vendredi 26 octobre 2012

A Difference or Two with Sungenis

As all know who have heard of Sungenis, basically, he is Geocentric. As all know who have read much in my blogs recently, so am I.

A few reservations.

1) I agree that Church Fatehrs were Geocentric, but that was by default. Pagan Heliocentrics were Pythagorean or Demokritus school, neither of which had continued to flourish on their own up to Patristic times. Heliocentrism was a dead issue. Plato and Aristotle ruled the Philosophic world. And they were as Geocentric as the Church Fathers.

2) The exact criterium of the Council of Trent cannot be made to fit Heliocentrism-Acentrism. Biblical inerrancy - notably of Joshua - maybe can. I have had an extra exegesis of that passage in reserve if either I should find Geocentrism disproven (which has not yet happened) or a priest should ask me to reveal it. But the simplest exegesis is the Geocentric one and the Church Fathers are, at least by default, behind it. [Sungenis cites Bellarmine (1616) reproving Galileo about the Moon - which would have continued moving if it was only the earth that stopped rotating, and the condemnation (1633) condemns as heretical the proposition that the Sun does not move as observed: no difference remaining here]

3) 2) In science and recent discoveries there is one domain where I suspect a possible proof against Geocentrism: if a spacecraft gets off an earth staying still in its place, earth will remain in origo of its travel, but if earth moves, it will move out of origo and back into it. Is there a back door to this -except calling the bluff about those spacecrafts? I have not found it in Sungenis recently. I am not sure if it was that or only geostationary satellites which he answered when earlier his Q & A list was longer (now it starts on Q101).

However, I had argued that not only a free fall downward but also a projection upward of things like rockets would give freedom to gravity or whatever other influence the spinning universe exercises to spin a rocket around us daily. I wonder if either that spin in its turn could give it some freedom to align around sun (since one of the spacecrafts has had a very straight flight out of the Solar System as it seems if taking sun as centre) or otherwise there has been some non-checking about exact positions in the meanwhile. But I have not taken out the line of thought so as to either exclude or definitely include this as a possibility. The other option for a Geocentric is calling that a fraud: for the moon at least that is not necessary.*

Now I got the reservations off my chest, here are a few differences between us as precisely Geocentrics.

i) In Q 138 is asked and answered:

2) In order to observe parallaxes, stars are "fixed" with regard to the sun. Is this right?

R. Sungenis: It depends on what one means by “fixed to the sun.” The stars do not revolve around the sun and thus do not have the sun as their center; rather, the sun and the stars revolve around the earth. But the stars are aligned with the sun, and in that sense they are “fixed to the sun.” END

Now, I would argue this is not necessary. If some stars move in time with the sun (parallax, positive parallax), others do not move (nil parallax), others move "by own movement" (as supposing parallax is an oblique look at our supposed movement around the sun), others have even "negative parallax," i e spin in time with the sun but in the opposite direction. Heliocentrics count this as "obervation error", but such "observation errors" are just as big as the "parallaxes" which do not count as "observation errors".

ij) Now, if each heavenly body is moved by a spirit - hold it, there is no physical obstacle to this and it was a common belief for instance in Paris in the times of St Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Tempier and their Averroist adversaries - then they can very well be moved in time with the sun, but in very much smaller movements.

iij) In such a case, distance measuring from "stellar parallax" break down. This does not mean that the stars could be just as few miles away. Actually they can be hidden by Sun, Moon and other Planets. Meaning their distance is lesser than distance to the stars. And starting from observations of Moon from two opposite points of Equator and of sunlight reflected on it, distances inside Solar System (as it is called) can be measured with some accuracy. We know the stars are further away than that.

We do not know how much further away than furthest object reflecting sunlight.

If earth moves yearly, parallax can be used, because we have two angles and one distance known. If not, it cannot, since we have only one angle and no distance.

This, of course, means that the 18 hours of orbit of 55 Cancri e around the star Cancri e are less hard to explain than if 55 Cancri e were sufficiently distant to have a radius twice that of earth.

iv) It also means stars could be close enough to have started shining on day four and their light reaching earth just in time for the first Sabbath evening. The Sabbath of the Old Testament commemorated the Creation work's completion and today the Jews count Sabbath evening as starting when two stars shine. Two light days or less is very much less of a problem to Young Earth Creationism than the supposed Thousands of Light Years and the supposed Light Rays reaching earth created in complete length from star the moment it was created. Though that would obviously not have posed any difficulty for God's might, it might be considered as a less well ordered creation.

v) A very minor point: St Thomas Aquinas does not say there are three Heavens - sky, space, heaven of the blessed - but rather several heavens between the sky and the Heaven of the blessed. However these are three basic meanings of the word "heaven". Even on Tychonian views, Moon, Sun, Fixed Stars would each have a sphere constituting a heaven.

But that does not mean I do not appreciate Sungenis. I only miss the first 100 Qs on his Q & A list.**

And though I think he might be wrong on certain details, I admire his gigantic work. Consider me a dwarf looking from that giant (but also other giant) shoulders.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sts Évariste et Rustique

*See "Moontruth"? Why?

**Linked from: Galileo was Wrong: Q and A

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire