Some Questions on Lagrange Points.

Some Questions on Lagrange Points – According to Wicki, a Lagrange point is

The Lagrangian points are the five positions in an orbital configuration where a small object affected only by gravity can theoretically be stationary relative to two larger objects (such as a satellite with respect to the Earth and Moon). The Lagrange points mark positions where the combined gravitational pull of the two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to rotate with them. They are analogous to geostationary orbits in that they allow an object to be in a fixed position in space rather than an orbit in which its relative position changes continuously.

Evidently Lagrange points are calculated using Newtonian mechanics in a two body problem. According to Wicki, satellites have been sent into the Lagrange points, or at least to orbit the Lagrange points heer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrang...point_missions. Also according to Wicki, the earth orbits the sun in an ellipse, with a distance to the sun that varies over the year by about 5 million kms. When we look at the Lagrange points, L1 to L5 are all dependent upon the location of the sun and the earth. As such, the following questions are pertinent –

If a satellite was sent to L1, what is the force that causes the satellite to move closer and further away from the sun when the earth moves closer and further away from the sun during its elliptical orbit?

According to Newtonian mechanics, the gravity field is stronger when a body is closer to another body. When the satellite is at L1 and is closest to the sun when the earth is at perihelion, what then is the force that causes the satellite to move along with the earth as the earth gradually moves away from the sun, to its maximum distance at aphelion?

If the satellite is launched from the earth, with a velocity component of 30km/s, what is the velocity component of the satellite at L1? Is it 30km/s or other?

If the sun orbits the solar system barycenter, which is located outside the sun, what is the force that causes the satellite to move along with the change in suns position as the solar system barycenter location changes?

Lagrange points are said to be points where centrifugal and centripetal forces balance. Centripetal force is dependent upon the velocity of the moving mass and its orbital radius. As the earths mass is the same, but the orbital radius changes throughout the year, then the centripetal force required to keep the earth in orbit must change, thereby moving the Lagrange point. Yet, the formula for the distance to L2 (r), is only dependent upon relative masses of two bodies, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrang...nt#cite_note-9 , which do not change during the year. How does the value of r change when the centripetal force on the earth changes throughout the year, but the value of the two masses do not change?

For a satellite to remain in the L1 position during the year, it must travel along in an elliptical orbit around the sun, even though the centripetal force from the sun and the gravity of earth cancel. Therefore according to Newtonian mechanics, there is no gravitational force to counter the centrifugal forces created by the satellites orbit. How does Newtonian orbital mechanics account for the satellite motion without a gravity force acting on the satellite?

If the satellite is sent to L1 as the Lagrange point between the sun and the moon, what is the effect of the position of the moon on L1? If there is no effect, then this means the moons gravity field has no effect on L1, yet modern physics says the moons gravity field is critical to determining the actions of the earth’s tides. Therefore this would mean that the moon has both no effect of Lagrange points, and have immense importance in calculating tides, both of which involve the moons gravity. Seems very odd indeed.

If there is an effect on L1 by the moon, then L1 must move with the moon on a monthly basis. As such, to remain in the L1 point, the satellite is required to move in a flower pattern around the sun, just as the earth moves in a flower pattern orbiting the sun, around the earth-moon barycenter. What is the cause of the motion of the satellite in a flower pattern, when the gravity and centrifugal forces on the satellite cancel in the sun-earth system?

If the gravity from the sun-earth system is zero at L1, shouldn’t the moons gravity field dominate the satellites motion? As such, shouldn’t the satellite tend to orbit in a large ellipse, following the motion of the moon? Or always tend towards the moon and therefore fall out of a Lagrange point?

As the moon is between the sun and the earth, then the moons gravity force is at its greatest when the satellite is at L1. In this example, the satellite will tend to move towards the moon, when in fact the L1 will move away from the moon, towards the sun. In this way, the satellite requires a force to move against the moon. What is this force?

Likewise, the moons gravitational force is smallest when it is on the far side of the earth. In this example, the satellite will only slightly tend to move towards the moon, whereas L1 will move towards the sun at a greater rate to that of the satellite. In this way, the satellite requires a force to move with L1, towards the moon. What is this force?

When a satellite is at L2, the combined gravity and centrifugal forces of the sun and earth on the satellite is zero. What is the cause of the force that causes the satellite to remain in orbit, to counter the centrifugal force of the orbiting satellite around the sun, when the resultant forces due to the sun and earth on the satellite is zero? According to this scenario the sun has no net force on the satellite, yet there is a centrifugal force generated by the satellites motion around the sun. If there is no counter force acting on the satellite, then the satellite will drift out of the Lagrange point.

If satellites orbit the sun at any Lagrange point, this means the satellite is orbiting the sun, without the sun-earth system having any net force placed on the satellite. This is gravitationally similar to a satellite orbiting in space around nothing, which is therefore very similar to sciences rejected notion of epicycles. How then does modern science explain the motion of satellites around the sun in Lagrange points, when such motions are mechanically the same as the rejected planetary epicycles?

The following link http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMM17XJD1E_index_0.html shows the motion of the Lagrange points along with the earth. According to this model, the earth orbits the sun in a circle. Why does the modern explanation of Lagrange points require the earth to orbit the sun in a circle, when Newtonian/Kepler mechanics demands that it orbit the sun in an ellipse?

Derivation of the Lagrange points is merely based upon Newton’s formulas, only assuming two bodies in the problem. For example, distance to L1 is shown here – http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Slagrang.htm between the sun and the earth. Yet in the real, there are many bodies, including the moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, which all have an influence one the gravitational force acting on a body. As the gravitational force is constantly changing, then the location of all the Lagrange points must also be constantly changing relative to the earth. Yet the standard representation of Lagrange points do not show change in the location of the points. How is the standard presentation a reflection of the real Lagrange points used to provide destinations for satellites?

Lagrange points in the real are dependent upon centripetal and centrifugal forces that cancel at points around an orbiting body. As the Milky Way is moving through space at 600km/s then the location of the planets and sun relative to earth must account for aberration of light to locate the real positions of those bodies. Only after the real locations of bodies are known relative to earth, can the maths be done to calculate the real location of the Lagrange points. As aberration is not used in the calcs for the Lagrange points, then only apparent locations of bodies are used and therefore the Lagrange points are always in error. How can erroneous Lagrange points be used to determine the location of the destination of satellites such as SOHO?

JM

Problems in modern Cosmology Part III

Some further problems with cosmology received by Dr Bridgman here are given below for consideration and discussion.

Q1 - Why is it that Newtonian mechanics requires instantaneous action at a distance to account for gravity and this is taken seriously by science?

Q2- What is the mechanism proposed by science what is consistent with Newtonian physics to permit the force of gravity to be effective instantaneously over large distances?

Q3 - Relativity says gravity is caused by a completely different mechanism of a bending of the space time continuum. As this mechanism is very much unlike the Newtonian mechanism for gravity, why are the two mechanisms routinely acknowledged within modern science?

Q4- Why is it that the notion of the barycenter is fundamentally flawed and yet it is taken seriously by modern science and is routinely used in planetary flight path calculations when using Kepler’s laws? For example a planet is said to obey Kepler’s laws by taking an elliptical flight path around the sun as one of its foci, yet that same planets is also said to travel around the solar system barycenter as one of its foci, which is not at the center of the sun. This singular inconsistency seems to be routinely ignored by modern science, yet Kepler’s laws are routinely stated to be compatible with Newton’s laws and reflective of real planetary flight paths. Please comment.

Q5 – Modern sciences understanding of the physical cause of gravity is not well understood. Why then is Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory used against geocentrism when such theories merely make assumptions concerning the mechanism for gravity and then produce equations based upon those assumptions? After all if those assumptions are not well established by science experiment, then objections to geocentrism are at best only objections, based upon models founded upon assumptions about the nature of gravity. Please comment.

Q6 – The Foucault pendulum is routinely used as apparent evidence for the moving earth. The pendulum is said to swing in a plane parallel to the fixed stars, whilst the earth rotates underneath the pendulum. How does modern science explain the force produced by the fixed stars that causes the pendulum to swing in a fixed plane relative to the stars?

Q7 -Why does the pendulum apparently overcome the gravity fields of the sun and moon and not swing in a plane following those bodies and yet not overcome the gravity fields of the distant stars?


Q8 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum that points towards the earth’s center of mass continue to do so throughout the day when the pendulum is traveling along with the rotating earth?

Q9 - Why doesn’t a Foucault pendulum merely follow the rotating earth and continue to swing in a plane with the moving earth and thereby have no variation of the plane direction with the earth’s daily rotation?

Problems in Modern Cosmology, Part II

Dr Bridgman has received my questions concerning modern cosmology at "Geocentrism: Does NASA use Geocentrism?" I have copied the questions here for readers consideration and answers if they so wish.

Q1 - according to Kepler’s first law, "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.", yet the center of mass of the sun is always moving around the solar system barycenter. Therefore, as the foci of the planets ellipse moves, does this therefore invalidated the first law, or does the entire ellipse move with the moving foci at the center of the sun?

Q2- If the planet actually orbits the solar system barycenter, why then does Kepler’s first law say otherwise?

Q3 - Doesn't the solar system barycenter exclude the center of the sun as being a foci of the planets elliptical orbit?

Q4- If Kepler’s first law is used in planetary flight paths, this means the solar system barycenter must be ignored, which thereby seems to invalidate Newton’s laws of motion around a common barycenter. Please comment.

