Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Me to Tom Trinko

24 février 18:11

Now, you made ample excuses for not explaining sth better than you did about me being wrong*, but it seems you needed no shame, since Keating, a man publishing himself on the subject, did no better than you. As I gathered from Sungenis' review:

Keating tries to dismiss this simple solution by the following statement: Keating: In Galileo Was Wrong…he offers a quite different explanation. He says that in fact the satellite is moving swiftly though space at ‘7000 miles per hour eastward against the westward rotating universe, which will allow the satellite to remain stationary over a particular location on Earth.’ Keating contends that, “this explanation will not do. If it is a centrifugal force that keeps the satellite at a certain level, the force can exist only if the satellite itself is moving. Motionless objects are not subject to centrifugal force.” Apparently Mr. Keating doesn’t understand that in Newtonian mechanics a satellite moving at 7000 mph, even in the geocentric system, will seek to go in a straight line in the medium of space against which it is moving, and thus the gravity of the Earth is needed to pull the satellite downward if the satellite is going to stay above one place on the Earth. To perhaps understand this better, take the Earth out of the picture for the moment. So now we have a satellite traveling 7000 mph against a space that is rotating 7000 mph. According to Newton, what will the satellite seek to do? It will seek to avoid rotating and want to go off in a straight line into deeper space since there is no centripetal force to make it go in a circle.

Top of p. 27 here:

I couldn’t have done better for Geocentrism than Karl Keating did on Catholic Answers Live!
Copyright © Robert Sungenis February 23, 2015
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Karl_Keatings_Kosmology_website_version.pdf

Tom Trinko to me

25 février 02:59

Space is not a medium Nothing Sungennis says has anything to do with real science or experiments. The universe does not rotate westwards. And motionless objects are subject to gravity. So the geostationary satellite will fall. Everything Sungenis says is made up. You can buy into his fantasies but that doesn't change the fact that the guy is faking physics in order to defend a Protestant literal Bible interpretation doctrine.

Me to Tom Trinko

25 février 10:30

"Space is not a medium" Newton one one hand, Aristotle, Einstein, Sungenis and me on the other hand differ on that one. Supposing space is not a medium, where do you get the "firmament"?

"Nothing Sungennis says has anything to do with real science or experiments." - "Everything Sungenis says is made up." Sounds more like bashing than refuting.

"The universe does not rotate westwards." It looks like it if you look at sky, if you check about winds of passage, Equatorial Oceanic streams, Coriolis related.

"And motionless objects are subject to gravity. So the geostationary satellite will fall." The assessment "motionless" depending here of course on saying "space is not a medium" and "the universe does not move westward" - which as you are well aware are not thing either I nor Sungenis would by.

"You can buy into his fantasies" - rather than yours.

" but that doesn't change the fact that the guy is faking physics" - I am not all sure about his proposed mechanics of gravitation, and I am indeed proposing a mechanics of angelic movers instead - which he knows, but on this one he beats you.

"in order to defend a Protestant literal Bible interpretation doctrine." Trent condemned "Sola Scriptura", not "Scriptura secundum literam". How about letting heresies be condemned for what they are condemned for and making association to heresies when someone (not officially tied to them) says something the heresy was condemned for? Like, I seem to catch a little whiff of Socinian denial of Biblical inerrancy, which was condemned by Trent. Socinians are Protestants too. They are called Unitarians.

By the way "Everything Sungenis says is made up" and "the guy is faking physics" - when it comes to observations, you might give an example. If you mean explanations, that argues you have a very naive grasp of what physics is. There is no such thing as observed unobserved explanations. An unobserved explanation is by definition unobserved. What you get is:

• making up explanations;
• drawing conclusions from them;
• drawing them so far that one or more would be observable;
• observe matches or mismatches with actual observations.

Some have argued this does away with the need for logic. No. the parts that say anything of drawing conclusions mean that you have to draw them logically. Like Keating and you are drawing one illogically when together you say basically:

• since space is not a medium, a satellite standing locally still would not be moving through any medium;
• so, even if space were a medium, the satellites would have to move against empty coordinates rather than against the medium in order to have a vector other than gravitation of earth.

And you just basically admitted this illogicality yourself. This means that the subsequent step - observing that geostationary satellites stay in place - constitutes no mismatch against the theory of Sungenis.

Me to Tom Trinko

25 février 13:23

I am also unpleasantly reminded in your high airs against Geocentrism of a certain "Didymus" on Catholic Answers Forums ... a guy who gave a very von oben answer to me on a debate a few years which I linked to on this essay:

Creation vs. Evolution : Creation Ministries International - a Galileo Fan Club?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2015/02/creation-ministries-international.html

Didymus means Thomas - is that you Tom Trinko?

Catholic Answers Forums : Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534

Tom Trinko to me

25 février 19:46

No I'm not didymus. However I don't have high airs. I have facts, experimental data, and proven science while geocentrists have their belief that the Bible has to be interpreted literally. To be honest it's clear that geocentrists don't care about reality since they define reality based on their Protestant like belief that the Bible is a literal document on all things. Augustine and Bellermine condemn that viewpoint--both were geocentrists only because that's what the scientific data of the time showed. The Church has never defined the orbits of the planets as a theological issue but geocentrists don't seem to care. It's not by accident I think that most Catholic geocentrists tend to reject Vatican II--properly interpreted-- and the current Mass.

Me to Tom Trinko

26 février 11:13

Thanks for clarifying you were not didymus.

"I have facts, experimental data, and proven science while geocentrists have their belief that the Bible has to be interpreted literally."

Correction : you have a belief literal Bible interpretation has been proven wrong, we have a belief it hasn't, we both use some facts and such things. A somewhat interesting debate starts the moment you realise that and look away from religious issue and start looking at scientific. Might do you good. You might even get back to the letter of the Bible with a healthy renewed respect.

"To be honest it's clear that geocentrists don't care about reality since they define reality based on their Protestant like belief that the Bible is a literal document on all things."

On all things it contains, and you lack documentation for calling that Protestant. If you want to cite all Prots who have supported it, it's like citing Prots who support Christmas and Easter : that doesn't make Christmas and Easter Protestant feasts, nor does it oblige Catholics to celebrate Hanukkah and Passover after Jewish rite and calendar instead. Cuvier was a Prot. Lyell was a Prot. Darwin was a Prot up to becoming an apostate. Wallace arguably had Protestant background, though he was more New Ageish. Galileo was not a Prot, but his early supporters (apart from those who ceased in 1633 and apart from his daughter) were Milton and the Prots who after reading Milton's words he had visited "Galileo a prisoner to the Inquisition" or "of the Inquisition" flocked to idolise yet another "martyr" to the Inquisition as in Foxe's tradition they had already done with Albigensians. Foxe, who helped to demonise Inquisition and therefore glorify its victims, was a Prot.

"Augustine and Bellermine condemn that viewpoint--both were geocentrists only because that's what the scientific data of the time showed."

• 1) the data (as opposed to current interpretations) still show it;
• 2) no, they did NOT condemn that view, you quote whatever quotemining you want to do from them and I'll quote context more fully and we'll see about that.

"The Church has never defined the orbits of the planets as a theological issue but geocentrists don't seem to care."

Indeed, if Tycho or Ptolemy were right is no theological issue. But if, after Ptolemy was proven wrong on detail (by Galileo's observations and these were not condemned), the truth lies with Galileo, Kepler, Newton or with Tycho, St Robert Bellarmine, Clavius and Riccioli was according to the lights of St Robert a theological enough issue to condemn a book.

"It's not by accident I think that most Catholic geocentrists tend to reject Vatican II--properly interpreted-- and the current Mass."

As far as I know Sungenis is with you there. And your words are - if I were to apply same principle - not a good publicity for "Vatican II properly interpreted". So, what field do you want first? Texts and history of ideas? Or Science as in observations and as in conclusions from them?

Tom Trinko to me

27 février 03:28

The Church has stated that the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology.

