For another perspective on Geocentrism, see our interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis: th-cam.com/video/carL44boCk4/w-d-xo.html&t What do you think about Geocentrism? Let us know in the comments!
While Fr. Robinson rightly enjoins the use of our senses to his argument, he fails to mention that while using our senses on the present instruments we have created, those instruments don't have a proper point of perspective; in other words, we don't and probably won't ever have a point where we can accurately measure our earth from the perspective of the whole universe. The science involved is grossly inadequate to answer the question.
@@CFN_Official you can actually see the misinformation and ignorance of Fr. Paul on Geocentrism and it's viability and plausibility in Modern Science after listening to both. Dr. Sungenis is by far more researched and is an actual scientist.
@@Marcia-fw3wz check out the Kolbe Center for Creation and what Robert Sungenis has to say. I think there is some modern evidence that the universe could be geocentric
I very much agree with several previous posts on here. A debate or discussion with Dr Robert Sungenis on the topic of Geocentrism. Dr Sungenis has a great youtube channel and website in favor of a Geocentric universe.
Agreed. And Fr. Robinson needs further education in this topic. Dr. Sungenis is clearly the expert on this matter. CFN should be interviewing Sungenis as the key authority in this topic.
Catholic Truths flow from Geocentrism, starting with believing the literal sense of Holy Scripture. Geocentrism makes man the center of the universe, which was God's plan. Heliocentrism, an atheistic view, relativizes Creation. etc., etc., etc. Talk to Dr. Sungenis.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church: "Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." (Letter to Foscarini)
As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American: "I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13" Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy: "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
If Fr. Paul is willing to discuss this topic with Dr. Robert Sungenis that would be great. I'm unable to determine his expertise on this topic without a proper counter claim. Let's get the two together and hash this out like men.
Even Einstein says that there's not a single experiment that has been done that demonstrate the Earth is moving. I would ask the dear Fr. to portray modern science accurately.
It's doubtful the Bible says anything scientifically significant about the motion or location of the planets. As Cardinal Baronius (disciple of St Philip Neri) said: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Oh, I will. The words are NOT by Cardinal Baronius, they are by the condemned Galileo. Trent Horn pretended Cardinal Baronius said so in the Galileo controversy. He died in 1607, before there was a controversy. The quote is from Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. A wiki search is enough to confirm both facts. Now, I'm aware, wiki is not 100 % reliable, but I'd like sth _more_ reliable than either wiki _or you_ when it comes to attributing these words to Baronius. Do you have a page and a context in Annales Ecclesiastici?
@@hglundahl From what I read it is Baronius, who likely made this remark in a conversation with Galileo. Galileo took a liking to the quote and therefore used it. Galileo, was not the only one who carried the view of the helocentric model, since during that time period it was the better model that could explain retrograde motion. The geocentric model was that of Ptolemy, a Greco-Egyptian mathematician, astronomer in the period 100 AD. Galileo's problem was his bombastic attitude of "publicly' espousing what could not be readily confirmed. Also, by questioning sacred literature was not the smartest move for Galileo considering the protestant revolt was reeking havoc. The church eventually did lift the condemnation by various steps with newer and supported discoverers: 1740-1758: Pope Benedict XIV partially unbanned Galileo's Dialogue and Copernican books 1757: The Index of 1757 finally allowed all heliocentric works to be published 1820-1835: The Church completely repealed the prohibition of Copernicanism 1893: Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus implicitly vindicated Galileo's biblical hermeneutics 1979-1992: Pope John Paul II partially, informally, and ambiguously rehabilitated Galileo
33:01 Stellar aberration shifts direction by c. 20 arc seconds. I've heard it uniformly explained this way: the light changes relative direction as the speed of earth does. _"that prediction has also been verified"_ 34:11 Prediction, well, I don't think it was predicted until it was discovered. The problem is, for Heliocentrics, this too can be explained with angelic movers. I've basically covered it when discussing parallax. Partly in comments someone took down.
From famous professor Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University: "But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Robert Sungenis refutes yet another false claim in this video .. "The equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric parallax is even recognized today in modern astronomy classes. In this version of the geocentric parallax, the stars are revolving around the sun once per year. Here are the notes from a 2004 course on astronomy from the University of Illinois: It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives.43" -from Dr. Sungenis
36:28 _"if we get other data or get other tools"_ What about reusing those in currency with St. Thomas and Riccioli, namely theoretic tools of understanding stellar motions as acted by Angels?
Geocentrism uses the same science Fr. Paul claims to be an enthusist of. Funny hes so ignorant to Newtonian physics . He said Newtonian physics makes Geocentrism impossible... funny because he and Galileo admitted Geocentrism was viable and plausible in their own theories and systems... The Earth functioning as the CENTER OF MASS in the Geocentric system allows for the larger mass of the Sun to revolve around the Earth with the Universe and all celestial bodies. Look it up. Fr. Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.
What's so interesting about the universe's center of mass? It's not a concept intended to explain the movement of celestial bodies. It is just a fiction we use to simplify calculations in complex systems. I think it's a bit rich, you saying that a former engineer doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to physics, but imagining that you do.
@@michaelj6453 Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving Chapter 6 from "Geocentrism 101" by Dr. Robert Sungenis... Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving "As we can see, although Einstein was enjoying the new idea that everything in the universe was in relative motion and that there was no immobile center point, he now had to account for the fact that we were unable to detect any motion at all, or tell which object was revolving and which object was not. In not being able to detect motion, Einstein’s theory could not tell if the Earth was revolving around the sun or the sun and stars were revolving around the Earth. Perhaps this handicap was the reason Einstein once admitted this startling consequence to his theory: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.74"
@@michaelj6453 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design": "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
@@michaelj6453 a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8" Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
@@michaelj6453 As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American: "I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13" Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy: "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
Fr Paul's arguments in scripture and his scientific belief for modern science reminds me of this '“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
"We know now, (thanks to the gnostic scientists), that the Universe has no center." Fr Robinson should stick to Cathecism and moral teaching, and this is not a bitter criticism, he does that very well. Leave gnostic science to those outside the Church.
@@Vincent-r5p Einstein gives us a viable, plausible Geocentric Cosmology... "We see that even at this early time, the “relative motion” argument was in vogue, although neither side knew that relative motion incorporated dynamic forces. They only knew the geometry of relative motion. Einstein mentions at least one of the dynamic forces as he notes “the existence of such centrifugal forces” in the previous paragraph. In another place, he mentions the Coriolis force in a June 25, 1913 letter to Ernst Mach: Your happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck’s unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton’s pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.22 What Einstein is saying is there are two basic forces generated from the angular momentum of a rotating universe, the centrifugal and the Coriolis forces. These two forces, in combination, will cause all the celestial bodies to revolve daily around the universe’s central axis. Although the centrifugal force makes the celestial bodies move outward, the Coriolis force, registering twice the power of the centrifugal, forces the bodies inward, and the result of the two unequal vectors will be a net centripetal force making all the celestial bodies circle the universe’s center of mass at their respective declinations and ascensions.23 Moreover, a fixed Earth will necessarily share the same center of mass with the universe, and viola! we have Einstein’s alternative universe that is demanded by his General Relativity theory. The problem with the Newtonians, however, was that they could not engage in a “relative motion” argument, since they had to insist on an absolute universe if their equations (F = GM1m2/r2 and F = ma) were going to pan out. But insisting on an absolute universe as the reality still meant they were required to answer how their equations would fit into a non-absolute world. After all, we see rotations and accelerations almost everywhere we look. What the Newtonians found was that if the system under observation is accelerating (i.e., rotating), the only way Newtonian mechanics could account for the acceleration was by mathematically adding in, by hand, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces. Modern science still does the same today when they send space probes to the planets." -from Scientific Heresies and their effect on the Church: a critique of "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" by Dr. Paul Robinson...
