Saturday, March 1, 2014

Contra the New Wave of Geocentrism

It has come to my attention that two radical traditionalist/ultra-conservative Catholics (Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis) have teamed up to make a documentary about the Copernican Principle. I'm not sure exactly what they are up too with this. To be just, I do not want to criticize a movie without having seen it, but I do want to share some thoughts that came to me while parsing their wonderful web pages which do most certainly promote a new wave of

Geocentrism!

I guess we never did leave the good ole Middle Ages.  LOL! 


On Geocentrism

The Universe Has No Center or Preferences

Center is a static concept that in terms of physics (not geometry) describes a location. A location is a concept defined as the set of static distances from an object to all other objects. In context to physics when we are talking a center we are describing an object in relation to other relevant objects of existence (whether in context the objects be supposed as stars or atoms or EM Ropes).

The Universe has no central location because it has no form.  The Universe refers to a conceptual binary system relating space (that which lacks shape) and matter (the set of objects that have shape). Strictly speaking the Universe has no center.  The Universe is not a noun of reality. It is just an abstract concept.  Ideas have no center nor do ideas have preferred directions.  Preference is synonymous with opinion.  One cannot trace a preference, let alone a preferred direction in an idea. And one cannot trace a preference in a trillion dollar map of supposed light signals.

The set of objects called matter also has no center because this to resolves to an abstract concept. One could imagine that some object is at a central location in the conceptual nest named matter, but this is irrational, inconceivable and impossible in this context since the set of all objects that exist are in incessant motion, and it is impossible to measure the set of static distances from say the Earth to all other stars and galaxies. We also observe that the stars and galaxies are distributed asymmetrically. In context to the atoms we could perhaps describe the proton as a physical center of the atom, but in context to all the stars and galaxies there is strictly speaking no center due to unending motion (two or more locations of an object).

Motion is a concept, conceived by humans and requires a memory. Thus humans may get confused about motion, but Nature never does since she only recognizes form and location.  The location of atoms always changes.  There is no central object.  And to all you theists/theologians out there I ask:

Why would God care about a petty human concept called 'center'???


Geocentrism in relation to Divine Revelation and the Roman Catholic Church

Geocentrism is a Grecian system/model of astronomy. For my purposes astronomy is a subset of physics. Physics is the study of natural existence. Physics studies natural causes and natural objects.

The Geocentric system has nothing to do with the Bible or the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (or even the Jewish religion) since this thought originated in ancient Greece. The Old Testament authors of the Bible were not Greeks. Maybe there was one Hellenistic New Testament author but he did not teach Geocentrism. Jesus DID NOT teach Geocentrism. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church can only draw doctrines out of the the fonts of Divine Revelation which are the Deeds wrought by God or the Words written by God with the help of the holy writers. It is an inconceivable and irrational notion that the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church ever invoked their spiritual authority to teach Geocentrism because like I said above this was a Grecian system of astronomy.  

Even if a Pope or Bishop thought he was invoking his spiritual authority to teach Geocentrism this act is null and void by virtue of the fact that Geocentrism is a Greek based thought.  It is impossible for a Roman Catholic Pope or Bishop to teach Geocentrism with the authority of Christ Jesus. A Grecian system of cosmology is not the domain of the teaching authority exercised by successors of Peter and the Apostles. Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of how the Magisterium works, not to mention of Divine Revelation. It is the height of folly and arrogance to invoke the Magisterium (spiritual authority) to promote Geocentrism.

Divine Revelation DOES NOT teach Geocentrism. The Jews or Christians who may have held to this teaching did not draw it from Divine Revelation . . . they drew it from the Greeks. And if they read Geocentric doctrines into the Sacred Script and taught these to others . . . this was their Personal Error of interpretation (whether a Pope or a pauper) which they will surely have to answer before God who is certainly merciful, but who nevertheless misses nothing and will judge every single error without prejudice.

Divine Revelation teaches that the Earth is elect, meaning God chose it out of all others as an object of His favor. This teaching has nothing to do with physics, astronomy, cosmology, CMB and most of all Geocentrism. God chose the Earth, not Mars, or some exoplanet or any other star or this monster called Universe. God chose a predefined object which He had created in what was to the sacred authors an ambiguous prehistory.  AND suddenly, God emitted the Spirit to to the Earth thus establishing a supernatural connection. Via the Spirit, God miraculously worked the Earth. This is clearly described in the Genesis 1 narrative. The setting for the story is the Earth: Gensesis 1:2 begins, "And the Earth existed as . . . " and so on and so forth. God stimulated the face of the Earth in the miraculous light-event which has no relation to CMB.

