Me and Jacobus de Bruyn on Heliocentrism / Geocentrism and Sovereignty of God

New blog on the kid: Are Catholic Clergy Helping to Make Knowledge Flat? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Me and Jacobus de Bruyn on Heliocentrism / Geocentrism and Sovereignty of God · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ascension and Geocentrism (Contra Ortlund and Torrence)

I

Me to Jacobus de Bruyn

7/19/2025 at 3:58 PM

Some views of God's sovereignty are obviously Calvinist

One of them says, "since God get's everything He decides, He decides everything, and you decide nothing other than what God has decided that you should decide"

That's Calvinism.

And it's condemned, rightly so.

However, some views of Catholicism in its rejection of Calvinism actually basically deny God's sovereignty.

Example: "God's will is bound by God's reason, and man's reason mirrors God's reason, so if man's reason says Heliocentrism holds, that's what God needed to create, because His will cannot go against His reason" ...

First, He did not need to create in the first place.

But second, Geocentrism involves no self contradiction, and it's actually not "man's reason" that says Heliocentrism holds, but the reason of certain specific men.

And the only coherent way in which you can disprove Geocentrism is:

• God couldn't do it (for instance because He doesn't exist) or
• God wouldn't do it (for instance because Tychonian orbits are too ugly or because He has decided to run the universe as a clockwork, without interfering ... other than for miracles).

Prove me wrong.

The debate will be published on my blog: Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl ("van" is obviously Dutch, not because I speak Dutch, but because it's half way between German and Swedish, and because it has the same syntax as "of" or "de" ...).

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Jacobus de Bruyn to me

7/20/2025 at 4:34 PM

Re: Some views of God's sovereignty are obviously Calvinist

Dear Mr Lundahl,

Thank you for your thoughts and for taking the time to engage with me. Since your message touches on deep theological issues—God’s sovereignty, human reason, and creation—I’d like to offer a Catholic perspective that may help clarify a few misconceptions.

On Calvinism and Determinism

You're quite right to identify the statement:

“God gets everything He decides, therefore He decides everything, and you decide nothing other than what He has decided you should decide”

as a summary of Calvinism.

This is strict theological determinism, and the Catholic Church does indeed reject it as heretical. It undermines true human freedom and turns God into the author of sin—an intolerable blasphemy according to the Councils of Orange (529) and Trent (1545–63).

Calvin's doctrine of double predestination, where God positively wills some to eternal damnation, is contrary not only to Scripture ("God desires all men to be saved" – 1 Tim 2:4), but also to God’s justice and goodness, as taught by the Church Fathers.

So we agree: Calvinism, rightly understood, is rightly condemned.

On God's Sovereignty and Human Reason

You mention that in rejecting Calvinism, some Catholic views “basically deny God's sovereignty,” and then you present an example that distorts the Catholic position.

“God's will is bound by His reason, and man's reason mirrors God's reason, so if man's reason says Heliocentrism holds, that's what God needed to create…”

This is a caricature, not an accurate account of Catholic theology.

The Catholic Church does not teach that God is bound by anything outside Himself, nor that He “needed” to create the world in any particular way. Creation is a free act of God, flowing not from necessity but from love and goodness (CCC §295).

However, in God, will and reason are not in conflict—they are one simple act. So while God’s will is not arbitrary, it is rational, and never opposed to truth. That doesn’t mean that God’s will is determined by human reasoning, but that since we are made in His image (imago Dei), our reason can genuinely apprehend the order He has built into creation.

So, no, Catholics do not deny God’s sovereignty; rather, we refuse to pit God’s will against His goodness and reason, which is what Calvinism often does.

On Geocentrism and Heliocentrism

You raise the issue of geocentrism and heliocentrism as an example of how human reason might wrongly claim to “bind” God. You seem to suggest that rejecting geocentrism is equivalent to claiming that God could not have made the Earth the center of the cosmos.

This, too, is a false dichotomy.

The Catholic view is this: God could have created the universe in any way He chose—geocentric, heliocentric, or otherwise. But by observing the natural world through the lens of reason and the tools of science (which, incidentally, developed in the Catholic Middle Ages), we arrive at models that best explain the observable data. That is the foundation of natural philosophy and science, both of which the Church embraces—as long as they remain within their rightful limits.

You are correct that geocentrism is not logically impossible. But to say it remains scientifically tenable today is not a theological claim—it is an empirical one. And the overwhelming consensus of scientific observation supports heliocentrism or, more precisely, a barycentric model. This is not a denial of God’s power, but an interpretation of how He has actually chosen to govern the universe He freely created.

The Church does not dogmatize scientific models, but it does affirm the knowability of creation and the harmony between faith and reason (cf. Fides et Ratio, Pope St. John Paul II).

A Final Thought

The Catholic tradition is neither deterministic like Calvinism nor irrational like voluntarism. Instead, it safeguards:

• God’s sovereignty as loving and wise, not tyrannical
• Human freedom as real, though wounded by sin
• Reason as a true, though limited, participation in the Logos
• Creation as a gift that reflects its Creator, intelligible but mysterious

In that sense, I would humbly suggest your framing may be trying to force a false choice—either Calvinist determinism or a rationalism that binds God. Catholicism offers a third way: a sacramental cosmos, governed by love, truth, and freedom, all held together in Christ.

I appreciate your interest in publishing this correspondence on your blog, and I’m happy to dialogue further in the spirit of truth-seeking.

In Christ,
Jacobus de Bruyn

III

Me to Jacobus de Bruyn

7/20/2025 at 9:31 PM

Re: Some views of God's sovereignty are obviously Calvinist

I am first of all glad that you find a certain view held among Catholics (like some whom I had thought my coreligionists in Paris and who reacted to Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism as "Calvinism") as a distortion of the Catholic view.

Meaning you, as little as I, support that false view.

Second, let's leave the canonisation of "John Paul II" out for now, because 1992 is one thing that should have a bearing on it and on whether his successor was such of Peter and able to canonise anyone.

Third:

"And the overwhelming consensus of scientific observation supports heliocentrism or, more precisely, a barycentric model."

No.

You speak of a consensus of scientific opinion, and then presume that scientific opinion is automatically a direct function of observation. It is not.

EVERY observation that's not from a spacecraft, from Mars, Moon, is from Earth. It is therefore, optically, a Geocentric observation. It can not support Heliocentrism other than by reinterpretation.

And for that reinterpretation to be a valid act of reasoned judgement, rather than a flight of imagination, one needs a cogent reason to reinterpret it.

For instance, "all the factors at work in the solar system are inertia / angular momentum and gravitation, but that can only work around the centre of mass, therefore the orbits determined by inertia and graviation move around the centre of mass of the solar system which is close to the Sun."

So, what OBSERVATION proves "all the factors at work in the solar system are inertia / angular momentum and gravitation"? Its equipollent with "none of the factors are direct acts of God or of angels" and therefore it can logically be proven by Atheism and by Deism.

You claimed an observation could prove it, which ones?*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Or which one.

IV

Me to Jacobus de Bruyn

7/21/2025 at 4:40 PM

(Clarifications)

Dear Mr de Bruyn,
in addition to previous letter, two clarifications could be useful.

1) I perfectly agree we are created in God's image, that creation is knowable, and that our reason enlightened by our senses can attain such knowledge, and that this has been slightly dimmed but absolutely not abolished by original sin.

I only disagree that "modern science" is the best representative of human reason, it has tumbled down some especially the last century.

2) I may not have been clear on what I mean by reinterpretation.

If I sit in a moving train, I will observe hills and trees as moving. Unless I'm simply enjoying the experience as light hypnosis, so, if I analyse what is going on, I will reinterpret the hills and trees as standing where they are, and myself as moving.

We agree this is the reinterpretation that astronomers do of inherently Geocentric observations.

I do not agree they do it with equal justification. I both have outside this experience in the train very good evidence that trees and hills stand where they are, and that trains move from place to place. This is the precise point which I do not think is parallelled, at all, in modern astronomy.

