On the Geocentrism point, you need a science update. Materialists tried for a long time to argue that the physical universe was finite and eternal (philosophically, something has to be infinite and eternal, and if it is not God, it must be matter). But modern science and the big bang theory proved that the material universe had a beginning, a finite size, and a possible ending. Also, Einstein made the rather technical argument that the universe could not be an infinite space with an even density of stars and galaxies because the infinite series that describes light coming to the earth from far away does not converge. If the material universe were truly infinite and had a constant density of shining matter, the night sky would be brighter than the sun instead of the 4 degree Kelvin afterimage of the big bang.
To modern physicists it looks like there is one finite material universe that started with a flash of light, the big bang, and that about 100 physical constants just happen to have absolutely values within small ranges that are absolutely necessary for life to exist, as if a super mind designed the universe.
Ah, good grief. I do wish the German bishops, along with the authors of the PAL book would just pack up and move to another church (Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) Or start their own. Just quit messing with the Catholic Church.
Jul 16, 2022·edited Jul 16, 2022Liked by Ed. Condon
An argument based on "where is the reference point" is perfectly valid - especially given modern physics. I have never thought to revisit the heliocentrism argument from this perspective. Well played Ed.
"It would seem that contemporary society in general has a disturbing propensity for either accepting or tolerating many falsehoods, and particularly in the latter case, necessarily exhibiting a high level of collective, cognitive dissonance. In some instances, the greater the falsehood presented, the greater its acceptance or tolerance. This is particularly troublesome in the sciences, where, notwithstanding the repeated claim that scientists are inherently and culturally objective and dispassionate, certain concepts and theories are embraced or taken for granted without any direct empirical evidence. While it would be outside the scope of this website to address the problem systemically, the magnitude and implications of the problem exposited herein should be sufficient for the reader to question the extent of critical thinking generally in most if not all fields of contemporary scientific and academic inquiry."
Now that some women have been appointed to the Dicastery for Bishops, there will be some deeper consideration of who really are appropriate candidates for bishop, other than merely a patron who is a cardinal or archbishop. From my own experience working as a diocesan Human Resources director, if the bishop had considered my suggestions as often as principals and pastors did, he might not be In the situation he is now. Women simply have a different eye and greater intuitive abilities that can complement male decisionmaking, if allowed to participate.
So mathematically, treating the solar system geocentrically or heliocentrically is just a (or, rather, three) shift(s) in reference frame, but it's easier to do the math in the physics in most cases treating it as heliocentric.
Some of the previous discussion would be helped by realizing that the space of the universe is expanding, so that the farther apart two things are (assuming they're not strongly bound together gravitationally), the faster they are expanding away from each other. If they get far enough apart (apparently, almost 14 billion light years), they are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. That means that the light from one never will reach the other.
On the Geocentrism point, you need a science update. Materialists tried for a long time to argue that the physical universe was finite and eternal (philosophically, something has to be infinite and eternal, and if it is not God, it must be matter). But modern science and the big bang theory proved that the material universe had a beginning, a finite size, and a possible ending. Also, Einstein made the rather technical argument that the universe could not be an infinite space with an even density of stars and galaxies because the infinite series that describes light coming to the earth from far away does not converge. If the material universe were truly infinite and had a constant density of shining matter, the night sky would be brighter than the sun instead of the 4 degree Kelvin afterimage of the big bang.
To modern physicists it looks like there is one finite material universe that started with a flash of light, the big bang, and that about 100 physical constants just happen to have absolutely values within small ranges that are absolutely necessary for life to exist, as if a super mind designed the universe.
Read about this and more in The Great Transformation: How Contemporary Science Harmonizes with the Spiritual Life. https://www.amazon.com/Great-Transformation-Contemporary-Harmonizes-Spiritual/dp/B09GJFZ6QL
Ah, good grief. I do wish the German bishops, along with the authors of the PAL book would just pack up and move to another church (Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) Or start their own. Just quit messing with the Catholic Church.
millerent@charter.net
It would be wonderful to receive advice as to how one can arrange The Pillar to fit to the screen.
An argument based on "where is the reference point" is perfectly valid - especially given modern physics. I have never thought to revisit the heliocentrism argument from this perspective. Well played Ed.
This is probably as close to a Wolfgang Smith shout out as will ever appear in the Pillar. I'll count that as a win.
I'm not affiliated with this gentleman but happily add his work to your discussion ...
https://planegeodesy.com
"It would seem that contemporary society in general has a disturbing propensity for either accepting or tolerating many falsehoods, and particularly in the latter case, necessarily exhibiting a high level of collective, cognitive dissonance. In some instances, the greater the falsehood presented, the greater its acceptance or tolerance. This is particularly troublesome in the sciences, where, notwithstanding the repeated claim that scientists are inherently and culturally objective and dispassionate, certain concepts and theories are embraced or taken for granted without any direct empirical evidence. While it would be outside the scope of this website to address the problem systemically, the magnitude and implications of the problem exposited herein should be sufficient for the reader to question the extent of critical thinking generally in most if not all fields of contemporary scientific and academic inquiry."
Now that some women have been appointed to the Dicastery for Bishops, there will be some deeper consideration of who really are appropriate candidates for bishop, other than merely a patron who is a cardinal or archbishop. From my own experience working as a diocesan Human Resources director, if the bishop had considered my suggestions as often as principals and pastors did, he might not be In the situation he is now. Women simply have a different eye and greater intuitive abilities that can complement male decisionmaking, if allowed to participate.
So mathematically, treating the solar system geocentrically or heliocentrically is just a (or, rather, three) shift(s) in reference frame, but it's easier to do the math in the physics in most cases treating it as heliocentric.
Some of the previous discussion would be helped by realizing that the space of the universe is expanding, so that the farther apart two things are (assuming they're not strongly bound together gravitationally), the faster they are expanding away from each other. If they get far enough apart (apparently, almost 14 billion light years), they are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. That means that the light from one never will reach the other.
This is what happens when I go on vacation …