(As a side note: I am appalled by any sort of interpretation which teaches the august light-event has any sort of relation to the Big-Bang, expanding space, energy, matter, CMBR, etc.  The sacred author clearly describes the setting of his story as the Earth.  Since when do we just trample on God and the sacred author's description without justifying our interpretations?  The setting of Genesis 1 is the Earth.  And this in no way implies that the Earth is the central location of the Universe or that all celestial bodies revolve around the Earth or that there is a 'preferred' direction of light signals or that the Earth is 6000 years old.  And anyway: it is irrational, inconceivable and impossible that the sacred author could have known about or understood Big-Bang, CMBR, or the Grecian notions of matter.  And all the better for him!!!)

Another quick example communicating Earth's Divine election, that comes to my mind is the Psalm where it say "You sent forth your Spirit, and they were created, and you renewed the face of the EARTH." God did not send forth the Spirit and renew the face of Neptune, Betelgeuse or this artificial and shapeless concept called UNIVERSE.  Earth is elect.  These Sacred Scripts have 
NOTHING to do with the Earth supposed as a static center around which all celestial objects revolve or with the CMBR. 

It seems to me that many throughout history and even to this day have mistaken the system/model of Geocentrism for the Divine based teaching that Earth is an elect object of God's grace and special work. These are two entirely different fundamental notions and they CANNOT be reconciled. And it is not my fault that some of the early Christians made this sort of blunder by adopting ancient Grecian notions. I follow the Holy Trinity, not some mistaken theologians or Church Fathers and certainly not some Rad Trad upstarts. Plus the Holy Trinity helped form my brain via the womb of my mother. One is called to assume faith and use one's brain in regards to these matters. Blessed John Paul II wrote an encyclical teaching the value of fides et ratio. Geocentricism is irrational, inconceivable and impossible physical doctrine. All one can do is convert this doctrine into a basis for a new sect of religion.

The Galileo Affair

Whenever the Galileo Affair comes up do you know what I say???

I say it was baby men fighting baby men. Galileo came up with a fundamental discovery which with time was and still is assumed as rational, conceivable and possible. The Pope had no spiritual authority in regards to Galileo's discovery. Originally the Pope liked Galileo's ideas, but then the relationship between the two went sour. Galileo and the Pope got engaged in a personal fight with political ramifications. The Pope was more powerful, which is a shame because our first Pope originally was a fisherman who did not care about worldly power. The Pope should have let it go, but he won the personal and political battle by might. Galileo too, like Newton (and a lot of brilliant scientists), was a bit of an asshole. They were baby men.


In addition I also say that all those who have made a career or dollar whining about the Galileo Affair; and all those who attack the entire Roman Catholic Church with all her members or her refined doctrines though the ages because of the Galileo Affair are also baby men.  The Galileo Affair had nothing to do with Divine Revelation or authoritative Roman Catholic teaching. 

The irony in all this is that by the time Blessed Pope John Paul II apologized for the Galileo Affair . . . as a gesture of good will . . . the physicists had IMHO already gone insane with their ideas. And so it is. Strange world. But I say that the adherents of a new Geocentric model or philosophy or whatever it is, are on a par, even worse than the quantum mechanics, particle physicists and relativists.

Is Geocentrism Rational?

Is Geocentrism rational??? Do I even need to answer this question??? It contradicts almost all discoveries, rational assumptions, theories, conclusions not to mention observations, and experiments done over the past centuries. It contradicts Newton's amply tested gravitational equation which we have a very thorough and rational physical interpretation of.

If one were to suppose that all astronomical objects revolve around a static Earth then one would have to posit a rational physical mediator that consummates this phenomenon. In other words, explain to me just how all the celestial bodies revolve around the Earth in terms of physics. What is the physical mechanism??? What is your physical interpretation??? If you want to hold to this assumption then you have to be brave and explain to me just how it all works supposing physical mediators. And please use illustrations. And please fit into this assumption a rational explanation of light, gravity, electricity, magnetism, ionization, chemical bonding and atomic motion. Hint: you will not succeed.  The assumption is irrational, inconceivable and impossible.  If your hypothesized mediator is God then you are establishing your own Geocentric religion. 

