St. Robert Bellarmine's letter to Fr. Foscarini

[Geremia]

Here's St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine's 12 April 1615 letter to the Carmelite priest Fr. Foscarini, who wrote a theology book trying to reconcile heliocentrism with Scriptures (The Essential Galileo p. 146-148):

[171] To the Very Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites in the Province of Calabria:

  My Very Reverend Father,

  I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin which Your Paternity sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are all full of intelligence and erudition.  You ask for my opinion, and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.

  First, I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven⁴ and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.

  [172] Second, I say that, as you know, the Council⁵ prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith "as regards the topic" [ex parte obiecti], it is a matter of faith "as regards the speaker" [ex parte dicentis]; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.

  Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, "The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again,"⁶ was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving. I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that this is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no scientist has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the sun moves, as it also is not in error when it judges that the moon and the stars move.  And this is enough for now.

  With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.

  At home, 12 April 1615.
  To Your Reverend Paternity.

As a Brother,
Cardinal Bellarmine.

Notes
⁴"In the third heaven" just means in the third orbit around the sun.
⁵The Council of Trent (1545–63). [Session the Fourth, Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures; reiterated in Vatican I's Dei Filius]
⁶Ecclesiastes 1:5 [Douay-Rheims version]

[tacf]

Although you didn't pose a question originally, I would add that I agree with St Bellarmine even today. I say this after having read Dr. Sungenis' books; however, different parts of the book appear to propose different theories. He cites Luka Poplov for his work giving the best mathematical demonstrations for a geocentric universe, so I thought the portion's of Sungenis' books concordant with that were probably best.
Using Poplov's model, the rotating galaxies generate coriolis and centrifugal forces on the earth, which when added to Newton's equations give the same observational predictions that a rotating, revolving earth does. However, these terms arise from considering any two frames rotating relative to each other. See the video for its derivation and application to flight mechanics.

One then adds an additional term for the sun's influence, but this is also not specific for the earth. Poplov confirmed to me in correspondence that his theory would also be valid if one posited mars at the center. This leaves us with a system which "saves the appearances" and conforms to the Bible but doesn't make predictions the revolving earth model does in terms of planetary or galactic movements (despite Sungenis' argument that the moon's aberration is predicted differently, which I do not believe). Poplov suggested to me that the Cosmic microwave background radiation (axis of evil) suggests a geocentric universe, which I agree with as a probable, but not demonstrative argument. So I am left with a system which saves the appearances and has one observation leading to a probable argument; and this is the basis for my belief (in addition to traditional interpretation of Scripture). Poplov also suggested additional Michelson Morley experiments outside earth, which I think would tremendously add to the evidence as it does seem to predict different observable outcomes based on which model is true (ignoring relativity, which I think false on Thomistic metaphysical grounds in addition to the Sagnac effect being observed for linear motion, See: https://medcraveonline.com/PAIJ/PAIJ-01-00003). Curious what others thoughts are.

[Geremia]

He cites Luka Poplov for his work giving the best mathematical demonstrations for a geocentric universe

I'm familiar with Popov's Neo-Tychonian model papers.

Do you know of André Assis? His relational mechanics books and other books are interesting.

[tacf]

I have Assis' relational mechanics book, which went above my head (background is a bachelor's in physics but now a medical doctor). Does he have one that is easier to comprehend?
I started to read it b/c it was cited by Sungenis and Popov, but soon couldn't identify what I was hoping to gain by it - I can't recall what exactly they were using him to prove. In his book, Assis still takes the sun as the center of the solar system; not sure if he thinks the universe is finite or not. It seemed to me his theory was not geocentric.
I guess if someone could give me a reason for understanding it I would be more inclined, but honestly I would need an intro to Assis book probably first.

[Geremia]

Does he have one that is easier to comprehend?

He's given many introductory talks.
This one is a less technical introduction to what he calls "relational mechanics":

• Talk (October 19, 2019) on Relational Mechanics presented in Prague, Czech Republic, at the Conference Physics Beyond Relativity.
• Abstract:

  We present Galileo's free fall experiment and its interpretation in Newtonian mechanics. We also discuss Newton's bucket experiment. In this case we have a bucket partially filled with water hanging by a rope. When the bucket and the water are at rest relative to the ground, the surface of the water is flat. When the bucket and the water rotate together relative to the ground, the surface of the water becomes concave (the water rises towards the sides of the bucket, acquiring a parabolic shape). In Newtonian mechanics the curvature of the water surface is not due to its rotation relative to the bucket, relative to the Earth, nor relative to the distant stars and galaxies. According to Newton, this experiment proved the existence of empty and free space, which he called absolute space. According to him, the curvature of the water was due to its rotation relative to absolute space. We then discuss the criticisms of Ernst Mach against Newtonian mechanics. An emphasis is given in Mach's ideas according to which the inertia of any body is due to its gravitational interaction with the distant masses in the universe. Einstein's theories of relativity do not implement Mach's principle. This fact is one of the reasons why we are totally against Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. Finally, we present Relational Mechanics, a theory which implements quantitatively Mach's ideas about the origin of inertia utilizing Weber's law for gravitation. We discuss Galileo's free fall experiment and Newton's bucket experiment from the point of view of Relational Mechanics. We also present experimental tests in order to distinguish Relational Mechanics from Einstein's general theory of relativity.

• slides

[tacf]

I watched the video. I don't know if he's right or wrong.
1) How does this support geocentrism? It appears both relational mechanics and relativity allow for a non-geocentric universe (not that I think that necessarily wrong [like an eternal universe is allowed but untrue in Thomism]).
2) How is this easier to square with Thomistic natural philosophy than general relativity? Both posit a void.  I guess Assis doesn't alter time (actually a big plus), but I don't understand what "the sum of forces is always zero" means in a Thomistic sense. Perhaps it's derivable from Scholastic principles of "every body acts by touching, and to touch has a material necessity of being touched if both bodies have the same elements".
3) You said you were familiar with Popov's papers, but then directed me to Assis. What problems do you see with his approach?

[Geremia]

Thomistic natural philosophy [...] posit{s} a void.

?

[tacf]

I meant both relational mechanics and relativity posit a void. Thomism says there is no void.

Aquinas' commentary on aristotle's physics, book 4 lectures 10 through 14.

"The Philosopher had said above that we I must start with three things. So now, having finished two of them, by giving, namely, the opinions of both of those who posited and of those who rejected the void, he now enters upon the third, by showing, namely, the general notions people have about the void.

Concerning this he does three things:

First he shows what is meant by the word "void";

Secondly, how some thought that the void exists, at no. 513;

Thirdly, he rejects the reasons given by those who posit that a void exists, at no. 515...."

[Geremia]

both relational mechanics and relativity posit a void.

Unlike Newton and Einstein's General Relativity theory, relational mechanics does not posit a void. What made you think it did?

See 14.1 "Defense of Relative Space" pp. 237-9 of Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach's Principle with Weber's Gravitational Force

[tacf]

For some reason I have a different book which I thought was supposed to be his most explanatory, but the one you linked has much more information and explanation.
From what I've read so far, you are correct it doesn't posit an ether and I see how it allows geocentrism in a much more coherent form than relativity.
I still don't see how postulate 3 does not violate postulate 2 for a 2 body universe; however, I don't see a problem with his energy postulate. I will do some more reading.

[tacf]

To clarify, I meant postulate 2 and 3 here:

(II) The force that a point particle A exerts on a point particle B is equal and opposite to the force that B exerts on A, and is directed along the straight line connecting A to B.
(III) The sum of all forces of any nature (gravitational, electric, magnetic, elastic, chemical, frictional, nuclear, ...) acting on any body is always zero in all frames of reference.

It appears to me if you replace "body" in III with "point" it works out; b/c then a two body problem becomes the same as his worked example of the distant galaxies plus two bodies, just now acknowledging the mass of the first body contributes to the mass density of the isotropic component.

Is there any problems you see with his theory?
Does it use instantaneous action at a distance (it appears so to me)? (It appears to me that instantaneous action would imply infinite power by Thomism, so if it does imply instantaneous action, where am I wrong?)
I see his section on possible experiments, but do you know of any that have been performed which have different predictions than relativity?

