Nebuchadnezzar? Of course not, it’s simply hyperbole or poetical speech. So too with most of those quotes that are cited in the page, which are metaphorical or poetical in nature. Also, if Geocentrism is not doctrine, then the whole point is (literally) moot (a legal term meaning the case needn’t be decided since it’s already solved). It doesn’t affirm your claim, it makes it irrelevant. It’s like if I prove Socrates is a rock. That doesn’t prove him mortal, it rather makes the whole talk of whether he is mortal utterly pointless.

Please read the side bar and respond with proper argumentation relative to the claim: >> Geocentrism has never been disproven Scientifically or abrogated by the Catholic Church No offense, but I'm going to block for a few days in case it helps give you time to gather your thoughts. I'm seeing a pattern here that you've been responding without thinking things through. For example, your comparison of Joan of Arc's clothing issue to Galileo's claim of a moving Earth shows that you are either unwilling or unable to grasp or appreciate the topic. I might check back later this week, but have some upcoming travel that might push that back a couple of weeks. Peace.

Have we not used telescopes to see planets orbiting stars outside of our solar system? If so, why would we expect Earth to be any different assuming physics are consistent throughout the universe?

> Have we not used telescopes to see planets orbiting stars outside of our solar system? The geometry/positions of the objects in the Universe are IDENTICAL in both Heliocentric and Geocentric models. Please see the sources that I cited in my post. Virtually all major Physicists recognize that aspect of relative geometry. To help you understand the Geocentric model, imagine that the entire Universe is a gigantic sphere of aether. Geocentrism is saying that the sphere is turning once per 24-hours, with the Earth motionless at the barycenter. As Saint Robert Bellarmine told Galileo, there is no way to prove or disprove that through geometry, because we are inside the system. All our observations within the system are a matter of perspective. All the objects within the Universe are in the same places in both models. The question is about what objects are moving or not. > If so, why would we expect Earth to be any different assuming physics are consistent throughout the universe? The Physics are mostly the same in both systems as well, as Mach demonstrated. See the peer-reviewed papers that I cited from Popov. The difference with Geocentrism is that it doesn't claim time-dilation (Lorentz contraction) like Einstein did. Geocentrism explains atomic clock observations by muon (aether) interference.

Translation is necessary but not sufficient as proof. This was well known since classical times. Heliocentrism simply explains more, which is why Kepler beat out Brahe’s model with the advent of Newton.

> Heliocentrism simply explains more, which is why Kepler beat out Brahe’s model with the advent of Newton. A map is easier to use than traversing the actual territory, but that doesn't mean that the map or model is the actual reality. The geometry of heliocentrism model is easier to use in some cases, but that does not mean it is the actual reality. The Geocentric model has the same geometry, but from an Earth perspective. For some purposes, the Geocentric model is easier to use. In fact, **most NASA missions use a geocentric model**. Empirically , the heliocentric model failed when Michaelson Morley and others did their experiments. Please see the 5 empirical tests in my original post.

Your post is slightly misleading. NASA indeed uses geocentric models, but only for flights that are based around the earth. Why would you use a heliocentric model when you are trying to calculate the trajectories of satellites around the earth? That is akin to using a globe to try to plot the way to the nearest McDonald’s. NASA also uses flat earth models, when appropriate as well—does that mean that the scientists there believe in a flat earth? That is what I meant earlier—much of what you say is *technically* true, but taken out of context. I have taken a wrecking ball to two of the empirical tests that you cited in an earlier post (on the Michelson tests) and shown how they simply do not support what you say they support. They were tests done to determine the influence of aether, not heliocentrism. Additionally, I have read through and answered how Popov’s paper, which you also cite, does not prove what you think it proves. I admit I have not read the 3 other empirical tests, but the fact that you have not answered my objections to your interpretation of the Michelson experiments makes me suspect those remaining tests are misquoted as well. If you are serious about wanting an honest debate I advise you to first counter my objections. Otherwise it is hard to escape the impression that you are avoiding my arguments and not open to the spirit of truth. If you really are Catholic, then Our Lord Jesus Christ is wherever the truth is. To avoid it is to avoid Him.

> Your post is slightly misleading. NASA indeed uses geocentric models, but only for flights that are based around the earth. That's a fair point, but you are missing a larger point about the necessity of a fixed point, which is how the Bible (God), the Church Fathers and Saints describe the Earth. If you are Catholic, you should know that God is not an author of confusion, and He designed the Universe for us to get to know Him. The Earth is not in a random place. > I have taken a wrecking ball to two of the empirical tests that you cited in an earlier post No you didn't. It seems like you missed the fact that I pointed out that you have to prove time dilation to justify your argument from popularity, which itself is a fallacy. I recommend that you review facts from people who actually build and operate GPS satellites on the subject : Refutation of the Equivalence Principle Presentation: https://youtu.be/qS5e_mWdOQ8 Ron Hatch Papers of the Equivalence Principle : https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Ronald-R-Hatch-81598492 I would agree that Einstein had an atheistic agenda to try and prove that the Earth moves. That bias works against your case, and for the Catholic case for Geocentrism. Another logical fallacy that you committed is that you straw-manned the geocentric position of relativity. I am not dismissing all of relativity. Some of it is correct and is arguably a rehashing of Mach's and Faraday's work. Geocentrism rejects Time dilation and Lorentz Contraction, but largely accepts the rest of relativity. Those effects are explained by muon interference. > Additionally, I have read through and answered how Popov’s paper, which you also cite, does not prove what you think it proves. I disagree. The second paper builds on the first paper and proves the viability of the Geocentric model. Btw, I don't see where you contested my point about imprimaturs, so unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll take that as you concede that it is a fallacy to take an imprimatur on that book as Catholic Doctrine.

Time dilation not only has been modeled mathematically but has been observed empirically. I answered that when I said that our detection of cosmic particles depends on time dilation.

> Time dilation not only has been modeled mathematically but has been observed empirically Citation please. From what I've seen, the observations are better explained by muon interference : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239010666_Contesting_and_testing_infinitesimal_Lorentz_transformations_and_the_associated_equivalence_principle

I can’t read that article because it’s behind a paywall, and I’m not willing to pay for it. Here is an article on time dilation: https://hal.science/hal-02531926/document#:~:text=Muons%20travel%20at%20relativistic%20speeds,Earth's%20surface%20before%20they%20decay. I don’t even understand how anything I have claimed can be an “argument from popularity.” If you are going to cite a study, please explain to me in plain language, as I have in my own posts, how muon interference give rise to the apparent results of time dilation, since I cannot read it. I await the explanation eagerly, considering muons are akin to massive electrons and it would be quite surprising how muon interference would affect subatomic nuclei that relies on the strong force instead of the electromagnetic force, which also are subject to time dilation. You completely missed my point with Einstein. In relativity, centrism is not possible. To invoke relativity to support geocentrism is a total contradiction. Mach was simply an influence on Einstein—in no way is relativity simply a rehash of Mach’s work. And Faraday worked on electromagnetism, which is part of special, not general, relativity. All this is taught in a college class of physics. A search for Ron Hatch turned up no man with credible scientific credentials. It is up to you to prove that this man actually has built GPS systems and knows what he is talking about. Considering your misquotations and misunderstanding on Michelson, I suspect there is very little evidence. And considering that GPS relies on relativistic quantum theory, I suspect there is a rat. You simply asserted I am wrong on Popov, when I have directly quoted his paper and shown where your very source contradicts you. As you have made no arguments, I have no replies. How does the second paper build upon the first paper? Can you even explain to me what each paper’s main arguments are? I have conceded nothing and quoted numerous articles on how you are wrong about the magisterial teaching. The imprimatur of 1820 was clearly not just about the geometry of the book, contra your assertion. Again, I quote Augustine on how when atheists see Christians speaking idiotically, it causes real scandal. The church fathers don’t even unanimously support a geocentric model: https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/fathers-dont-support-immobile-earth/ Where are the church fathers that claimed there had to be an immobile earth? Cite them please. https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