@@Vincent-r5p admitting that the Geocentric system is possible and plausible and viable is all Dr. Sungenis and I propose. I've successfully shown Fr. Robinson is in error or ignorance. My point is we'll made. End of discussion
@@andrewdavis5386 Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving Chapter 6 from "Geocentrism 101" by Dr. Robert Sungenis... Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving "As we can see, although Einstein was enjoying the new idea that everything in the universe was in relative motion and that there was no immobile center point, he now had to account for the fact that we were unable to detect any motion at all, or tell which object was revolving and which object was not. In not being able to detect motion, Einstein’s theory could not tell if the Earth was revolving around the sun or the sun and stars were revolving around the Earth. Perhaps this handicap was the reason Einstein once admitted this startling consequence to his theory: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.74"
@@andrewdavis5386 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design": "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
@@andrewdavis5386 a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8" Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
@@andrewdavis5386 As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American: "I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13" Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy: "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
Indeed. One of the arguments of geocentrists against helio is the earth is fixed, it doesn't spin on its' axis. Countering that notion we have inertial instruments that say otherwise. We also have the Foucault pendulum.
@@Vincent-r5p I was not going to add more, but ehh I'll go ahead. There is stellar parallax and aberration that help to demonstrate Earth's orbit around the sun. The other sticking point that geocentrists always push is that Earth does not rotate. However, the very clear evidence aside from my original comment is the Foucault pendulum, and a big one the Coriolis effect. A question one may ask, what would the atmosphere look like if the Earth did not rotate and had instead the Sun rotated around Earth? Patterns of wind would probably be more northerly southerly direction and less cyclonic. Come to think of it, our oceans currents would have very different flow patterns and maybe very little, and/or weak. The ice sheets would be far more significant and extent further towards the equator, since warmer currents will not be passing by to counteract them. The salinity of the oceans would be drastic in in certain parts causing other life forms to exists, or not except microbes. Basically, life would not exit as we know it except microbes and algae.
@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Geocentrists are just like flat earthers. No matter if you provide the most logical and true evidence, they will always be stubborn and think their view is right because they are stuck in their own world view.
Who needs to adhere to the consensus of the early church fathers, sacred scripture (i.e. Joshua), the Michelson- Morley experiments or Einstein's general theory of relativity (evolution of physics)? Just listen to modern atheist philosophers.
"Nothing is inmovil". Can the spirit of the times (revolutionary spirit since the Luteran Revolution) push a new science? I mean...It is a retorical question.
It is good to pray Father goes back to the drawing board here. This issue along with evolution is the root cause of the sickness in the Church and world today. If Catholics change their world view back to Gods word then the SSPX would have no need to exist in schism. Let’s see a debate with Robert Sungenis and Father on the actual science.
// listening to your explanation um it it really 35:22 sounds like these Principles of Scientific Method are are actually a great statement in humility // (Brian McCall speaking) I don't see why it is humbly to either forget or deny the possibility of angelic movers.
21:29 Pass this around ten people: Joshua 10:12. Is the mention of sun and moon in Joshua's prayer, directed to God, or after the prayer, directed to sun and moon on behalf of God? I think you would find, unless they had been briefed beforehand, most would say "directed to sun and moon," and "after the prayer" ... at least as long as you don't ask them to figure in the following. The salient question is not just "can verse 13 be explained in phenomenological language, because it was the sun and moon that normally look like moving, and it looked like it was them that stopped moving?" ... there is at least some kind of hint in Providentissimus Deus the answer could be yes, provided there was nothing else that was different. However, the words of Joshua are NOT describing what Joshua sees, they say what Joshua orders to happen, with power to his words given by God. It would be very remarkable if this were the case and his words were not directed to whatever they would logically need to adress, just because he was in an error God didn't correct or his audience were so. God was fully aware of how the verse 13 would be taken in the Galileo process, by none less than the Dominican Caccini, and He was also fully aware how I would take, perhaps others also will take, verse 12. He had also had 40 years in which He could have given the Hebrews relevant cosmologic information, or if He had found no use for that, He could also have avoided the Solar Miracle and used another miracle instead. _"Oh, He had to do a Solar miracle because of the Solar Deities, you say?"_ Well, if He could take into account the false deities of back then, He could certainly also take into account the falsehoods and the interests of truth in 1633 or 2024 after a Birth which happened 1470 years later. Our Lord's.
22:03 Trent Session IV. The ban was not directed against trusting one's own judgement. The ban was directed against contradicting a definite judgement of the Church, which 1822 isn't on the Bible meaning, it's a freeforall for debate, but which 1633 is. It is especially directed against contradicting sth the Church holds if the Church _hath_ already _held_ it, rather than sth the Church holds in contradiction or at least obvious contrast to previously. It is also doubled by stating the unanimous position of the CCFF needs to be held to. It could be added to, possibly, but cannot be contradicted. David Palm, the friend of Fr. Robinson, and kind of my friend too, found no Church Father who embraced Heliocentrism as truth. His one example was a passage in which one CF enumerated discoveries of the philosophers, and it is not totally clear from the CCFF in general that this meant approval of said discoveries. It is highly probable that that CF mentioned the "discovery" of [Heliocentrism] with tongue in cheek. By contrast, St. Augustine, in Book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, makes it very clear: * the earth is round * the light-hemisphere of heaven went around earth up to day three and starting out day four * from day four on, it's instead the sun that does so * and since this means all of the time there is day somewhere and night somewhere, the time zone that counts for the creation days is that of Jerusalem, where Adam was created. This is, very unlike the obscure passage found by David Palm, formal exegesis, not precisely of Joshua (though I think Questiones in Octateuchum would give a similar result in favour of Round Earth Geocentrism for Joshua), but of a passage in the Bible, namely Genesis 1. It is also, however ridiculous it may feel to someone raised in a modern culture, and not used to questioning it, not anything like tongue in cheek.
This episode was the most misleading, ignorant thing ive ever watched. Fr. Paul made false claim one after another after another. So full of holes, so much misleading misinformation. Nearly everything stated, especially scientifically, is so bad.
Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design": "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
// we have an idea 35:50 we test it // How do you test theories about how the stars move? When it comes to cars, there are lots of ways of testing diesel, gasoline or electricity (depending on type) plays a crucial role and will only work in a contraption called a motor. But stars are too far off for testing. You cannot halt the Solar System, take away one body, and see how that affects the movements of the other ones. You cannot tell an angel to stop moving its body (unless you are Joshua!) and see if it moves without an Angelic Mover. Riccioli doesn't resolve the question by testing, but by theological aptness.
23:10 I suppose you are speaking of Flood Gates of Heaven, and I would say the opening of these was the merging of a layer of Oxygen with a layer of Hydrogen in the higher parts of the atmosphere as Brown's gas, and its ignition. The closing of the Flood Gates would be the depletion of that layer as that water came down into Deep Seas and water cycle. Again, nothing which per se indicates a Flat Earth. It can be made to sound "Flat Earth-ish" by association, but it is not Flat Earth, nor otherwise opposed to what we know or can reasonably guess about this time.
22:53 This could be an indication God wants Israel to exist in some form, though certainly not for its massacres in Gaza. Four corners would be places where the Jews in Acts 2 were not coming from. In the first century, the First Pentecost, Jews were not arriving from Alaska, Sakhalin, Hobart and close to Cape Horn. Since 1948 they have been arriving from such places.
Based on the comments against Fr. Robinson, many hardline geocentrists have shown to simply have an emotional investment in their cause. We all have a feeling brain & a thinking brain; the challenge is staying on task and using the thinking brain. Father Robinson has his thinking brain engaged in this interview. Thank goodness the Catholic Church gave us St Thomas Aquinas!
