Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

It is beginning to look like Copernius and Galileo were wrong and the Church was righgt. It now appears that the earth may indeed be the center of the universe. So the question is, will the world apologize for the abuse that has been heaped upon it for the last 500 years? Will the professors in our universities across the land stop upbrating the Church? At the very least they should admit that actually determining the center of the universe is far from being as easy as Copernicus and Galileo thought.


This is amazing!!

(is it sinful (morose delectation, we say schadenfeude nowadays) to take delight in the discomfort these scientists are experiencing? The irony is veeerrrrrrry tempting!)

And the way the scientists are reacting is certainly illuminating.

Well, isn’t this more of a compromise? The earth revolves around the sun and the earth is the center of the universe. It is certainly embarrassing to those who would like to believe that we aren’t special, we just happened to have had the right circumstances (which cannot be described or replicated.) to form life.

So this guy’s name is John QPublic, hunh? :ehh: :hmmm:

I read through his article, and the way and style it’s written makes me not trust a word he says.
It just doesn’t sound right.

Let’s see what Google says:–plus-axis-of-evil.html

Don’t have time now to go through here and interpret, but, whatever it may or may not say about Copernicus, it seems to prove the Standard model is incorrect.

St Robert Bellarmine:thumbsup:

[quote=Ashok K. Singal]Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?

Ashok K. Singal
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions.
The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.

Well, it looks like I might become a Neogeocentrist in the near future. :eek:

Even so, I recommend we make caution our watchword and not proclaim this from the rooftops until we see where this goes.

A vindication of geocentrism doesn’t necessarily vindicate the Church’s position in the 17th century, in any case… what this article is talking about has little to do with pre-Copernican and pre-Galilean systems, even if it is geocentric. I don’t think any “apology” is order on this count–if for no reason other than that there is no one around to apologize.

As far as Galileo is concerned, he could be faulted on other grounds–ie. that he had not adequately demonstrated his position, eliminated epicycles, etc.

This is very interesting! Thanks for posting, Linus!

I wouldn’t get too excited about an article from last year signed only as John Q. Public. The writer even admits that the Earth is circling the sun ergo, we are not the center. At best, the sun is. All this with no peer review…no backing sources…etc.

Nothing to see here folks.


Did you not read the rest of the thread?

I don’t believe the earth is entirely stationary. I believe the earth is oscillating a very small amount, and that is what produces the high tides low tides. Or it could be the gravitational pull of the moon (not).

Um… no your second proposition regarding the tide was correct and your first one wasn’t. Come to think of it though that first one was one of Gallileo’s few original ideas.

I don’t think it is definitive but if even modern astronomers see a real problem, that should demonstrate the justification of why the Church ordered Galileo to stop teaching Copernicus’ theory and the ignorance of those who have historically condemned and ridiculed the Church over the issue. Of course no one will apologize.


The Copernican Principle is a bedrock of the standard model. In modern interpretations the Copernican Principle means that the universe is homogeneous with isotropy. In common parlance, it means that the earth is not in a special place.

Well, there is genuine scientific analysis behind the article. Do some more research yourself and you will see. I included this one link because it explained the issue succinctly.


That is what the newest scientific data is channenging.


Exactly. Although it is interesting to see where new developments in cosmology and other areas of science lead, I don’t think it is prudent to try to make a religious issue of out this by saying that Galileo was wrong and the Church was right. It usually doesn’t end up going well for the theist because the secularist scientist understands his study very well and will probably win the scientific argument, which just makes the theist’s position look silly and knee-jerk in comparison. And as we all know the claims of Catholicism and theism in general do not rest on the physical location of the Earth anyway. I think it is better to just let the scientists work this out in peace and continue to point out the flaws in their unreflective, dogmatic metaphysical assumptions.

You misrepresent the nature of science. All true scientists search for errors in their work. If and when they are found they will go back to the drawing broad and start over. Galileo was accused of being a heretic by the CC, not because he was a scientist working with what he and not because he was right or wrong but because his findings didn’t suit the Church. Can you imagine what it was like to be labeled heretic by the Pope in those days? You and your family would lose everything, perhaps be burned at a stake, all because your scientific inquiries where disliked by the Church. How many times has the church been wrong through the ages and how many heretics have suffered indescribable tortures and death because of it.

Galileo got off easy:

Galileo agreed not to teach the heresy anymore and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It took more than 300 years for the Church to admit that Galileo was right and to clear his name of heresy.

To be sure, the CC and other denominations have received revelation and corrected their ways allowing us, once again, to be proud to be Christians.

This is true to some extent. They cannot hide observations, such as the alignment of CMB anisotropies with the earth. But they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ASSUMPTIONS alive, such as the Copernican Principle. The Copernican Principle is strictly philosophical in the end, and they will continue to distort science to maintain it if they can get away with it. This is what the multiverse is all about. This little parody illustrates the issue:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit