galileo was wrong?

So say a small group of Catholics though the Church is reacting by distancing from them and their “flat earth” style notions. Full story here. First evolution, now this–what next?


12 thoughts on “galileo was wrong?”

  1. Actually Catholics believe in evolution. You’re thinking of a select few weirdo evangelists. The Catholic Church has a study center for evolution at the Vatican. They simply believe that evolution was divinely-inspired (ie: God directed the process of evolution).

    1. Thanks so much for explaining that. Now I have a question for you. Do you think that those (few) Catholics who have embraced geocentrism have anything in common with the evangelists? (Who aren’t just a few weirdos–have you seen the stats on the percentage of Americans who don’t take evolution as a fact?)

  2. Hmm, I thought we got over the Galileo thing a few centuries ago! To me, a god who can create complex and evolving physical systems like the ones we see is much more impressive than one who just builds essentially plasticene models.

  3. Just as a point of interest.

    A paper published on the arxiv.org site just a few weeks ago provides a remarkable summary of the recent observations showing a truly remarkable Earth-oriented structure on the universe’s very largest observable scales.

    The cited papers, from the last decade or so, help explain from whence the present, sudden resurgence of interest in geocentrism proceeds:


    Relevant excerpts:

    “Cosmological observations on the largest scales exhibit a solid record of unexpected anomalies and alignments, apparently pointing towards a large scale violation of statistical isotropy……

    “The CMB is one of the most powerful sources of detailed information about our Universe at practically all possible length scales. In our case we are interested in the largest scales which roughly corresponds to looking at the lowest multipoles….there is a very easily identifiable preferred axis, the cosmological dipole once again; that is, the normal vectors to the planes determined by the quadrupole and the octopole (there are four of them) point all in the same direction, that of the ecliptic or equinox3.”

    >> Just to be clear, please understand that the author has just told us that the largest observable structure in the universe is oriented with respect to Earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes.

    I believe it is fair to see that such a thing is utterly astounding, from within the framework of Relativity, of the Copernican Principle, and of concordance cosmology.

    “Observing very distant quasars, the authors of [6–8] have found evidence for a statistically significant correlation in the linear polarisation angles of photons in the optical spectrum over huge distances of order of 1 Gpc. In particular, they have found that these vectors tend to identify an axis in the sky which closely align with the direction of the cosmological dipole.”

    >> Again, just to be clarify- the same axis coincides with the observed polarization of light from quasars, from all directions of the sky.

    The existence of such a preferred axis would be astonishing on its own. That it coincides with the CMB axis, much more so. That both are oriented precisely with the Earth’s equinox and ecliptic……….


    “Let us stress here that the most important feature of all the observational findings reviewed in the previous section is the fact that they require a mechanism operating on unbelievably large scales, which generates coherence among disparate light signals from diverse sources.”

    >> The coherence, again, consisting precisely in a universe-spanning axis, oriented precisely with respect to the supposedly insignificant Earth.

  4. Thanks Rick. That is reallly some super good material you provided.

    Query! Why is it that so many otherwise serious thinking people immediately close their mind when it comes to the subject of geocentrism. I am afraid that the fantastical science of Einstein is headed for the chopping block and disposal, but the battle will be fierce because the scientific establishment/elite is facing the biggest embarrassment over arguably the biggest scientific blunder in the history of the world! They thought we were just some little speck wandering in some little nondescript corner of the universe. They got some real splainen to do!

    Look it up — the Planck Particle that is. Look up the infinitesimal smallness of Planck Dimension. Now imagine two characters the size of Planck Particles were both in the middle of a bowling ball. Let us say further that the bowling ball is turning at the speed of one rotation per 24 hours.

    Proportionately that bowling ball would be immensely bigger to the two Planck size characters at the center than the known universe is to us. That should give you an indication of how small a Planck size particle would be! One of the characters is arguing that the ball (proportionately the same size to them as our Earth is to us) that they are standing on is not rotating once every 24 hours, but that instead the bowling ball is. The other one argues vehemently the opposite holding that the ball they are standing on is rotating and the immensely bigger bowling ball is not. Why? Well, because it’s just so darn big? Who is right?

    An omnipotent God could rotate our universe once every microsecond if He wished to — after all omnipotence is a most basic defining character of God is it not. Why then could God not have our universe rotating around us about every 24 hours. The scientific answer is tied to the ethereal thing called aether which completely permeates our universe. This substance is at the cutting edge of astrophysics and they refer to it by such names as dark matter. Let not that dark matter whose existence the vast majority of astrophysicists affirm darken our ability to apply the true scientific method when it comes to examining the claims of geocentrists. The body of evidence for geocentrism is growing daily, but it stands as a very dire threat to the hum drum status quo of the scientific community.

  5. I have not found the present state of affairs in the astrophysics/cosmology community to be humdrum.

    Quite to the contrary.

    I think it is also very important to recall that we owe *all* of the observations reported above to the astrophysics/cosmology community. *They* are them ones who discovered the CMB, the ones who measured the octupole and quadrupole alignments, the ones who reported these in publicly accessible journals.

    The best members of this community evince a strong commitment to scientific truth. The best are also are quick to affirm that it is our philosophical assumptions which determine our interpretation of the scientific evidence.

    It is unhelpful to suggest what God “could” do- that is never the question in science.

    A question legitimately scientific is: what God *did* do, or *is* doing, our *has* done, in the specific area of universal physical principles of nature.

    These principles are entirely discoverable within the natural order, are accessible to believer and atheist alike.

    Gravity works for the believer and atheist alike.

    Kepler- the discoverer of elliptical orbits- defined his scientific approach as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

    Any modern scientist who would scorn Kepler’s concept above would be advised to compare his own accomplishments to Kepler’s.

    It is only within the last couple of generations that scientific atheism has taken root. Certainly none of the great discovers of science were atheist, but also none of them based their theories upon self-evident assertions of what God “could” do.

    That is a question for theology, not for science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s