Mach came to two vital conclusions. The first dealt with the geometrics of the universe; the second with the dynamics: Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.13 All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to decide between relative and absolute motion….If there are still modern authors who, through the Newtonian water bucket arguments, allow themselves to be misled into differentiating between relative and absolute motion, they fail to take into account that the world system has been given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic and Copernican views are only our interpretations, but both equally true.14 Although in this treatise Mach does not himself adopt geocentrism, he repeatedly challenges modern science that geocentrism is not only a viable alternative, but it substantially answers the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment-the experiment that forced a choice between a stationary Earth and the Special Theory of Relativity.
It's sad to see a Catholic priest who is not a scientist, try to twist and do mental gymnastics to accommodate scripture to science. Einstein himself said that it was totally plausible for the earth to be stationary and the universe rotate around it. You do great damage to the faith by not knowing what you speak of.
@@michaelj6453 He isn't, but went to the school of a Robert Sungenis who takes advantage of those with little to nothing with regards to cosmology, physics, and biblical hermeneutics.
// would claim that um I I just you you could you 34:34 can't you can't account for these phenomena with a geocentric model // One can very well, with Angelic Movers. In that case, both the aberration change of angle and the parallax change of angle are Angels performing a kind of dance with the Stars as their lanterns.
Newton added, however, that, strictly speaking, the Earth does not revolve around the sun; rather, both the sun and the Earth revolve around a mutual center of gravity (or center of mass). But since the center of gravity is closer to the sun, for all practical purposes the Earth revolves around the sun. At least so it seemed to Newton and the people of his day. Appealing to the center of mass between the sun and the Earth seemed to be the clinching argument to settle the heliocentric versus geocentric debate. Since Newton’s equation, F = ma, could be demonstrated and measured in the laboratory, there was little opposition that the geocentric position could mount, except to rely on their theological and philosophical convictions and hope that science would gain more knowledge later to confirm those convictions. Hence Mach, in opposition to Newton, argued that no movement on Earth escapes the gravitational influence of the stars. Whereas Newton believed the Earth revolved around the sun against the background of a fixed but empty absolute and immovable space, in which the stars did not contribute any force, Mach argued that space was permeated by the gravity of the stars. In a word, whereas Newton believed in an Absolute Space, Mach introduced the concept of an Absolute Gravity. Hence, not space, but matter which produces gravitational force, such as what we find in the stars, can serve as the fixed background to measure any terrestrial or celestial movement. Mach’s new insight into the universe led him to conclude that there was no difference between a rotating Earth in a fixed star field as opposed to the star field rotating around a fixed Earth. Both systems would produce identical forces and motions. Newton Insisted that space was “absolute,” that is, that it didn’t move. In other words, since Newton’s laws would only work if he kept the universe fixed, his physics could not accommodate the case when the universe is rotating. Unfortunately, his inability to consider the reciprocal case was presumptuously interpreted in his day as “proof” that the Earth was rotating in a fixed universe. This was certainly a case of the logical fallacy of petitio principii, that is, using as proof the very thing one is trying to prove. In reality, it demonstrated that Newtonian physics had a “defect,” as Mach and Einstein would later point out.18 They argued that accelerated frames, not just inertial frames, must also be accounted for in order for the physics to be complete and universally applicable. That is, Newton should not have arbitrarily eliminated the universe when he made his equations of motion. As such, Mach and Einstein eliminated the Newtonian “proof” for a fixed universe and a rotating Earth and allowed for the possibility of a rotating universe around a fixed Earth. Physicist Denis Sciama said it more practically: Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.19 In Mach’s and Einstein’s physics, if the frame accelerates (e.g., the universe rotates), it will produce forces on objects within the system, which forces are called centrifugal (outward), Coriolis (inward, circular) and Euler (sideways) forces.
// but from the 35:36 mid Middle Ages philosophy of science of the scientific method // Unlike modern versions of it, the method of astronomy in the Middle Ages very much didn't exclude angelic movers. I object to the idea of "the scientific method" as if it were one thing, and so would they have done. From Aristotle, they would have picked up that in each enquiry search the degree of certainty by the methods appropriate for the specific question. You cannot have the same certainty about whether Blücher or Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo or even whether he was beaten, as you can about 2 + 2 = 4. And you cannot approach this with the same method either. Now, one could say history is not a "scientia" but a "historia" which is something else. It involves knowing about in ways that do not guarantee understanding. But between "historia" which falls outside "scientia" proper and arithmetic or logic, there are lots of shades in between. And as Medievals understood astronomy, Angelic Movers were most certainly NOT excluded. While Riccioli differs from the Thomistic view on what moves Heaven as a whole each day, and says it's actually different celestial bodies proceeding in a void, while St. Thomas held God moved Heaven as a whole and individual celestial bodies were if anything moving the other direction, namely for instance Sun going around the Zodiac West to East in one year, or Moon going around the Zodiac West to East in one Sidereal Month (the Lunar month proper is the Synodic month, which comes from a combination of Sidereal month with year), both authors agreed that individual celestial bodies were moved each by an angel. Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247 I P, Q 70, Article 3. Whether the lights of heaven are living beings?
a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8" Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year. Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
Geocentrism is a simple inversion of the Copernican Heliocentric System.. which General Relativity and Machian physics require in order to present viable and plausible models. In order to present a working model, the inversion too, must be visble and plausible. Fr. Paul is simply completely ignorant to the other side of his blindly biased conclusions.
22:22 I have taken into account all three types of passages used by Flat Earth, and have shown each faulty as to their exegesis, meaning the verses as such are perfectly compatible with the Round Earth we inhabit. The Four Corners have often been retranslated as "Four Quarters" but this is not the case in Apocalypse 7:1. There is a reason for it, angels do not enjoy ubiquity, they are in places, not the same way as corporeal creatures, but they do not naturally bilocate. However, I can point to "Four" precisely "Corners" on a globe, you know those artefacts that show the earth. Where there is a corner, there is a rim, and there are rims on such a globe. These are rims of continents. The Four Corners are places where a Northern or South adjacent or southern rim of a continent meets a Western or Eastern rim of continents. Outside such a rim, you don't need a space ship, you simply need a ship. A certain James Hannam pretended the language on different topics including this one a) was taken figuratively by CCFF, b) had not started out as figurative in the hagiographers. I clarified I was taking this as perfectly literal statements. I also later, after Hannam had declined further debate, checked this in St. Thomas' exposition of Job. _"Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi tota terra simul concutiatur in terraemotu, sed quia aliquae extremitates terrae concutiuntur."_
// it's 34:40 just possible to design a model a geocentric model that would predict 34:47 these outcomes like what what what are the forces that would cause this // I would say that when Angels act on Matter, they are not using as much as producing forces. // I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic-that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion. // I Pars, Q 110, Article 3. Whether bodies obey the angels as regards local motion?
Is it just me or are you misinterpreting what he is saying? In my opinion I think you people who believe this, are ignorant, and want to believe your own world view no matter what.
22:37 the downward wedges of tectonic plates and certain pillar like structures inside the earth crust apart from that would give literal sense to "pillars" ...
Mathematically speaking, the earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun along with other planets. For me, math is a way to find the truth of things and as an affirmation of things created by God. What I find interesting is the uniqueness of the earth. The book and documentary film "The Privelegded Planet" explains in some detail how the earth is unique withing the Milkyway galaxy and, perhaps, in the universe for sustaining life and allowing for discovery. From the beginning of man, it seems God has created things large and small so we may both caretakers of these things and to discover an apparent endless list of answers to questions these things pose. For example, how do bacteria transport itself through liquid, how big is the universe, how do the planets orbit the sun, or in discovering new animal or plant species. It also surprises me that with any answer revealed, there are many more questions that pop up relating to that answer. God has created all of these things for us.
Relativity requires that the simple Inversion of the Copernican Heliocentriic System with a stationary Earth and the Universe and all celestial bodies rotating around it, to be EQUALLY VIABLE AND PLAUSIBLE.
"Mathematically speaking, the earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun along with other planets...." Where is your measuring point? Where can you sit in the universe and prove your 'mathematics'?
