Jimmy Akin Up to Tycho Brahe

Bible and Geocentrism · Jimmy Akin Up to Tycho Brahe

We are now 23:55 into a video that's 1 h and nearly 30 minutes long:

How We Found the Universe (Science & Faith) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin | 13 May 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQeI4H5xse0

"since human beings uh live on the 2:38 surface of the earth and the earth is so big that from the surface it looks flat 2:43 prehistoric humans tended to believe that the earth is flat"

Pre- or post-Flood?

I'm fine with Nimrod believing the Earth was flat when during c. 40 of the 51 years from 2607 to 2556 BC he tried to achieve some contraption to where God was, where he could send Floods from while Himself being safe.

Whether he imagined a skyscraper or (as I think more likely) a three step rocket, and apart from lacking totally the means of doing either, this is ridiculously inadequate to an Empyraean heaven, which is beyond the fix stars which are at least 1 light day up, a distance Voyager 1 and 2 have still not reached.

Given that ineptitude, he could as well have been flat earth too.

Noah on the other hand was arguably very well aware of where on the globe the highest mountain was. 15 cubits was arguably the waterline of the Ark, so after 40 days the Flood had reached the top of the then highest mountain and the Ark started to float.

And even Nimrod could have been too well aware of two ways to reach the Americas from his base to be totally Flat Earth.

"that seems obvious from an ordinary 2:49 perspective on the earth's surface also since the sky seems to curve over 2:54 the earth the sky was often conceived of as a kind of inverted bowl that was set over the earth and since 3:01 the major celestial objects the sun the moon and the stars move around in the sky in circles 3:08 they look like they're orbiting the earth so ancient peoples would tend to think that the earth is at the center of 3:14 the cosmos with everything moving around it flat earth domed sky geocentrism"

Flat Earth ... most landscapes (and I'm stressing "land" so as to exclude seascapes) are too bulky to totally tell.

Very flat landscapes, like Pusztas or Seas, on the other hand have a very round horison where the width changes with height and where the horison obviously still is not the limit of the world, since you can approach a land mark, it enters into your horison on one side and exits it on the other side, as you travel.

So, no, nowhere on earth do we have an "apparent flat earth" that unquestionably looks flat.

What the sky is is another matter. Obviously, the experience of waters that are not allowing sight down to the bottom, even at fairly shallow depths, should tell us there is a possibility that things can look solid, and even so not be a solid limit just as yet.

However, Son, Moon and Stars circling around us very unambiguously is a visible sign of us being in the centre of the daily circles of Sun, Moon and Stars.

4:39 Stadia ... 11 % off. Oh ... "as 250 000 4:30 stadia"

40 075.017 km equatorial
40 007.86 km meridional

40 075.017 km / 250 000 = 160 meters
40 007.86 km / 250 000 = 160 meters

"An empirical determination of the length of the stadion was made by Lev Vasilevich Firsov, who compared 81 distances given by Eratosthenes and Strabo with the straight-line distances measured by modern methods, and averaged the results. He obtained a result of about 157.7 metres (172.5 yd).[2] Various equivalent lengths have been proposed, and some have been named."

So, 160 / 157 gives 1.019* ... ie less than 2 % off.

"so the first element of the primitive worldview the idea that the earth is 4:44 flat was now replaced by the belief that it's a globe"

1) Not for everyone. If you describe earth as one of three concentric platforms above each other in a huge tree, you describe earth as flat. This is arguably how Odin described earth to the Norse peoples, inspired by Babylonian pictures of world pillars with snakes around them (in Odin's version Yggdrasil is bit by Nidhogg, also a serpent).
2) Not for everyone can we know it was a replacement. We have reasons to believe Phoenicians knew the Earth was round before this, we have reasons to believe the Hebrew writers of the OT were at the very least aware of two perspectives and refused to give a direct decision between them.

*1.0191082802547771

6:55 Here we have the far off origin of Nibiru and the planet where the Annunaki are from.

Nibiru and Annunaki taken, not in the original Babylonian sense, but the Zecharias Sitchens' sense.

It can be noted, the men condemning Galileo were aware of "cool" world views among the Pythagoraean school, and they found them, mildly speaking "not very impressing" ...

19:24 Let's have a few digs at Copernicus, just to attract Sungenis' to read me ...

1) He, the Heliocentric, didn't get rid of solid transparent spheres, but Tycho, a Geocentric, did. He observed a comet, the trajectory of which would have bounced off or crushed solid spheres, had they been there.
2) He hadn't come up with the arguments for Heliocentrism being possible, Nicole Oresme, who later after his carreere as a Scholastic became bishop of Lisieux, had evaluated all of them .... and concluded that, yes, Heliocentrism was theoretically just about possible, but had no real assets to draw an intellect in favour of it.
3) Heliocentrism didn't systematically improve accuracy of predictions. In the following list, "precursors" means in Astronomy overall, not in Heliocentric ideology, and we have a constant improvement of accuracy, but a zig zag between the two systems:

• precursors = G
• Copernicus = H
• Tycho Brahe = G
• Kepler = H
• Riccioli = G

20:16 The Sphere of the Fix stars.

A pretty important thing for a Catholic cosmologer.

Why? Because beyond it, you have the Empyraean Heaven, which is the Throne Room or Reception Room of God.

St. Robert Bellarmin and John Calvin totally agreed that Jesus is, under His own dimensions, in a natural way, physically present in the Empyraean Heaven, above the fix stars.

They only differred on whether He was also miraculously present on a Catholic altar.

It's not just where Jesus went up at Ascension.

It's also where Mary went up at Assumption. And where we hope to have not just our souls, but souls and bodies after the general resurrection.

St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, an FSSPX Church in Paris (the one they took over from the Archdiocese with an occupation that was illegal, but ended in a settlement, it's from the time of Lewis XIV) usually handles theological doctrinal questions very well. However, on Ascension Feast, last year, a priest over there was pretending the local diameters of the place don't matter at all, since Jesus' body is where Heaven is placed in.

Sounds devout, but it's not traditional Catholic views on Heaven or on how Jesus is "seated at the right of the Father" ...

22:34 Here is where Riccioli's view on Celestial Mechanics come in.

On his view, for the movement of celestial bodies, four views are inherently possible, none of them can be disproven by observation, they can only be disproven or proven as to theological aptness.

• God moves each celestial body, direct divine fiat, no intermediate mechanism (basically, like God keeps the universe in existence).
• Some physical cause moves them -- Kepler had proposed the Sun was drawing planets in like a magnet. Obviously, this kind of causation is pretty close to what Newton proposed.
• Celestial bodies actually are angelic beings, they are the bodies of the created spirits (who would then be not pure spirits, unlike St. Thomas' view).
• Celestial bodies are just bodies, as in views 1 and 2, and they are neither moved by God directly, nor by a purely physical cause, but by the will of angelic beings. Who obey the will of God.

Note, he opts for this fourth view. Note also, on this view, there actually is a mechanism for retrogrades. Or for epicycles that look like spirograph patterns. The kind of thing Copernicus was rejecting in favour of perfect circles.

Note, detecting gravity in space by the space programme doesn't disprove the presence of angelic movers, nor disable them from performing what we see in a Geocentric universe.

23:55 Thank you for pronouncing the final E in Brahe.

However, it's more like UH than like EE. As in German, H can be but need not be silent between two vowels.