Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2) by Robert Sissons.
I’m confused about the denial of the geocentric model. From Wikepedia: Earlier observations supported the geocentric model. First of all, if the Earth did move, then one ought to be able to observe the shifting of the fixed stars due to stellar parallax. Another observation used in favor of the geocentric model at the time was the apparent consistency of Venus’ luminosity, which implies that it is usually about the same distance from Earth, which in turn is more consistent with geocentrism than heliocentrism. Objectors to heliocentrism noted that terrestrial bodies naturally tend to come to rest as near as possible to the center of the earth.
Robert Sissons Also Commented
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
This is a letter from St. Robert Bellarmine written to a priest in the 17th century:
St. Robert Bellarmine, wrote the following to
Father Paolo Foscarini on April 12, 1613:
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise, which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.
Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.
Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstrations; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the Holy Fathers.
I add that the words “The sun riseth and goeth down, and returnneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north.” (Ecclesiastes 1: 5,6) were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.
Recent Comments by Robert Sissons
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
If you send me an email I will send you a Word file where I collected information from various sources that explains why the geocentric universe makes much more sense than an a-centric universe.
Objection: In the geocentric universe the outer stars would have to be revolving around the earth at exorbitant speeds to make a complete revolution in 24 hours. How is this possible?
Answer: The Geocentric universe has a medium called aether that permeates all objects and is what is spinning around the earth which is immobile. According to Ernst Mach and Lense-Thirring, supported by Einstein himself, the gravitational effects of a rotating star system around a stationary earth are exactly the same as the gravitational effects of a rotating earth in a stationary star system.
The stars don’t have to travel huge speeds themselves as would be required in the helio-centric universe, rather, they are carried in an aether medium that satisfies almost all the speed demands. It is the aether that moves and carries the planets and stars.
This means that the sun, relative to the aether, is not moving at 24 million miles per hour, but is hardly moving at all. The independent movement the sun makes relative to the aether, however, will allow it to transcribe a path through the zodiac each year. Hence, as the aether rotates once per day around the earth, the sun rotates with it, and the sun will come back to almost the same position each day, except that it will be 1/365th ahead of where it was the day before. As for the rest of the stars, they also rotate with the aether, and thus they are not moving at exorbitant speeds, rather, the aether is rotating. Since the aether is at Planck dimensions, it can withstand such speeds.
However, the heliocentric system demands that the sun move around the galaxy at a half million miles per hour, and that the Milky Way galaxy move about 100 times faster than the sun around clusters of other galaxies, and that the outer most galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. Now that’s getting into the science fiction realm! Thus the heliocentric system DEMANDS these impossible speeds for the stars.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I just drew a large circle around the sun. 93,000,000 miles is the radius of the circle. Circumference = 2*pi*radius. Earth supposedly travels 365 days around circumference of sun. 365 days = 526,000 minutes. From this earth travels 1,111 miles/min around circumference of circle. 3 minutes for sun to travel its diameter = 3,333 miles for diameter.
By the way I believe in a geocentric universe as it is easier to believe than the preposterous speeds the planets are traveling around the sun and the solar system is traveling around the universe.
Space machines do not orbit the Earth
For us simpletons can you provide a conclusion for your arguments?
For instance are you saying that because of the thermosphere that we didn’t land anyone on the moon or that manned rockets before 1978 were a hoax? Thanks.
Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I did another experiment using the supposed 93,000,000 miles between earth and sun. Observing (which is true science) that the sun moves the distance of its diameter in 3 minutes, 365 day revolution, and circumference of a 93,000,000 radius circle I get the sun being a diameter of 3,333 miles. So science is wrong on the distance to the sun or the diameter of the sun. True science includes observation not faith which is why most scientists use their beliefs to try to disprove God.