@@karlthomas2429 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design": "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
40:48 Newton's physics state the resultants of certain factors _provided nothing interferes._ Newton's physics cannot exclude the possibility that something outside Newtonian physics, namely freewill with powers over matter, God's and angels' wills, interferes. If I show you the height of my hand and you have already weighed the grams in my ball point pen, you can calculate with what force the pen will hit the floor if I just drop it and do not interfere further. This is not in any way, shape or form a guarantee I wouldn't prefer to catch the pen with the other hand, rather than let it hit the floor. Now, you could obviously pretend that St. Thomas somewhere said "everything" in nature is moved by God only through secondary movers. Not true. Some of the secondary movers will be such that God immediately is moving them, otherwise the series of secondary movers would be infinite, and that would not just be impossible but also destroy the point of prima via. C. S. Lewis actually made a very apt remark in the book _Miracles._ His point was, "miracles don't break the laws of nature, but adds to them" ... and his illustration was sth like this. Suppose pool tables and pool balls to be placed in a steamer that experiences some rolling. Suppose a physicist to be standing by, _observing,_ -- at some point he will be able to start making calculations that are able to predict the movements. But he will himself insist that his calculations are only valid provided nothing interferes. He is not able from his physics to predict how likely I am to take up a queue and push a ball in a different direction. His point was for those special occasions on Earth where divine moving visibly takes the place of what normally secondary movers would be moving differently. But similar observations are totally valid for not just Creation week, not just the punitive miracle of the Flood, but also for if some continuous processes at their normal state directly require divine intervention to go on. Usually a conservative Christian will very well admit that existence as such requires God to provide it "second by second" ... that would correspond to Tertia Via. However, there is a Biblical case I've already touched on for a similar observation, related to Geocentric observations, with Prima Via.
Ratzinger saw the situation now, it was completely different than it was in 1962 under the ‘Galileo mentality’ of the Vatican II prelature: Today, things have changed. According to Bloch, the heliocentric system-just like the geocentric-is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: “From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”10
// if the Jesuits who did that had lived long enough to see it they would say well we thought that but now 36:10 that we have this stronger telescope their successors at least could do it say we we're now open to change that // The guys like Settele or Jesuits eventually supporting him (or preceding him, as Boscovich, who believed aberration to be aberration, not stars moved by Angelic Movers) were very clearly not motivated just by a changing view of things. The aberration had NOT been predicted or discussed, as in Galileo's and St. Robert's time, both parties believed the speed of light to be infinite. Ole Rømer more or less proved a finite speed of light only in 1675. The parallax of Bessel was different from the parallax discussed by Galileo and St. Robert. All observations even with better telescopes are taken from the Earth, and are as such Geocentric. All Heliocentrism comes by re-interpretation of what is actually observed.
Father Robinson has a clear view on what the Catholic Church teaches on matters of religion (period). Thank you! I do ask (and challenge) Father Robinson to provide a series on how diets and religion are not related either. Certain foods are actually considered ‘evil’ by many. Good meaning people often try to proselytize certain diets like a religious practice as if God wants us to eat a certain way. This is a growing trend which only divides. Families can no longer break bread together.
Regarding the obsessive Jewish dietary laws, Christ was quite clear on the matter. He explained to them that it was not what went into the body that defiles the man, but what comes out.
Have you ever even heard of Saints Chrysosyom, Basil, Ephraim or the Danascene, all doctors of the Church? What do dietary laws have to do with cold hard facts. The earth ain't moving. The true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses! Not the deist god of the freemasons.
// we have a very powerful telescopes now where we're able to uh 34:14 detect the Stellar aberration for for stars close closer to us and we're able 34:20 to detect the Stellar parallax for stars from what I understand within 3,000 light years // Father Robinson does not actually understand the science. Aberration does not change with the distance of the star. It's supposed (by the interpretation it has its name from) to be due to the speed of earth through the light. This does not vary with how far away or close the light was emitted from (outside Earth and Moon, obviously). Parallax is measured against the backdrop of aberration, and aberration has been observable (if aberration is the right cause assignment for changing angle) since Bradley, in 1727. The ability of very modern telescopes to measure parallax for 3000 light years away (if true) is not relevant for the observation of aberration.
The credibility of the SSPX has been devastated... in addition to the fact of Bergoglio not being a valid pope, the Earth is not moving and there is no curvature! Galileo and Copernicus were horribly and clearly wrong...🙄
I’m very disappointed with father Paul’s arguments, they are at best amateurish. He appears to be biased in favour of the heliocentric model. The bible is very clear on this issue and it has not yet been resolved scientifically. We should seek the truth no matter the consequences. Science is controlled by powerful secular institutions who abhor the notion of the existence of God.
For another perspective on Geocentrism, see our interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis: th-cam.com/video/carL44boCk4/w-d-xo.html&t
What do you think about Geocentrism? Let us know in the comments!
I'd like to see a discussion between Fr. Robinson and Sungenis
While Fr. Robinson rightly enjoins the use of our senses to his argument, he fails to mention that while using our senses on the present instruments we have created, those instruments don't have a proper point of perspective; in other words, we don't and probably won't ever have a point where we can accurately measure our earth from the perspective of the whole universe.
The science involved is grossly inadequate to answer the question.
@@CFN_Official you can actually see the misinformation and ignorance of Fr. Paul on Geocentrism and it's viability and plausibility in Modern Science after listening to both. Dr. Sungenis is by far more researched and is an actual scientist.
@@Marcia-fw3wz check out the Kolbe Center for Creation and what Robert Sungenis has to say. I think there is some modern evidence that the universe could be geocentric
Geocentrism is an outdated theory, and the Church has no official teaching on it.
Excellent explanation. Thank you, Father.
Dr. Sungenis im sure would gladly debate Fr. Paul on this, as his views and comments here are very easily refuted.
I wonder why Fr Robinson didn't talk to Robert Sungenis?
He should've, because he really made himself look foolish@@pirigal6689
Cowardly?
This is all over my head, but I would be VERY interested in listening to Fr. Paul discuss with Robert Sungenis!
We know there are Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church...
Fr Paul talks about how geocentrism causes division, why didn't he go to Dr Robert Sungenis or the Kolbe Centre to debate his Own studies?
I very much agree with several previous posts on here. A debate or discussion with Dr Robert Sungenis on the topic of Geocentrism. Dr Sungenis has a great youtube channel and website in favor of a Geocentric universe.
Fr. Robinson and Dr. Sungenis need to talk.
Agreed. And Fr. Robinson needs further education in this topic. Dr. Sungenis is clearly the expert on this matter. CFN should be interviewing Sungenis as the key authority in this topic.
Catholic Truths flow from Geocentrism, starting with believing the literal sense of Holy Scripture. Geocentrism makes man the center of the universe, which was God's plan. Heliocentrism, an atheistic view, relativizes Creation. etc., etc., etc. Talk to Dr. Sungenis.
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Catholic Church:
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators." (Letter to Foscarini)
As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American:
"I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13"
Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy:
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.
The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
Father Robinson, whom I respect, should have a sit-down with Dr. Robert Sungenis.
Please see Dr. Sungenis great and detailed rebuttal of Trent Horn evolution and big bang and what the church fathers and popes have taught.
If Fr. Paul is willing to discuss this topic with Dr. Robert Sungenis that would be great. I'm unable to determine his expertise on this topic without a proper counter claim. Let's get the two together and hash this out like men.
Even Einstein says that there's not a single experiment that has been done that demonstrate the Earth is moving. I would ask the dear Fr. to portray modern science accurately.
It's doubtful the Bible says anything scientifically significant about the motion or location of the planets. As Cardinal Baronius (disciple of St Philip Neri) said: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
Oh, but let the 'experts' here correct you.
Exactly!
@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Oh, I will.
The words are NOT by Cardinal Baronius, they are by the condemned Galileo.
Trent Horn pretended Cardinal Baronius said so in the Galileo controversy.
He died in 1607, before there was a controversy.
The quote is from Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.
A wiki search is enough to confirm both facts.
Now, I'm aware, wiki is not 100 % reliable, but I'd like sth _more_ reliable than either wiki _or you_ when it comes to attributing these words to Baronius.
Do you have a page and a context in Annales Ecclesiastici?
@@hglundahl From what I read it is Baronius, who likely made this remark in a conversation with Galileo. Galileo took a liking to the quote and therefore used it. Galileo, was not the only one who carried the view of the helocentric model, since during that time period it was the better model that could explain retrograde motion. The geocentric model was that of Ptolemy, a Greco-Egyptian mathematician, astronomer in the period 100 AD. Galileo's problem was his bombastic attitude of "publicly' espousing what could not be readily confirmed. Also, by questioning sacred literature was not the smartest move for Galileo considering the protestant revolt was reeking havoc. The church eventually did lift the condemnation by various steps with newer and supported discoverers:
1740-1758: Pope Benedict XIV partially unbanned Galileo's Dialogue and Copernican books
1757: The Index of 1757 finally allowed all heliocentric works to be published
1820-1835: The Church completely repealed the prohibition of Copernicanism
1893: Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus implicitly vindicated Galileo's biblical hermeneutics
1979-1992: Pope John Paul II partially, informally, and ambiguously rehabilitated Galileo
@@hglundahl Why is my comment not showing up? It was a somewhat lengthy detail. TH-cam can be frustrating.
I love you all, comnentators! Keep The Truth rolling!😊😊😊❤😊😊😊
33:01 Stellar aberration shifts direction by c. 20 arc seconds.
I've heard it uniformly explained this way: the light changes relative direction as the speed of earth does.
_"that prediction has also been verified"_ 34:11
Prediction, well, I don't think it was predicted until it was discovered.
The problem is, for Heliocentrics, this too can be explained with angelic movers. I've basically covered it when discussing parallax. Partly in comments someone took down.
From famous professor Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University:
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun - the plane of the earth around the sun - the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Robert Sungenis refutes yet another false claim in this video ..
"The equivalence of heliocentric and geocentric parallax is even recognized today in modern astronomy classes. In this version of the geocentric parallax, the stars are revolving around the sun once per year. Here are the notes from a 2004 course on astronomy from the University of Illinois:
It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives.43" -from Dr. Sungenis
Why do you keep pretending like you have a scientific background? Sungenis himself has none. You don't belong putting your oar into this conversation.
Nothing in our senses tells us that the earth moves.
36:28 _"if we get other data or get other tools"_
What about reusing those in currency with St. Thomas and Riccioli, namely theoretic tools of understanding stellar motions as acted by Angels?
Geocentrism uses the same science Fr. Paul claims to be an enthusist of. Funny hes so ignorant to Newtonian physics . He said Newtonian physics makes Geocentrism impossible... funny because he and Galileo admitted Geocentrism was viable and plausible in their own theories and systems...
The Earth functioning as the CENTER OF MASS in the Geocentric system allows for the larger mass of the Sun to revolve around the Earth with the Universe and all celestial bodies. Look it up. Fr. Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.
What's so interesting about the universe's center of mass? It's not a concept intended to explain the movement of celestial bodies. It is just a fiction we use to simplify calculations in complex systems. I think it's a bit rich, you saying that a former engineer doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to physics, but imagining that you do.
@@michaelj6453 Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving
Chapter 6 from "Geocentrism 101" by Dr. Robert Sungenis...
Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving
"As we can see, although Einstein was enjoying the new idea that everything in the universe was in relative motion and that there was no immobile center point, he now had to account for the fact that we were unable to detect any motion at all, or tell which object was revolving and which object was not. In not being able to detect motion, Einstein’s theory could not tell if the Earth was revolving around the sun or the sun and stars were revolving around the Earth.
Perhaps this handicap was the reason Einstein once admitted this startling consequence to his theory:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.74"
@@michaelj6453 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design":
"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
@@michaelj6453 a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8"
Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics:
"There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year.
Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
@@michaelj6453 As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American:
"I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13"
Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy:
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.
The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
Fr Paul's arguments in scripture and his scientific belief for modern science reminds me of this '“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
"We know now, (thanks to the gnostic scientists), that the Universe has no center." Fr Robinson should stick to Cathecism and moral teaching, and this is not a bitter criticism, he does that very well. Leave gnostic science to those outside the Church.
I wonder which Catechism Fr. Robinson is using. Is he another mole in SSPX, like Bishop Houander was?
It is nice see proof in the comments the world is waking up to the lies that the earth is an insignificant spinning speck.
@@elisehougesen6871do you think God is pleased with your accusatory comments?
Every "strong" claim that Geocentrism is unscientific by Fr. Paul has made him look more ignorant than a NOVICE.
Look, he even says that he isn't a scientist it's an OPINION, just like you have an opinion on geocentrism.
@@Vincent-r5p he made horrendous false assertions and mislead the audience. He needs corrected.
@@Vincent-r5p Einstein gives us a viable, plausible Geocentric Cosmology...
"We see that even at this early time, the “relative motion” argument was in vogue, although neither side knew that relative motion incorporated dynamic forces. They only knew the geometry of relative motion. Einstein mentions at least one of the dynamic forces as he notes “the existence of such centrifugal forces” in the previous paragraph. In another place, he mentions the Coriolis force in a June 25, 1913 letter to Ernst Mach:
Your happy investigations on the foundations of mechanics, Planck’s unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will receive brilliant confirmation. For it necessarily turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton’s pail experiment. The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper. The following additional points emerge: (1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.22 What Einstein is saying is there are two basic forces generated from the angular momentum of a rotating universe, the centrifugal and the Coriolis forces. These two forces, in combination, will cause all the celestial bodies to revolve daily around the universe’s central axis. Although the centrifugal force makes the celestial bodies move outward, the Coriolis force, registering twice the power of the centrifugal, forces the bodies inward, and the result of the two unequal vectors will be a net centripetal force making all the celestial bodies circle the universe’s center of mass at their respective declinations and ascensions.23 Moreover, a fixed Earth will necessarily share the same center of mass with the universe, and viola! we have Einstein’s alternative universe that is demanded by his General Relativity theory.
The problem with the Newtonians, however, was that they could not engage in a “relative motion” argument, since they had to insist on an absolute universe if their equations (F = GM1m2/r2 and F = ma) were going to pan out. But insisting on an absolute universe as the reality still meant they were required to answer how their equations would fit into a non-absolute world. After all, we see rotations and accelerations almost everywhere we look. What the Newtonians found was that if the system under observation is accelerating (i.e., rotating), the only way Newtonian mechanics could account for the acceleration was by mathematically adding in, by hand, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces. Modern science still does the same today when they send space probes to the planets." -from Scientific Heresies and their effect on the Church: a critique of "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" by Dr. Paul Robinson...
@@levipingleton-cv1fg like your opinion is correct? What do you know? For all I know you could be a flat earther. Lol
@@Vincent-r5p admitting that the Geocentric system is possible and plausible and viable is all Dr. Sungenis and I propose. I've successfully shown Fr. Robinson is in error or ignorance. My point is we'll made. End of discussion
I wish Dr. Brian McCall would interview the people in the comment section. Apparently, they’re the REAL scholars.
@@andrewdavis5386 Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving
Chapter 6 from "Geocentrism 101" by Dr. Robert Sungenis...
Einstein’s Special Relativity: Invented to Keep the Earth Moving
"As we can see, although Einstein was enjoying the new idea that everything in the universe was in relative motion and that there was no immobile center point, he now had to account for the fact that we were unable to detect any motion at all, or tell which object was revolving and which object was not. In not being able to detect motion, Einstein’s theory could not tell if the Earth was revolving around the sun or the sun and stars were revolving around the Earth.
Perhaps this handicap was the reason Einstein once admitted this startling consequence to his theory:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.74"
@@andrewdavis5386 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design":
"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
@@andrewdavis5386 a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8"
Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics:
"There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year.
Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
@@andrewdavis5386 As world-renowned physicist George F. R. Ellis notes in the 1995 October issue of Scientific American:
"I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.
In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.13"
Astronomer Fred Hoyle says much the same in his book, Nicolaus Copernicus, as he evens out the playing field in modern astronomy:
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense.
The two theories, when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another."
"Armchair scholars."
There is alot of compelling scientific evidence that that the sun is in the center.
Indeed. One of the arguments of geocentrists against helio is the earth is fixed, it doesn't spin on its' axis. Countering that notion we have inertial instruments that say otherwise. We also have the Foucault pendulum.
@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns I totally agree, we have probes and other space craft that confirms heliocentrism.
@@Vincent-r5p
Yes, and I'm with Fr. Robinson.
@@Vincent-r5p I was not going to add more, but ehh I'll go ahead. There is stellar parallax and aberration that help to demonstrate Earth's orbit around the sun.
The other sticking point that geocentrists always push is that Earth does not rotate. However, the very clear evidence aside from my original comment is the Foucault pendulum, and a big one the Coriolis effect.
A question one may ask, what would the atmosphere look like if the Earth did not rotate and had instead the Sun rotated around Earth? Patterns of wind would probably be more northerly southerly direction and less cyclonic. Come to think of it, our oceans currents would have very different flow patterns and maybe very little, and/or weak. The ice sheets would be far more significant and extent further towards the equator, since warmer currents will not be passing by to counteract them. The salinity of the oceans would be drastic in in certain parts causing other life forms to exists, or not except microbes. Basically, life would not exit as we know it except microbes and algae.
@@ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Geocentrists are just like flat earthers. No matter if you provide the most logical and true evidence, they will always be stubborn and think their view is right because they are stuck in their own world view.
Who needs to adhere to the consensus of the early church fathers, sacred scripture (i.e. Joshua), the Michelson- Morley experiments or Einstein's general theory of relativity (evolution of physics)? Just listen to modern
atheist philosophers.
😅😂😢😅😅
"Nothing is inmovil". Can the spirit of the times (revolutionary spirit since the Luteran Revolution) push a new science? I mean...It is a retorical question.
It is good to pray Father goes back to the drawing board here. This issue along with evolution is the root cause of the sickness in the Church and world today. If Catholics change their world view back to Gods word then the SSPX would have no need to exist in schism.
Let’s see a debate with Robert Sungenis and Father on the actual science.
Robert Sungenis has no scientific background.
// listening to your explanation um it it really 35:22 sounds like these Principles of Scientific Method are are actually a great statement in humility //
(Brian McCall speaking)
I don't see why it is humbly to either forget or deny the possibility of angelic movers.
21:29 Pass this around ten people:
Joshua 10:12.
Is the mention of sun and moon in Joshua's prayer, directed to God, or after the prayer, directed to sun and moon on behalf of God?
I think you would find, unless they had been briefed beforehand, most would say "directed to sun and moon," and "after the prayer" ... at least as long as you don't ask them to figure in the following.
The salient question is not just "can verse 13 be explained in phenomenological language, because it was the sun and moon that normally look like moving, and it looked like it was them that stopped moving?" ... there is at least some kind of hint in Providentissimus Deus the answer could be yes, provided there was nothing else that was different.
However, the words of Joshua are NOT describing what Joshua sees, they say what Joshua orders to happen, with power to his words given by God. It would be very remarkable if this were the case and his words were not directed to whatever they would logically need to adress, just because he was in an error God didn't correct or his audience were so.
God was fully aware of how the verse 13 would be taken in the Galileo process, by none less than the Dominican Caccini, and He was also fully aware how I would take, perhaps others also will take, verse 12.
He had also had 40 years in which He could have given the Hebrews relevant cosmologic information, or if He had found no use for that, He could also have avoided the Solar Miracle and used another miracle instead.
_"Oh, He had to do a Solar miracle because of the Solar Deities, you say?"_
Well, if He could take into account the false deities of back then, He could certainly also take into account the falsehoods and the interests of truth in 1633 or 2024 after a Birth which happened 1470 years later. Our Lord's.
22:03 Trent Session IV.
The ban was not directed against trusting one's own judgement. The ban was directed against contradicting a definite judgement of the Church, which 1822 isn't on the Bible meaning, it's a freeforall for debate, but which 1633 is. It is especially directed against contradicting sth the Church holds if the Church _hath_ already _held_ it, rather than sth the Church holds in contradiction or at least obvious contrast to previously. It is also doubled by stating the unanimous position of the CCFF needs to be held to. It could be added to, possibly, but cannot be contradicted.
David Palm, the friend of Fr. Robinson, and kind of my friend too, found no Church Father who embraced Heliocentrism as truth. His one example was a passage in which one CF enumerated discoveries of the philosophers, and it is not totally clear from the CCFF in general that this meant approval of said discoveries. It is highly probable that that CF mentioned the "discovery" of [Heliocentrism] with tongue in cheek.
By contrast, St. Augustine, in Book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, makes it very clear:
* the earth is round
* the light-hemisphere of heaven went around earth up to day three and starting out day four
* from day four on, it's instead the sun that does so
* and since this means all of the time there is day somewhere and night somewhere, the time zone that counts for the creation days is that of Jerusalem, where Adam was created.
This is, very unlike the obscure passage found by David Palm, formal exegesis, not precisely of Joshua (though I think Questiones in Octateuchum would give a similar result in favour of Round Earth Geocentrism for Joshua), but of a passage in the Bible, namely Genesis 1. It is also, however ridiculous it may feel to someone raised in a modern culture, and not used to questioning it, not anything like tongue in cheek.
This episode was the most misleading, ignorant thing ive ever watched. Fr. Paul made false claim one after another after another. So full of holes, so much misleading misinformation. Nearly everything stated, especially scientifically, is so bad.
And what do you know about science?
@@michaelj6453 enough to write professionally on it and be hired by Dr. Robert Sungenis personally...
Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design":
"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
// we have an idea 35:50 we test it //
How do you test theories about how the stars move?
When it comes to cars, there are lots of ways of testing diesel, gasoline or electricity (depending on type) plays a crucial role and will only work in a contraption called a motor.
But stars are too far off for testing.
You cannot halt the Solar System, take away one body, and see how that affects the movements of the other ones.
You cannot tell an angel to stop moving its body (unless you are Joshua!) and see if it moves without an Angelic Mover.
Riccioli doesn't resolve the question by testing, but by theological aptness.
23:10 I suppose you are speaking of Flood Gates of Heaven, and I would say the opening of these was the merging of a layer of Oxygen with a layer of Hydrogen in the higher parts of the atmosphere as Brown's gas, and its ignition.
The closing of the Flood Gates would be the depletion of that layer as that water came down into Deep Seas and water cycle.
Again, nothing which per se indicates a Flat Earth. It can be made to sound "Flat Earth-ish" by association, but it is not Flat Earth, nor otherwise opposed to what we know or can reasonably guess about this time.
22:53 This could be an indication God wants Israel to exist in some form, though certainly not for its massacres in Gaza.
Four corners would be places where the Jews in Acts 2 were not coming from.
In the first century, the First Pentecost, Jews were not arriving from Alaska, Sakhalin, Hobart and close to Cape Horn. Since 1948 they have been arriving from such places.
Based on the comments against Fr. Robinson, many hardline geocentrists have shown to simply have an emotional investment in their cause. We all have a feeling brain & a thinking brain; the challenge is staying on task and using the thinking brain. Father Robinson has his thinking brain engaged in this interview. Thank goodness the Catholic Church gave us St Thomas Aquinas!
Mach came to two vital conclusions. The first dealt with the geometrics of the universe; the second with the dynamics:
Obviously it matters little if we think of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at rest while the fixed stars revolve around it.
Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.13 All masses, all velocities, thus all forces are relative. There is no basis for us to decide between relative and absolute motion….If there are still modern authors who, through the Newtonian water bucket arguments, allow themselves to be misled into differentiating between relative and absolute motion, they fail to take into account that the world system has been given to us only once, but the Ptolemaic and Copernican views are only our interpretations, but both equally true.14 Although in this treatise Mach does not himself adopt geocentrism, he repeatedly challenges modern science that geocentrism is not only a viable alternative, but it substantially answers the famous 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment-the experiment that forced a choice between a stationary Earth and the Special Theory of Relativity.
I chose to believe the Bible and the saints. I don't have time to lose here. I'll pass. Thank you.
Amen! Same here. I'll try to listen to this, know your enemy, but probably won't be able to stomach more than 10 minutes.
It's sad to see a Catholic priest who is not a scientist, try to twist and do mental gymnastics to accommodate scripture to science. Einstein himself said that it was totally plausible for the earth to be stationary and the universe rotate around it. You do great damage to the faith by not knowing what you speak of.
And you're a scientist? Father Robinson was an engineer before going to seminary. What are your credentials?
@@michaelj6453 He isn't, but went to the school of a Robert Sungenis who takes advantage of those with little to nothing with regards to cosmology, physics, and biblical hermeneutics.
// would claim that um I I just you you could you 34:34 can't you can't account for these phenomena with a geocentric model //
One can very well, with Angelic Movers.
In that case, both the aberration change of angle and the parallax change of angle are Angels performing a kind of dance with the Stars as their lanterns.
Newton added, however, that, strictly speaking, the Earth does not revolve around the sun; rather, both the sun and the Earth revolve around a mutual center of gravity (or center of mass). But since the center of gravity is closer to the sun, for all practical purposes the Earth revolves around the sun. At least so it seemed to Newton and the people of his day.
Appealing to the center of mass between the sun and the Earth seemed to be the clinching argument to settle the heliocentric versus geocentric debate. Since Newton’s equation, F = ma, could be demonstrated and measured in the laboratory, there was little opposition that the geocentric position could mount, except to rely on their theological and philosophical convictions and hope that science would gain more knowledge later to confirm those convictions.
Hence Mach, in opposition to Newton, argued that no movement on Earth escapes the gravitational influence of the stars. Whereas Newton believed the Earth revolved around the sun against the background of a fixed but empty absolute and immovable space, in which the stars did not contribute any force, Mach argued that space was permeated by the gravity of the stars. In a word, whereas Newton believed in an Absolute Space, Mach introduced the concept of an Absolute Gravity. Hence, not space, but matter which produces gravitational force, such as what we find in the stars, can serve as the fixed background to measure any terrestrial or celestial movement.
Mach’s new insight into the universe led him to conclude that there was no difference between a rotating Earth in a fixed star field as opposed to the star field rotating around a fixed Earth. Both systems would produce identical forces and motions.
Newton Insisted that space was “absolute,” that is, that it didn’t move. In other words, since Newton’s laws would only work if he kept the universe fixed, his physics could not accommodate the case when the universe is rotating. Unfortunately, his inability to consider the reciprocal case was presumptuously interpreted in his day as “proof” that the Earth was rotating in a fixed universe. This was certainly a case of the logical fallacy of petitio principii, that is, using as proof the very thing one is trying to prove. In reality, it demonstrated that Newtonian physics had a “defect,” as Mach and Einstein would later point out.18 They argued that accelerated frames, not just inertial frames, must also be accounted for in order for the physics to be complete and universally applicable. That is, Newton should not have arbitrarily eliminated the universe when he made his equations of motion. As such, Mach and Einstein eliminated the Newtonian “proof” for a fixed universe and a rotating Earth and allowed for the possibility of a rotating universe around a fixed Earth. Physicist Denis Sciama said it more practically:
Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.19
In Mach’s and Einstein’s physics, if the frame accelerates (e.g., the universe rotates), it will produce forces on objects within the system, which forces are called centrifugal (outward), Coriolis (inward, circular) and Euler (sideways) forces.
Why would Newton say that? He believed in heliocentrism. Oh wait, you didn't continue what else he said to disprove that statement he said.
// but from the 35:36 mid Middle Ages philosophy of science of the scientific method //
Unlike modern versions of it, the method of astronomy in the Middle Ages very much didn't exclude angelic movers.
I object to the idea of "the scientific method" as if it were one thing, and so would they have done. From Aristotle, they would have picked up that in each enquiry search the degree of certainty by the methods appropriate for the specific question.
You cannot have the same certainty about whether Blücher or Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo or even whether he was beaten, as you can about 2 + 2 = 4. And you cannot approach this with the same method either.
Now, one could say history is not a "scientia" but a "historia" which is something else. It involves knowing about in ways that do not guarantee understanding. But between "historia" which falls outside "scientia" proper and arithmetic or logic, there are lots of shades in between.
And as Medievals understood astronomy, Angelic Movers were most certainly NOT excluded. While Riccioli differs from the Thomistic view on what moves Heaven as a whole each day, and says it's actually different celestial bodies proceeding in a void, while St. Thomas held God moved Heaven as a whole and individual celestial bodies were if anything moving the other direction, namely for instance Sun going around the Zodiac West to East in one year, or Moon going around the Zodiac West to East in one Sidereal Month (the Lunar month proper is the Synodic month, which comes from a combination of Sidereal month with year), both authors agreed that individual celestial bodies were moved each by an angel.
Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
I P, Q 70, Article 3. Whether the lights of heaven are living beings?
a world class physicist currently living in England, Julian Barbour, stated in his recent book Absolute or Relative Motion: "Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and if so, in what precise sense...8"
Other physicists, in passing, have made similar comments. I. Bernard Cohen, a famous physicist in the United States, wrote these words in his book, The Birth of a New Physics:
"There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove that the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope can be accommodated to the system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system, the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn move in orbits around the sun, while the sun moves in an orbit around the earth in a year.
Furthermore, the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the sun and planets, so that the earth itself neither rotates nor revolves in an orbit.9"
Geocentrism is a simple inversion of the Copernican Heliocentric System.. which General Relativity and Machian physics require in order to present viable and plausible models. In order to present a working model, the inversion too, must be visble and plausible. Fr. Paul is simply completely ignorant to the other side of his blindly biased conclusions.
22:22 I have taken into account all three types of passages used by Flat Earth, and have shown each faulty as to their exegesis, meaning the verses as such are perfectly compatible with the Round Earth we inhabit.
The Four Corners have often been retranslated as "Four Quarters" but this is not the case in Apocalypse 7:1. There is a reason for it, angels do not enjoy ubiquity, they are in places, not the same way as corporeal creatures, but they do not naturally bilocate. However, I can point to "Four" precisely "Corners" on a globe, you know those artefacts that show the earth. Where there is a corner, there is a rim, and there are rims on such a globe. These are rims of continents.
The Four Corners are places where a Northern or South adjacent or southern rim of a continent meets a Western or Eastern rim of continents.
Outside such a rim, you don't need a space ship, you simply need a ship.
A certain James Hannam pretended the language on different topics including this one a) was taken figuratively by CCFF, b) had not started out as figurative in the hagiographers.
I clarified I was taking this as perfectly literal statements. I also later, after Hannam had declined further debate, checked this in St. Thomas' exposition of Job.
_"Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi tota terra simul concutiatur in terraemotu, sed quia aliquae extremitates terrae concutiuntur."_
// it's 34:40 just possible to design a model a geocentric model that would predict 34:47 these outcomes like what what what are the forces that would cause this //
I would say that when Angels act on Matter, they are not using as much as producing forces.
// I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic-that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion. //
I Pars, Q 110, Article 3. Whether bodies obey the angels as regards local motion?