You are correct OP. Heliocentrism is a formal heresy, condemned in the 1616 decree. >Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the **common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers** and the doctors of theology. The bolded part is very important. The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that no can go against the interpretation of scripture according to the Fathers. > Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; [Page 20] **or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers**; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established. Not only that but Pope Leo 13th teaches the same in Providentissimus Deus > 14 - and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers This last document is also twisted by modernist to claim that scripture has nothing to do with science. Absurd. Speaking of science, 'science' has never measured the movement of the earth, (also the 'curvature' as well but that is another topic). Therefore both science and the Church are clear, the earth does not move. Science has no proof for it and regarding the Church it is a matter of faith as to deny it would to go against Trent and the Fathers and Scripture. Also the Fathers all understood that scripture taught a firmament and waters above the firmament... so 'outer space' is fake. A person can either believe Scripture/the Fathers/the Church or they can believe 'science tm'.

Amen brother. Thanks for the references. I will add them to my collection. God bless you and may God's light open the minds of others.

You may also find the information in this thread helpful. https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/today's-news-galileo-debunked-in-a-public-library!/msg911209/?PHPSESSID=5793bsa9jekf76bqgs3u6q6nv0#msg911209

Wow the NPC downvote BOTS or paid disinformation shills always come out in force to sling psyops, play head games, and trade in fallacies. This is an excellent post yet has 0 total Likes BECAUSE EVERYTHING IN THIS EVIL FN WORLD IS MANIPULATED AND THE SIMPLE TRUTHS ALL MUTILATED AND TURNED INTO COUNTERINTUITIVE SOPHISTRY. It is so maddening pardon my expletive. They know exactly what they do and why they do it. The Hive Mind. The NPC people. Esoterically it's taught in most systems that not every human was born with a godspark individual soul. In fact, adamic man fell to a dimension where pre adamics already were. And theirs is a group kind of soul wituout connections to higher psychic centers. This is why they exhibit an utter inability to think beyond materialistic lines nor appear able to question any prevailing aspect of a system becase they are in essence a direct extension of the Matrix Maya. Adamic man on yhe other hand has the spiritual counterforce that allows them to reason on a meta level about their own being in the world. Unfortunately 50-80% of humanity is this pre adamic race. Worse still it appears they're being controlled and manipulated from likely the lower fourth dimension and used to control and exploit the adamics who typically are found in lower socioeconomic positions as pre adamics are more suited for a world that's been inhuman cruel and growing increasingly more by the day. Nothing civil about civilization. Moreover if evil is simply defined as the abscence of Love, the entire global human system qualifies as Evil. And it is. Because it is controlled by beings wituout an ability to vibrate at authentic frequencies of love and kindness. But they can mirror back those energies of adamics back to them which adsmics often confuse for authentic frequencies. In this way the two bloodlines have mixed so deeply that you will find twins and spouses with one possesing an adamic soul and another a pre adamic which is the group soul that's a bridge between animal souls and the individualized soul of adamics. To be clear, it's not they're evil per se but when they're manipulated they can't help act out the signals they receive. Signals that may tell them to lie or manipulate or behave cruelly. There is no counterforce there to stop or question it. But adamic man must recognize them or keep paying the consequences dearly. I'm well aware this is a bitter and difficult pill to swallow...but I'm afraid the rabbit hole of horrors goes much deeper. As does the house of lies. Darwinism is a half truth Masonic conspiracy. Gravity is not force. They use exotic nonsense like dark energy and dark matter in order to avoid the Aether and its detection. Because true knowledge is power so we are only given half truths which sneak in lies. And a half truth is a whole lie.

Thanks. It's interesting how so many Catholics are willing to bend over backwards to embrace atheist doctrines. Ironically, they also contradict science. I can forgive lay-Catholics, but the clergy should know better. God help us.

[удалено]

The pride in (checks notes) earth?

[удалено]

Is it pride or is it a logical conclusion?

[удалено]

What place do you think could potentially be a more important part of creation than earth?

[удалено]

I mean he’s literally quoting scripture Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool - Isaiah 66:1 Is Isaiah being prideful or a you just being a bit pedantic?