And evidence is irrelevant to this issue. Evidence invokes a petty sensory system.  We can subjectively validate all we want by making up whatever b.s. comes to our mind using a billion dollar map and creating artificial axiomatic systems of validation (tautologies). But physics is about making manifest the underlying mechanisms of motion using a rational scientific method. How is it that the Earth does not rotate? And how is it that all the gazillions of celestial objects including the Sun revolve around the Earth?

The great irony I see in these modern day Geocentric adherents is that they are using the very billion dollar maps of the establishment, whom they reject, to persuade the public into a sort of irrational theology or philosophy or possibly a religious sect.   Via the data of this so called Axis of Evil in the Planck/WMAP, God, by some made up miracle, is making all the celestial objects revolve around a stationary Earth??? These guys have got to be kidding. The atoms comprising the Earth alone cannot even keep still.


What is equally amusing is that DeLano and Sungenis recruited a few high priests of mainstream physics, namely, Krauss, Tegmark, and Kaku to help them with their little project with all its Geocentric implications. LOL!!! Too funny.  Even more amusing is DeLano and Sungenis on the Vortex, insinuating that the Second Vatican Council had some relation to the Copernican Principle and the Galileo Affair.  God forgive me, but what a bunch of sneaky loons. 

Is There A Privileged Astronomical Object of the Universe?

In context to physics there is no privileged object of the Universe. Physics is a study of natural causes and natural objects. Atoms do not recognize atoms or follow laws or have opinions or have preferences. The natural phenomenon and mechanisms of light, gravity, electricity, and magnetism have no preference when collectively at work via atoms and the supposed physical mediators connecting all atoms of the Universe.  Light signals do not have preferred directions.  Consistent with the stout c squared concept, a pillar of physics, atoms simply pump, torquing signals to all atoms (and vice versa) via the taut-rectilinear EM ropes interconnecting them.  This is not a matter of preference or opinion. Mother Nature has no preferences.  She could not care less about preferences, opinions or laws.

The direction of light phenomenon, regardless of location, is diametrical (bi-directional). Light travels in two directions:  to and from every atom of the Universe.  In other words consistent with Newton's and Einstein's amply tested c squared concept all atoms continuously twist light signals to all atoms along the supposed taut and rectilinear physical EM mediators intrinsically tied to all the atoms.  Light signals travel bidirectionally, at the speed of light via the DNA-like physical entities to and from all atoms.  Again, Mother Nature has no preferences in her work of light.  The only entity of this Universe who has preferences and preferred directions is the human ape who looks at billion dollar maps and daydreams myths about how special he is.  


If there is any sort of peculiarity in the trillion dollar Planck/WMAP bullshit; it is because the satellites were located so close to the Earth.  All the atoms of the Earth are connected to all the atoms of the Universe via EM Ropes.  At a distance close to the Earth gazillions of EM Ropes originating in all the atoms of the Earth would extend and crisscross in a mesh, right through the satellite in their connection to all the atoms of the stars and galaxies.  The region near a star/planet where EM Ropes extend to converge on there way to all the stars and galaxies is called an inverse square regime or 'Bird's Beak' region.

Even if the satellite was far enough away from the Earth it would still fall within the Sun's Bird Beak Region thus have gazillions of EM Ropes passing right through all ready to be detected by a satellite.  These EM Ropes connect all the Sun's atoms to all atoms of the U.  There would also be countless intersections of EM Ropes extending to and from countless stars and galaxies.  For crude pictures communicating the something of the idea:








      
The Cosmic Microwave Background is a myth.  The microwave signals did not originate in some miraculous event that happened billions of years ago.  These signals originate in the atoms of the stars and galaxies, as well as the Earth and Sun.  Again light only travels in two directions, to and from all atoms of the Universe (diametrical, bidirectional paths).  'Cosmic' is an assumed modifier in relation to 'Microwave Background Radiation'.

And btw, anyone who does not understand what light is. . . those who fail to assume a rational physical medium that simulates all the static and dynamic properties of light IS NOT qualified to give a physical interpretation of the CMB map.  So if anyone stands up and preaches to you about the CMBR just ask them what their physical mediator for light is and just how the light signals conveyed along this mediator from their mythical 'beginning'.  Hint: If the supposed CMB light was conveyed by the first atomic elements then that light would have already been upon us and stimulated us long ago for in their myth we are all made from the hydrogen and helium formed in this Big-Bang.  Light phenomenon continuously begins and ends at the electron shells of all atoms.      