God grant you a blessed day,
Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Me to Jacobus de Bruyn

7/28/2025 at 3:01 PM

Re: Some views of God's sovereignty are obviously Calvinist / published

Notifying:

Me and Jacobus de Bruyn on Heliocentrism / Geocentrism and Sovereignty of God

You are free to add to the debate, the post can be redacted after publication, as I will now add the notification.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, hope you had a blessed day of St. James./HGL

Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

Creation vs. Evolution: Dishonesty at St Nicolas du Chardonnet? · What About Providentissimus Deus? · HGL's F.B. writings: Treason of the SSPX? I Think So. · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Dialogue on the subject between us two ... except I use a useful device, a computer, he uses a cell phone ...

As on the link, I have here, on request, changed the real name of Peter Rabbit to Peter Rabbit. I must give him, he has a good taste in pseudonyms:

Peter Rabbit - Saving Cottontail | Cartoons for Kids
Peter Rabbit | 22 April 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfrcGuZxERU

Now, you decide if he's good at arguing or should stick to stealing dandelions from Mr. Shrew ...

Wed 4:25 PM

30.X

You sent

I recommend you to read this link on a computer, ideally copy it to a word document and write it out and read it calmly:

Treason of the SSPX? I Think So.
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2024/10/treason-of-sspx-i-think-so.html

later Wed

Peter Rabbit

Is this your blog again

Honestly your main struggle is writing White and Strunk are helpful

http://www.jlakes.org/ch/web/The-elements-of-style.pdf

From what I remember they don’t discuss how to write a well organized paper* though so you’ll have to go elsewhere for that

In general you should be making direct inferences and not making big jumps in your logic to tie in random cannons from trent. They may be relevant but you should be clearly explaining your logic. By bringing in trent xxiii you’re y

You’re implying whole discussions on secondary objects of the magisterium etc it’s better to bring up those discussions and express your opinion on how I’m violating the canon** afterwards

Trent xiii*

In my experience it’s only possible to have a productive conversation with a very precise and narrow focus

Thu 1:28 AM

31.X

You sent

well, that may be the exact same experience that makes you stylistically as challenged as the guys who'd need Luce as iconography ... Science is not the best school either for writing and reading skill or for debating skills.

later Thu

Peter Rabbit

Bruh

You haven’t studied analytic philosophy have you

Thu 12:42 PM

You sent

No, I've studied CLASSIC philosophy.

Formal Logic.

Socratic / Platonic Dialogues.

Scholasticism, mainly St. Thomas and the Syllabus Errorum of late 1276 or early 1277 (depending on whether you use the then current or now current New Year, it was 11.III ... and Laetare LD before Easter 1277).

I also know from modern historians of ideas pretty well what Nicolas Oresme considered about Heliocentrism (he finished off as bishop of Lisieux, by the way)

Correction, I did study some analytic philosophy after all, even if I try to forget it.

My philosophy teacher in High School was an admirer of Bertrand Russell, and he's anyway on the Swedish curriculum.

And to be complete, I'm also into eclectic Neo-Scholastics / Neo-Socratics like Tolkien and CSL.

Thu 4:03 PM

Peter Rabbit replied to you

Yeah analytic philosophy is very different from the continental stuff you studied. There’s much less emphasis on authors and history and much more on syllogisms and precise argument. There are certainly some analytic thomists who reject categorical logic but not all analytic thomists do. In particular I think you would like Feser who’s personally my favorite analytic thomist

If you’re willing to engage in that style of dialogue focused on syllogisms I can dialogue with you

Do you know symbolic logic at all

Thu 8:45 PM

You sent

"much more on syllogisms and precise argument."

Oh, Thomism certainly involves lots of syllogisms.

I know Venn diagrams.***

Now, if YOU had offered syllogisms, I'd have responded in kind, but you didn't.

For Venn diagrams, how about these for starters:

The circle of all occasions where sense perceptions SHOULD be reinterpreted is a smaller one inside the circle where sense perceptions purely theoretically COULD be so interpreted.

Thu 10:10 PM

Peter Rabbit

You seem to be describing something else

Euler Circles

Thu 10:39 PM

You sent

In Venn*** diagrams, two circles can :

coincide
include and be included
partially overlap
not even partially overlap

If Euler circles is another name for it, so what?

Now, here are two alternative syllogisms:

Atheist syllogism:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As God and angels don't exist) there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits.
Geocentrism is impossible.

He will place Geocentrism as in the smaller circle of things that SHOULD be reinterpreted (in this case as Heliocentrism).

Christian syllogism / truly agnostic syllogism.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.
(As sense impressions should be taken prima facie if possible) Geocentrism is not impossible.
There is a will or are wills or both to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits. (Christianity calls them God and angels, by the way).

He will place Geocentrism in the larger circle that COULD be reinterpreted, but OUTSIDE the inner circle of those that should.

To prove the conditional or disjunctive major:

A movement pattern too complexely structured or too little based in masses cannot be taken as resulting purely from gravity and inertia.
But Tychonian orbits are too complexely structured and Geocentrism too little based in masses.
Therefore Tychonian orbits and Geocentrism cannot result purely from gravity and inertia.

Add further narrowing down and you will have:
If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism (and Tychonian orbits) is impossible.

Peter Rabbit

You never admit it when you are wrong do you

Venn diagrams are a subset of euler circles

1.XI.2024

All Saints

Fri 9:57 AM

You sent

Indeed.

How about my syllogism?

You know I told you "one man's modus ponens" etc "think of that" ...

And how about the Euler circle I gave?

Discussing in syllogisms does not boil down to discussing what a syllogism or premiss or presentation type of the logic is called. I can use a correct Celarent without calling it a Celarent, right?

You see, I'm 56. I was taught logic in a different school system from yours. You seem a lot younger than 56 and you seem bent on making me pay for the fact of not having used your school system and not having had Euler Circles in the book on Formal Logic I borrowed. I find that bad manners, how about returning to good ones? Answering my actual arguments?

Fri 9:22 PM

Peter Rabbit

I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism, but for the sake of argument lets just pretend it holds for now

so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary

I am interested to hear your argument concerning Providentissimus Deus in syllogistic form

Here's my interpretation

major: If scripture is inerrant then everything it says is true

minor scripture is inerrant therefore etc

From Augustine

If everything scripture says is true [and here is the disjunct] either science is false or scripture is speaking figuratively therefore etc

I'm mistaken that disjunct was from another author but the logic still stands

Fri 10:02 PM

Peter Rabbit

Leo's argument: Major: disjunct from previous arg minor: scripture is speaking figuratively, therefore not the case that science is false.

this is an exclusive or

Fri 10:34 PM

Peter Rabbit

I'm sure you'll want to be more precisely what leo says vs implications I'm making base on st leo but this is a good start

Prima Pars Q 70 art 1, ad tertiam "But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (I:67:4; I:68:3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament."°

2.XI.2024

All Souls

Sat 12:16 PM

You sent

"so far you've demonstrated it is possible geocentrism is true but not necessary"

But I don't need to.

Geocentrism is obvious, therefore no need to be demonstrated as necessary to be certain. You don't need to syllogise to prove grass is green. You'd need a VERY good syllogism to prove grass is not green.

If Geocentrism is at all possible, it is preferrable. It is possible everything (except growing and shrinking or cut up objects) stay the same size, and it is possible everything (including the added or subtracted parts) is every day twice the size it was yesterday, including the observer, and with constants adapting so squares and cubes don't marr the impression of constancy. As long as "everything is the same size" is possible, it is preferrable, because it is what we see. If Geocentrism is possible, it is also preferrable, because it is what we see.

INTERPRETATION OF LEO:

For any issue X, given a kind of appearance of conflict between Scripture and (by his time institutional) Science (or more generally well accepted philosophemes), it is EITHER true that the Scripture is true as taken, and if so the Science is falsely so called OR true that the Science of case X necessarily follows from experience by good logic, and if so the Scripture has been exposed to wrongful exegesis.

This is a major premiss. Disjunctive. He does not give a minor, since they would vary from X1, X2, to Xn, and therefore he does not in any general way decide between the modus ponens tollens or the modus tollens ponens.

He also does NOT decide which one is the correct one for Geocentrism or Heliocentrism.

out of condescension to popular ignorance

Bad translation. Do you know German? In German it would be "aus [condescension] an das ungebildete Volk" ... I've forgotten condescension, but Latin "rudis" means "ungebildet" and not "unwissend" ... while English colloquially uses "ignorant" for both, "rudis" or "ungebildet" would be better translated as "uneducated" or "unsubtle" ...

Why does this matter? Condescension to ignorance sounds like allowing people to not know what they do not know. Condescension to lack of subtlety is allowing people not to learn the kind of things they haven't learned the intellectual effort to be able to learn.

There is a certain point in the fact that Pope Leo took this example. By this time basically no one was considering the "higher firmament" as a solid thing one could fix stars in. And also no one, I was tempted to say even fewer, was considering the planets are fixed in crystalline spheres. In other words, to a 19th C. astronomer, what Moses omitted was what factually wasn't there in the first place.

I think Pope Leo had a point in so doing.

4.XI.2024

4:45 AM

Peter Rabbit

“Geocentrism is obvious”

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

7:13 AM

Peter Rabbit

I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true

It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology

Thomistic*

7:34 AM

Peter Rabbit

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible

PD is infallible as demonstrated above

Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)

12:19 PM

You sent

I had stated: Geocentrism is obvious

What kind of training in epistemology do you have

The most obvious explanation of the data is keplers

I did not say "obvious explanation" I said "obvious" ... Geocentrism itself a raw datum.°°

My training in epistemology would include but not be quite limited to:

C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas.

"I realize it’s one of the more difficult parts of st thomas"

It's not REMOTELY difficult. It's strange to a modern, but not remotely difficult.

"but you’re really going to have to go into the process of abstraction and demonstrate how you know geocentrism is true"

Look here.

According to Thomas and Aristotle (but I didn't read the Organon independently of St. Thomas, I quit Greek at the time I started the Organon), it is impossible for certitude to depend on an infinite regress.

Sooner or later you come to the raw data that constitute the first premisses of the first syllogisms. Some of them are first principles, but most of them are sense data.

UNLESS Geocentrism is proven impossible, it is not proven false. Unless it is proven false, it stands among these sense data. Therefore among the first premisses.

"It seems like you never studied epistemology though, let alone Thomist epistemology"

It seems your "Thomist epistemology" is actually Aquikantian. Thomas Aquinas nominally invoked and cosplay at his terminology, but Emmanuel Kant for the essence of it.

All encyclicals are infallible
PD is an encyclical
Therefore PD is infallible

The major is faulty. An Encyclical is authentic, but not always infallible. An encyclical is ordinary magisterium and yes, there is an infallible ordinary magisterium, namely whenever the magisterium of the Pope unanimously with ALL the bishops around the world teach the same thing. However, neither Leo XIII, nor St. Pius X, nor Benedict XV intended Providentissimus Deus to teach Heliocentrism or that Scripture has nothing to say on the matter. Proof, none of them said so. None of them came out as positively believing Heliocentrism.

But because of your own or someone else's (Fr. Robinson's?) disability to actually read, you miss that, and attribute to Providentissimus Deus a scope it does not claim.

Please, may I remind you that there is a condition for the infallible magisterium, it can not go against what the Church hath held (we are forbidden to go against "what the Church hath held and holds, and also against the consensus of the Fathers"). If Providentissimus Deus were teaching what you say, it would be teaching a novum. That would rather be a reason to throw doubt on the papacy of Leo XIII, than to abandon the Fathers (who were all Geocentrics, except the few Flat Earthers).

PD says scripture does not intend to teach “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe”

Geocentrists claim scripture teaches on the essential nature of the sun (specifically it’s orbit)

Movement is not essence. I do not claim or claim to be taught by Scripture that the Sun's material essence makes it go around Earth, I claim it does so move, it is moved Westward each day and night by God and Eastward over the year by an angel, both of whom are OUTSIDE the essence of the Sun.

"Either scripture does not teach the suns orbit or PD is fallible"

Or Providentissimus Deus does not ever directly touch on the question of the Sun's orbit.

"PD is infallible as demonstrated above"

Was not demonstrated. Especially it was not demonstrated as being infallible in the case of taking the Sun's orbit as a thing Scripture has nothing to say on, since the Pope himself and his first two successors did not take it that way.

"Therefore scripture does not teach geocentrism (ie the orbit of the sun)"

This is so absurd that it would be better to get East of 1054 (join Caerularius) than accept this.

That is fortunately not the alternative, but the absurdity of what you say is enormous.

When the Answers in Genesis "ministry" tries to tease out what St. Paul means in Romans 1:20, they resort to the flagellum of the bacterium, and to the well-ordered complexity of DNA. But neither of these things have been under human observation since Adam and Eve. Day and night have.

St. Paul, St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas Aquinas all hold that day and night, i e God shoving the Sun West each day, prove the existence of God. This is in St. Thomas referred to as "Prima Via" and when I see the online version of Opera omnia state "Certum est enim, et sensu constat, aliqua moveri in hoc mundo," I distinctly recall having seen the phrase "utputa sol" somewhere else. That butterflies move would hardly prove God is the God of the whole Universe, would it?

1:26 PM

You sent

As you mentioned "abstraction" this words does not simply mean the discarding of individual matter from the thought, but the keeping of things that are common to the individual material things. So the abstract phrase (yes, plurals are abstracts) "red cars" discards the individual red car which is a two decked bus in London, the individual red car from the Volvo Sedan commercial, the individual red car that's a VW in Austria, the individual red car that's in a street in Paris and so on, and keep only the common ground to them all "red car" ...

Yes, there are things that can be universally said about red cars.

"A red car will be visible and go fast" (visible, because red, go fast, because a car).

You pretend to superior powers of abstraction, I challenge you to give a process of abstraction from the concrete which leads to the level you pretend I'm lacking in.

2:53 PM

You sent

Some recapitulation here:

"I reject the major premise in your so-called atheistic syllogism"

It is actually the common major premise both of the Atheistic and the Christian one.

If there is no will to allow for Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is impossible.

After that, there is ponens and tollens.

So, if you rejected that one, are you saying:

**"Even if there is no will performing Geocentrism and Tychonian orbits, Geocentrism is still possible in a purely materialistic universe"?

I think that was what you were yourself arguing against?

8:31 PM

You sent

You are aware the post I linked to is a dialogue, right?

Just to prepare for this one also becoming so.

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I never consented to you posting that

You sent

Fine, you want anonymisation (JM) or you prefer it stands (Peter Rabbit)?

Because, I get people like Fr. Robinson skirting off my rebuttals, and sending loads of small fry ...

9:26 PM

Peter Rabbit

Yeah I prefer you not to post my content without asking but if you’re going to please use a pseudonym

Peter rabbit, late for dinner I don’t care just please don’t use my name or my initials

There are three basic stances on axiology

Rahner, who as you point out is doing a “creative retrieval” of saint Thomas. Hes not a kantian but imho he doesn’t escape kants problems like he thinks he does

Von Hildebrand, who I studied in school

There was another author we studied who I’ll leave out because his theory creates problems with the dogma of vatican I

Then the third position which you’ll probably be most comfortable with is Dr Feser with his famous “revenge of Aristotle”

11:11 PM

You sent

Hope you like seeing yourself as Peter Rabbit, you have been changed to that over the published post and the next one, including the screenshot.

I'm probably closer to von Hildebrand than to Rahner. I can't tell on the third one, because you leave him out.

I'm not a disciple of von Hildebrand, what I have heard of him, he didn't go far enough.

Are you sure we are speaking of the same thing, I thought we were doing epistemology and you wrote axiology (science of moral axioms, so to speak) was it a typo?

5.XI.2024

4:45 PM & 5:15 PM

Peter Rabbit.

Autocorrect changed it. Should say axiomology not axiology

My understanding is that the study of axioms is synonymous with epistemology

But others like a lot of mathematicians disagree eg as in non-euclidean geometry

8:53 PM

You sent

"Autocorrect changed it."

Excellent reason to use an actual computer rather than a cell-phone with autocorrect and no time to correct that.

"axioms is synonymous with epistemology"

For epistemological axioms, that is correct.

One of them, in St. Thomas is "nihil est in ratione quod non prius erat in sensibus" ... from this it would follow, any discarding of specific sense data in their obvious immediate sense needs to be justified from other sense data which ARE taken in their obvious immediate sense.

If I step onto one train after speaking German, negotiate to pay later on the next train while speaking Dutch, as best as I can and with some help from English, and then later am asked to leave a train in French down in Belgium, and if next day (St. John the Baptist 2023) I step into a train in something purporting to be Lille and step out in well known city areas of Paris, where I can immediately find my way, that's an indication trains move.

If all through my childhood and again on the pilgrimage to Santiago I walk over hills and between trees and pass houses, stationed cars and lamp posts, that's an indication that cars sometimes don't move, and the other items simply don't move.

If I look out of the window of a train and see hills and trees fly by, I don't conclude it's the train moving just because that's theoretically a way to account for the appearances but rather because I have pretty solid knowledge from the context and all earlier experience that trains do move and hills don't move.

In the case of astronomy, which seems to have been the original context for Plato's later latinised "salvare apparentia" we don't have any similar experience of Earth moving or of Heavens not moving. The more conservative approach is to take the Earth and the Heavens as per prima facie, i e Earth as not moving and Heavens as moving.

If there were no things beyond the visible Heavens, this would be self defeating, since movement in Aristotle is of the contained in the container. However, if there IS something beyond, which at least theoretically it could be (Agnostic version) or which CHristianity tells us there is (Christian version) that thing beyond would be an even bigger container, Empyrean Heaven immobile like Earth is immobile, it would just be the visible Heavens between the two that moved. Earthly Jerusalem is in a fixed spot because it has a fixed spatial relation to Heavenly Jerusalem (this being the Christian version).

As Earth's stillness and the movements of the Heavens cannot be excluded like the trains stillness and the movements of the hills, it is the preferrable way to immediately take sense data.

"non-euclidean geometry"

A non-Euclidean triangle is NOT a triangle. The examples are no-where like disproving the universal validity of Euclidean axioms.

NOTES

* The post was not a "paper" it was a dialogue, organised after the different threads of discussion on the FB page and starting with Peter Rabbit's status. If he didn't note this, maybe he didn't follow my advise, but read it over an i-phone.
** Again, he read sloppily, as you can see on the other link, my point is, IF the Bible NEVER speaks about the intimate nature of visible reality, THEN this is against Trent Session XIII, which does not only say Christ is present, but the substance of bread is absent under the accidents of bread and wine RATHER THAN against the implication of the Bible in Helio- / Geo-debate. So, my point was "let's not overdo it" ... if the Church can have reason to state the Bible actually does such a statement in one case, and I think she had, she can also have a reason to state it in another case, especially since intimate nature of things is less involved there.
*** From the ensuing dialogue and checking, it seems my philosophy teacher used Euler circles when supposed to teach Venn diagrams.
° Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Ptolomaeum, luminaria non sunt fixa in sphaeris, sed habent motum seorsum a motu sphaerarum. Unde Chrysostomus dicit quod non ideo dicitur quod posuit ea in firmamento, quia ibi sint fixa; sed quia iusserit ut ibi essent; sicut posuit hominem in Paradiso, ut ibi esset. Sed secundum opinionem Aristotelis, stellae fixae sunt in orbibus, et non moventur nisi motu orbium, secundum rei veritatem. Tamen motus luminarium sensu percipitur, non autem motus sphaerarum. Moyses autem, rudi populo condescendens, secutus est quae sensibiliter apparent, ut dictum est. Si autem sit aliud firmamentum quod factum est secunda die, ab eo in quo posita sunt sidera, secundum distinctionem naturae, licet sensus non discernat, quem Moyses sequitur, ut dictum est; cessat obiectio. Nam firmamentum factum est secunda die, quantum ad inferiorem partem. In firmamento autem posita sunt sidera quarta die, quantum ad superiorem partem; ut totum pro uno accipiatur, secundum quod sensui apparet.
°° OK, a cohesive classification of raw data.

Éditions Critias arrête vite de répondre ...

I

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/6/2021 at 12:15 PM

Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Dans les échanges sur le blog Répliques assorties, il y a d'autres ayants-droit, mais vous pourriez les contacter?

Voici une thématique:

Répliques Assorties : Science et Culture - Après 2000 · Marc Robidoux avide de me juger comme mégalomane ... · Est-il encore possible de croire au géocentrisme ? - Mes commentaires sous une réponse d'un autre · Si l'acentrisme rélativiste choque le bon sens, il reste à prouver ... · New blog on the kid : Hume & Locke vs. Décartes? Non, St. Thomas contre les trois

Et voici les conditions de ma part:

hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

II

Éditions Critias à moi

12/7/2021 at 9:48 AM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Cher Monsieur,

Merci pour votre message.

Nous allons jeter un oeil aux liens que vous nous avez gentiment envoyés, puis nous reviendrons vers vous en fin de semaine.

Bien cordialement,

Valentin, responsable des Éditions Critias

III

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/9/2021 at 4:47 PM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

merci, et en avance, si ça vous intéresse, il y a ici les contacts pour Marc Robidoux et pour BernardO sur Quora en français:

https://fr.quora.com/profile/Marc-Robidoux

https://fr.quora.com/profile/BernardO-5

salutations,
Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Moi à Éditions Critias

12/11/2021 at 7:14 PM

Re: Bonjour, j'ai compris que vos éditions visent la philosophie ...

Je viens de constater un manque de réponse.

Si le problème serait que vous n'êtes pas intéressé par des dialogues (un peu un comble vu votre nom) ou que vous n'avez pas pu joindre les autres ayant-droit ... j'ai d'autres posts qui sont mes essais et qui dépendent donc de mes droits d'auteur, ceux-ci, comme dit:

hglwrites : Conditions d’utilisations ultérieures …
https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

et qui sont sur le même thème:

• Les français te prennent pour un T. d. J. si tu es créationniste?*
• (bon, ce premier est un autre thème ...)
• Pape Urbain VIII "héliocentrique lui-même"? Non, mais à part ça admirateur de Galilée
  • Les moteurs des corps célestes.
    
  • Une Certaine Honnêteté chez Laplace
  • Un certain manque de logique chez Laplace
  • Une Certaine Adulation de Laplace - Chez Nous.
  • Newton et Lemaître devant St Thomas d'Aquin
  • Pour Expliciter, à propos de Newton/Lemaître
  • Quelle physique voulons-nous?
  • Quand l'Élite Change les Idées
  • Avec la Sonde sur Mars, on Croit l'Héliocentrisme, Non? (Et les Pieds-Noirs de l'Applaudir)
• Frédéric Chaberlot n'est pas musicologue
  • Les fameux (et pas toujours fumeux) paradigmes en science et philosophie
  • Et le paradigme héliocentrique, est-il fumeux?
  • Frédéric Chaberlot dans l'éthique
  • Fr. Chaberlot sur le paradigme héliocentrique - avec mes critiques
• En lisant La Voie lactée par Chaberlot : en guise de Proesme
  • Les définitions de Chaberlot
  • Inégalité des mythes payens - ou prétendument tels
  • Chemin des oiseaux migrateurs
  • Roemer n'était pas Jésuite
  • Wright, cosmologue héliocentrique de l'infini
  • La cosmologie moderne, repose-t-elle sur spéculation non vérifiée ou non?

