Check out the animated show Bat out of Hell on Kickstarter!

Up from comments: Churchill breaks radio silence


“Hello. Since I can’t post, I’ll put this short thing I wrote about heliocentrism under a comment; I had added it under the one below, but would prefer to repeat it here. I’d be grateful for your comments on it, although I realise it’s not directly related to the topic above:

If the earth rotates around its axis at one thousand miles an hour (and at a much faster speed around the sun), then: (i) if the air above it does not move, why wouldn’t this influence the distance/time travelled by aeroplanes – ie if the earth moves, why isn’t this taken into account; (ii) if the air above the earth also moves at the same speed, why don’t, for example, leaves blow in an air current of 1000 miles an hour, whereas they do at a speed of, say, 1020 miles an hour; (iii) if there is a distinction between a moving air above the earth and wind in terms of their effects on moving objects, how can this be explained, rather than asserted. And is not also then unlikely that the earth travels around the sun.

I had wondered if much of cosmology was invented for political reasons: to undermine religion and in order therefore to encourage technological advancement and a change in values, although I had wondered if certain developments, such as plane travel, might even have been held up until the view of the universe had consolidated.”

Of course, Churchill gives away too much in this concern – knowing full well that it is a hot topic among Catholic triddywackers.


  1. Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says:

    I suppose the Sun would be sort of spiritually orbiting the Earth, only we were too sinful to see it.

  2. I am trying to decipher your statement (which makes an interesting point):
    “I had wondered if much of cosmology was invented for political reasons: to undermine religion and in order therefore to encourage technological advancement and a change in values…”

    I think indeed, scientists are inventing ideas, but they do it within a structure of mathematics and physics that develops over time, so we end up asking ourselves how much is invented and how much is it discovery of what God has put in place. The breakthrough of Enlightenment was to ask the question: If God is rational in setting human laws and physical laws of the universe, shouldn’t we be able to analyze and make conclusions about the physics as much as we do about his Word for us as people? So the truth we seek in science should be what is ‘discoverable’ as much as we can tell of this, and eliminate our own inventions of ideas – For scientists, history has a way of making sure the two are separated more clearly over time. We can lie to ourselves our whole lives, but history will decide (at least for science) what sticks.

    So despite there being scientists who want the next ‘discovery’ to prove there is no God, they are leaning heavily on their own interpretation of the discovery. No doubt, some individuals may want technology to be the ultimate ends of those means, and this is to your point. But the truth is we needn’t ask if technology is a fabrication meant to tempt us away from truth – Although it may tempt us, it is not a fabrication of the truth.

    Most cosmologists see that they are ‘discovering’ an imprimatur structure of the laws governing the universe, which are already in place and they are grateful for the opportunity; they are truly trying not to allow their ‘interpretation’ to get in the way of what is there to be ‘discovered’. This is the entire objective in cosmology. When Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter with his telescope he said. “I thank God I am the first seer of such things” – He was awestruck, not the father of a new deception.

Speak Your Mind