Dialogues with Sungenis, Mainly

Einstein: The Closet Geocentrist
Robert Sungenis |26.VIII.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKCO-TeVEgM

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

History .... "a hundred years after them" ...

1642 + 100 = 1742.

Lots of Catholic countries still had perfect freedom to stay Geocentric, though some Freemasons were hush hushing about Newton having proven otherwise, besides, the aliens on a planet round Sirius would have equal right or non right to consider their planet the centre.

In Protestant countries, this argument was a hit, openly, for instance in Euler's letters to a Prussian Princess (he also referred to Newton).

Robert Sungenis

I believe I says "a hundred or so years after them." All times in the film are approximate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis OK, just a quibble anyway.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Copernicus, did he even have any physical arguments for Heliocentrism?

As far as I can see, his argument boils down to "Tychonic orbits are inexplicable spirograph patterns, and God wouldn't do such an ugly thing" (and he had never seen a spirograph pattern for real either, as we have, many of us).

(I was using anachronistic terminology)

Robert Sungenis

Copernicus was deluded by thinking the planets had to travel in perfect circles. But after he worked on this for the next 30 years, he ended up with more "spirographic patterns" than Ptolemy or Tycho. Copernicus was enamored with the Greeks and their sun worship. He was also an immoral man, as he lived with a concubine even after his bishop told him to terminate the relationship.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis Greeks worshipping the Sun may have inspired his Heliocentrism, but usually were themselves Geocentrics.

"was deluded by thinking the planets had to travel in perfect circles."

He had it from Aristotle, whose observation is fairly correct if you take the full concrete movement as observed from earth each day. Unfortunately, he - Copernicus - applied it to longer periodic movements.

I think it was also a question of aesthetics, and as he had not seen spirograph patterns, he thought they would be ugly. As I have seen them, I disagree. On one youth group (for Social Democrats, before ma made me a Christian, grandparents being SD), I was extensively playing with the spirograph, as one of the cooler things around.

"as he lived with a concubine even after his bishop told him to terminate the relationship."

Did not know that.

[added after checking on internet:]

@Robert Sungenis "He was also an immoral man, as he lived with a concubine"

According to John Freely, the word in question, "focaria," could either mean housekeeper or concubine.

Copernicus could have been immoral while the bishop was moral, or comfortable, while the bishop was on the lookout for avoiding scandal, even seeming such.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl : The Greeks were divided on the issue, but the best and popular "sun-worshipers" were the heliocentrists. The geocentrist Greeks considered all celestial bodies as purer than the Earth, and thus were not discriminate.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Perhaps, but the point at issue is that the bishop told Copernicus to get rid of her, and Copernicus refused. Not exactly a model of obedience for someone who was a Canon of the Catholic Church, even in the best case scenario.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Immoral and not very obedient are two different connotations.

"the best and popular "sun-worshipers" were the heliocentrists."

Certainly not the popular ones. Pythagoreans were hermetic. Not mainstream. And not all Pythagoreans even were Heliocentric.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think this open letter to Lita Cosner can adequately be shared here too:

Creation vs. Evolution : Lita, did ANY OT Hagiographer Believe Geocentrism?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/08/lita-did-any-ot-hagiographer-believe.html

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

40:18 Time dilation vs affected counting mechanisms ...

If time delation occurs, wouldn't any clock moved to a certain place slow down or speed up to same speed?

If counting mechanisms are affected, wouldn't cesium clocks and pendulums be affected differently?

What does one find?

Robert Sungenis

Any clock that is moved in a gravitational potential will have its counting mechanism affected so that it will count either faster or slower depending on the strength of the potential. Each clock may be affected differently, but they will be affected universally. But the real time never changes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis Are there not also atomic clocks? Are they also moved by gravitational potential? Cesium rings a bell somewhere?

Not saying you are wrong, just curious on how you are right.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl :Yes, there are atomic clocks, and they are definitely affected by gravitational potentials, just like any other clock with moving parts.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'd like to know the details on how.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

46:33 Here is the discord between me and Sungenis, a few years ago.

I do not believe stars orbit the Sun, so I do not believe there is "Tychonic parallax".

Rather, I think angelic movers are performing a kind of dance or ceremony, and that "aberration", "parallax" and "proper movement" are all of them proper movement.

Corrolary : one cannot deduce how big a movement the star does from how big a movement the Sun does.

Corrolary : one has for this type of movement, or classification of movements, as for any other : one angle and no known side.

Corrolary : no parallactic trigonometry possible.

Corrolary : stellar statistics working from "parallax" of "near" stars give no real clue of typical size or sizes of stars.

Corrolary : astronomic distances outside "solar system" are unknown, apart from the fact of being outside it.

Robert Sungenis

As you know, I fold that your "angelic movers" are not supported by Scripture or any Church doctrine or any Tradition. Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies. Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Robert Sungenis "not supported by Scripture"

St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees on Job 38:7, and you may have a hard time to show a better explanation for Deborah's song of praise ...