* Est-ce que la charité exige que ce premier était lié à un lien abrégé qui ne fonctionne plus? Si le manque de réponse vient de là, ça voudrait dire que Valentin aurait essayé celui-ci et ensuite laissé tomber tous les autres, sans de regarder?

V

Moi à Éditions Critias

CC Rivarol, Présent

1/20/2022 at 3:31 PM

Cher éditeur de Critias ...

Vous sembliez un peu désintéressé de mes écrits à propos le géocentrisme.

Peut-être que vous redoutez que dans un débat je me planque immanquablement ... regardez dans le double débat ici* (sous les deux lignes

9:06 153 millions de km au Soleil ... n'y a-t-il rien qui fait l'économie des lois de Kepler?
et
10:19 Utiliser l'orbite de la Terre autour du Soleil pour la parallaxe, ça suppose qu'il y ait un tel orbite, ça présuppose donc l'héliocentrisme.)

qui est-ce qui se planque. Il propose que les voyage interplanétaires des sondes auraient déprouvé le géocentrisme, y compris donc tychonien, et loupe de me fournir les détails qui auraient différé selon lui s'il était vrai, et il doit recourir à la négation des anges et à prétendre que les seuls preuves sont celles utilisées par la communauté scientifique.*

Notez aussi, ceci a son importance pour l'âge de l'univers, les 7221 ans à partir de la création** seraient légèrement difficiles à soutenir si l'univers avait un rayon autour de la terre de 13,8 ou quelque milliards d'années-lumière. Sans d'oublier que le lieu*** du Ciel en tant que démeure des bienheureux, anges et âmes sauvés, et au moins Jésus et Marie corps et âme devient davantage répérable comme lieu si on pose que le rayon de l'univers est fini simplement./HGL

* https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2022/01/lunivers-non-mesure.html
** Le 25 décembre énumère 5199 à partir du commencement quand Dieu créa le Ciel et la Terre dans le martyrologe
*** https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2021/12/debating-place-or-no-place-of-heaven.html

Topic, Geocentrism and Giants : me and tektontv

Update

Title has been added in appropriate space after the post was originally published. 31.I.2017, HGL.

Topic, Geocentrism and Giants

Date Sts Simon and Jude, Eve for first six, Day for seventh.

On occasion of his three videos

• 1) Does It Say the Earth Stood Still?
  tektontv
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFGdj2V4YA
  
  
• 2) Did It Say the Earth Stood Still Part 2: The Vengeance
  tektontv
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujGCEYrZnlU
  
  
• 3) Fee Fi Fo Fum! Bible Giants? That's just DUMB!
  tektontv
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfTSpFhiyB8

I

Does it say the earth stood still, part 1 1:52 - were you referring to me?

Why noy say so?

Btw, I'll go back and enjoy the Entertainment ...

II

Same video: 4:24

• 1) Was Adam instructed by God?
• 2) Was Adam's word for Sunset and Sunrise semantically correct in all assumptions?
• 3) Was Adam's term lost, or was there a people retaining Adam's language by not participating in Nimrod's probable Cape Canaveral type project?
• 4) If Biblical Hebrew is identic to Adam's language, why would it use semantically wrong assumptions in describing the event?
• 5) Or are you saying EVERYONE without exception disobeyed God in trying to build a "tower the top of which reaches into heaven"? That is not how the Church reads that text.

III

Video 2, 2:42, no, 2:48 looks like the list was finished.

Joshua X:12 & 13. Note, not just Joshua X:13, which could theoretically, since in narrative, be phenomenal language.

Joshua [X] 12 is the key point, since including verbatim the words of the miracle worker. Joshua [X] 13 then confirms that the miracle happened as requested by Joshua of God, as commanded by Joshua on heavenly powers.

Otherwise, you could argue that Christ telling demons to go out of possessed is "culturally phenomenal language" (it is at least not visibly phenoman language, since demons were presumably never seen). And that overturns quite a lot of Christian assumptions about veracity of God.

IV

No part three? Then here goes for part two.

If Earth stands still, parallax is not automatically a distance measure.

If Earth stands still and no proof has come up how parallax even so would be a distance measure (and Sungenis has not so proven), then there is no reason to believe the Universe includes such distances as light years (all "further rungs" on so called cosmic distance ladder build in some way on parallax).

Then there is also no reason to believe the stars are large enough to have planets large enough to allow development of life.

In other words, no reason to believe "aliens" to be anything other than Earth based either demons or at best elves or pixies, or leprechauns, on some fancy masquerade.

If a geocentric had been allowed on the one or other video, he would have said "where are you coming from!?" to that alien.

V

Fee fo fum video ... sorry, but your polemics against LXX will just don't wash with a Catholic.

• 1) If 70 or 72 Hebrews (six Levites representing each other tribe) independently were translating nephelim as gigantes, it is God's own translation to Greek.
• 2) What they were "probably influenced by" is irrelevant.
• 3) Who says Greek stories about Titans or Giants (two different types of giant, btw) do not reflect Biblical truth, if in a roundabout way?
  
  The story of Deucalion and Pyrrha reflects truth about Noah and Abraham and Lot's daughters and even Adam. If in a roundabout way and perhaps confusing with a later flood in Thessaly where protagnists were really called so.
  
  We cannot dismiss a concept just because it coincides with Greek mythology. That is NOT what "all their gods are demons" means.
  
  Example in point, however demon possessed Augustus and Tiberius and Alexander the Great may have been, the Bible treats them as men, despite them being Pagan idols. As with Nabucco.

VI

Sarcophagus argument about Og of Bashan will not do. Two reasons. Apart of dubious interpretation of word.

• 1) a sarcophagus was not typically twice as big as the body. Add half a foot to a foot of padding in every direction, but that would make a six foot tall man having a sarcophagus 8 feet long (at most) and leave at least 11 feet six inches on 13 ft 6 in.
• 2) Who says Og ever got a sarcophagus! Hebrews were hardly offering him one and his own people were beaten to smithereens, leaving the territory of Bashan to Samaria or rather its predecessor Ephraim.

And even the reading ... well, I thought there was a part of a pillow piece too, but seem to have misrecalled. But it is far more likelier that he had a bed before dying than a sarcophagus after dying.

VII

Afterthought on eretz and "shall not be moved". I am no Hebraist, but I think Eretz corresponds to Latin "terra" rather exactly :

• 1) the whole globe, what was created just after Heaven in Genesis 1:1,
• 2) dry land as created on day 2 or 3 (think it was 3),
• 3) a specific country.

English would have Earth, Land, Land, French Terre, Terre, Pays.

Now, there is a reason to take this as referring precisly to the first sense, Earth as opposed to Heaven : if referring to sense two, dry land or continents, the earthquakes and by now also known or rather well guessed continental drifts would have refuted "it shall not be moved".

A correspondence with a fishy FB page called Scholasticum

Their page

Scholasticum
Catholic Church · Educational Organization · Charity Organization
https://www.facebook.com/Scholasticum-1649070132036906/

I

Me to Page

Sat 6:43pm

I suppose you are in general philosophy thomistic, except for some scoticism on principium individuationis (me too, haecceitas rocks).

But how Thomasic are you on questions like angelic movers?

HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2016/03/debating-with-sungenis-mainly.html

II

Page to Me

Wed 11:20am

This FB page is for the Institute: regarding particular theses of Saint Thomas or Bonaventure, you have to contact our instructors. However, Its not in harmony with Scholasticism to deny the equivocity or multivocity of terms; that denial rather is a modern error.

III

Me to Page

Wed 1:16pm

was I denying multivocity of terms like "idea"?

(ante rem, in re, post rem)

as to your instructors, why not forward our correspondence?

IV

Page to Me

Wed 5:41pm

You misunderstand. The FB page is for publicity, to public relations right now. Perhaps in the future, though.

