Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[Rick09]

I’ve seen that there are a few very intrepid, charitable souls out there who’ve taken the time to help clear up the theological and scientific confusion of the small band of geocentrists. But I have to agree with those who wonder how much you can help a group led by someone who thinks it’s reasonable to conclude that NASA is making crop circles and UFO’s so they can destroy the faith of Christians and get more government funding. I just read that he thinks the moon landings were a NASA-Hollywood conspiracy/hoax. Yet, his book uses a famous experiment begun by NASA astronauts on those same moon landings as a supposed proof of geocentrism. I’m not sure how one can reason with and help people so susceptible to believing these kinds of things. There will always be an “answer”, a “what if”, one conspiracy or another that will keep the belief alive. For such people, I do worry that making serious arguments against them may only confirm in their minds that they should be taken seriously. Hopefully the answers given by the intrepid and charitable souls noted below may at least give the somewhat less susceptible people a chance to see geocentrism for what it actually is. Although, no doubt, the geocentrists have another detailed “answer” at the ready. Conspiracy theorists always do.

For anyone interested:

Critiques of Geocentrism (Links Page)

Pope Leo XIII On Literal Interpretation and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

Geocentrism discussion at Theologyweb

Now, back to our regularly scheduled infomercials: Geocentrism! Why THEY Don’t Want You to Know the Truth!, followed by 100 Medical Cures that THEY Don’t Want You to Know About! (Order BOTH books within the next 5 minutes for 3 easy payments of $19.99!)

 

[cassini]

I’ve seen that there are a few very intrepid, charitable souls out there who’ve taken the time to help clear up the theological and scientific confusion of the small band of geocentrists. But I have to agree with those who wonder how much you can help a group led by someone who thinks it’s reasonable to conclude that NASA is making crop circles and UFO’s so they can destroy the faith of Christians and get more government funding. I just read that he thinks the moon landings were a NASA-Hollywood conspiracy/hoax. Yet, his book uses a famous experiment begun by NASA astronauts on those same moon landings as a supposed proof of geocentrism. I’m not sure how one can reason with and help people so susceptible to believing these kinds of things. There will always be an “answer”, a “what if”, one conspiracy or another that will keep the belief alive. For such people, I do worry that making serious arguments against them may only confirm in their minds that they should be taken seriously. Hopefully the answers given by the intrepid and charitable souls noted below may at least give the somewhat less susceptible people a chance to see geocentrism for what it actually is. Although, no doubt, the geocentrists have another detailed “answer” at the ready. Conspiracy theorists always do.

For anyone interested:

Critiques of Geocentrism (Links Page)

Pope Leo XIII On Literal Interpretation and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

Geocentrism discussion at Theologyweb

Now, back to our regularly scheduled infomercials: Geocentrism! Why THEY Don’t Want You to Know the Truth!, followed by 100 Medical Cures that THEY Don’t Want You to Know About! (Order BOTH books within the next 5 minutes for 3 easy payments of $19.99!)

Previously posted by Cassini:
Anyone who dares disagree with the consensus that H is absolute scientific truth must be subjected to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, i.e., either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of such theses are outrageous, an insult to one’s intelligence, and that the writers are this or that, not trained scientists, historians or theologians like they are, so what could they know?

A perfect confirmation of my post is to be found above, yes!

’I’ve seen that there are a few very intrepid, charitable souls out there who’ve taken the time to help clear up the theological and scientific confusion of the small band of geocentrists.'

Now if ever there was a conspiracy theory, this is the biggest one of all.

 

[benedictus2]

Anyone approaching “Dr” Sungenis’ works should be aware that he is neither a physicist or an astronomer. His education was in theology and his theological views have repeatedly put him at odds with his bishop and the Church. So read his works if you want but, as with all information, consider the source.

Is he the one proposing the theory or is he supplying scientific works from known physicists and astronomers?

I wonder what profession Dr Robert Bennet (his co-author) is.

 

[hansgeorg]

The thing about the Geocentrists is that they focus on discrediting scientists from 500 years ago, while ignoring … the fact that we’ve sent man-made satellites and spacecraft into orbits around the moon, most of the planets, and the sun, verifing that the motion of large objects in space is directed by the gravitational pull of other larger objects and that all those planets we see in the night sky with their strange zig-zag paths they trace across the sky over the months must be doing that for some reason. The darn things aren’t exempt from the force of gravity that we’ve already exploited in putting man-made satellites in orbit around Mars, Jupiter and the rest.