"or any Church doctrine or any Tradition."

Riccioli disagreed about tradition, giving of all explanations for movement of heavenly bodies the best traditional support is angelic movers, over God directly, over celestial bodies being alive and over mechanic causes. Best traditional support as in most theologians supporting it, including but not limited to St. Thomas.

"Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies."

Who claimed they are celestial bodies? I certainly did not.

As to messengers, that is one function of some angels, not the sole of all of them, and also those moving celestial bodies do at least once show sth for our salvation, like when falling (Matthew 24) or when acting out Apocalypse 12.

You cannot extrapolate one phrase from a catechism to refute sth on a topic it was not speaking of.

Remember, as fallen, we need help of good angels in a way we would not have otherwise. And angels were created before us. Ergo, all angels need not be doing that.

"Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances."

Aberration as such can't. Parallax can only do so if it is parallax - that is if the movement of such and such a star is same as movement of sun.

If not - not. Simple geometry, if you don't know how much alpha Centauri moves each year, in time with the Sun, you also can't decide how far it is. You cited a source which held showing stellar distances as a desideratum and gratuitously satisfied it by assuming, without evidence, alpha Centauri's movement is tied to the Sun's in same distance. If alpha Centauri rather moves half as far as the Sun, the distance would only be 2 light years, and if alpha Centauri moves even less than that, the distance from us to it would be even less than that.

Since we do not know how far alpha Centauri moves, nothing prevents it from being only a light day up.

It can't be just half a light day up, or rather the stars in the direction where Voyager I and II are going can't, since Voyager I and II are both around 18 light hours up and have not yet reached the fix stars.

Robert Sungenis

@Hans-Georg Lundahl --St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees on Job 38:7, and you may have a hard time to show a better explanation for Deborah's song of praise ...
RS: When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody? (Job 38:7 DRA). But this is only a metaphor. Angels are often represented by stars in Scripture (cf. Jg 5:20; Jb 38:7; 25:5; 4:18; Hb 1:7; Is 14:13; Dn 8:10; 12:3; Ap 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1; 8:10-11; 9:1; 12:4; Br 3:34-35). But it doesn’t mean an angel IS a star.

--"or any Church doctrine or any Tradition." Riccioli disagreed about tradition, giving of all explanations for movement of heavenly bodies the best traditional support is angelic movers, over God directly, over celestial bodies being alive and over mechanic causes. Best traditional support as in most theologians supporting it, including but not limited to St. Thomas.

RS: I don’t see any such tradition in the Fathers or medievals, and lone suggestions by Riccioli (need reference for that, btw) or Aquinas don’t fill the bill.

--"Angels are messengers for salvation, not celestial bodies." Who claimed they are celestial bodies? I certainly did not.

RS: Petitio principii violation. You can’t use as proof that which you are trying to prove. The fact remains, they are “celestial” because they are in the second heavens, and they are “bodies” because we see them as round objects with violent reactions. No one has seen them as angels, especially since angels are spirits, not bodies.

--As to messengers, that is one function of some angels, not the sole of all of them,

RS: What other function are they given in Scripture?

--and also those moving celestial bodies do at least once show sth for our salvation, like when falling (Matthew 24) or when acting out Apocalypse 12.

RS: Again, these are metaphors, since the whole of the Apocalypse is symbolic. That’s why we have frogs pictured as false prophets (Ap 16:13).

--You cannot extrapolate one phrase from a catechism to refute sth on a topic it was not speaking of.

RS: Correct, but I didn’t do so.

--Remember, as fallen, we need help of good angels in a way we would not have otherwise. And angels were created before us. Ergo, all angels need not be doing that.

RS: Of course, but that doesn’t mean that the ARE doing that. You need proof, not speculation, especially since you ignore the obvious metaphors.

--"Also, your corollaries are illogical, since parallax and aberration can easily show stellar distances." Aberration as such can't.

RS: Yes, good catch on aberration. Since all the ellipses are the same size, distance cannot be determined by aberration. Thank you.

--Parallax can only do so if it is parallax - that is if the movement of such and such a star is same as movement of sun. If not - not. Simple geometry, if you don't know how much alpha Centauri moves each year, in time with the Sun, you also can't decide how far it is. You cited a source which held showing stellar distances as a desideratum and gratuitously satisfied it by assuming, without evidence, alpha Centauri's movement is tied to the Sun's in same distance. If alpha Centauri rather moves half as far as the Sun, the distance would only be 2 light years, and if alpha Centauri moves even less than that, the distance from us to it would be even less than that. Since we do not know how far alpha Centauri moves, nothing prevents it from being only a light day up. It can't be just half a light day up, or rather the stars in the direction where Voyager I and II are going can't, since Voyager I and II are both around 18 light hours up and have not yet reached the fix stars.

RS: It appears you are confusing the proper motion of a star (Alpha Centauri) with the universal circular movement of all the stars, including Alpha Centauri’s daily circular movement. What we know of Alpha Centauri is that it stays in the same place, relative to the sun and stars, year after year. It is the same reason we see the constellation Orion in the same shape year after year, since there is very little proper motion between its stars. Thus we can predict where each of the stars will be year after year. Parallax is based on this consistent movement of the stars.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But this is only a metaphor."

St. Thomas mentioned it could be so, but then went on to mention metonymy : angels are called stars insofar as they are moving stars. See his Commentaria in Hiob.

"RS: I don’t see any such tradition in the Fathers or medievals, and lone suggestions by Riccioli (need reference for that, btw) or Aquinas don’t fill the bill."

Riccioli actually gives a whole list of medievals and early moderns, including Aquinas.

And reference, well, here is my little essay on it, which links to his Almagestum Novum on appropriate page:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

Linking to:

https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

In early moderns, the Coimbra Jesuits are included. In late medievals, both Nicolas of Cusa and Nicolas of Lyra.

"RS: Petitio principii violation. You can’t use as proof that which you are trying to prove. The fact remains, they are “celestial” because they are in the second heavens, and they are “bodies” because we see them as round objects with violent reactions. No one has seen them as angels, especially since angels are spirits, not bodies."

Sorry, but how I would be guilty of petitio principii when I was explaining what I meant is unclear, you look a bit like AronRa eager to shout out all the fallacies he knows about, whether appropriate or not.

I was saying, for my part I agree angels are spirits, not bodies, and so does Riccioli, so does St Thomas, so do the Coimbra Jesuits. It is one thing to claim angels are celestial bodies and another to claim the move these. I am claiming the latter, not the former. And explaining that is not trying to prove anything beyond removing your misunderstanding, so there was no petitio principii.

"RS: What other function are they given in Scripture?"

Praising God (crying Holy, Holy, Holy). And being called "stars" as you mention. The latter being to the point for our topic.

"RS: Of course, but that doesn’t mean that the ARE doing that. You need proof, not speculation, especially since you ignore the obvious metaphors"

It is by no means obvious they are only metaphors, since clearly St. Thomas and quite a few others don't take them that way.

"RS: It appears you are confusing the proper motion of a star (Alpha Centauri) with the universal circular movement of all the stars, including Alpha Centauri’s daily circular movement. What we know of Alpha Centauri is that it stays in the same place, relative to the sun and stars, year after year."

No, I did not confuse the proper motion with the universal circular movement each day of all the stars, thank you, nor is it clear how my wording provoked that misunderstanding.

And we do not know alpha Centauri stays exactly same position in relation to Sun.

We do know it stays same general position ... but we are discussing whether the annual movement of 0.76 arc seconds is only relative to us, with the Sun, or if it also involves a displacement of relative position to the Sun.

Since you are the one claiming its stays exactly the same in relation to the Sun, without which we have no parallax measure, would you mind telling us how you know that? Because it is moved by the same gravitational field as the Sun? Sorry, but that brings us back to "mechanical causes only" being a position you share with Kepler, but neither with Riccioli nor with St. Thomas, nor with quite a few others.

Because the angel moving alpha Centauri (if you enter into my view for a moment) would be obliged to show a correct parallax so as not to fool mankind via scientists? Sorry, God might not have such a high opinion of scientists or of mankind's duty to listen to them, the angel may instead be under orders to make fun of scientists, leading them on to conclusions like "13 billion light years away" and all of Heaven has a nice guffaw at them. (I think God laughing is mentioned in Quare fremunt gentes psalm).

Mephilis 78

@Robert Sungenis Angels are not messengers, according to scripture, they are soldiers.

Robert Sungenis

@Mephilis 78 They are both (cf. Lk 1:19; Rev 12:7). What Scripture does not say is that angels push planets around the sun.

Mephilis 78

@Robert Sungenis They deliver messages, as soldiers sometimes do. That doesn't mean they're purpose isn't soldiering. No one wants an army of paperboys. lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"What Scripture does not say is that angels push planets around the sun."

Taking Scripture with total literality tends to more like considering planets and other stars as personally living beings, a part of the angelic - agreeing with Mephilis 78 here - army.

But if that is excluded, second best is angels moving celestial bodies.

We are not sola scriptura and so this is not really a problem.

By the way, why would you use the already used by others phrase "pushing planets"?

Did I inadvertently mention "push" or is there some discussion about my position where "angels pushing planets" is used to ridicule it?

Did you have problems opening the links I gave?

If in adress bar you see some funny characters after html, remove them, as to my own post.

[click to see all of the url with extra characters added without my doing]

As to reference in it, the library in Zurich seems to have some problems when showing the picture, so the text reference is:

Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. Pp. 247 - 248

It's the edition from Bologna, 1651 - 1665