Featured Post

The 2017 "Let Them Be For Signs" Series

I've decided to make this year's ongoing astronomical discussion an official series.  So, for your convenience, links to articles...

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Geocentrism: Cassini's Take On It

Today, we're not going to talk about Cassini being banned from the Echo Chamber.  Instead, we will take a brief cursory glance at what Cassini has to say about the topic of geocentrism.

There are various mechanisms in place within our modernist society that work against geocentric thought.  Understandably, if you're being taught in a public school that the Earth is nothing special, that it is just one among an endless number of unremarkable cosmic bodies in the heavens, you're going to grow up to believe that.

And, as we all know, the Catholic Church of today seems to prefer to go-along-to-get-along when it comes to "Science!", which is not a surprise for many readers here.

Cassini, who dared to open up these ideas to KK's Echo Chamber, has been ostracized from his online friends and colleagues.  No more prayer requests for that guy.  Not on KK's turf.

So, in the spirit of reaching out to a fellow traveler in this place we find ourselves, here in the outskirts of the online Traditional Catholic community, let's take a closer look at what Cassini is trying to tell us.  Cassini sent me an introduction to a book he wrote, The Earthmovers.  With Cassini's permission, I have edited his introduction to fit the purposes of this blog post.

# # #

For two hundred and sixty years, Catholics have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun, and these same Catholics are made to share in ‘embarrassment’ and shameful ‘guilt.’ After all, their Church--their very predecessors--once defended the biblical conception of a fixed earth and moving sun, and they condemned Galileo for denying this model. This, of course, meant that nearly all Catholics were forced to support a fantastical consensus and canonical contradiction that was a U-turn for the Church.

This new direction, courtesy of the Church's contemporary "movers and shakers," continues even now.  This new model is, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride.  They want to preserve and retain the ‘scientific’ image.  They want to defend their new credibility and the respect they have built up in the wake of the infamous Galileo case.

The traditional account of the Creation was taught for centuries by the great Fathers; but now, new Catholic contemporaries love to quote Scriptures out of context when it suits them. Today’s Genesis must be ‘scientifically correct.’  Genesis must be in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in the eyes of 'scientifically rational Catholics.' These new Catholic facilitators of science acquire this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts.  On this matter, they claim a divine authority that they say was given "by God Himself," and they rely on the customary obedience of the Catholic Church's hierarchy.

Today, they can manipulate people's wholesale ignorance of facts, and they possess a propaganda machine that is second to none.  They always have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church,’ they say.  However, it is they—and not the Church—who requires obscurantism and consensus in order to remain credible. These new 'scientific' mover-and-shaker Catholics do not really care about the Church's proper path when it comes to the Earth's position.  They, instead, are more absorbed by their own pride in ‘scientific’ knowledge.

Consequently, many critics of my unpublished book, The Earthmovers, would first endeavor to ignore what it dares to talk about.  These new readers will dismiss or censor the true facts about cosmology, without taking time to think.

The credibility of four hundred years of 'Galileoism' and its promulgators will be defended on every ground, both Church and state. So, if ‘relativity’ offers these 'scientific thinkers' a choice between geocentrism and heliocentrism, they will stick with their heliocentrism. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict.  You will see for yourself that the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to will actually mean nothing to them. Their belief in the Copernican revolution and Galilean reformation is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically, metaphysically or empirically based. Accordingly, the Catholic truth that they should be defending will be corrupted to meet their philosophical position.

This is why they will resort to both censorship and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy.  Critics of traditional geocentrism express an unqualified rejection of certain kinds of disclosures.  For example, there are proofs such as stellar aberration, stellar parallax, and the Foucault Pendulum.  None of these proofs support heliocentrism at all.  Such critics would direct only rhetoric against the contents of The Earthmovers in order to avoid actually having to address the book's evidence.

Entrenched Galileans will point out in no uncertain manner that the geocentrism and geostatism of The Earthmovers is simply stupid according to most scientific minds.  They will merely repeat the same Church authorities who allowed an illusion: that the 1616 decree was abrogated.  Indeed, they will repeat the same statements of those who endorse Vatican Council II. Such critics will also claim that the pro-geocentrism author is either an un-trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian, or theologian, so what could they therefore possibly know?