1. Robert Sungenis who is the most prominent Geocentric today, I presume, deals with satellites and gravitation.
2. The “some reason” for strange zig-zag paths around the zodiak need not be gravitation alone, earlier on some Church Fathers and St THomas Aquinas thought this “some reason” to be angels.
3. This does not contradict gravitation, but allows more intricate orbits, including the ones of Tychonic geocentrism with partial heliocentrism (earth not included), thus allows our sense impressions to be true.

On a foot ball ground, if only masses of earth and ball were included the ball would lie still. No other simile intended beyond voluntary actors allowing movemnts not accounted for by mass and gravity: since ball on foot ball grounds tend to move very chaotically, whereas stars including planets move very regularly.

 

[hansgeorg]

Well first of all the problem with Galileo was not his support of Helicentrism but his claims against the inerrancy of scripture.
…

Besides any claims by a Pope on scientific matters are not infallible. A Pope can make mistakes as well.

The attack on inerrancy was conducted for allowing heliocentrism to be true notably along with Joshua X 13.

If Popes can make “mistakes in science”, any promotion from them of heliocentrism is thereby non-dogmatic, since obviously not founded in Scripture or Tradition.

 

[hansgeorg]

Actually, Heliocentrism was abandoned by scientists hundreds of years ago. Everyone recognizes that Copernicus and Galileo were wrong: the sun is NOT the objective center of the universe. In actuality, Heliocentrism and Geocentrism both sound as ludicrous as the other to the modern mind. We know that the sun is part of the milky way, which in turn rotates around the center of our galaxy, which in turn rotates around a point mass at the center of a cluster of galaxies…

That view was part of Giordano Bruno’s teaching in 1600. Combine that with the Prima via of St Thomas, you make each sun/star (as heaviest object and thus simultaneous originator of planetary movements) a god. Which is part of hwta he was condemned for.

HOWEVER, all of that is from the reference frame of the point mass at the center of the galaxy cluster. What relativity has shown us is that motion is dependent on reference frame rather than strictly objective. Thus we can define ANY point we want as the center of the universe (the earth included) and then calculate motion based on that reference frame. There’s no actual mathematical proof that the earth rotates around the sun, and the only REAL reason that physics uses that convention is because the mathematical constructs used to describe such orbital motion are simpler than those used to describe orbital motion with the earth as the center of the universe. In all reality, there is no determinate, objective center of the universe. Motion is relative.

Might be that relativism that Pope Urban VIII foresaw as an ulterior logical consequence of Heliocentrism. And wanted to avoid beforehand.

 

[gatewood1988]

I didn’t even know that Geocentrism still existed.

 

[hansgeorg]

I just read that he thinks the moon landings were a NASA-Hollywood conspiracy/hoax. Yet, his book uses a famous experiment begun by NASA astronauts on those same moon landings as a supposed proof of geocentrism.

First link given does not say he is sure moon landings were a hoax but:
Sungenis in firstlink:

As for my right to be an agnostic about the moon landings, I’m certainly not the first and won’t be the last.

This does allow logical room for, if moon landing was no hoax, as believed by most heliocentrics, using the possible moon landing as “if-so” proof against heliocentrism.

But actually a few comments down, second link, it seems Sungenis and co-author do not agree on the point. Simple as that.

Now, I have argued that at least one problem of a true moon landing is no refutation for geocentrism inmy article over here (<-- click link). I have also linked to a debunking of “moon hoax theory” where from comment 60 or so on to last, I am a frequently commenting debater (click link -->) over there. Or rather was (comments were closed).

 

[onenow1]

To find the center of the universe wouldn’t you need to know its ultimate size ?

Peace
:compcoff:

 

[hansgeorg]

To find the center of the universe wouldn’t you need to know its ultimate size ?

Peace
:compcoff:

To calculate the centre mathematically is one way of finding it, and involves that. Which to man is difficult.

Earth being centre is concluded, traditionally, from earth not moving and everything else moving around it. Which is what we see.

Btw, Sungenis got one thing wrong, historically in his essay, look a bit at my correction essay, short link: o-x.fr/lwq0

PS: is that coffee you are drinking over the computer? Need to go to other library that has a cafeteria!

 

[rossum]

Earth being centre is concluded, traditionally, from earth not moving and everything else moving around it. Which is what we see.