Q5- Why do Kepler’s laws assume all planets have an elliptical flight path, yet when we take into account the Earth-moon system, the earth moves around the Earth - moon barycenter every month whilst moving along its orbital path around the sun. If the trace out the flight path of the earth relative to the center of mass of the sun as the foci of the ellipse, the earth cannot possibly be traveling in an ellipse, but must move through "absolute space" in a flower pattern centered on the solar system barycenter. As the earths flight path does not fit into the elliptical orbit pattern required by Kepler’s laws, how are Kepler’s laws used to accurately determine the flights paths of other planets relative to the earth?

Q6 - If the earth is orbiting around the Earth-moon barycenter every month, why don’t we see the apparent motion of the sun around the earth vary in velocity as the earth gains and loses a velocity component due to its motion relative to the “fixed” sun? In other words – during the monthly cycle there is a time when the earth must orbit in a prograde manner relative to the sun, when orbiting the earth –moon system. Later during the month, the earth continues its earth-moon barycenter motion and must move in a retrograde motion relative to the fixed sun.

Q7- How are these relative prograde and retrograde motions of the earth on a monthly basis taken into account in the flight path calculations?

Q8- How are the calculations consistent with Kepler’s laws, when the earths flight path through space is not an ellipse, but a complex flower shape?

Q9 - According to Kelper’s laws, the earth orbits the sun every year in an ellipse. Accordingly the velocity of the earth varies from 30.287 to 29.291 km/s, yet the earths orbital velocity around the earth-moon system is approximately 0.012km/s. This means that if we take into account the monthly orbit velocity of the earth around the E-M barycenter, the earths velocity around the sun will vary from 30.287+-0.012 to 29.291+-0.012, which means the earths orbital velocity around the sun does not comply with Kepler’s laws. How is the flight path of the earth and planets relative to the earth calculated when the earths flight path around the sun does not comply with Kepler’s laws?

Q10 – If the earth moves around the E-M barycenter every month, why don’t we observe a monthly parallax of the sun?

Q11 – The sundial is constructed using the equation of time which excludes the motion of the sun around the solar system barycenter. As the sun moves quite a large amount over many years, as shown in this video, - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iSR3Yw6FXo
why is the suns motion ignored in the equation of time? Please provide the calculations to demonstrate the suns motion around the solar system barycenter can legitimately be ignored in the equation of time.

Problems for Modern Cosmology Part I

I've recently sent some questions to Dr Bridgman at dealing with creationism in astronomy for his review. I have placed the same questions here for anyone to consider and answer if they so wish. I am open to correction on any of my questions and would be grateful for direct answers aimed at the educated layman's level, or slightly above.

Q1- I have read Galileo Was Wrong by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett and in it the claim is made that there is no aberration of moon light observed. If the earth and moon are orbiting the sun at 30km/s and the solar system is moving through space at about 380km/s then the aberration angel of 4' 20" and including the transit delay, the total aberration angel is then 8' 40".  Can you locate any published data that supports an observed aberration of moon light of 8’ 40”? If no observations of aberration of moon light have been observed, does that mean the earth is stationary relative to the moon?

Q2 - If the positions of the planets are not known as they are in the real, but only the apparent positions are known as observed from earth, how then does an almanac take into account the aberration of light from the planets when calculating predicted positions of the planets as observed from earth? In other words, if aberration of light from the planets is used in the almanac calculations, what aberration is used and how do we know what the real aberration is? If aberration of light from the planets is not used in the almanac calculations, is that an implicit admission that the calculations are either ad hoc, or perhaps the earth really is stationary relative to the planets?

Q3 – The retro-reflectors have been designed to bounce back a laser beam in the exact same direction from which the beam enters the reflector. Say for example a laser is shot of from a stationary position and hits the reflector. The beam will then bounce back to the same point from which it came. We can vary the scenarios as follows –

Let point 1 be the point  (0,0) at which the beam is initially shot off from the laser gun. Point 1 also has a receiver mechanism to read the incoming laser from the retro-reflector.

Let point 2 be the point at which the retro-reflector is located at (0, 1.25c).

Scenario 1. Point 1 is moving at 400km/s along the x axis and point 2 is stationary at (0, 1.25c). The laser return travel time is 2.5 seconds. The laser beam returns along the same flight path in space from which it travelled to (0,0). When the laser has travelled for 2.5s, point 1 has moved 1000km from its original firing point to (1000,0). Therefore the return laser from the retro-reflector will not be measured by receiver mechanism which returns to (0,0).