Today, if someone is a coached professional in any institution of Church or state, that person could never have written The Earthmovers in the first place.  Such a writer would have been dismissed for endorsing geocentrism.  Many people today are excluded, banned, or fired from their various institutions because they reject old-age evolutionism.

It was freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.

Cardinal Daly made a reference to the role that ‘intellectuals’ had in the move from biblical geocentrism to biblical heliocentrism.  He asserts that the Church that defended the interpretation of the Fathers was wrong, and Galileo was as Catholic as the theologians involved in 1616 and 1633, but more knowledgeable in the field of faith and reason:
Galileo emerges as a decisive figure, not simply in an historical conflict between science and religion, but also, and paradoxically, in the process towards greater mutual respect and understanding between the Church and science. For Galileo it was never a question of choosing between Copernican science and the Christian and Catholic faith; he remained, to the end of his life, deeply committed to both. Indeed, Galileo, particularly by his reflections on the interpretations of Holy Scripture, hoped to bring about reconciliation between faith and science. A man of unwavering faith in the truth of divine revelation, he also believed strongly in the unity of truth and was convinced that what was proved true by science could not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Scripture correctly understood; and this, of course, is a profoundly Catholic position…

...If the theologians who advised the Inquisition and who opposed Galileo could have had the benefit of the Vatican II’s teaching, there might never have been a Galileo case. Indeed, if they could have had the benefit of Cardinal Newman’s thinking, there might never have been a Galileo case.
As we can see from Cardinal Daly's false conclusion, intelligence, while a great gift from God, can come with a very high price tag—especially when engaging in matters challenging traditional Catholic theology, metaphysics, and even dogma.

St Augustine affirmed that ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ In 2015, an exorcist in Barcelona said that of all the sins preferred by Satan, pride was the greatest. We all want to be clever, and the more clever, the better.  Ironically, Galileo calls this ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning.’ Being clever gives a man a personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible.

Cleverness can bring honor, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and fame to those who excel in any given field of knowledge. Francis Bacon understood this well when he said: ‘Knowledge is power.’ Thus, a consensus is compelling, contagious, and essential in order to succeed among one’s peers.

Yet, again, the temptations involved in being clever are enormous, as we can see in the case of Cardinal Daly. The great intellectual saints –St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and St. Bellarmine—realized this, and they refused accolades and honors.  They preferred to embrace humility and accept authority instead of human reasoning. They knew that this was an area that Satan has not neglected. Studying the facts of geocentrism is not only a test of reasoning, but it is also a crucial test of Catholic faith.

Why was The Earthmovers written, taking all of twenty years to complete? In the main, it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case and its aftermath in the light of the fact that we know today geocentrism was not proven wrong and that it can never be falsified. Four hundred years of written and verbal history needs to be challenged, and truth must be the victor, not The Earthmovers. This book was written to vindicate and restore the traditional exegesis and hermeneutics of the Catholic Church and its Scriptures. It was written to defend the 1616 decrees. It was written to restore the good name and authority of the churchmen, popes, theologians and believers of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture.

With a book such as this, we realize that there is probably something herein to offend or disturb many people—especially Catholics.  With this in mind, it is likely that only a few might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for Catholic truth and knowledge, let us give the truth, as others tried before.  Let us continue to try and demonstrate these facts, and the reader can take it or leave it.

# # #

Truly, I find that re-examining the basic tenants of our scientific foundations to be a fascinating exercise.  Considering the thought that the Earth is actually in the center of the known universe brings levity to a depressing year of political and social current events.  A colleague of mine recently told me about something that G.K. Chesterton once said:
The poet only desires exaltation and expansion, a world to stretch himself in. The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.
What a great quotation.  Imagine if geocentrism were true.  Imagine that the Earth was actually the center of the physical universe.  What an undeniable proof that God truly has something wonderful in mind for the very people He created.  If geocentrism is true, then it can be said, for sure, that it is the evolutionists and heliocentrists who try to "work God into the narrative."  It is the archons of "magic science" who are trying to cram the heavens into their heads, so long as they don't crowd out their precious cult of "Science!"

But I digress.  I am not nearly as schooled on this topic as either Cassini or the people who brought us The Principle.  I'm just a blogger who likes to explore ideas.  And it seems that this summer, The Hirsch Files brand is going into CoasttoCoastAM territory.  Not to say that I intend to talk about UFOs, bigfoot, strange noises, or other such phenomenon.  No, this season, I'm more interested in cosmological and astronomical topics.