On the other hand the only Bible literalists around are Protestants, usually fundamentalists. so the Church says no to Bible literalism and Prots say yes that makes it a Prot doctrine. Prots were actually more upset about heliocentrism than the Church was. Any support for Galileo, which I haven't heard of by the way, was driven by hatred of the Church not theological agreement. The data does not show geocentrism is true. That's simply not correct. We see stellar parralax, we send probes to Venus that get there on the assumption that both Venus and Earth circle the sun etc. No one who knows anything about experiments could say what you do. That the folks who reject the Church's approval of heliocentrism also break with the Church on theological issues is a clear condemnation of the judgement of those people.

Me to Tom Trinko

27 février 10:25

"The Church has stated that the Bible is not always to be interpreted literally"

Reference needed.

"and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology."

Again reference needed.

By reference I mean exact locus in exactly named document and exact quote.

Latin will, do, as long as it is written (I am not fluent enough to converse orally in Latin).

"On the other hand the only Bible literalists around are Protestants, usually fundamentalists."

Proven false : Sungenis and Pope Michael and I are not Protestants.

Fundamentalists is a somewhat rubber defined word.

Original meaning referred to certain conservative Protestants who agreed with some tracts called The Fundamentals - and who rejected Catholics as much as Atheists and more than Evolutionist Protestants.

These were however NOT the original literalists.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. GENESIS - Introduction.
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id326.html

GENESIS - Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id327.html

GENESIS - Chapter 2
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id328.html

GENESIS - Chapter 3
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id329.html

No where can you see Fr George Leo Haydock even flirt the slightest with long age creation. Or with non-literality of Biblical time frame.

On Joshua's miracle, the commenter ...

JOSUE - Chapter 10
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id545.html

... leaves open whether Geocentric or Heliocentric explanations are best - this last is from Haydock himself, he could find no such clemency toward Heliocentrism in Tirinus or Calmet or Worthington.

The Oxford debate where one participant was Huxley, his opponent was pseudo-bishop Sam Wilberforce, a High Church Anglican, whose brother converted to the Catholic Church. Their father was the famous abolitionist.

"so the Church says no to Bible literalism"

Reference once again needed.

"and Prots say yes that makes it a Prot doctrine."

I am an ex-Lutheran. Lutheran and Anglican mainstreams say no to Biblical literalism - does that make them Catholic or just Modernist?

"Prots were actually more upset about heliocentrism than the Church was."

Earlier, yes. More, not so certain. Calvin and Luther made a good point about Copernicus. But St Robert made better ones about Galileo.

"Any support for Galileo, which I haven't heard of by the way, was driven by hatred of the Church not theological agreement."

Milton visited Italy. He came back, fuelled a support for Galileo. A few decades later the support is full fledged in Newton.

Were Milton and Newton English or Irish? Protestant or Catholic?

And since by then the Protestants were about 100 sects, how can you tell each and all of them were more literalists than Catholicism?

Socinianism was very certainly LESS literalist and condemned for it by Trent. Liturgically it is, like JW/Russellians and unlike 4th C. Arians (though otherwise of similar doctrine) a Protestantism.

"The data does not show geocentrism is true. That's simply not correct."

They do not show Heliocentrism true, that is simply not correct "either" - and there might be a few data making Heliocentrism more than problematic.

Sungenis points to a syllogism made by the experiments of Mitchelson Morley on the one hand and Sagnac on the other hand:

• Either earth is not moving or there is no luminiferous ether [MM];
• There is a luminiferous ether [S];
• Therefore the Earth is not moving [Sungenis et al.]

The conclusion is quite as solid if you discount Sungenis as a fraud as long as you don't do it to Sagnac and Mitchelson Morley.

Or the negative parallax of 63 Ophiuchi.

Catholic Answers Forums : Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=462165&page=1

"We see stellar parralax,"

Supposing the movement we see is parallactic and not a proper movement. If our observation is caused by Earth moving around the Sun, then this observation is so far a kind of confirmation that Earth is doing so. But to make it a strong one, one needs to establish it cannot be anything else. Hasn't been done. Angel of Sun takes his fireball on a tour round the Zodiac each year. He has a special place in the economy of salvation, like standing still for Joshua (a namesake of Our Lord), like going back two lines for Hezechias (an ancestor of Our Lord), like going dark over Calvary, like dancing over Fatima. That argues he might be somewhat admired by other angels holding smaller and further off fireballs who are permitted to make movements in time with him, but not so great as to be perceived by naked eye.

"we send probes to Venus that get there on the assumption that both Venus and Earth circle the sun etc."

In faulty assumtions, there is a possibility they add up, but there is also a possibility they cancel out. A geocentric would obviously argue, and I do argue, the faulty assumptions cancel out and therefore do not matter.

"No one who knows anything about experiments could say what you do."

Trying to sound as if you were more in the know than I? Not with me. You show an experiment really refuting Geocentrism, I'll maybe look at it. But adding two or four or six experiment not really refuting Geocentrism is not making Geocentrism any more refuted than it was to start with.

"That the folks who reject the Church's approval of heliocentrism also break with the Church on theological issues is a clear condemnation of the judgement of those people."

What exact APPROVAL do you find of Heliocentrism? And perhaps, if you cite Vatican II, you may be making a clear condemnation of that.

Wasn't there one document which approved basically of enforced schooling by calling teachers "representatives of humanity"? What a horrid Communist thing to say!

Btw, on the Prots-Literalists and Caths-Antiliteralists Theory of recent Church History (since reformation), what do you make of Grotius and Calmet?

"Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet)"

Antoine Augustin Calmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Augustin_Calmet

Hugo Grotius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius

"While in Paris, Grotius set about rendering into Latin prose a work which he had compiled in prison, providing rudimentary yet systematic arguments for the truth of Christianity. (Showcasing Grotius' skill as a poet, the earlier Dutch version of the work, Bewijs van den waren Godsdienst (pub. 1622), was written entirely in didactic verse.) The Latin work was first published in 1627 as De veritate religionis Christianae.

"It was the first Protestant textbook in Christian apologetics, and was divided into six books. Part of the text dealt with the emerging questions of historical consciousness concerning the authorship and content of the canonical gospels. Other sections of the work addressed pagan religion, Judaism and Islam. What also distinguished this work in the history of Christian apologetics is its precursor role in anticipating the problems expressed in Eighteenth century Deism, and that Grotius represents the first of the practitioners of legal or juridical apologetics in the defence of Christian belief. Hugely popular, the book was translated from Latin into English, Arabic, Persian and Chinese by Edward Pococke for use in missionary work in the East and remained in print until the end of the nineteenth century."

Grotius was non-Fundy (Calmet quote from Haydock comment). Grotius was used by Prots up to XIXth C. or close to XXth. Normal conclusion : Protestants these years would tend to go non-Fundy. As for other reasons I knew about Lutherans in Sweden after a certain heighday of "Lutheran Orthodoxy".

Me to Tom Trinko

28 février 13:32

"and Augustine and Bellarmine say that geo vs helio centrism is an issue of natural law not theology."

Again reference needed.By reference I mean exact locus in exactly named document and exact quote. "[silence, no reference given per internet]" Then I opened a book, De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. Don't tell me you meant - for St Augustine - book one, chapter 19 paragraph 39. Because that argues you are quotemining. Take a look at same book, chapter 20, paragraph 40. It contains a passage which reads in Latin, starting with the words: Periculosius autem errant quidam infirmi fratres. Because, you see, the attitude which St Augustine described as the more dangerous error, is pretty precisely the same which Kent Hovind would have considered so, if confronted.

Me to Tom Trinko

13 mars 9:30 env.

Bumping up thread. Btw, some reading if you like:

New blog on the kid: Chris Ferrara the Conspirator
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/chris-ferrara-conspirator.html

HGL's F.B. writings: Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2015/03/debate-with-john-medaille-on-geocentrism.html

*

My initial words in this renewed dialogue concern the statement I on his request added on the topmost part, right under the links to the series (of our previous correspondence), of its first part:

[same blog] : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
(part 1 of 6)
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html