'Galileo Was Wrong,' claims geocentrist writer

The Sun Herald ^ | Tue, Mar. 28, 2006 | DRU SEFTON

[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.

[Virginia-American]

The equatorial bulge doesn't count?

Check the link below (or Google newton equatorial bulge) for a more detailed history, but basically Newton said "IF the Earth is rotating, THEN there should be a tidal bulge this big". This was later measured.

Normal science. The measusrement lends credence to the rotation hypothesis that was used to calculate it.

From The Rotating Earth

Newton by the following simple argument ... Assume Earth is a sphere, and imagine two deep holes extending to its center (see drawing), meeting there and filled with water.

If Earth did not rotate, one may have expected the height of each water column to be the same: at the center of the Earth, by symmetry, each column would push down with the same weight, creating an equilibrium.

On a rotating Earth, however, the centrifugal force acts to reduce the weight of the water in the equatorial hole, and the water would rise there to greater height. Newton then argued that water anywhere would rise to the same level

[King Prout]

and that's a wonderful theory and thought exercise - which things creos and other flatheads pooh-pooh and dismiss.
"maybe the earth bulges becuase that's where the Flood Waters receded to" or what-have-you

a metric kiloton lead mass weighing a measurable few less pounds at the equator than at the axial poles is something demonstrable and repeatable ad infinitum, and impossible to explain in any way save "Guess what, Suckah? the Earth SPINS, yo."

[Virginia-American]

impossible to explain in any way save "Guess what, Suckah? the Earth SPINS, yo."

Where there's a will, there's a way. Because of the equatorial bulge, you're further from the center, so gravity is less (or is it more because there's more stuff under you?)

I can't believe I'm actually paying any attention to this, it's dumber than ....

[King Prout]

*shrugs*

the variance in strength of local gravity due to distance from center-mass could be calculated and compensated for mathematically... but the geo-tards would probably pooh-pooh that, so... compensate for it physically: build a tall platform at the pole's test site.

I'm sure the geo-tards would manage to hand-wave that away somehow, but the exquisite contortions it would require to do so would be quite thoroughly entertaining to observe.

[orionblamblam]

> when someone interrupts your serious discussions to insert the offending joke over and over again.

Ah, yes. That would explain why you butted into this thread which *I* posted. Yes, quite boorish of you.

[GourmetDan]

"If you sit on top of this sphere and look down at Earth, you will see it rotating counterclockwise on its z axis."

Now surely even a smart guy like you can figure out that rotation is relative and this is clearly a gedanken experiement. It is totally in the mind.

There is simply no way to tell if the earth is fixed and the universe if rotating or if the universe is fixed and the earth is rotating. There is no difference.

Also, given the widespread belief that the earth rotates, there are 2 possibilities for my answer. I could give you a geocentrist reference which you would promptly reject or I could give you a heliocentrist reference which will include the usual heliocentric gedanken experiments. Either way you get to claim victory, so you position is based on faulty reasoning and there is no way I can overcome that.

The original statement that I made was that 'surface-to-space' intercepts were calculated with the assumption of a fixed earth and you asked for proof.

Having given you heliocentric proof that 'surface-to-space' intercepts *are* calculated with the assumption of a fixed earth, you simply shift to another argument that is totally a mental construct and which assumes that the very issue we debate is true 'a priori'.

You have your 'a priori' assumption and I have mine. Other than that, the two positions are dynamically equivalent and are a matter of belief.

Heliocentricity is not proven, geocentricity is not disproved and that is Sungenis' point.

[BritExPatInFla]

I remember when that nutcase ran across the track at Silverstone during the British GP a few years back...too bad he didn't time it better to become a speedbump.

[Antoninus]

Ah, yes. That would explain why you butted into this thread which *I* posted. Yes, quite boorish of you.

You post a thread that attempts to paint Christians as having wacky ideas about science. It is therefore proper that Christians respond in defense. Similarly, no one would consider you boorish if you defended atheists on a thread that attempted to paint them with a broad brush.

My comment was with regard to threads which have nothing to do with either--mainly activism threads--where you show up with the sole purpose of attempting to discourage Christian activism on moral and cultural issues of concern.

[DoctorMichael]

I remember when that nutcase ran across the track at Silverstone during the British GP a few years back...too bad he didn't time it better to become a speedbump.

*LOL*

[orionblamblam]

> Now surely even a smart guy like you can figure out that rotation is relative and this is clearly a gedanken experiement. It is totally in the mind.

No, it's not. Launch vehicle physics and operation are greatly dependant upon the rotation of the earth. A Booster that successfully launches to the east would hit the ocean if launched to the west.

> There is simply no way to tell if the earth is fixed and the universe if rotating or if the universe is fixed and the earth is rotating. There is no difference.

Provably wrong. How many satellites in retrograde orbit?

> The original statement that I made was that 'surface-to-space' intercepts were calculated with the assumption of a fixed earth and you asked for proof.

Your *own* *source* makes repeated reference to a rotating Earth. Thus, you failed to demonstrate your case.

You don't even need to be discussing orbital missions for the rotation fo the Earth to be important. Sub-orbital ballistic missiles need to take the Earth's rotation into account.

These aren't arcane hypotheticals. These are *demonstrated* realities.

[orionblamblam]

> You post a thread that attempts to paint Christians as having wacky ideas about science.

Did I? Or did I post a thread that showed *a* Christian with wacky ideas about science? Does the fact that this goober's a Christian mean that his ridiculous notions should be niether examined nor mocked? Is "Christianity" a shield against all criticism?

> Similarly, no one would consider you boorish if you defended atheists on a thread that attempted to paint them with a broad brush.

Many such threads. Virtually all Crevo threads.

> where you show up with the sole purpose of attempting to discourage Christian activism on moral and cultural issues of concern.

Conservatism is important to me. So when I see "conservatives" supporting what I consider to be not only silly but damaging to conservatism as a whole... yer damned right I'll speak up.

[MeanWestTexan]

yeah, I read on snopes that which tap you turned on had a lot of effect for some considerable time.

Similarly, most Southern hemisphere toilets, et al, are modeled (literally, same mold) after their Northern brethren (which have a twirl to them to re-inforce the Northern effect), and so spin accordingly.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There's a lot of memory in the water (water remember which way it used to flow.) Some experiments (Scientific American back in the 1950s maybe?) showed that letting the water relax for a day or so eliminated this memory. Of course, the results still are only statistical; mostly the water drains in a certain direction.

[GourmetDan]

Again, you simply dan't understand relative motion.

What calculations would be different if the earth is rotating and the universe is fixed vs the earth being fixed and the universe rotating? None. The link I provided clearly showed that the military uses the concept of a 'fixed earth' even though they 'know' it rotates simply because it is easier.

You still have to take into account the same relative motion. It's no different.

Take the example of a Foucalt pendulum, which is often presented as evidence against geocentricity.

Now, if the heliocentrists are correct and the earth is rotating and the universe is fixed, the assumption is that the pendulum retains its orientation to the universe and appears to rotate on the earth.

Yet, if the earth is fixed and the universe is rotating, the assumption is that the pendulum no longer retains its orientation to the universe and should not appear to rotate on the earth.

That thinking simply makes no sense and is typical of the heliocentric position. There are one set of rules for heliocentrism and a different set of rules for geocentrism in the heliocentric mind.

For those who understand geocentrism, the same set of rules applies to both models and they are indistinguishable by any dynamic measure.

This is what Ernst Mach proved, this is what Sir Fred Hoyle understood and that is what geocentrists understand.

Heliocentrists simply do not understand that their position is merely a personal belief.

There is no way to tell the difference short of going outside the universe and looking back in.

[orionblamblam]

> The link I provided clearly showed that the military uses the concept of a 'fixed earth'

The link you posted showed nothing of the kind. It was quite explicit in pointing out that the Earth rotates, and that is required for proper calculations.This has been pointed out to you multiple taimes. That you refuse to recognize it says much of your honesty in this matter.

[pravknight]

Sungenis is acting like Protestant here resorting to his own private interpretation. All that I know is his works published in the 1990s received Imprimaturs from the Archdiocese of Baltimore. His work was praised by Dr. Peter Kreeft of Boston College, Patrick Madrid and Fr. Mitch Pacwa--all luminaries in the Catholic world of apologetics.

I don't think you see me here apologizing for this stuff, but once upon a time, I think he wasn't all that crazy.

[JeffersonRepublic.com]

   All aboard!

[Two_Sheds]

I don't think you see me here apologizing for this stuff, but once upon a time, I think he wasn't all that crazy.

Whenever someone brings up Luther's anti-Semitism, we are told that was only when he was old and infirm. They don't have a problem believing what he said previously.

[pravknight]

I guess what I said has gone right over your head, and I was discussing another topic. I think I am trying to discuss reason here, and you are just blowing your emotions.

Hey, if the Wachowskis of Matrix fame are right, then life is a dream and we create our own realities. (LOL) (It's a joke man)

[Two_Sheds]

I thought it was obvious, but I was agreeing with you.

Some here believe that his current writings invalidate anything he previously wrote. I was merely pointing out that some of those people easily excuse Martin Luther's anit-Semitism as a product of advanced age.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.