For another perspective on Geocentrism, see our interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis: ua-cam.com/video/carL44boCk4/v-deo.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
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)
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.
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."
@@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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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"
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...🙄
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.
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."
@@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
"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'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."
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
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"
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.
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.
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"
For another perspective on Geocentrism, see our interview with Dr. Robert Sungenis: ua-cam.com/video/carL44boCk4/v-deo.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.
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)
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!
Fr. Robinson and Dr. Sungenis need to talk.
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.
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."
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."
"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?
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.
Please see Dr. Sungenis great and detailed rebuttal of Trent Horn evolution and big bang and what the church fathers and popes have taught.
I love you all, comnentators! Keep The Truth rolling!😊😊😊❤😊😊😊
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.
😅😂😢😅😅
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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."
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?
I chose to believe the Bible and the saints. I don't have time to lose here. I'll pass. Thank you.
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"
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...🙄
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.
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."
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
"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.
14:43 Awesome Dr Sungenis probably more the happy to listen
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."
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.
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"
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.
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.
Vatican II, SSPX, Geocentrism - Fr. Ripperger (18 Sept 2024) ua-cam.com/video/gEKdA4xx6io/v-deo.html
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"
There is alot of compelling scientific evidence that that the sun is in the center.
What's next? Flat Earth Theory?
Anyone who adheres to Heliocentrism cannot complain about paganism. Ever.
Wouldn't it be great if Father was a Bishop?
😮😮😮😮Ahhhhhhwahhhhh😢😢😢😢😢
Not really
Vatican II, SSPX, Geocentrism - Fr. Ripperger (18 Sept 2024) ua-cam.com/video/gEKdA4xx6io/v-deo.html