New Book on the Potential Astrophysics of the Miracle of the Sun Now Available on Amazon. Available for Immediate Delivery This Week or through Kindle. Demonstrates How The Miracle fo the Sun was a Miracle from a Scientific, Mathematical Perspective --- Let alone from a Supernatural Perspective.




This is NOT a text that seeks to "debunk" the Miracle. Quite the contrary, it adds a previously unknown dimension to the Miracle itself. This astrophysicist of 45 years says here that the Miracle was certainly not a case of mass hysteria or mass suggestion. 

You can order this text through the Sister Lucy Truth Smile account available on the sidebar of RadTrad Thomist.

Comments

  1. Am I missing something here? I still say (and I hope you will not disapprove of this comment as you apparently did two previous ones on this subject -- a little open discussion on the matter can only be helpful, can it not?) -- I still say the Miracle of the Sun was a miracle from a supernatural perspective only, since miracles are supernatural occurrences. From a scientific, mathematical perspective, however, one can only say that science cannot explain what occurred, since the normal laws of nature which the scientific method observes, utilizes, and applies, were suspended during the Miracle of the Sun. Miracles are supernatural events that transcend the laws of nature and are thus outside the realm of natural science. Science can measure the movement and other activity of the sun during the miracle, thus giving some natural support for the supernatural occurrence, but one cannot truly say the Miracle of the Sun was "a miracle from the scientific, mathematical perspective." Doing so involves overstepping the limits of the scientific method.

    I look forward to Dr Chojnowski's reply, and/or that of anyone else who may clarify the matter for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also have some apprehension about this book. If he can demonstrate that the Miracle of the Sun was a mathematical improbability but not an impossibility, the. i am eager to see what he has to say about a field that’s been drenched in torrential downpour for twelve hours, drying entirely, along with all of the people and their soaking wet clothes, and smelling fresh and clean, after the fifteen minute event, of said scientifically explainable phenomenon.

      Delete
  2. Darrelll, I am not obligated to publish all comments. It is my blog. If comments miss the point or if they are not constructive in the discussion of the issue or if they advocate violence, for example, I will not put them up. It is hard to comment on your questions concerning the book, since you have not read the book and don't know Dr. Ferrin's arguments or his research. It is by no means a facile modernist debunking of a miracle. It simply adds a fascinating physical dimension to a supernatural miracle. It was a supernatural miracle because the primary cause of the miracle --- in one way or another --- was Our Lady and Our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Permit me to make one last comment. Just as we can't say that positive science proves the existence of God, but rather gives evidence, even abundant evidence, in support of the metaphysical proofs for His existence, likewise we can't say The Miracle of the Sun was a Miracle from a Scientific, Mathematical Perspective, but rather that scientific evidence supports the miraculous occurrence. I don't have a Ph.D. (although my mom used to tell her friends that I was "only a thesis away" from getting one :), but I've learned enough to know that using correct terminology is important and that saying, or even implying that positive science proves a miraculous occurrence is much different from saying that positive science lends evidence, even abundant evidence, in support of a miraculous occurrence. I don't think I need to have read the book referred to in order to make that distinction. And I hope you don't think I'm splitting hairs.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask: If Our Lady and Our Lord were the primary cause of the miracle, does that imply that there was a secondary cause (or causes) of the miracle? Or should one just say that Our Lady and Our Lord were the cause of the miracle, and leave it at that? (I hope I'm not bothering you with these distinctions.)

      Delete
    3. Darrell, in charity and not tobe unkind...but....you are bordering on being insufferable. You are one of those, "Thank You, but just one more question" whiners...Please stop the nonsense. It's childish.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"US-Friendly" Contact Within the Vatican Indicated Right After the Death of Pope Pius XII that US Governmental Authorities Must Use the American Cardinals to Prevent the Election of Cardinals Siri, Ottaviani, or Ruffini. The US Government Clearly Saw the Election of a Real Catholic to the Papal Throne in 1958 to be a Threat. Is there No Logical Connection between THIS Telegram and the Strange events of October 26,27, and 28th 1958 within the Sistine Chapel?

Rev. Sam Osborne, Mysteries of the Mass, Gnosticon 4, Sept. 18th 2021. An Explanation of the Gnostic Rite of "Mass" that Leads Us to Wonder Why this Intentional Mass of the Albigensian, Manichean, and Gnostic Heretics is Almost Identical to the New Mass of the Masonic Paul VI.