As for multivocity, if you did not deny it, then we did not say you denied it.

[Please

check out his last line!]

V

Me to Page

just after

OK, and the person DOING this publicity has no relation otherwise to the instructors?

I happened to think that was a usual procedure?

VI

Page to Me

Thu 6:16pm

No, I am not a member of the Faculty, only a lowly FB volunteer.

VII

Me to Page

just after

I was not saying YOU were a member of the Faculty.

I am saying you have THEIR contact information.

If not, I think you were somewhat stupid to volunteer.

VIII

Page to Me

Fri 2:49pm

Right now we are very busy with the many things regarding starting and founding and setting up an institute, we don't have a PR person to answer questions from the net....sorry...

IX

Me to Page

Fri 7:20pm

WELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL .... if you know the faculty members THAT well, you also are able to forward and see if one can make a kind of exception.

X

Page to Me

St Joseph's Day, 8:40am

Dear Mr. Lundahl, no, we cannot make such an exception, we have much greater responsibilities at this time. Thank you.

XI

Me to Page

11:53am

Oh, a scholastic with "greater responsibilities" than answering questions.

VERY interesting.

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part I 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

I

Sungenis to me

10/04/15 à 17h59

Re: Reading but not bed time

Yes, in bad health, and Olivieri knew it. He was also understood as a weak pope who did not have the verve to fight, in addition to the fact that the Settele affair was only six years after Pius VII had been returned to the Vatican after being in exile in Florence under orders of Napoleon. Add to this the fact that Napoleon had taken all the Galileo files back to Paris and they were not returned until 1845, and add to that Olivieri's two whopping lies about why the 1616 and 1633 Church condemned Galileo, along with Pius VII's total lack of scientific knowledge, and you have a recipe for disaster.

All this information, by the way, comes from the top Galileo historians: Mayaud, Finochiarro and Fantoli.

Blessed Easter to you as well

Robert

II

Me to Sungenis, cc David Palm

10/04/15 à 18h49

Re: Reading but not bed time

Our dear David Palm - hello by the way, not leaving you out - found you had miscited Mayaud as all court feeling Olivieri was dishonest etc while DP reads Mayaud as saying all court felt Anfossi was dishonest etc.

If Pius VII was weak, having all of the court against himself, except Anfossi, would have been even more daunting than having just Olivieri, right?

In that case, one may fairly well say he might have done under circumstances a heroic effort not to disrupt the act of 1633 as a judgement (the rescinding of which according to Anfossi's stated reason would have been necessary for moving earth to be licit), if using one's weakness to stay at the matter at hand only (index/imprimatur for Settele) can count as heroic.

As to the difference between hundred years earlier and Pius VII's day, see my essay "Aquinas vs Paley":

New blog on the kid : Aquinas vs Paley
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/04/aquinas-vs-paley.html

I was reading up on DP on Pastor Aeternus, the § 8 and 9 do not guarantee Church is ALWAYS using its right according to Her duty.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Sungenis to me

10/04/15 à 19h57

Re: Reading but not bed time

In a message dated 4/10/2015 12:49:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hgl@voila.fr writes:

[Rest as dialogue:]

[HGL:]

Our dear David Palm - hello by the way, not leaving you out - found you had miscited Mayaud as all court feeling Olivieri was dishonest etc while DP reads Mayaud as saying all court felt Anfossi was dishonest etc.

RS:

That was must a mistranslation of one word in French that can be taken either way depending on the context. My French translator, Hildegard Pohl, sided with "deception" instead of "disillusionment," but I fixed it in the next edition, so Mr. Palm needn't lose sleep over it. In fact, I thank him for finding it.

[HGL:]

If Pius VII was weak, having all of the court against himself, except Anfossi, would have been even more daunting than having just Olivieri, right?

RS:

Indeed, but Olivieri was the ring leader.

[HGL:]

In that case, one may fairly well say he might have done under circumstances a heroic effort not to disrupt the act of 1633 as a judgement (the rescinding of which according to Anfossi's stated reason would have been necessary for moving earth to be licit), if using one's weakness to stay at the matter at hand only (index/imprimatur for Settele) can count as heroic.

RS:

Perhaps.

[HGL:]

As to the difference between hundred years earlier and Pius VII's day, see my essay "Aquinas vs Paley":

New blog on the kid : Aquinas vs Paley
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/04/aquinas-vs-paley.html

I was reading up on D[avid] P[alm] on Pastor Aeternus, the § 8 and 9 do not guarantee Church is ALWAYS using its right according to Her duty.

Hans Georg Lundahl

RS:

Indeed.

IV

Me to Sungenis, cc David Palm

11/04/15 à 10h55

Re: Reading but not bed time

@Robert : Agreed on all points except one.

It was not this time "déception"="disappontment", already fixed as said, but whom the papal court was angry at and thought Pope had been too lenient against : ringleader Olivieri (or overt ringleader, since behind such, in my experience, there may be covert ones), as you think or Anfossi as David Palm and I think.

If Papal court considered Olivieri dishonest and thought Pope had been too lenient, that would mean Pius VII would have had people to lean on if he had wanted to back Anfossi.

If the Papal court rather considered (or pretended to do so) Anfossi as a dishonest person whom the Pope had shown too much favour, that means if the Pope had openly sided with Anfossi to the full, he would have been alone with Anfossi, or at least he would have had a reasonable apprehension of such a result.

This on top of him being ill would go a long way to in my book at least excuse him for not backing Anfossi to the full.

@David: I'll try not to harass you, but I thought I ought to let you know the weakness of your argument as argument especially if it is wellsupported as a fact. Most especially so.

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

David Palm to me

11/04/15 à 16h06

Re: Reading but not bed time

Dear Hans,

Just to you (I don't care to have a "trialogue" which, as we saw last time, turned into a free-for-all).

I'm afraid your (and Sungenis's) interpretation of the Acta entry, as reproduced by Mayaud, is impossible. In that entry it is unambiguously Fr. Anfossi, (the Reverendum Dominum Patrem Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum, later just Patre Magistro = Master of the Sacred Palace) who is described as causing “great scandal and disgrace of the Holy See [magno scandalo Santaeque Sedis dedecore]”. He’s described as being a “stiff-necked and deceptive man [hic durae cervicis homo falsissimique]” and “very tenacious in his false judgment [sui judicii in omnibus tenacissimus]”. And he’s said constantly [non cessabat] to resort to “nonsense” [nugiis] in support of his opposition to the Roman Congregations and to “sensible men” [tam Congregationes quam sensatos viros] (see N. Mayaud, La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition, p. 240).

Sungenis's contention that Fr. Olivieri was "strong arming" the Pope is yet another of his conspiracy theories, but remains an unsupported assertion, made up out of whole cloth and based on nothing more than his imagination and wishful thinking. He has never offered a shred of evidence in its support and what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

Sungenis constantly insists that it's important that the full records of the Holy Office were held by Napoleon. But he never says just what information the Holy Office would have found in those records that supposedly would have influenced the proceedings. Speaking of the opening of the full archives of the Galileo case, Prof. Francesco Beretta states, “This opening, officially celebrated in 1998, . . . failed to bring to light any sensational new knowledge” (“The Documents of Galileo’s Trial,” in Galileo and the Church, p. 193.) They certainly had the 1633 decree itself before them and according to the new geocentrists this by itself should have been sufficient. Thus Sungenis’s insinuation may be set aside as an empty diversion.

As for his contention that Fr. Olivieri lied to the Pope, let us remember two things. First, it was not only the Pope to whom Olivieri presented the matter but to all the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office. And the Commissary General had this to say about those discussions with the cardinal-prefects: "the Most Rev. Father Master of the Sacred Palace [Fr. Anfossi] was not present at the two said meetings of the consultants (I do not know for what reasons). As a result, he was not aware of the proposal or of the discussion; and this was certainly unfortunate for him. For he would have heard the difficulties which some advanced at first, the solutions which others gave, and the ideas which everyone presented, until at the second meeting everyone shared an admirable consensus . . . No less uniform were the feelings of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinals; thus the decision had all the signs of having been dictated by the Holy Spirit" (Finnochiaro, Retrying Galileo, 204-5).