[Geremia]

How does this support geocentrism?

Ernst Mach, quoted on p. 238 here:

See 14.1 "Defense of Relative Space" pp. 237-9 of Relational Mechanics and Implementation of Mach's Principle with Weber's Gravitational Force

gives the earth a special role with respect to the rest of the universe:

I have remained to the present day the only one who insists upon referring the law of inertia to the Earth, and in the case of motions of great spatial and temporal extent, to the fixed stars.

Relational mechanics, which implements Mach's principle, can be tested; cf. ibid. §24.5 "Experimental Tests of Relational Mechanics" pp. 460-74.

A Michelson-Morley experiment on the moon could also help prove or disprove whether the earth is a favored reference frame, as mentioned @33:27ff. of The Principle.

[Geremia]

Does it use instantaneous action at a distance

Weber's force law is an action-at-a-distance theory (actions instantaneously propagated), but Carl Neumann showed that what he calls emissive and receptive potentials propagating through space can lead to Weber's force law. See the English translation of his 1868 paper Die Principien der Elektrodynamik in Main Works on Electrodynamics (vol. 4) pp. 16ff.

[tacf]

First: Neumann's idea is very interesting. I will have to study it more.

Second: Interestingly, it seems St Thomas allows for instantaneous alteration of qualities from finite agents, although he is against infinite velocity of corporeal bodies:

Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 67, Article 2 ["Whether light is a body?"]:
The second reason is from movement. For if light were a body, its diffusion would be the local movement of a body. Now no local movement of a body can be instantaneous, as everything that moves from one place to another must pass through the intervening space before reaching the end: whereas the diffusion of light is instantaneous. Nor can it be argued that the time required is too short to be perceived; for though this may be the case in short distances, it cannot be so in distances so great as that which separates the East from the West. Yet as soon as the sun is at the horizon, the whole hemisphere is illuminated from end to end. It must also be borne in mind on the part of movement that whereas all bodies have their natural determinate movement, that of light is indifferent as regards direction, working equally in a circle as in a straight line. Hence it appears that the diffusion of light is not the local movement of a body.

Also St Thomas' commentary on Aristotle's Physics Book 6:
801. However, there is here another difficulty. For when it comes to alteration, it does not seem to be true that what is being altered is partly in one term and partly in the other, during the alteration. For the motion of alteration does not take place in such a way that first one part and then another is altered; rather the entire thing that was less hot becomes hotter. For which reason Aristotle even says in the book On Sense and the Thing Sensed that alterations are not like local motions. For in the latter, the subject reaches the intermediate before the goal, but such is not the case with things that are altered; for some things are altered all at once and not part by part, for it is the entire water that all at once freezes.

802. But to this it must be replied that in this Sixth Book Aristotle is treating of motion as continuous. And continuity is primarily and per se and strictly found only in local motion, which alone can be continuous and regular, as will be shown in Book VIII. Therefore, the demonstrations given in Book VI pertain perfectly to local motion but imperfectly to other motions, i.e., only to the extent that they are continuous and regular.

Consequently, it must be said that what is mobile in respect of place always enters a new place part by part before it is there in its entirety; but in alteration, that is only partially true. For it is clear that every alteration depends on the power of the agent that causes the alteration—as its power is stronger it is able to alter a greater body. Therefore, since the cause of the alteration has finite power, a body capable of being altered is subject to its power up to a certain limit of quantity, which receives the impression of the agent all at once; hence the whole is altered all at once, and not part after part. Yet that which is altered can in turn alter something else conjoined to it, although its power in acting will be less forceful, and so on, until the power involved in the series of alterations is depleted. An example of this is fire which all at once heats one section of air, which in turn heats another, and thus part after part is altered. Hence in the book On Sense and the Thing Sensed, after the above-quoted passage, Aristotle goes on to say: "Yet if the object heated or frozen is large, part after part will be affected. But the first part had to be altered all at once and suddenly by the agent".

