Thursday, 16 April 2015

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part III of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

Me to Sungenis and Palm
14/04/15 à 18h40
Re: Reading but not bed time
" I said that the 1616 decrees’ reference to “local motion” refers to motion between the sun and the earth. THAT was the only issue. It cannot refer to the stars since the stars are not local."

Dead wrong.

Local motion does not mean "motion on a local" (as opposed to universal) "scale". It means a motion that is local as opposed to one that is substantial or quantitative or qualitative.

Men have two, in the end three, substantial motions: begetting, dying, in the end resurrecting. Stars had a substantial motion on day four, when they were being created. They now have each day a local motion of more than a circle around earth, of unknown radius.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Me to Palm, cc Sungenis
14/04/15 à 18h46
Re: Reading but not bed time
You have a point, that FIRST condemned proposition is not strictly identical to the then usual position that sun was as one star strictly immobile in ONE centre (among many) of an infinite universe.

BUT Anfossi had a point that if the condemnation of 1633 was infallible, there was a reason for it which would certainly not allow for that either.

As to "I hope you", I frankly detest that kind of tone.

I am not a tabula rasa which you and Sungenis can compete about filling, I was decideldly Geocentric before hearing of him./HGL

Sungenis to me and Palm
15/04/15 à 03h50
Re: Reading but not bed time
In a message dated 4/14/2015 5:46:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

[actually it is the quotes from Palm which he takes through my mail, will give rest as dialogue between Palm and Sungenis]

Hello Hans,

I hope you will factor another important point into your consideration of this issue. Sungenis insists that Fr. Olivieri lied to Pius VII and made elliptical orbits the sole ground of his case. Sungenis errs and I have pointed this out to him many times, but he continues to repeat the same error.

R. Sungenis:
Somehow David thinks that merely when he asserts something, it is automatically true. Pompous.

Please see the discussion at the following locations:




[links clickable in previous]

R. Sungenis:
These arguments have already been answered.

As I summarized, "Bob’s contention that Fr. Olivieri makes “elliptical orbits” the “crux of the matter” is unsupported and false.

R. Sungenis:
Really? Is that why Fantoli, Finocchiaro and McMullin agree with me?

Elliptical orbits was one of many things to which Fr. Olivieri pointed to demonstrate that the views of modern astronomers were not the same as those of Copernicus and hence not the same as what was addressed in the 1633 decree.

R. Sungenis:
So what?! David keeps bringing up contingencies that are a posteriori and don't amount to a hill of beans. What was addressed in 1616 and 1633 was whether the earth went around the sun (as Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, Zuniga and Kepler claimed) or the sun went around the earth (as the Fathers, the medievals, Bellarmine claimed). Period, end of story. Your attempt to wiggle out of this by some fabrication of "views of modern astronomers" is as deceptive as Olivieri who created it.

The fact that the Church had already put Kepler's ellipses on the Index meant that Olivieri had no business using them as a "new view of astronomers," and its curious why you never answer this aspect of the issue.

Based on a false and sloppy analysis, Bob has repeatedly and unjustly accused this Catholic priest of lying and subterfuge."

R. Sungenis:
Imagine that. Palm dreams up something that the 1616 and 1633 Church never even discussed as a reason for rejecting Galileo, but he has the gall to call me "sloppy" for insisting that we don't put words in their mouth. Amazing.

It remains a fact that, read strictly, the 1616 and 1633 decrees address only a strict heliocentrism with an immobile sun at the center of the universe.

R. Sungenis:
Bullfeathers. It addressed whether the sun went around the Earth or vice versa. That you would try to change this to accommodate heliocentrism is beyond the pale. Go read the documents of 1616 and 1633, and the context of the discussions around those documents. The only issue was what went around what. There is not one word about "different views of heliocentrism that might be allowable depending on whether one had in view the universe or the solar system." That is a pure fabrication.

Whether other cosmological views fall under those decrees is for the Church, not Sungenis, to decide. The Church has ruled against him.

> God bless,

> David

R. Sungenis:
No, the Church only approved an imprimatur, and it was often the case that imprimaturs that they were issued under false pretenses were then removed. Further, the Church said that the ruling for the imprimatur was contingent upon whether there would be future knowledge that might change its status. Since there is no proof for heliocentrism, we know that status. And, of course, the Church has never rescinded the rulings of 1616 and 1633, and imprimaturs don't qualify.

You're hanging by a thread, David.

Sungenis to me and Palm
15/04/15 à 03h53
Re: Reading but not bed time
Dead wrong? Then tell us where the Church of 1616 and 1633 discussed your expanded definition as a criterion to judge the Galileo case. The only "local motion" they discussed was whether the sun went around the Earth or the Earth went around the sun. If you know of any other kinds of "local motion" discussion, I'd like to see them.

Me to Sungenis, cc Palm
15/04/15 à 10h07
Answering I of 2 by Sungenis
Were Kepler's ELLIPSES put on Index or just his:

a) Heliocentrism

b) "natural-non-living-causism"?

Riccioli considers ellipses possible, but Kepler pretty unique (after Epicurus, who considered the layers of a Geocentric roughly Ptolemaic universe as physical outcomes of densities) in considering the cause of celestial local motions in being sth natural and non-living, unconscious.


1 comment: