'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.

[GourmetDan]

That's because I was being more clear than orion. He was able to move the goalpost from 'orbit' to 'Mars' with his definition, as he clearly did.

Also, there is no difference in the calculation, just in the coordinate system which basically means where you put your fixed point. So it is another distinction that was lost on most.

[theFIRMbss]

Anger Antisocial Behavior Anxiety Appetite Disturbances Avoidance Body Image Problems Compulsions Confusion Cravings Deceitfulness Delusions Denial Depression Dissociation Euphoria Fatigue Fears Flashbacks Grandiosity Grief Hallucinations Histrionics Hyperactivity Identity Confusion Impulsiveness Intoxication Jealousy Learning Difficulties Mania Memory Loss Mood Swings Movement Problems Nonsense Obsessions Oddness Physical Complaints and Pain Panic Paranoia Psychosis Religious Preoccupations Self-Esteem Problems Self-Mutilation Sexual Performance Problems Sexual Preoccupations Sleep Problems Sloppiness Speech Difficulties Stress Suicidal Thoughts Trauma

[Ken H]

The star is not moving that fast, so no problem w/ 'c' there and 'c' does not apply to the universe itself. Only to objects in the universe.

You lost me. The star, an object in the universe, would have to travel in an orbit of over 72 trillion miles in 24 hours, right?

[Two_Sheds]

It wasn't a geocentrist who agreed with the geocentrist.

I never said it was. It was a geocentrist making a statement on a forum. It was NOT the opinion of the forum, as you stated.

You also have to be able to understand what those who appear to disagree are really saying and exactly where they are disagreeing, in totality or in just a narrow way.

I understand EXACTLY what they are saying.

You made an assertion that the forum I pointed you to "admitted" that 'surface-to-orbit' calculations were 'earth-based' only. I invite everone to go to that link and read the discussion. You will find Dan is lying through his teeth.

[Two_Sheds]

That's because I was being more clear than orion. He was able to move the goalpost from 'orbit' to 'Mars' with his definition, as he clearly did.

Yet ANOTHER lie.

Here is the initial statment that got the debate going:

---

To: orionblamblam

"Ah, well. It hardly matters. While the IDers and the Geocentrists mioght well triumph, and the meek may well inheirit the Earth... thos who abandon such childish belief systems will conquer the universe soon enough."

While there are doubtless uninformed adherents on both sides of the issue, an informed geocentrist understands much more about the issues and why the concepts are unprovable.

"Maybe we'll leave the Earth and its culture of whack-jobism as sort of a zoo. It'll be entertaining to watch y'all try to build surface-to-space interceptors when y'all have to reject the rotation of the Earth."

Statements like this show just how uninformed most heliocentrists really are and support my point above.

'Surface-to-space' intercepts *are* calculated assuming a stationary earth.

203 posted on 03/28/2006 5:51:47 PM EST by GourmetDan

____________________________________________________

Note that you originally used the term "space". You then had to backtrack to "orbit".

[detsaoT]

Yeah. I'll tell my co-workers that they can stop using POST, then, shall I? Maybe we can stop all the foolishness of launching low inclination orbital missions from near the equator and polar missions from higher latitudes and launching everything in an easterly direction.

Not to question your statement, but from recollection, the Balkanour Cosmodrome (which bills itself as the largest space-launch facility in the world) is nowhere near the equator, but rather lives at 45 degrees North. Are you sure that closeness to the equator is a factor in orbital launch?

Regards,
~dt~

[Two_Sheds]

Are you sure that closeness to the equator is a factor in orbital launch?

The closer you are to the equator, the less energy necessary to acheive orbit becuase you take advantage of the rotation of the earth to aid the launch. That is why the ESA chose French Guyana to lauch their rockets and SeaLauch sails out to the equator to do theirs. IOW, it is possible to launch from other places, but you pay a weight penalty in fuel.

If the earth did not rotate, it wouldn't matter where you launched from, the fuel requirements would be the same.

[TomB]

You're awfully quiet...

;-)

(always nice to be able to ping you though):))))

[detsaoT]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The religion of Evolutionism already says the earth is the center of the universe...

Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Not at all scientific of them. Evolution is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is an immaculate conception.

[Two_Sheds]

No problem.

So why is that Dan? If the earth doesn't rotate, why does a payload launched at the equator require less propellant than one launched elsewhere?