Scenario 2 – Point 1 is moving at 400km/s along the x axis. The laser return travel time is 2.5 seconds. Point 2 is moving at 400km/s along the x axis. The laser beam returns along the same flight path in space from which it travelled. When the laser has travelled for 2.5s, point 1 has moved 1000km from its original firing point to (1000,0). Therefore the return laser from the retro-reflector will not be measured by receiver mechanism, which returns to (0,0).

If point 1 is the earth and point 2 is the moon and the earth and the moon are moving through space at about 400km/s, with a laser spread of about 20km when it returns to the original laser launch point (0,0), then how is the return laser ever received, when the earth has moved through space and is 1000km/s from the point at which the laser was shot off (1000,0)?

If the answer to this problem is the retro reflector mirror shrinks according to the Lorentz contraction and therefore the laser path forms a triangle shape relative to the moving earth, then –

What scientific evidence is there to experimentally verify that the retro-reflectors shrink in the direction in which the moon is moving through space?

In a similar way, if the earth and moon are moving through space at 400km/s when the retro-reflectors were made on earth, why then is a Lorentz contraction required in the lunar laser ranging experiment calculations, when the retro-reflectors were measured on earth to ensure the laser path returns the laser along the same flight path to which it entered the retro reflector? In short, earth moves through space at 400km/s and the dimensions of the retro reflectors are known. The moon also moves through space at 400km/s, and therefore the Lorentz contraction is physically not required, but is included in the lunar laser ranging calculations. Why?

Q4 – The fringe shift predicted for a moving earth through an aether in the Michelson Morley experiment was expected to be 0.40 of a fringe if the earth travels through space at about 380km/s. Yet only a fringe shift of about 0.02 was found by experiment. As such, Albert Einstein posited that the lengths of the arms that move in the direction of the earths motion shrink according to Lorentz contraction formula. Why does modern science take the ad hoc Lorentz contraction formula seriously, when there is no known force within the universe that uniformly acts on/in bodies to shrink bodies in the direction in which the body travels? Furthermore, if the Lorentz contraction theory is to be routinely used by modern physics, what experiments are proposed to test and invalidate the Lorentz contraction theory?

Q5 - There was a small positive fringe shift in the Michelson Morley and other similar experiments, clearly indicating there is something such as an aether flow passing by the earth’s surface. If the Lorentz contraction is used to explain away the apparent “null” fringe shift, how does science account for the small positive result that was observed and which does not fit into relativity theory?

Q6 – According to relativity, a body at rest has a proper length, which is its maximum length. When a body moves, its length shrinks according to the Lorentz contraction theory. What happens to the body when it stops moving? Does it return to its original length and if so, what is the force inside the body that causes this action to occur?

Q7 – Newtonian mechanics says the elliptical motion of the planets can be adequately accounted for through the notions of gravity caused by mass attraction and centrifugal acceleration. However modern science also says the universe is largely composed of dark matter, which is proposed as a cause for the action of spiral galaxies that do not act as predicted by Newtonian physics. Why is it that the motions of the planets within the local solar system can be accounted for using Newtonian physics, when the far larger forces caused by dark matter are ignored?

Q8 – Doesn’t the existence of dark matter and dark energy invalidate Newtonian physics, simply because these causes within the universe are posited to dominate the motions of galaxies?

Q9 – Modern science says Newtonian physics doesn’t hold for spiral galaxies, due to the need for dark matter. Modern science posits the earth and the solar system is located within a spiral galaxy, therefore it follows that the galaxy in which the earth is located has a physics different to that of other galaxies. This is so, simply because Newtonian mechanics can be used to account for the motion of the planets without the need for dark matter. Therefore if we are in a unique galaxy, what modern theory accounts for the manner in which our earth and its galaxy move without the need for dark matter?

Q10 – The standard theory says the galaxies are receding from the earth according to Hubble’s law, whereby redshift is interpreted as an indication of relative galaxy motion. Sometimes Galaxy motion is split into a cosmic component and a proper component of the galaxy itself. As such, how does modern science know experimentally if the cosmic expansion is real or if the proper motion of the galaxy is real?

Q11 – If space is expanding between the earth and the galaxies, what causes the redshift when the light travels through the expanding space? What scientific experiments have been performed to verify an expanding space causes redshift of light?

Q12 – If expanding space causes redshift and relativity theory denies the existence of an aether in space, and ignores any properties to the vacuum of space, how then can a vacuum without properties expand and also have a redshift effect on light?

Q13 – alternatively, if space is not nothing, but is “something” (dark matter) which expands, how is this “something” any different to the old notions of an aether that permeates space?

Q14 - Modern science posits the existence of dark matter which permeates throughout the universe and comprises about 95% of the universes matter. Evidently if this dark matter is throughout the universe, then it must be also located within our solar system and around the earth. How then is dark matter taken into account in the Michelson Morley experiment and other similar experiments, that modern science thinks produced “null” results? After all, if the null results are accounted for within the need for an aether around the earth, then how does modern science think there is no aether, but plenty of dark matter around the earth?

Q15 – George Airy completed an experiment to determine the motion of the earth through space. He posited that if the earth moved through space, then a water filled telescope would slow down the light travelling through the telescope and the telescope would have to be tilted forward to have the star light hit the same spot in the telescope. It is well known that Airy’s experiment failed to detect any motion of the earth – the results are known as Airy’s failure. How does modern science account for the results of Airy’s failure that logically mean the earth is stationary relative to the stars? If you use relativity theory to account for the experiment, I request you include experimental evidence for any time dilation and length contracted assumed to have occurred in the experiment.

Q16 – The twin Quasar Q0957+561 was used to confirm gravitational lensing in 1979. The quasar and its lensing galaxy have distances that are only theoretically known and may be out by not less than 15% as stated in the Universe Today - http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/07/the-universe-could-be-larger-than-previously-thought/, as such any example of gravitational lensing is merely a case of assuming distances and then applying a theory to those distances to produce the required results. Please comment.

Q17 - Gravitational lensing should occur all over the night sky because very many objects in the night sky have objects behind them. Therefore if gravitational lensing is applied uniformly over the night sky, shouldn’t there be multiple images of the same object all over the night sky, causing the night sky to filled with real and apparent objects caused by gravitational lensing? If not why not?

Q18 – If a source star emits light and the light passes by multiple objects, which must then act as multiple lenses, why don’t we observe an almost infinite number of objects in the sky due to multiple lensing of source star light?

Q19 – According to the famous example of Einstein’s cross shown on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross, the cross is used as an example of gravitational lensing. The lensing galaxy is not symmetrically located within the lensed galaxies. Therefore, how can the lense work when it is not located in the same line (the center of the lights) as the lensed galaxies?

Q20 – Einstein’s cross shows the four stars around the lensing galaxy, meaning the curved light should vary with distance from the lensing galaxy. Nevertheless, the four stars are not curved, with an arc shape, caused by a variable distance from the lensing galaxy. Why do the lensed galaxies have a uniform shape and do not vary in shape according to distance from the lensing galaxy?

Q21 – Modern physics says it looks as though the earth is at the center of the universe, with the galaxies moving away from the earth on all sides. It is said that this is only an appearance and really the earth is just another object in the universe that looks as though it is at the center of the universe because any point would look as though it is at the center of the universe. Why? Because due to dark matter and dark energy, the universe is uniformly expanding in all directions. Question – if the universe is expanding uniformly, or at least nearly uniformly in all directions, why is there no evidence for the expansion of space between the sun and the earth, or the earth and the moon of the earth and any other planet in the solar system? If however there is evidence for such expansion, how does such expansion consistent with Newtonian mechanics that requires specific distances in relation to a bodies mass and centrifugal force?

Q22 – If the expansion of the universe is uniformly everywhere and as such, the earth only looks as though it is at the center of the universe, but really isn’t, why then does space expand only between the galaxies and not between the stars and planets within the galaxies?

Q23 – Why is relativity taken so seriously to the point of sending up gravity probe B to investigate the motion of gyroscopes in space due to the space time continuum, when the space time continuum is nothing more than the figment of the mind of a mathematician? After all the space time continuum is nothing more than a version of the good old Cartesian coordinate system with a fourth time variable ‘t’. Therefore, as x,y,z,t are only mathematical quantities, which do not have any physical cause, or properties in the real, how can modern physics be taken seriously when gravity probe B, which costs millions of tax payers dollars, was sent up to check the effects of the space time continuum on gyroscopes?

Q24 – alternatively, if the space time continuum really has physical properties, then how is this any different to the aether and its purported properties, which Einstein sort to remove in relativity, due the Michelson Morley null result?

A response to Dave Armstrong on Pope John Paul II's Doctrine of Universal Salvation.

Dave Armstrong has written a blog entry here concerning the writings of Robert Sungenis on the actions and statements made by John Paul II. I have defended the position that Pope John Paul II taught the doctrine of universal salvation as a theological error. I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -

"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

=========================

I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!"

I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.

The following is Dave's reasoning over objections to JPII's doctrine of universal salvation and my response to his statements -  

Dave - 1) Blessed John Paul II said things that critics claim sound universalist.

JM – No, this is not what we are saying. We merely quote JPII, who uses the phrase universal salvation and then we look at Catholic tradition and see what the words universal and salvation mean and then we ask questions about what JPII was saying. After the investigation by lay Catholics, we believe JPII has questions and concerns over his theology to answer.

Dave - 2) But St. Paul and other inspired biblical writers said very similar things that at first sight might wrongly be interpreted as universalist as well, but they weren't universalists.

JM – Actually the quotes given only applied to Gods universal salvific will or Christ redeeming all. Non of these verses mean all men go to heave, as is implied in JPII’s universal salvation. We know what all those scripture verses mean from Catholic tradition, yet this is what Dave does not take into account in his defense of JPII. So Dave, what does salvation mean in Catholic tradition?

Dave - 3) We know the Bible writers didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) show that they didn't.

JM – Dave is correct to say nobody holds to universal salvation.

Dave - 4) Likewise, we know that Blessed Pope John Paul II didn't hold that view because many obvious statements elsewhere (about hell and the reprobates) -- not to mention the Catechism that he promulgated -- show that he didn't.

JM – Or alternatively JPII’s theology was contradictory. Dave’s criteria of consistency falls flat when we examine the meaning of JPII’s words in catholic tradition.

Dave - 5) Therefore, by reductio ad absurdum, if one wishes to assert that Blessed Pope John Paul II was a universalist because of some statements he made, then one must also assert the same of the inspired Bible writers, who spoke in the same kind of language.

JM – Or alternatively and more believably, the bible writers were writing within a tradition and had a consistent use of language. So when they used words such as all and every, they were only doing so in relation to parts of the salvation process, such as the redemption and Gods will for men to be saved. Dave knows this of course and yet he refuses to engage the obvious consequence of this, which is because JPII used the word “salvation” he must have been referring to the entire process of salvation, which ends in glorification. As such –

JPII used universal salvation to mean all men get to heaven. This is an error.

Or JPII used universal salvation to mean something not consistent with the meaning of the word “salvation” in Catholic tradition. This is an error.

Either way, the theology of JPII is not consistent with the CCC or the scriptures or the catholic encyclopedia. You know what, this does nothing to undermine the Papal doctrine of infallibility and only shows us JPII was just like many other Popes and theologians who have erred in the past. Bid deal Dave, get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You simply have to be honest with yourself and say JPII was a flawed man, just like the rest of us. He did some great things, some ordinary things and some bad things. This is a case of a bad thing and we should frankly just admit it and move on for the sake of honesty.

Dave - 6) Since that is ridiculous, the contentions collapse. Things must be read in context. It is the hallmark of the heretical or otherwise disturbed, illogical, heterodox mind (the mind that isn't thinking with the Mind of the Church), to isolate words from their immediate contexts and divorce them from other statements made by the same writer.

JM – When things are read in context, JPII falls into error. There is no way out of this either other than to admit the truth about a flawed, but very good Pope. To say opponents of JPII concerning universal salvation have a heterodox mind is merely the projection of Dave’s mind. As far as I can tell from my dialogues with him on geocentrism and now the JPII incident, he is very selective in his engagement of the opposing view point. He regularly hides behind the opinions of others and rarely engages the substance of the opposing view.

Dave has simply not engaged my arguments on geocentrism or on the JPII incident, even though those arguments have been posted for some time for all to see. Dave thinks he must defend the Papacy to the death, even though a Catholic apologist is not required to do so. Maybe this is part of his apologetic apostolate. Maybe he has determined that any opposition of the Papacy, no matter how compelling, must be opposed, due to his flawed understanding of what orthodox belief is and is not. He routinely accuses opponents of being suspect of a heterodox mentality, when he does not have the authority or the arguments to back up his claims. This is yet further evidence against his unbalanced mindset concerning the criteria for orthodoxy and herodoxy.

What the heck, I could place this silly game and accuse Dave of being a quasi Protestant, because in his defense, he refuses to go to tradition to establish the meaning of the words “universal’ and “salvation”, therefore it is he who has heterodox tendencies. How do you feel now Dave? Someone has seen your game for what it is and called you out on it. How about you do the Catholic and orthodox thing and –

1. Admit Pope can and have erred.

2. JPII was a Pope and therefore he could have erred.

3. A defense of statements made by JPII must include a definition of the words “universal” and “salvation”, as determined from Catholic tradition.

4. When the words “universal” and “salvation” are defined from Catholic tradition, then –

4a. JPII used “universal salvation” to mean all men get to heaven. This is an error.

4b. Or JPII used universal salvation to mean something not consistent with the meaning of the word “salvation” in Catholic tradition. This is an error.

5. Either way, the papal definition of infallibility is not affected and even though JPII erred.

This is the orthodox position and it is consistent with Papal history, tradition, scripture and human nature.

------------------------------------------------

Dave has added an edited version of my comments above, here. I have now responded to his comments as given below -

Dave - I just deleted all of johnmartin's comments from this thread (some 33 or so) because he questioned why I shut down the comments.

JM – I sent that post to Dave’s facebook account. The reasons given were solidly based upon what Dave had placed in his combox. He could have left the combox open, but decided to close it down

Dave - It's the same old routine with jm.

JM – More likely Dave has a very weak argument to support his case, so he attacks the person of the opponent.

Dave - Before it was the issue of geocentrism.

JM- Geocentrism is a hot topic Dave doesn’t want to have anything to do with, even though his champion David Palm has been thoroughly answered several times by me and Rick Delano. Dave won’t even bother reading Roberts book, Galileo Was Wrong, even though Roberts’s apologetic is possibly one of the most compelling arguments for the Catholic Church written in recent times.

Dave - He insists on coming into venues where he knows his view is considered fringe and kooky, and blasting comboxes with trillions of words.

JM – Daves at his worn out tricks again.  More ad hominems and exaggerations because his arguments are weak. Is this the method to be used by a man of God, or otherwise . . . hmm . . . it makes me wonder . . . it really does.

Dave - He insults everyone present,  . . .

JM – Actually Rick Delano complemented me in the geocentrism combox discussion, where I behaved very well whilst under fire from all directions. Furthermore, my behavior in this combox was quite good as well. I don’t remember attacking anyone personally at all. If I did, it was probably because I was responding to a personal attack from others (perhaps even Dave himself).

Dave - not sparing even the blogmaster who nevertheless kindly allows his comments.

JM – Dave is just another poster in the combox and deserves no special attention. In fact, when he attacks other Catholics, it is he who should take a leaf from his own moral book and stop the ad hominems.

Dave - He has been warned in the past,

JM – Dave’s warnings were based upon Dave’s inventions/projections.

Dave . . . and he was warned in this thread that my patience with his antics was wearing thin.

JM-  Dave’s inventing again. This is yet another reasons I believe Dave is running from the truth. Dave has deleted all my posts and now as blogmaster, he has used his power to make unsubstantiated allegations about me.

Dave - Hence I wrote on April 29th:

"In the past it has come to a place where I ask him to cease and desist, or else I will delete all his posts. That time is coming very soon."

JM – And from this where can it be inferred that Dave has asked me to stop posting here? Nowhere of course, so this is yet another reason to conclude Dave is not telling the truth about me or JPII’s novel theological teachings.

Dave - He generally acts like a boor and an ass.

JM – Slander is a sin Dave and therefore Dave has just sinned.

Dave  - In this instance his goal is lying about Blessed Pope John Paul II.

JM- Dave has just made another false statement about me concerning JPII. I have not lied about JPII. I have merely substantially maintained the position that JPII taught theological error on universal salvation.

Dave - I was content to let him talk, but he has taken it too far now with the following remarks on his own blog:

JM – Dave paints himself as the moral hero again, even though he has just slandered me, made ad hominem statements against me, deleted all my posts and made other false statements about the content of my posts. Dave’s apologetic ministry has turned in on itself here. It’s a shame to see a man of his intellectual caliber making such blatantly false statements and using such a foolish and superficial methodology to defend JPII’s theological error.

If Dave thought about this situation with a sense of history he would have noted there have been others who have been declared blessed (say Duns Scotus for example), even though they held to positions not held by others in the church. Therefore Dave does not need to defend the position that JPII did not err theologically and therefore he can be a candidate for beatification.

Really the theological error of JPII on universal salvation is quite literally a storm in a tea cup. He erred, so lets acknowledge it and move onto something else.

Dave – [quoting JM] - I wrote this piece before I found out Dave Armstrong have blocked off further comment on the matter of John Paul II's doctrine of universal salvation. Dave has the following reason for his blocking off the thread -

"I'm winding down my Internet activities for a time, Neil, so I'll have to take a pass. I just posted on my Facebook page:

=========================

JM - I'll be taking an extended break from the Internet to work on my new book (The Quotable Newman) and do some other things. Just so folks will know why when I don't post for a while . . . thanks for reading and we'll see you later!"

I will take Dave's word for it that he has blocked off the combox and post my responses here. Nevertheless I find it very odd that he has done this due to the fact that the combox was running hot and he could have made a simple post about his future inactivity and left others to freely post. Maybe Dave is afraid he is holding to a false position on JPII and objections to his statements. We will probably never know.

Dave - It's called a "vacation", you asinine nitwit! I live on the Internet 49 weeks of the year, day and night (most of the time doing work for which I am not directly paid anything at all), but if I dare take any time off, someone like you will be sure to question my motivation, as if I don't need rest and relaxation once a year like anyone else does.

JM – This is a very poor excuse Dave, simply because you did not state anything about a vacation in your recent combox entries. How can I take you seriously on this matter of JPII when you –

1.         Call me names after inventing a new reason for blocking off the combox.

2.         Delete all my posts even though those posts are full of references to church documents and are largely on topic.