Yet even in things that are altered all at once, it is possible to discover some kind of succession, because since alteration depends on contact with the cause which alters, the parts closer to the body that causes the alteration will more perfectly receive at the very beginning an impression from the agent: and thus the state of perfect alteration is reached successively according to an order of parts. This is especially true when the body to be altered has something which resists the power of the altering cause.

Consequently, the conclusion (that what is being changed, is, while it is being changed, partly in the terminus a quo and partly in the terminus ad quem, in the sense that one part reaches the terminus ad quem before another does) is unqualifiedly and absolutely true in local motion. But in alteration it is qualifiedly true, as we have said.

If I had to hazard an opinion, I would say that since the medium containing Neumann's potentials or anyone's forces has parts, change with respect to those qualities would have to occur over time.

Third: Anyways in overview:
We follow Neumann's idea for potentials giving rise to forces in the medium/ether, yielding Weber's force for electromagnetism and Assis' force for gravity.
Potential's propagate at a finite velocity, but forces give experimental results equivalent to instantaneous action at a distance.
No need for a void or time dilation, and efficient causality in hylomorphic substances is preserved.
Formal causality  is given by the equations of motion.
Potentials set up by the particles present in the medium are Aristotelian/Thomistic qualities.
Forces are qualities arising from potentials, in the same sense as sweet is combination of qualities (St Thomas example).

I can't think of anything wrong with this with respect to Thomism. Maybe it is wrong, but appears possible to me.


Fourth:

A Michelson-Morley experiment on the moon could also help prove or disprove whether the earth is a favored reference frame, as mentioned @33:27ff. of The Principle.

I've seen the movie and read GWWCWR (probably misunderstood a good portion and forgot another); but I am uncertain-what was/is result of the MM experiment? I've read it was a small non-null result (from the book), a null result (textbooks), and even a large non-null result: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V20NO4PDF/HORS-20-MUN.pdf
As an aside, this is ironic in that I had to replicate the MM experiment in college and don't remember what I got but I do remember that it wasn't "correct" and I had to give reasons why.

I looked through the postulated experiments in the book for relational mechanics, but none appear to have been done or are close to being done. So I was wondering if anyone knew of any already performed.

[Geremia]

That is interesting that St. Thomas seems to think action-at-a-distance is possible for non-corporeal entities like light.

what was/is result of the MM experiment? I've read it was a small non-null result (from the book), a null result (textbooks), and even a large non-null result: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V20NO4PDF/HORS-20-MUN.pdf

See these questions:

• Why is the Michelson-Morley experiment considered a null-result?
• Why do the Michelson-Morley (1887) & Michelson-Gale (1925) experiments both measure non-zero fringe shifts?

Also, have you seen Journey to the Center of the Universe? It discusses all these experiments, quotes original sources, and has good visuals, too.

[tacf]

First:

That is interesting that St. Thomas seems to think action-at-a-distance is possible for non-corporeal entities like light.

Just for clarification, it appears to me St Thomas thinks light is a quality of a corporeal form, and only analogously used when speaking of non-corporeal entities.

Summa Th, FPQ67A3, Whether light is a quality?... I answer that, Some writers have said that the light in the air has not a natural being such as the color on a wall has, but only an intentional being, as a similitude of color in the air. But this cannot be the case for two reasons. First, because light gives a name to the air, since by it the air becomes actually luminous. But color does not do this, for we do not speak of the air as colored. Secondly, because light produces natural effects, for by the rays of the sun bodies are warmed, and natural changes cannot be brought about by mere intentions. Others have said that light is the sun's substantial form, but this also seems impossible for two reasons. First, because substantial forms are not of themselves objects of the senses; for the object of the intellect is what a thing is, as is said De Anima iii, text. 26: whereas light is visible of itself. In the second place, because it is impossible that what is the substantial form of one thing should be the accidental form of another; since substantial forms of their very nature constitute species: wherefore the substantial form always and everywhere accompanies the species. But light is not the substantial form of air, for if it were, the air would be destroyed when light is withdrawn. Hence it cannot be the substantial form of the sun.
We must say, then, that as heat is an active quality consequent on the substantial form of fire, so light is an active quality consequent on the substantial form of the sun, or of another body that is of itself luminous, if there is any such body.

That is why I found it so hard to believe he actually said the diffusion of light is instantaneous; because he knew the sky had parts, because the sky is corporeal, which means it is divisible and has parts; and he said "Yet even in things that are altered all at once, it is possible to discover some kind of succession, because since alteration depends on contact with the cause which alters, the parts closer to the body that causes the alteration will more perfectly receive at the very beginning an impression from the agent: and thus the state of perfect alteration is reached successively according to an order of parts. "

Second: Going forward I will take it as true that they showed small positive results.

Third: I watched it about 5 years ago. Should probably review it.

[Geremia]

he said "Yet even in things that are altered all at once, it is possible to discover some kind of succession, because since alteration depends on contact with the cause which alters, the parts closer to the body that causes the alteration will more perfectly receive at the very beginning an impression from the agent: and thus the state of perfect alteration is reached successively according to an order of parts. "

It sounds like he's describing the propagation of sound through a gas, the speed of which propagation increases as the density of the medium increases.

[tacf]

First: It does not seem to me he is speaking of sound in a gas; as he is referencing water turning to ice in his example, and the context shows he is speaking of alteration of quality in general. And all corporeal bodies have parts at least potentially in Thomistic natural philosophy. However, he does say this instantaneousness change in quality only applies for bodies which are continuous, regular, and have no intrinsic resisting power.

802. But to this it must be replied that in this Sixth Book Aristotle is treating of motion as continuous. And continuity is primarily and per se and strictly found only in local motion, which alone can be continuous and regular, as will be shown in Book VIII. Therefore, the demonstrations given in Book VI pertain perfectly to local motion but imperfectly to other motions, i.e., only to the extent that they are continuous and regular.
Consequently, it must be said that what is mobile in respect of place always enters a new place part by part before it is there in its entirety; but in alteration, that is only partially true.

And

... This is especially true when the body to be altered has something which resists the power of the altering cause.

Anyways, we know air is not a regular (homogenous) continuum, so he would admit that the illumination of air would have a finite speed.

Second: With Neumann's potentials we don't have to postulate a change in quality instantly or say it is impossible; so it appears to be a digression.

Third: Different topic but still related to geocentrism, what are your thoughts on the Sagnac effect? Sungenis talks about it in the section related to the GPS disproving relativity, and this is what Wolfgang Smith references as swaying him. I have read some online things saying it disproves relativity and others saying it is predicted by it. A linear Sagnac effect would I think disprove relativity certainly, but I haven't been able to find citable sources to this effect.

[Geremia]

A linear Sagnac effect

What do you mean by that? The Sagnac experiment involving a rotating interferometer.

[tacf]

I got my ideas and the term "linear Sagnac effect" from GWWCWR Vol2 Ch10.

From my understanding (which may be wrong), the Sagnac "effect" is referring to the fringe shift which reflects the change in speed of light in the interferometer experiment. This has been explained in relativity to be due to the rotational nature of the light paths, and that if it was a "linear" setup (i.e., involving no rotation) no Sagnac effect would be observed.
Per relativity: Speed of light is independent of the source; and same for observer in any frame which is not being accelerated relative to the frame of the light source.
Since the setup has rotation, these frames are accelerated, so non-constant speed of light is predicted, so a difference in time for the light to travel the same distance along different paths is predicted.

But if the two paths are both undergoing only linear motion, then relativity predicts no fringe shift; if one still occurs this is a "linear Sagnac effect". I was wondering if you thought this reasoning or something along similar lines held.

In the paper below, they claim the Sagnac effect still happens for uniform linear motion of the fibers the light travels in.
Zheng, Yi; Yao, Aiping; Wang, Ruyong; and Langley, Dean, "Modified Sagnac experiment for measuring travel-time difference between counter-propagating light beams in a uniformly moving fiber" (2003). Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty Publications. 3.
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/ece_facpubs/3

GWWCWR Vol 2 Chapter 10, pg 156:

To be consistent with the principle of relativity one has to demand that the Sagnac interferometer and the ring laser cannot lead to a fringe shift or a beat frequency if the equipment is in uniform translational motion.

Also, do you have another source of Carl Neumann's propagating potentials? I have a hard time following it.