So there was no conspiracy, no subterfuge, no wrongdoing as Sungenis claims. Rather, all was done openly and in good order. The Holy Office had theological consultants prepare expert testimony. There was back and forth discussion, with ample opportunity for both sides to present their cases. The cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office officially sided with those who advocated the narrow interpretation of the 1633 decree and a broad allowance of views not covered by the 1633 decree to be held within the Catholic Church. And Pope Pius VII was willing at every step to approve. This ended with a general, positive permission bearing the Pope’s signature.

And second, the fact is that the Commissary General, Fr. Olivieri, acted fully in line with the Church’s perennial rules of canonical interpretation, which mandate that the 1633 decree against Galileo must be interpreted strictly, as narrowly as possible and as affecting as few people as possible. This may not be convincing to Sungenis, who has a private dogma to uphold, but it convinced the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office and ultimately Pope Pius VII, which obviously matters a great deal more.

So you see, Hans, I do not argue that Pius VII's decree went against the 1633 decree. Rather, he ruled in line with the Church's perennial canonical tradition that a canonical penalty must be interpreted strictly. And the 1633 decree unambiguously references a strict heliocentrism, with an immobile sun at center of the universe and a mobile earth -- a view which nobody will ever hold again. So at most the 1633 decree is an ecclesiastical dead letter. But whether other cosmological views fell under that decree was an open question. And that question was answered authoritatively and definitively by Pius VII in the negative. It is a decision that his successors have clearly followed.

God bless,

David

With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair

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

I

Sungenis to me

13/03/15 à 21h38
also cited earlier corresp.

Gift for you

Hans,

I noticed that you said you did not have a copy of GWW.

Do you have an address I can send the three volumes to, as a gift to you? I'd be happy to do so. You are a scholar in your own right, and you've got a pretty strong will to boot :)

Also, since this issue is pertinent, I've attached a PDF of the portion of GWW that deals with the Pius VII and Settele affair. I thought you might enjoy it for bedtime reading.

What is your physical situation? I mean, do you have a place to call your own. Where are you located? Can I help you in any way?

Robert

[ Pius VII and Canon Settele.pdf (2455.1 Ko) ]

II

Me to Sungenis

10/04/15 à 12h46

Reading but not bed time

I had perhaps too hastily assumed Pius VII was as eager to get away from Middle Ages as Gregory XVI.

He was in bad health?

Blessed Easter,
Hans Georg Lundahl

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

Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

At least I am trying to, as you can see from my response.

Illustrating a pont raised below [But see also diagrams message, now].

X - - > - > - - > X'                                                                                                                                                                         O

Tom Trinko

Vendredi/Friday/4th of July 21:44

No I didn't get it because it doesn't make sense. Sorry.

I understand that if you believe in a mythical aether then the motion of the aether would cancel the motion of the satellite.

Unfortunately for you the aether would not cancel the motion of the satellite towards the earth, downward, caused by the force of gravity, which means the satellite would soon fall to earth.

Basically east west and up down are orthogonal so the east west velocity of the satellite will only determine where on earth the satellite will fall. Given that the geostationary satellite is stationary above a point on the earth gravity will cause it to fall down to that point on the earth unless the aether exerts and upward--not westward--force on the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Saturday, 5th of July

No, you did not get it.

You did not get that aether ONLY cancels the local movement part of the eastward momentum.

It is the eastward momentum the balances out gravitation to an orbit (through the aether, but locally cancelled out) around earth.

As to mythical, a scientific theory does not become a myth when abandoned.

Let us see.

According to everyone light is a fact. According to modern physics gravitation is a fact (in Aristotelian ones, heavy objects being heavy means them having a predominant tendency down to the middle of the universe, the centre of the earth, light objects being light means them having a tendency upward to the periphey of the universe, towards stars and Heaven beyond them).

If there is no aether, then gravitation and light are action at a distance, and for light also wavemovements in a void.

I have discussed - years ago - the concept of wavemovements in a void, and the science expert who was, as an Atheist, defending modern science, said photons could fix that. Here the action at a distance part would also be fixed. It is less easy to fix gravitational action at a distance problem by gravitons.

Photons first: yes, a wavemovement would be conceivable as photons are emitted in waves rather than continuously. But if so, it should be theoretically possible to have a continuous (high or low) rate of emission of photons, and we do not find that.

Gravitons next: if a graviton moves from earth toward the sun, how would that make sun move closer to earth? If one thousand times as many gravitons move from sun to earth, how would that draw earth closer to the sun?

Remember, if gravitons are emitted from the masses concerned, they are moving right opposite the way they are supposed to work the attraction.

For close range forces, this is even more conspicuous: if electrons and protons (supposing these to both exist though neither has been observed even under electronic microscopy) are moving in a void, where is the substrate transmitting their forces of attraction from one body to other?

Here you see perhaps why aether was a very usual model in scientific worldviews until of course Michelson Morley showed this entailed Geocentrism.

And this means, some Geocentrics would be such, simply because aether makes sense scientifically.

One more: westward movement of aether would be a curved movement. Around earth.

Eastward momentum of satellite would in each moment be a straight momentum. In a tangent from earth, unless gravitation were counteracting it. It is thus in each moment the momentum of the satellite which counteracts the gravitation of the earth.

HGL adding

on Sunday 6-VII-2014

I think YOUR position on why Sungenis must be wrong on Geostationary satellites is that:

satellite has eastward momentum, vector arrow eastward, aether imparts equal westward momentum, vector arrow westward (same length), earth imparts momentum down to its centre, by gravitation, arrow down. W & E arrows cancel, arrow down is NOT cancelled, so, acceleration takes place downwards to the ground.

My understanding of Sungenis' explanation (if he doesn't agree, it may unconsciously even be my improvement on it) is rather this:

There is an eastward arrow for the vector of satellite's momentum, there is a downward arrow, for the vector of earth's gravitation, BUT there is no westward arrow.

Aether imparts NO acceleration to the West.

It only displaces the space in which these vectors work out.

Therefore the eastward vector and the downward vector can balance out in a series of balanced vectors which, in empty space, would be of orbital type.

Except that empty space would have no way, without aether, to transmit the pull of eartyhmass onto satellite mass (and, extremely slightly, the reverse), and the aether that is transmitting it is displacing itself. That is at least one theory.

Tom Trinko Sunday 22 :25

Uh no that makes no sense. If you add an eastward vector to a downward vector you bet a vector pointed down and to the east at some angle which will vary with time as the Satellite accelerates down. Given that we're assuming the earth isn't rotating here then what would happen would be that the satelite would follow a roughly parabolic trajectory and impact the earth to the east of the normal sub satellite point.

You can't balance a downward force with a eastward momentum vector over a stationary earth. Math doesn't work.

Hans Georg Lundahl Monday 7/VII/2014

The orbit you assume to be there is a very high version of the parabolic trajectory.

The Sungenis theory as I understand does not deny the orbit as such. It only says it is displaced, because the coordinate system of space - the aether - is displaced.

And that orbit and displacement balance out into a more or less stationary position.

Added a few hours later by HGL

Maybe you simply are mixing up the vector question with the geosationary question. How a downward vector is accounted for while same hight is acheived is a bit tricky. Here I am spelling it out step by step:

I) What the vectors (acc. to Newtonian physics) make for an orbit:

a) Imagine you have one satellite "above" earth. Draw it above on paper or on whatever material your mind can follow (including your memory, if it is good).

b) Identify a spot as centre of earth, draw the line between it and the satellite. Divide the line into four equal "units".

c) Imagine the satellite is moved by exactly ONE vector (in an otherways stationary universe, like during the long day of Joshua). Draw a line to the right, meaning eastward. Mark off three units.

d) Identify the spot of the third unit as new position of satellite. Draw a line from it to centre of earth and remember, this line is FIVE units long.

e) But in order for the satellite to move "due east" (in an orbit) it should be only FOUR units above the centre of the earth. Identify that spot, then dot the lines of the triangle that are outside that cake slice. NOW you have identified the action of gravitation as the vector responsible for satellite being one unit lower than expected. And still exactly as high as it was to begin with.

II) Now, this was a satellite "during Joshua's long day". It was neither Geostationary according to aether and Geostasis, nor according to empty space and turning earth.

III) How to make a satellite geostationary (outside Joshua's long day), there are two models.

a) Empty space remains in place, so satellite really moves locally that curve, but earth eastward also, at same angular speed. Turning of earth neither affects the gravitational vector of the satellite, nor the eastward momentum vector. Therefore orbit of satellite is real, though from the dot on earth it is seen as stationary, because that dot also moves in an orbit around the centre of the earth, that orbit having a turn of same angle in same time.

b) Turning aether moves westward, at same speed as satellite orbits eastward. Aether affects neither vector. It is only that its turning cancels out, locally, the eastward turning of the satellite. Here too the satellite has a real eastward orbit, but in a space that (as it is aether and not empty) displaces itself at same angular speed in opposite angular turn. Leaving the satellite in same local position.

[IV] There is one problem with this restatement of Sungenis without looking at his book.

Can aether be truly non-vectorial and yet cause movement?

As in the movement it imposes, if I am right, on spacecraft spiralling outward with the "linear" outward / upward movement and the "circular" daily movement of the aether.

Or in the movement it imposes on winds of passage, which, once set in motion by the moving aether, are very vectorial, as any sailor would agree, or the one it imposes indirectly at least on oceanic currents, like the ones used by Christopher Columbus between Açores and Hispaniola and by Thor Heyderdahl between Perú and Polynesia.

That is the problem with my theory. Does it suggest any solution to you?, for if so, you might be right I understand no physics compared to your grasp of the subject.

Tom Trinko
early in the morning Paris time
8-VII-2014

Ok nothing you said makes sense with respect to anything we know to be true.

We agree that the geostationary satellite stays staionary above the earth.

We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving.

But if the earth isn't rotating then the satellite can't be stationary.

Hence the satellite will fall.

The simple fact is that either the aether exerts an upward force on the satellite or the satellite will fall.

Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did.

Hans Georg Lundahl
9 :07 Paris time

"We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving."

OR for the gravitational field (a k a aether) to be moving.

"Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did."

I gave no magnitudes for the vectors. I gave distances.

And I gave them in PROPORTIONS to original distance, which I am not trying to find out, because any original distance will work.

It is the vector eastward that is a vector upward. Nothing else on either theory. And that SHOULD have been obvious if you had not balked back from the discussion with a misunderstanding of what I did so stupid as to give the impression it was deliberate.

But perhaps geometry was not your best part of maths?

Tom Trinko
Tuesday c. 21 :20

Uh perhaps if you knew vector math you'd know that the magnitude of a vector is the length of the vector ie what you call the distance.

Here's what Augustine says about people like Sungenis: " Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2

Uh where did this upward vector come from? You said that the aether exerts no force on the satellite so there is only a downwards vector due to gravity

Hans Georg Lundahl
Wednesday c. 9 :20

No, if you had paid attention, you would have seen that the eastward vector of the satellite is really also an upward vector.

What I called the distance was NOT length of the vector, but a theoretical distance it could get east IF the eastward vector had been the only one. So, you are the one who lacks understanding of math, it is not me that St Augustine is ashamed of so far.

Resumé of vectors / distances: Original position, satellite is four units (distance) above centre of earth. Theoretical eastward distance (if eastward vector had been the only one) - let us cut that travel short three units east of original position. What is it height now? Remember, it is the new position and its distance to the centre of earth that is the height. You have two sides, one of four units, one of three units, so satellite will be now five units above centre of earth. Remember, the diagonal on the diagram is the perpendicular of the satellite. WHY is the satellite in its new position ONLY four units (like before) above centre of Earth in reality? Because of the downward vector of gravity. Which proves that the eastward vector, rightly considered, is an upward vector. Because tangential = up.

Btw, there is no such thing as Volume two of St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis. There is such a thing as BOOK two. Volumes refer to material objects, and how many such you divide his work in or how many works you assemble in one such varies from edition to edition.

So, referring to a Volume for any work ONLY makes sense if you define the edition. I therefore assume, you are not talking about St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis an Incomplete Book, but of book two in his other work On the Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books.

Exchange

Seen from here Thursday morning

Tom Trinko

Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing.

As to vectors you can insult me all you wish but what you're doing is wrong.

First if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so.

Second you still haven't explained what counteracts the downward pull of gravity. You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite.

In any case the simple fact you keep ignoring is that if we look up and see the satellite stationary in orbit above us and we are not moving then the satellite will fall down unless you apply a force to the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing." Or what you are doing. You see, that quote is not the only, nor even the most general quote from even just that work on relation between Bible and secular knowledge. Have you tried to see same work, book one, chapter one?

As you mentioned Sungenis, I sent him our conversiation, and he gave this reply:

Quoting mail from Robert Sungenis

"Hans, excuse me for getting to this so late. I think your explanation is good. Let me just add that, in the geocentric version, the Geostationary Sat is traveling 7000mph against the space, because space is traveling 7000mph around the fixed Earth. So the same equations that are used to send the Geo Sat up in the heliocentric system are going to be the same in the geocentric system."

Back to my own words

"if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so." I do very exactly mean strictly straight angles to the nadir. That is the VERY REASON why any eastward vector is also an upward vector, since tangential.

"You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite." No, it means that the satellite is exerting a force on itself. Inertia.

When we travel "due east," we travel on a circle on the globe that has axis for centre, like equator, and we take one of two available turns. But in each moment "due east" is also a vector tangential to earth's circular surface. This means that if that vector were all there were to our moves, we would be travelling upward, because we would be travelling tangentially.

Do you realise now, WHO of us two or you one it is who merits the scorn of not knowing anything about the universe?

Tom Trinko
Thursday 10/VII/2014, 23:00 Paris time

Yes sadly not only don't you understand the universe you think you do.

First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself.

Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required. Now in reality with the satellite orbiting the earth gravity exerts that force which constantly changes the direction of the satellites velocity vector. However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector. If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth. Hence when gravity acts on the satellite it pulls it straight down.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday 11/VII/2014, 11:00 Paris time

"First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself."

Forces in that strict meaning are things exerted on others. Inertia would be the corresponding thing, but exerted on oneself.

"Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required."

The force that would do so if it were not geostationary is gravity.

It is precisely because the eastward vector is NOT constantly changing direction (except in relation to a rotating aether that changes the direction back) that it is a tangential and therefore upward vector.

"However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector."

It has, as already explained above, previously, a component of velocity in relation to the rotating aether.

" If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth."

It is not stationary per se, but orbiting through an aether which is itself orbitting the other way round at same speed. So, it is only stationary per accidens.

I agree it would fall down if stationary per se.

Would you, before answering again, go through our discussion, the protocol on my blog, because I begin to fear you are about to lose memory of part a) of my argument while arguing against part b) and of part b) of my argument while arguing against part a). It reminds me of a behaviour - in their case presumably deliberate - which I have seen in not so nice persons around my life. You know, Jews, Communists, Atheists, No Popery Prots and some others like that?

[Sent him the three so far extant blogposts that are protocol of our discussion.]

EPILOGUE

Saturday Morning 12/VII/2014 I found the end of this discussion:

Tom Trinko

Uh I would like it if you'd post the following:

I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No problem, will be posted.

No apologies needed. From my p o v.

Done: [linking to first message, where I put the statement on top of it all.]