Assuming Faith

In Faith or in terms of theology there is a privileged astronomical object of the Universe. We call it Earth. God freely chose to establish a special relationship with the Earth in which He imparted and to this day imparts supernatural favors. And God of course figuratively wed Himself to the human family who live on Earth's surface. This is why we and the Earth are special.  There is no other possible reason.

One could assume faith and apply critical thinking and rational analysis to this teaching so as to formulate a theological argument but this has nothing to do with physics, astronomy, cosmology, Geocentrism and least of all trillion dollar techno-toy maps that baby men drool over.

Closing Remarks


The natural sciences such as physics are not a study of God and His miraculous-supernatural works assumed in Faith nor is it a domain of irrational nonsense. And like I said above nowhere does Divine Revelation teach Geocentrism.  I hate to say this because I sound like one of my teachers, but Roman Catholics live by Fides et Ratio. Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote an encyclical about Faith and Reason.

In physics we study Mother Nature using a rational scientific method that applies a stern regime of critical thinking and rational analysis. In faith, I assume God made Nature well and reasonable. God doesn't perform some stupendous miracle by which all the celestial objects revolve around the Earth.  And God does not toy with microwave signals leaving some mysterious trace of His works. Critical thinking and rational analysis, not to mention Divine Revelation: kill these vain assumptions.    


But the teaching that God elected the Earth by conveying the Spirit to her, and renewing her face in a miracle is out of bounds in context to physics, astronomy, cosmology and is certainly not the teaching of Geocentrism, nor can it be inferred from a map of microwave signals.  Like I said above, many have mistaken a Ptolemaic notion or now this ultra-modern satellite map for a doctrine of election. 

The problem I perceive is that some people are not content to keep in bounds. They want to make a religion out of physics. And I'm not just talking about Christians or Jews or New Wave Geo-centrists. Even the physical interpretations given by mainstream-established physicists go way beyond the beliefs of a simple Jew, Christian or Muslim. Case in point, I just recently read this from Cornell University's website in answer to a question about photons:


It certainly isn't a stupid question, and really cuts to the heart of the question of interpreting quantum mechanics.
The simplest answer is that when a photon is absorbed by an electron, it is completely destroyed. All its energy is imparted to the electron, which instantly jumps to a new energy level. The photon itself ceases to be. In the equations which govern this interaction, one side of the equation (for the initial state) has terms for both the electron and the photon, while the other side (representing the final state) has only one term: for the electron.
The opposite happens when an electron emits a photon. The photon is not selected from a "well" of photons living in the atom; it is created instantaneously out of the vacuum. The electron in the high energy level is instantly converted into a lower energy-level electron and a photon. There is no in-between state where the photon is being constructed. It instantly pops into existence.
So the question is: where does the photon come from?
Strangely, it doesn't seem to come from anywhere. The universe must put the extra energy somewhere, and because electrons in atoms are electromagnetic phenomena, a photon is born with the required energy. In a weak-force interaction, say the decay of a neutron, that energy goes into a neutrino particle which is also instantaneously created. Each force has its own carrier particles, and knows how to make them. (Reference: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=85)

Through all frames of the Cosmic Movie gazillions of photons either disappear (annihilate, convert to nothing) or appear (created, suddenly arrive from nothing). The quantum god called ENERGY is hard at work willing an infinite # of particle-waves (photons) into and out of existence at every atom of the Universe through all frames of the Universal Movie. Every single atom of my body is the location of gazillions of creation and annihilation events happening continuously just to keep me alive. Or maybe I am a hologram. This is what the quantum mechanics teach me about reality. And this sort of irrational, inconceivable and impossible voodoo magic is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of modern physics. These guys make the miracles of God, Heaven, Jesus, and Angels look like a walk in the park. It all sounds like some form of secret religion to me. Maybe I need to learn all the math and then choose my own adventure through the thirty three or so interpretations of quantum mechanics. Who knows???

But at the end of the day which is more nonsensical? The creation and annihilation of gazillions of photons or a Geocentric explanation of the Universe??? I say neither. They are both equally absurd.                

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.