vs
Posted on 03/28/2006 12:09:01 PM PST by orionblamblam
Bible proves Earth is center of universe, author argues The Earth is at the center of Robert Sungenis' universe. Literally.
Yours too, he says.
Sungenis is a geocentrist. He contends the sun orbits the Earth instead of vice versa. He says physics and the Bible show that the vastness of space revolves around us; that we're at the center of everything, on a planet that does not rotate.
He has just completed a 1,000-page tome, "Galileo Was Wrong," the first in a pair of books he hopes will persuade readers to "give Scripture its due place, and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be."
...
For several years the Web site of his Catholic Apologetics International (www.catholicintl.com) offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could disprove geocentrism and prove heliocentrism (a sun-centered solar system).
There were numerous attempts, Sungenis said, "some serious, some caustic," but no one did it to his satisfaction. "Most admitted it can't be proven." There's also no proof that the Earth rotates, he said. But what about Foucault's famous pendulum? Its plane of oscillation revolves every 24 hours, showing the rotation of the planet. If the Earth didn't rotate, it wouldn't oscillate.
Nope, Sungenis said: There just may be some other force propelling it, such as the pull of stars.
(Excerpt) Read more at sunherald.com ...
I would pay close attention to the field of linguistics after Chomsky dies. I think his manure might just help a hundred flowers blossom.
Either Robert is posing as a Freeper, or he's found a goupie that parrots his every word. Either way, it's very sad.
revolution is the measure of movement, rotation is the amount of ice cream you can put in a cone and still ride a bike.
There is one advantage of a "heliocentric" (or elliptical focal centric) theory over the visually equivalent "geocentric" (or observer centric) theory.
For a geocentric system, the following law holds, "Things further from the focus move more slowly than things closer in." This fails in a geocentric system.
Those who are ignorant of science will believe in anything, just anything.
where... where's the "Onion" byline?
heh yeah, or that a whale isn't a cetacean, or even an animal for that matter, it is however, a fish.
Wait a minute...some creationist/IDer made that very claim on another thread.
Let's hear again from the creationists how "kinds" is just as useful for classifying lifeforms as the Linnean system.
I only have mathtype; I have to do the rest in my head or on the margins of the newspaper (which are too small to contain my best results.)
nice... nice... very good. thanks.
One of my professors was executive officer on the New Jersey (during WWII.) He said that he did this test (on various ships and in various ports) all over the world. Genrally (if the water had some time to relax), rotation went as predicted.
Have you considered switching to the broadsheet fermat format?
that's atmospheric coriolis effect, which could be explained by the sun orbiting the earth.
a large enough drain in a controlled environment would certainly prove the earth is itself revolving
vs
Dollars-to-doughnuts they won't allow smoking during the trip.
I ain't goin'.
Yes, but that was before Watergate.
From your own link:
"If you sit on top of this sphere and look down at Earth, you will see it rotating counterclockwise on its z axis."
"Effects of Earth's Rotation"
EARTH. ROTATING.
Bing. Try again. Apparently, even this tutorial suitable for a complete idiot is too complex for a geocentrist to figure out.
correct me if I err, please:
a sufficiently large mass would have measurably greater weight at the axial poles than it would on the equator, thus PROVING the Earth rotates.
I don't have it on line, but there's a famous illustration u=in Newton's "Principia". It shows the Earth with a hole drilled from the N. Pole to the center, and a hole drilled from the Equator to the center.
Because of the Earth's rotation, the Equator water flows out a bit; thus, Newton calculated the equatorial bulge.
newton was a smart fellow, but he never visited the north pole. so his theories and calculations cannot be considered empirical enough for this discussion.
these geocentrists are demanding "proof" (empirical evidence which can *only* be explained by the rotating-earth model will have to suffice)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.