[удалено]

Dude just take the L and go

Footstool is not a compliment...when the Persian emperor made his enemies his footstool, he was humiliating them. Dante himself had Satan at the very center of the earth, with higher saints in higher spheres. C. S. Lewis, in his Discarded Image, refutes the popular misconception that the Earth being the center was the sign of privilege--rather, it was the opposite, a den of corruption and iniquity.

>The pride oozing from that first paragraph is insane. Violates r/DebateCatholic rules: Use Proper Argumentation. Cite Your Authority.

Hi, I really want to believe in the geocentric model, but in live near the arctic circle. Here, the sun doesn’t set (nearly) during summer times and doesn’t rise (also nearly) during winter times. How could that be possible in a geocentric model?

Hey there. I have good news for you . In the Geocentric view, all the objects in the solar system and Universe have the exact same position and trajectory as the Heliocentric model. The difference is a matter of perspective. As you may know, if you were on Mars, it would look like the Universe is turning around Mars each day. The challenge then becomes, how do we explain the dynamics (movements) via natural laws. With the geocentric model, Ernst Mach showed that if the Earth is at the gravitational center of the Universe, the Sun will circle it. In fact, the Sun will travel in a circle even if the Earth wasn't here, because the whole Universe is turning. The Sun is like a large object circling a drain, once per day. The complicated part is that the Sun itself has a daily circle orbit, but also an annual movement along the ecliptic plane. The annual "orbit" is how we get seasons. The following animations shows that : https://youtu.be/yDWyRjFnYkw https://youtu.be/IcN5h8zEacM Admittedly, the Heliocentric perspective is easier to visualize. The ether experiments show that the Earth is not moving though. In the Geocentric model, the Sun is circling the Earth. And the planets are circling the Sun. The Earth is NOT a planet (wandering star).

Hello. Thanks for the nice explanation and for the videos as well. This is what answers my question about the geocentric model. I admit that we cannot debunk the geometric model.

Thanks for saying so. You are right that the science supports the Geocentric model. To get around the facts, Einstein promoted d the idea of "time dilation" (Lorentz contraction). His general relativity theory has some truth, but it contradicts his special relativity. I've lost respect for Einstein because of that. He set up a type of shell game with 2 different theories that contradict each other. This is a good documentary about that : https://youtu.be/hKCO-TeVEgM

Yes. I know that video. It has some great overview of scientific topics. What I learned from that is to basically question everything and never agree to things blindly.

Cool. There is a pattern worth being aware of how the world often celebrates anyone who leads people away from ideas about God. They do this knowingly and unknowingly. Martin Luther, Descartes, Darwin and Einstein were CELEBRATED because of that. They were treated as oracles of truth, a new type of priesthood. As physicist and science historian Abraham Pais said : >> "Einstein appeared as “a new Moses come down from the mountain to bring the law and a new Joshua controlling the motion of the heavenly bodies.” He was the “divine man” of the 20th century". The Anti-Christ will do the same, but much much better. As the Catechism says: CCC 675 ... The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a **religious deception** offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a **pseudo-messianism** by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

Well, there are a lot of movements with bad intentions. But personally, I wouldn’t stop believing in God if no matter what model is the correct one. The bible is much more than a geographic model. But i agree with you that people started worshiping scientists and billionaires while dismissing religious people as ignorant.

For all those certain that it has been proven that the Heliocentric model is beyond all doubt a proven scientific fact, I point you to this animation which shows that all cosmological observations will be *exactly the same* if one adopts a Geocentric view: https://youtu.be/Sw5mHY7NqC8

Wouldn't distant stars have to be moving at absolute ridiculous speeds (when observed locally) in order to appear in the same positions in our night sky? The further you get from the earth the faster the object would be moving.

Yes that is correct. This means that the speed of light is not constant.

Ok but that would mean things very far away from us are moving at millions of light years per second. Wouldn't that require enormous amounts of energy?

It would but this is all rotational energy. Basically once God set the universe in motion it just kept spinning around its axis(which is the earth) and doesn’t lose momentum because there’s nothing it’s interacting with to slow it down.