[orionblamblam]

> the Balkanour Cosmodrome (which bills itself as the largest space-launch facility in the world) is nowhere near the equator,

Indeed, and that's why payloads launched from there, such as the ISS, have such high inclination orbits. That's why the SPace Shuttle can only carry fairly minimal payloads to ISS... because the shuttle gains less from the Earth's rotation getting to that higher 56-degree orbit than the normal 28-degree orbit.

Yet anopther demonstration of the importance of taking the Earth's rotation into account when calculating orbital trajectories.

[orionblamblam]

> you said 'surface-to-space' intercepts are calculated from a heliocentric model.

Can you PLEASE STOP LYING.

[GourmetDan]

If you will look, there was a member of the forum who agreed with the geocentrist's statement.

If that does not meet your requirements, then OK.

[GourmetDan]

No, the star is not orbiting the earth.

The whole universe is spinning and carrying the star with it.

[GourmetDan]

I was being more definitive that 'space' by using 'orbit' because I finally figured out that orion was doing the old 'bait 'n switch'.

If you claim that a 'surface-to-space' intercept uses heliocentric calculations, then those calculations should be used for your interceptor to reach 'space', which is well within the bounds of orbits that would be calculated using only the center of the earth. No solar orbital measurements are required or used for this calculation.

That is the geocentric view and is where orion started. Once I realized what he was doing, I switched to 'orbit' so that I couldn't be accused of referring to 'interplanetary intercepts', which I was not.

If you wanted to claim that a 'surface-to-interplanetary' intercept uses heliocentric calculations, that would also be misleading because the calculations are no different, only the 'coordinate system' reference point.

If you wanted to be entirely accurate, you would say that a 'surface-to-interplanetary' intercept uses a sun-centered 'coordinate system' because the math is easier. That is the only reason to use this method.

IMO, 'because the math is easier' is not sufficient reason to believe that using a heliocentric coordinate system actually represents reality.

[GourmetDan]

For the same reason that airplanes take off into the wind.

Because it is still the relative rotation that drives the energy requirements and launching east is like 'taking off into the wind'.

[balrog666]

Not to question your statement, but from recollection, the Balkanour Cosmodrome (which bills itself as the largest space-launch facility in the world) is nowhere near the equator, but rather lives at 45 degrees North. Are you sure that closeness to the equator is a factor in orbital launch?

Awww, did the little poster overlook the fact the Russia uses polar orbits for almost all of their satellites?

Gosh, ignorance is just so cute!

[balrog666]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

Oops, sorry for that friendly fire incident! I'm just on a hair trigger after reading a few of RetardDan's posts.

[GourmetDan]

First, it's Baikonur, not Balkanour.

Next, it's very misleading to claim that the higher latitude of Baikonur (~46 deg) means that a 56 degree orbit can be reached easier because 'the shuttle gains less from the Earth's rotation'. That is simply not true. The reason the shuttle carries a lower payload is because it must *change* it's orbital inclination to reach the 56 degree ISS orbit.

Cape Canaveral, at ~28 deg latitude, will 'gain more from the Earth's rotation' to a simple low-inclination orbit because it is closer to the equator (0 deg latitude). It then takes more energy to change the orbit to reach a 56 degree inclination orbit and this is why the shuttle carried lower payloads, not because it 'gains less from the Earth's rotation'.

While heavier payloads to a 56 degree orbit for the ISS may be easier from Baikonur, that is because less energy is required to move from a 46 degree latitude to a 56 degree orbit to match the ISS and not because it 'gains more from the Earth's rotation'. It actually gains less because it is at a higher latitude that carries less benefit from relative rotation. (no matter which is rotating, earth or universe.)

A low-latitude launch to a low-inclination orbit will require less energy than a high-latitude launch to a high-inclination orbit because the low-latitude launch 'gains more from the Earth's rotation'.

This is easily understood if you assume launch at 90 deg latitude (N or S pole) and a 90 degree inclination you will get zero benefit from relative rotation. Likewise, if you assume launch at 0 deg latitude and a 0 deg inclination orbit you will gain maximum benefit from relative rotation.

Orion just got confused by the specific orbital inclination (56 deg) and the fact that the shuttle has to expend more fuel changing it's orbital inclination to match the ISS than the Russians than it gains from relative rotation. The 56 deg ISS orbital inclination was a concession by the US to gain Russian participation.

http://www.mattwriter.com/blog/2005_09_01_archive.htm