3.         You did not engage the substance of my arguments.

4.         You agreed with the arguments of others, even though the substance of the relevant arguments was answered.

Dave - Knowing your tendency to try to take over comboxes,

JM – This only refers to two combox dialogues concerning the matter of geocentrism. There have been other combox discussions which I did not take over, as you state here. Therefore Dave’s statement is only a half truth.

Dave - I knew that it was necessary to shut off the comments. Period. End of story.

JM – I beg to differ. There was plenty of dialogue on which I took little no part at all. The bulk of the dialogue was completed by others and therefore to claim I was going to take over the combox, without any valid prior reasons on your part, is most likely another Dave Armstrong invention.

Dave - That's why I made the same announcement on my Facebook page, where this discussion wasn't even taking place at all.

JM – I was simply sending you a message to complete the combox dialogue. As the combox was closed down, I had little alternative other than to send you a message on face book. What’s the problem with that Dave? You seem very sensitive to someone sending you a message. This seems very odd if you are convinced of your position. In fact it is expected if you are not convinced of your position and that lack of candor on your behalf is matched by your inability to match it with others who disagree with you over the matter of JPII theological error of universal salvation.

Dave - I'm not scared of you (what a joke!), or worried about my own position.

JM – If you were not scared of me then you would not have closed down the combox and made allegations about me without directly answering my counter arguments. As the counter arguments have not been answered and you have also deleted part of the message which you posted in the combox recently, then I can only conclude you have been soundly defeated and you are running scared.

JPII is not the Pope that you possibly think he is. JPII was not theologically correct all the time and he was definitely not theologically correct on the matter of universal salvation, as you think he was. JPII’s statements on universal salvation have been exposed, discussed and the arguments for JPII’s statements have been rebutted. Furthermore, the counter arguments in support of JPII have not addressed the substance of the arguments made against JPII. This is very telling against JPII.

Dave - I don't waste time interacting with fools and blowhards.

JM – When Dave is outgunned, he resorts to ad hominems. This is yet further powerful evidence that he has lost the day. Poor Dave can’t take a trick when it comes to JPII and universal salvation.

Dave - That is the sole reason I don't interact with you.

JM – Well Dave, David Palms arguments on geocentrism have been answered quite thoroughly and he hasn’t bothered to make a reply. Now the objections to JPII’s teaching on universal salvation have not been answered either. So if you cannot answer the positions taken by geocentrists and those who call out JPII for theological error, then you are definitely something far less than a fool and a blowhard. These are the terms you use for men such as me, who have the intestinal fortitude to ask questions about the modern church and its poor behavior and novel teachings. Personally, I do this as a matter of concern for the health of the church and I do it without the need to call anyone names or project Sede vacantist or ultamontanist into anyone. You on the other hand have different criteria you invent. You try to take the moral high ground, paint the opposition out to be fools and then ignore the substance of the arguments made. This is simply not a sound methodology and speaks volumes for a lack of intellectual integrity on your behalf.

Dave - But I commend the patience of those who do interact with you (someone has to).

JM – Evidently Dave thinks only supermen dialogue with because I’m a fool and what was it again . . .

Dave - [continued] johnmartin goes on in his ridiculous post:

JM – I note here an intentional editing out of the substance of my argument against JPII. This is clear evidence Dave is not willing to engage in counter arguments made in the combox against JPII’s novel teaching on universal salvation.

Dave – [quoting JM] "get over it man and admit JPII made a mistake. You don’t have to go through these intellectual contortions to demonstrate you are orthodox or love the Papacy. You . . .

What will I do NOW? I've been totally exposed as a dishonest (and heterodox) fraud.

JM – read again Dave. I didn’t call you heterodox. I was merely using your method (which is a silly and superficial game of yours) to arrive at the conclusion that you too would be heterodox, if I used the same methodology you use against others.

Dave - Right.

JM – Right according to your silly methodology. You see the absurdity in the conclusion, but fail to see the absurdity is directed to highlight the absurdity in the method you apply to others.

Dave - Next time learn when you have said enough and move on with grace.

JM – Hmmm . . . why would I want to have an in depth dialogue with Armstrong, who for the second time has deleted all my posts? Time will tell concerning future dialogues.

Dave -  Instead you had to accuse me of running and trying to hide, when there wasn't an ounce of truth in that.

JM – I’ve shown solid reasons why you are running and hiding. Here’s another one – you have already deleted my posts, including the substance of the arguments against JPII in my recent post sent to your facebook account, because you know JPII has erred theologically. You say otherwise, based upon invented reasons that are not relevant to the current discussion.

Dave - You can always go over to your pal Sungenis' site. Go preach over there.

JM – You can always change your method and think before you make absurd and illogical statements about your fellow Catholics. Some of your statements are so outrageously false (and not just on this blog entry either!), they cast doubt on your moral integrity.

I will be posting this and all my recent posts on my blog when time permits.