If you had read the book, I think you would at least be open to it. I have studied this for a few years before the book came out, but it is clear that we have not demonstrated movement of the earth.
Robert Sungenis shows pretty clearly that as science ran into observations that would indicate earth at center, they modified the science rather than accepting geocentrism. He also shows pretty clearly that no one has questioned [the basic premise of] heliocentrism since Copernicus. True there were some key observations (i.e., parallax in the early 19th century), but there are geocentric explanations for parallax.
Over all heliocentrism (or its modern variant acentrism with barycentric solar system) is just accepted as fact, and science is tailored to say it is the case, rather than (as it is presented to the public) science is searching for the truth.
Think about it-how could earth end up in the center? There is only one way I can think of: God willed it so.
Science cannot tolerate such a conclusion.
Mark
!
My telescope says different.
No, wait! I'm the center of the universe and everything revolves around ME!
Yeah! That's it!
This is an interesting comment. I assume the reference is to the fact that at least some nearby stars move slightly with respect to distant stars as we move from winter to summer or fall to spring or, in fact, any 6 month period. This would be the result of viewing the nearby stars from a position in space that differs by 186,000,000 miles (twice our distance from the sun.) I do believe that this has been observed and would give quite an accurate measurement of the distance to these nearby stars.
Correct me if I'm wrong about this.
OTOH, I'm trying to think of an alternative explanation for the shift in postion that would pass the smell test. If there is an explanation I would like to hear it.