21:47 _"He has chosen to do that through the Church"_
Well, the Church did, in 1633.
Fr. Robinson presupposes that heliocentrism is right and falls into argument from incredulity fallacy unfortunately.
Didn’t he say in this interview that “we know now that heliocentrism is false”
@@didymussumydid9726Where did he say that, sorry I missed it.
@@pirigal6689around 15 minutes
@@didymussumydid9726 time stamp?
Is it just me or are you misinterpreting what he is saying? In my opinion I think you people who believe this, are ignorant, and want to believe your own world view no matter what.
22:37 the downward wedges of tectonic plates and certain pillar like structures inside the earth crust apart from that would give literal sense to "pillars" ...
Mathematically speaking, the earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun along with other planets. For me, math is a way to find the truth of things and as an affirmation of things created by God. What I find interesting is the uniqueness of the earth. The book and documentary film "The Privelegded Planet" explains in some detail how the earth is unique withing the Milkyway galaxy and, perhaps, in the universe for sustaining life and allowing for discovery. From the beginning of man, it seems God has created things large and small so we may both caretakers of these things and to discover an apparent endless list of answers to questions these things pose. For example, how do bacteria transport itself through liquid, how big is the universe, how do the planets orbit the sun, or in discovering new animal or plant species. It also surprises me that with any answer revealed, there are many more questions that pop up relating to that answer. God has created all of these things for us.
The Math works the same with Geostatic Geocentrism... you are quite ignorant. You can even WIKIPEDIA that one 😂
Relativity requires that the simple Inversion of the Copernican Heliocentriic System with a stationary Earth and the Universe and all celestial bodies rotating around it, to be EQUALLY VIABLE AND PLAUSIBLE.
Stellar Parallax is NOT evidence for Heliocentrism. It works the same in the Neo-Tychonic Geocentric Cosmological System... nice try Fr. Paul.
"Mathematically speaking, the earth spins on its axis and orbits around the sun along with other planets...."
Where is your measuring point? Where can you sit in the universe and prove your 'mathematics'?
@@karlthomas2429 Stephen Hawking from his book "Grand Design":
"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.7"
40:48 Newton's physics state the resultants of certain factors _provided nothing interferes._
Newton's physics cannot exclude the possibility that something outside Newtonian physics, namely freewill with powers over matter, God's and angels' wills, interferes.
If I show you the height of my hand and you have already weighed the grams in my ball point pen, you can calculate with what force the pen will hit the floor if I just drop it and do not interfere further.
This is not in any way, shape or form a guarantee I wouldn't prefer to catch the pen with the other hand, rather than let it hit the floor.
Now, you could obviously pretend that St. Thomas somewhere said "everything" in nature is moved by God only through secondary movers. Not true. Some of the secondary movers will be such that God immediately is moving them, otherwise the series of secondary movers would be infinite, and that would not just be impossible but also destroy the point of prima via.
C. S. Lewis actually made a very apt remark in the book _Miracles._ His point was, "miracles don't break the laws of nature, but adds to them" ... and his illustration was sth like this.
Suppose pool tables and pool balls to be placed in a steamer that experiences some rolling. Suppose a physicist to be standing by, _observing,_ -- at some point he will be able to start making calculations that are able to predict the movements. But he will himself insist that his calculations are only valid provided nothing interferes. He is not able from his physics to predict how likely I am to take up a queue and push a ball in a different direction.
His point was for those special occasions on Earth where divine moving visibly takes the place of what normally secondary movers would be moving differently. But similar observations are totally valid for not just Creation week, not just the punitive miracle of the Flood, but also for if some continuous processes at their normal state directly require divine intervention to go on. Usually a conservative Christian will very well admit that existence as such requires God to provide it "second by second" ... that would correspond to Tertia Via. However, there is a Biblical case I've already touched on for a similar observation, related to Geocentric observations, with Prima Via.
Ratzinger saw the situation now, it was completely different than it was in 1962 under the ‘Galileo mentality’ of the Vatican II prelature:
Today, things have changed. According to Bloch, the heliocentric system-just like the geocentric-is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: “From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”10
// if the Jesuits who did that had lived long enough to see it they would say well we thought that but now 36:10 that we have this stronger telescope their successors at least could do it say we we're now open to change that //
The guys like Settele or Jesuits eventually supporting him (or preceding him, as Boscovich, who believed aberration to be aberration, not stars moved by Angelic Movers) were very clearly not motivated just by a changing view of things.
The aberration had NOT been predicted or discussed, as in Galileo's and St. Robert's time, both parties believed the speed of light to be infinite. Ole Rømer more or less proved a finite speed of light only in 1675.
The parallax of Bessel was different from the parallax discussed by Galileo and St. Robert.
All observations even with better telescopes are taken from the Earth, and are as such Geocentric. All Heliocentrism comes by re-interpretation of what is actually observed.
Father Robinson has a clear view on what the Catholic Church teaches on matters of religion (period). Thank you!
I do ask (and challenge) Father Robinson to provide a series on how diets and religion are not related either. Certain foods are actually considered ‘evil’ by many.
Good meaning people often try to proselytize certain diets like a religious practice as if God wants us to eat a certain way.
This is a growing trend which only divides. Families can no longer break bread together.
Regarding the obsessive Jewish dietary laws, Christ was quite clear on the matter. He explained to them that it was not what went into the body that defiles the man, but what comes out.
Have you ever even heard of Saints Chrysosyom, Basil, Ephraim or the Danascene, all doctors of the Church? What do dietary laws have to do with cold hard facts. The earth ain't moving. The true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Moses! Not the deist god of the freemasons.
// we have a very powerful telescopes now where we're able to uh 34:14 detect the Stellar aberration for for stars close closer to us and we're able 34:20 to detect the Stellar parallax for stars from what I understand within 3,000 light years //
Father Robinson does not actually understand the science.
Aberration does not change with the distance of the star. It's supposed (by the interpretation it has its name from) to be due to the speed of earth through the light. This does not vary with how far away or close the light was emitted from (outside Earth and Moon, obviously).
Parallax is measured against the backdrop of aberration, and aberration has been observable (if aberration is the right cause assignment for changing angle) since Bradley, in 1727.
The ability of very modern telescopes to measure parallax for 3000 light years away (if true) is not relevant for the observation of aberration.
Google: "Fr. Paul Robinson vs. Robert Sungenis"
Anyone who adheres to Heliocentrism cannot complain about paganism. Ever.
Good point.
14:43 Awesome Dr Sungenis probably more the happy to listen
The problem here is, Fr. Paul Robinson is a modernist.
Vatican II, SSPX, Geocentrism - Fr. Ripperger (18 Sept 2024) th-cam.com/video/gEKdA4xx6io/w-d-xo.html
@@ninjagaiden4267 Thank you for sharing.
@@pirigal6689 Google: "Fr. Paul Robinson vs. Robert Sungenis"
What's next? Flat Earth Theory?
The credibility of the SSPX has been devastated... in addition to the fact of Bergoglio not being a valid pope, the Earth is not moving and there is no curvature! Galileo and Copernicus were horribly and clearly wrong...🙄
I’m very disappointed with father Paul’s arguments, they are at best amateurish. He appears to be biased in favour of the heliocentric model. The bible is very clear on this issue and it has not yet been resolved scientifically. We should seek the truth no matter the consequences. Science is controlled by powerful secular institutions who abhor the notion of the existence of God.
Paganism heliocentrism. They even named the planets to pagan gods and goddesses. It is the worship of the sun.
Wouldn't it be great if Father was a Bishop?
😮😮😮😮Ahhhhhhwahhhhh😢😢😢😢😢
Not really
Archbishop Lefebvre would never have picked him he would have Galileoed him.
Vatican II, SSPX, Geocentrism - Fr. Ripperger (18 Sept 2024) th-cam.com/video/gEKdA4xx6io/w-d-xo.html