The FCM Principle - A New Cosmology Combining the Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories

BrotherMonk

Dear Friends at Musica Sacra,

Believe me, you will find more lessons in the woods than in books. Trees and stones will teach you what you cannot learn from masters.St. Bernard of Clairvaux

There is no more beautiful Music produced by Our Lord Jesus Christ than the Universe, with all of its Stars, Galaxies and Planets, and with its crown, our Earth, at its very center ! My 91 year old father, Mr. Frank C. Marino, Electrical Engineer, Physicist and Inventor with more than 70 patents, has developed a New Cosmology, combining the two Models of the Universe, The Geocentric Model and The Heliocentric Model . After studying the great work of Dr. Robert A. Sungenis, Journey to the Center of the Universe he has been inspired to make an all new development on the age-old Geocentric Model, recently regaining popularity among many Traditional Catholics. With the many new findings of science, including the discoveries of the Cosmic Microwave Background , what was once considered a mistake of the Church regarding her Medieval views of the Earth in the Cosmos, is now being revisited, and being proved, once again right !

In the ancient Geocentric view of the Earth in our Solar System, the Earth was immovable and so the Sun, the Planets and the Stars were considered to give honor to the Earth, the Home of the Saviour and of His Holy Virgin Mother, and so they orbited a fixed Earth. With the advent of the advanced viewing of the Planets and Stars with more powerful telescopes during the Renaissance and with the newly developed Newtonian Laws of Gravitation, it was assumed confirmed that the Earth must orbit the Sun. These most recent astounding developments with the findings of NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) launched in 1989 and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) launched in 2001, have set the Scientific Community in an uproar with the discovery of the Axis of Evil which has shown how wrong Galileo really was and how right the Church was, after all!

But my father has made a slight change on the old Geocentric Model and has maintained a Rotating Earth to give us our Days and Nights. The remaining Planets in our Solar System, he maintains keep their present elliptical orbits around the Sun, as in the Copernican Heliocentric Model, but a Sun which orbits the earth every year. This Orbiting Sun with its ecliptic at an angle of 23.44 degrees to the Equator of the Earth would give us our four changing seasons.

Here is the link to the YouTube Video which will, hopefully, better explain his New Geocentric Cosmology: https://youtu.be/HXbd-qQg2yA?si=a7SiBBM-jOwweJDV I hope you will enjoy this interesting new theory of my father, never quite explained in this way, to my knowledge!

May God bless you all!

Praise Him, O sun and moon; praise Him, all you shining stars. (Psalm 148,3)

Br.Bernard, O.S.B.

smvanroode

the age-old Geocentric Model, recently regaining popularity among many Traditional Catholics.

Oh boy.

With the many new findings of science, including the discoveries of the Cosmic Microwave Background , what was once considered a mistake of the Church regarding her Medieval views of the Earth in the Cosmos, is now being revisited, and being proved, once again right !

I have no words for this...

a_f_hawkins

For now, I see through a glass, darkly.

Elmar

I propose as a further adjustment to this theory: the hypothesis that the center of the Universe does not coincide with the center of the Earth, but with the center of Brother Monk's head.

Liam

I would not cite Robert Sungenis as an authority for anything I wanted to persuade people of.

This animation may help to visualize:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuaPyQFrYk

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Brother Bernard,

Could you help me grasp one part of this theory? If the Red Shift shows that the universe is going away from Earth, would that mean that we should have evidence of the "explosion" or "moment of initial expansion" here, near Earth, or even at the center of Earth?

Liam,

I don't know Robert Sungenis' work. Why would you not cite him?

Liam

I am not going to fisk his schtick here. Sungenis is rather infamous, but got lost in his own eddy. That kind of thing can attract the credulous.

MarkB

"Robert Sungenis: Incompetent in Physics":
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/robert-sungenis-incompetent-physics/

At the small and insular FSSP TLM community in my neck of the woods, people who have dabbled in joining that community have been made to feel like material heretics for accepting Big Bang cosmology rather than believing earth is ~6,000 years old. At least the TLM community does them the favor of not considering them to be formal heretics, due to their "ignorance."

Not only did Vatican II promulgate Sacrosanctum Concilium, it also promulgated Dei Verbum, which had a thing or two to say about interpreting Scripture in Chapter 3.

The rejection of Vatican II in some Catholic quarters is not limited to rejecting liturgical reform.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

Mark,

Surely, Vatican II didn't say anything about astronomy.

Even if it did say something about astronomy, one can find the current state of affairs horrid without being an opponent of the Council. (I'm just listening to Cardinal Ratzinger say exactly that.)

a_f_hawkins

Einstein's theory of General Relativity shows that I can consider the universe is centred on my head, and you can consider the universe is centred on your head, and there is no incompatibility, it just involves transforming the equations in particular ways.
Having studied cosmology from schoolboy to post-grad to dilettante over 70 years, I am sceptical about astronomers assurance, they change the key "facts" as fast as the theorists can develop explanations, or faster.

MarkB

Geocentrists are not led to geocentrism by an objective assessment of cosmological science. They are led to geocentrism by their adherence to a literalist interpretation of Scripture, most especially Genesis Chapter 1 and Joshua 10:13.

Dei Verbum 11- 12 teaches that the interpreter of Scripture must account for different literary forms used by the human biblical authors, which means that biblical literalism will not always arrive at the correct interpretation:

In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.

However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

So while Vatican II did not teach anything about astronomy, it did teach that correct interpretations of the Bible will not always or only be literalist interpretations. That has implications for what Catholics may accept about physics, astronomy and cosmology, and all of the hard sciences.

Robert Sungenis and other geocentrists are motivated by a desire to demonstrate that the Bible's account of creation over six 24-hour days is literally true. That motivation would not be bad if a literalist interpretation of the Bible were exclusively the correct way to understand what God's Revelation contained in the Bible. However, Vatican II taught that literalist interpretations of Scripture are not always the right way to understand God's Revelation.

Since Catholics are not required to believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible, and in fact should exclude an exclusively literalist approach, they are not required to believe in geocentrism, and therefore they are not compelled to come up with Rube Goldberg-style models, whose physics don't work, of the solar system and universe to preserve geocentrism.

What I'm saying more generally is that rejection of Vatican II -- rejection of the Council's teachings and documents in toto, not just rejection of liturgical reform -- is indeed a thing among some TLM adherents, and their adherence to the TLM is not merely a liturgical preference; it's a statement and act of defiance toward ecclesiastical authority and of separation from communion with the Church, which is what Traditionis Custodes lamented about some TLM communities.

Salieri

Geocentrism, and other problems of science versus scripture interpretation, is a problem that I seem only to encounter among American traditionalists and conservatives (i.e., Novus Ordites): I attribute this entirely to American conservatism's [unfortunate] link with Americanist Bible Protestantism. It has nothing to do with the TLM; and is a problem that Traditionis Custodes isn't going to solve.

MarkB

In Special and General Relativity, you can indeed change reference frames for observational descriptions and predictive calculations. But you cannot change the fact that in a gravitational system, the body or bodies with less mass will orbit around the body with the larger or largest mass (not vice-versa), with the center of orbit being a barycenter.

Earth cannot be the physical center of the universe because the earth doesn't have a larger mass than the sum total of matter in all objects in the rest of the universe.

But you can, using earth as a reference frame, devise a relativistic system for describing motion and observable phenomena as if earth were in the center.

However, you cannot equivocate by using geocentrism to name a relativistic reference frame from the standpoint of earth and then with equivocating sleight of hand say that, since geocentrism as a reference frame works, therefore geocentrism meaning the earth is the physical center of the universe can or must also be absolutely true.

Just because the car next to me on the highway can be described as moving backwards relative to the standpoint of the reference frame within my car (if my car is traveling faster than the other car) doesn't mean that the other car is actually moving backwards nor that my car is stationary and the road is moving underneath it at 60MPH.

trentonjconn

Really, the fact that a discussion of astronomy is being turned into a critique of TLM communities and accusations regarding the degree to which they accept Vatican II is both forced and ridiculous.

MarkB

They are related. Why else would the original post have been made here instead of on a secular astronomy forum?

trentonjconn

Perhaps because the poster is Catholic, and we are Catholic?

trentonjconn

In any case, weird ideas existing in trad communities is more of a matter of devout Americans emulating fundamentalist evangelicals as opposed to having anything to do with Vatican II.

ghmus7

In any case, weird ideas existing in trad communities is more of a matter of devout Americans emulating fundamentalist evangelicals as opposed to having anything to do with Vatican II.

I was veryyy surprised when I was organ subbing at a FSSP church, and the homily made the following points: Frances (no surprise) is not a legitimate pope. Benedict and St. JPII are also not legitimate, and evolution as a scientific theory was 'junk science".
And they wonder why they have problems with Rome.
If you get on the SSPX website and explore some of the questions and answers, some things you read will be rather surprising - such as the Novus Ordo is sinful and offensive to God.

Schönbergian

Youth may be attracted to tradition within the Church, but one of the surest ways to keep them away is to promote pseudoscience like this. It helps no genuine traditionalist to be associated with this.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

TrentonJConn,

I think you're right that weird ideas, in themselves, aren't an indication of rejecting Vatican II. Given what some claim the Council said, weird ideas might very well be a sign of accepting the Council.

Ghmus,

Did you list things in a haphazard order, or did you mean to connect rejecting evolution and having trouble with Rome?

Brother Monk,

You don't mention rejection of Vatican II, nor (that I saw) did your father. You didn't mention traditionalism in either lower case or upper case forms. Is your father merely engaging in thoughtful and thought-provoking ruminations, or are you (or he) trying to associate with some aspect of the rejection of the Church's perennial teaching? Or not?

chonak

The Forum's Etiquette Guidelines say something relevant here:

Some topics do not belong here.
Everybody has opinions about debated religious questions or socio-political matters, but we don't want newcomers to think that CMAA or the Forum endorses particular views, apart from the Church's heritage of doctrine, culture, history, and theology.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories