You’ve triggered my “former physics TA” indicator.
I just can’t accept Mr Sungenis’ belief, because both the sun and the earth have a magnetic field. Doesn’t the larger body control the smaller one? And earth is by far the smaller body of gravitational force.
First, just as an FYI, always be sure to distinguish between magnetic and gravitational fields. Magnetic fields have a lot of cool effects in the solar system (sunspots, solar winds, etc.), but the motion of the planets should be viewed as a gravitational effect, not a magnetic effect.
Second, it’s not true that the larger body “controls” the smaller body. The force on both of them is identical (G
m1m2/r^2), but the acceleration produced by that force is much more significant on the body with smaller mass (since a = F/m, the body with the higher mass experiences less acceleration). An example would be a space shuttle orbiting around the Earth. Technically, the space shuttle and the Earth both attract each other with the same force, but because the mass of the space shuttle is so much smaller, the effect of that force is far more noticeable on the space shuttle than the Earth. The relationship between the Sun and the planets is similar; each planet imperceptibly moves the Sun, while the effect of the Sun on the planets is easily observable.
Third, you can always pick any point as your reference for rest, so it doesn’t make any sense to say that the Earth goes around the Sun (in an absolute sense) or that the Sun goes around the Earth (in an absolute sense). In that respect, Sungenis is wrong if he is making an absolute statement, nor would it make any sense to say that the stationary Earth was “God’s frame of reference,” because God’s omniscience means that He can’t be confined to any particular frame of reference. But here’s the other problem. While you could technically pretend that the Earth was still and everything else was moving, it would be a computational nightmare to devise such a system. You’d have to introduce all sorts of nastiness associated with accelerating reference frames, such as fictitious forces and coordinate translations, which is why nobody with any sense would put themselves through that when it would be so much easier just to approximate the Sun as the body at rest. But in any event, it would be absolutely impossible to devise any frame of reference in which the Sun would be moving around the Earth in a generally circular path, which I believe is what Sungenis is suggesting. It’s just a fact that the relative positions of the Sun and Earth do not take such a track. If Catholicism did, in fact, require that, then one would have to abandon the notion that our senses correspond to an objective reality. Fortunately, it doesn’t.
Edit–
Obviously, we at CAI don’t think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward.
It can’t be proved by definition. You can consider any arbitrary point to be at rest, including the Earth. But if you’re saying that the relative position of the Sun traces a circular path around the Earth, it is easily provable, and in fact, it has been proved by the satellite tracks that have been shown directly to Mr. Sungenis.
catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
catholicoutlook.com/dance1.php
catholicoutlook.com/chandra2.php
It’s also trivial to prove that the Earth could not remain at the center of mass in our universe.
catholicoutlook.com/geo1.php
Your challenge is either unprovable by definition (in which case you could offer $10 million for all anyone cares), or you should have paid Gary Hoge $1000 a long time ago.