If Charles Coulombe can cheerfully delve into the haunted places of the world, the rationale for Catholic monarchy, or the history of rum, and yet still retain the respect and admiration of Catholics on all parts of the Left/Right spectrum--then why not yours truly?

Are Cassini's critics able to put away their dark glower for a while, and happily consider a lighthearted, more upbeat view of our place in the universe?  Or must we--without exception--continue to limp through our workweek with the idea in mind that we are ultimately nothing but pond scum and chimps on an unremarkable rock in a vast universe that shows us to be insignificant?

I asked Cassini in the comments of the last post:  How can accepting that the sun revolves around the Earth affect our daily lives?  His answer was that we can free ourselves from the 'magic' of scientism that now dominates human philosophy and ideology.  Our faith can be elevated to a higher level.

I get what Cassini is saying.  When I consider the possibility that Mankind has a special physical place in this amazing universe, like Chesterton describes, I feel exaltation as my mind reaches for the heavens.  It's an exciting thought that, for now, I am happy to entertain.

The Universe, according to St. Hildegard


  1. I wonder if anyone has explored the idea of the Earth originally being placed in the center of the universe, but then being expelled into the outer darkness, so to speak, at some point after the Fall -- perhaps just prior or during the Deluge. There is historical evidence that our sun used to be the planet Saturn until around 5 to 10 thousand years ago, was in quite close proximity, and fixed in the sky. I've not explored whether this is compatible with Divine Revelation. It's merely a fancy at this point.

    That's one of the great things about being secure in the True Faith: we're free to explore ideas that current scientific dogma (for that is what it is) will not countenance, like a geocentric universe, or one I'm increasingly interested in: the electrical organization of the universe, as opposed to the dogma of gravity, an infinitesimally weaker force than electricity, being the only thing holding it together (and apparently not doing a very good job of it since new and bizarre new substances have to constantly be dreamed up in order to shore up its deficiencies, e.g., dark matter). As Scripture indicates, the wisest among us know next to nothing as to the true nature of creation.

    1. Hi JT, really enjoyed your post.

      Point one: The Fall.

      Let us see what Scripture said:

      “Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabilitatem suam); it shall not be moved for ever.” --- (Ps. 103:5).

      “He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved.” --- (Ps. 92:1).

      For me this means what you propose did not happen. But I do believe the FALL caused the supernova and disintegration of cosmic bodies in line with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
      Indeed the age of the earth can be known from this.

      Quote: ‘6,000 years, you must be joking?’ No actually, for there is no way to determine the age of the moon (or any rock) for certain. Consider this for what its worth: When it became clear that men could be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate of bombardment, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no rain or water to cement or scatter them/it, there could be up to 50 to 180 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, stated to his brother that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it if current calculations of dust falling on the moon are accurate and correct.'

      Second Point: 'I'm increasingly interested in: the electrical organization of the universe, as opposed to the dogma of gravity'

      You do know this theory has been investigated by endless physicists without success. In my investigation I met a man who introduced me to Domenico Cassini (1625-1712).

      Quote: 'It would be a fundamental principle of Catholic theology that while we all have free will to believe whom or what we like, God never leaves us ignorant. Accordingly, at this point in our synthesis we should like to record the work of one that we would consider was God’s astronomer, the greatest observer of his or any era, Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712), a man who can be said to be the last of the truly great Catholic geocentrists.'

      Unified field theory

      ‘In physics, a unified field theory (UFT), occasionally referred to as a uniform field theory, is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a single field. There is no accepted unified field theory, and thus it remains an open line of research. The term was coined by Einstein, who attempted to unify the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism. The “theory of everything” and Grand Unified Theory are closely related to unified field theory, but differ by not requiring the basis of nature to be fields, and often by attempting to explain physical constants of nature.’ --- Wikipedia.

      Now JT, I can tell you Cassini UNKNOWING found a connection between orbits and electrical forces. Yes, had science gone down the road of true science and not followed a Masonic line, that unified theory would be known and credited to Cassini's find.

      Indeed as I am on it it was Cassini not Olaus Rōmer who gathered the data to show light had not an infinite speed.