The Earth moves; earthquakes and continental drift for example. Which part of the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe and which part is moving? What scientific experiments can we perform to determine which part if which and what results do you expect to see?

rossum

 

[hansgeorg]

The Earth moves; earthquakes and continental drift for example.

Let us limit ourselves to your examples: earthquakes are unusual events whereever they happen. There may be one each year in very vulcanic areas, but not one each day.

Continental drift is a pretty hypothetic thing. It is part of Spencer’s slow-movement geology as opposed to Cuvier’s catastrophism.

Which part of the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe and which part is moving? What scientific experiments can we perform to determine which part if which and what results do you expect to see?

Why ask scientific experiments that we “can perform” about it, when we witness a scientific experiment each time we open our eyes? The result we get each time, excepting earth quakes, is sth like: everything on earth is stationary, except the parts that are moving.

Even four metre’s movement in response to Sun and Moon in conjunction (with gravitation), if that happens to be the case (this is with Sir George Darwin’s theory about tides), does not count as a real challenge to still standing earth.

 

[rossum]

Let us limit ourselves to your examples: earthquakes are unusual events whereever they happen. There may be one each year in very vulcanic areas, but not one each day.

I am glad you agree that there is movement. We can set up our experiment in an earthquake zone and wait a year or three for our results.

Continental drift is a pretty hypothetic thing. It is part of Spencer’s slow-movement geology as opposed to Cuvier’s catastrophism.

Your geocentric websites are lying to you. We can easily measure continental drift in real time. Go to Þingvellir (Thingvellir) in Iceland. Set up a laser distance measuring device at one side of the valley. Set up a mirror at the other side. Measure the distance. Repeat daily for a year or five. The Mid-Atlantic trench runs through the middle of Þingvellir and we can measure the rate at which Europe and America are separating - about as fast as our fingernails grow. This is not hypothetical, it is real. Your geocentric source is lying to you. Continents drift and we can measure the rate of movement very directly.

Either Europe is the centre of the universe and America is moving, or America is the centre of the universe and Europe is moving or neither is the centre of the universe which is somewhere else or the universe is acentric.

Why ask scientific experiments that we “can perform” about it, when we witness a scientific experiment each time we open our eyes? The result we get each time, excepting earth quakes, is sth like: everything on earth is stationary, except the parts that are moving.

America is moving relative to Europe. What scientific experiment do geocentrists propose to determine which, if either of them, is actually at the centre of the universe. It cannot be both.

I am at a loss to understand why you trust a source which is lying to you.

rossum

 

[mellestad]

@OP: Just my observations, but it seems as though it doesn’t die because there are certain people who A: want the Bible to be literal in some select verses and B: seem to enjoy a good conspiracy theory.

Both of those beliefs generate all sorts of things that aren’t any sillier than geocentrism, so it seems fairly normal it applies in this case too.

 

[cassini]

@OP: Just my observations, but it seems as though it doesn’t die because there are certain people who A: want the Bible to be literal in some select verses and B: seem to enjoy a good conspiracy theory.

Both of those beliefs generate all sorts of things that aren’t any sillier than geocentrism, so it seems fairly normal it applies in this case too.

Absolutely correct Mell, literal as defined and declared by the Church and all the Fathers of the Catholic Church. Certain people, who know the Church does not get its decrees wrong re-examined the matter with this infallibility in mind. And guess what Mell, they found out that scientific proof and real proof are two different things. It seems science can settle on proofs that are not quite absolute, merely enought to convince the discipline it has enough evidence to settle on heliocentrism. But St Augustine taught that such proofs must be clear and absolute before one can contradict the literal revelations of Scripture.
But those certain people have found out that all experiments done that could have confirmed heliocentrism as a scientific certainty went ‘wrong’ in that they indicated the earth does not move. Only ad hocs prevented these results from showing proof that the earth does not move.

This now allows certain people to believe the church did not get anything wrong in the 17th century. What is wrong with that? Given science cannot determine the TRUTH, why not give the TRUTH back to the Church? I mean, isn’t that what the Church teaches? Isn’t that why we are all Catholics, to be with the truth? Oh yes, certain people know that it will be hard to convince anyone of the scientific proof for geocentrism, but faith does not rely on having such scientific proofs. The Catholic faith is founded on God being Omnipotent, and for Him a G universe is a mere thought, using as Pope Urban VIII said, laws that man may never find out as thew Lord told Job a long time ago.

And yes, certain people also believe in conspiracies. In the Catholic Church we are told to watch out for them:

• ‘Put on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand up to the wiles of the devil.
  For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the Principalities and Powers, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high.’ -St Paul (Eph, ch.6, 10-12.)*

Both these things like believing in a geocentric world and the Devil do lead to all sorts of silly things, yes, mell, like a devil tempting people to do all sorts of silly things that the Church teaches NOT to do and believe in.

 

[mellestad]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[hansgeorg]

I am glad you agree that there is movement. We can set up our experiment in an earthquake zone and wait a year or three for our results.

Your point being?

We can easily measure continental drift in real time. Go to Þingvellir (Thingvellir) in Iceland. Set up a laser distance measuring device at one side of the valley. Set up a mirror at the other side. Measure the distance. Repeat daily for a year or five. The Mid-Atlantic trench runs through the middle of Þingvellir and we can measure the rate at which Europe and America are separating - about as fast as our fingernails grow.

OK. And you are quite sure that one hundred years ago the trench was closer and one thousand years ago the trench was closer still? Now, that is where HYPOTHETICAL comes in.

As for what can be observed right now at Thingvellir (how do you get the thorn in ASCII?), how can you even be sure it involves two whole continents? Icelanders know they have a country where fairies do some tricks.

Either Europe is the centre of the universe and America is moving, or America is the centre of the universe and Europe is moving or neither is the centre of the universe which is somewhere else or the universe is acentric.

America is moving relative to Europe. What scientific experiment do geocentrists propose to determine which, if either of them, is actually at the centre of the universe. It cannot be both.

The centre of the Universe is neither America nor Europe, but Hell - deep under both of them. But I will not trust Thingvellir phenomenon as proof they are actually moving apart, these things on the surface.

I am at a loss to understand why you trust a source which is lying to you.

I do not, that is why I do not trust you. You say I am trusting Geocentric websites, while I am making some myself and not trusting all I find on others. You say one can observe how supposedly all of Europe and all of America are drifting apart at Thingvellir, you have only for proof that there is a cleft that is widening there.

 

[hansgeorg]

The Catholic faith is founded on God being Omnipotent, and for Him a G universe is a mere thought, using as Pope Urban VIII said, laws that man may never find out as thew Lord told Job a long time ago.

Where did Pope Urban VIII say that, “Cassini”? Linking to actual texts does occur to me as an option for you.

And yes, certain people also believe in conspiracies. In the Catholic Church we are told to watch out for them:

• ‘Put on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand up to the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the Principalities and Powers, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high.’ -St Paul (Eph, ch.6, 10-12.)*

Both these things like believing in a geocentric world and the Devil do lead to all sorts of silly things, yes, mell, like a devil tempting people to do all sorts of silly things that the Church teaches NOT to do and believe in.

If the devil does in fact conspire to lead us to Hell, NOT believing so would hardly be wise. How about his conspiracy against OEdipus and his family, through these poor pagans trusting the oracle in Delphi?

Your point seems to be Catholicism is paranoia, well, one deal about being against “modern science” (that is not the devil but just bad company as a tempter) is not believing each and every man who believes conspiracies is paranoiac.

 

[rossum]

Your point being?

That you can use earthquakes to perform your scientific experiments to support geocentrism if you wait long enough in an earthquake zone. You do intend to perform some scientific experiments, don’t you?

OK. And you are quite sure that one hundred years ago the trench was closer and one thousand years ago the trench was closer still? Now, that is where HYPOTHETICAL comes in.

What does 100 years ago have to do with it? The trench is moving today. You can perform your experiments today. You assert that the Earth is the centre of the universe today. Show us some experimental evidence from today.

As for what can be observed right now at Thingvellir (how do you get the thorn in ASCII?), how can you even be sure it involves two whole continents? Icelanders know they have a country where fairies do some tricks.

Then do your experiments on either side of Þingvellir. My same point applies.

As to Thorn, I used my deep and intimate knowledge of Unicode to go to Wikipedia and cut’n’paste the whole word.

I do not, that is why I do not trust you. You say I am trusting Geocentric websites, while I am making some myself and not trusting all I find on others. You say one can observe how supposedly all of Europe and all of America are drifting apart at Thingvellir, you have only for proof that there is a cleft that is widening there.

Þingvellir is just an obvious example. Astronomical observations can show continental drift as well; the location of Radio Telescopes has to be known very accurately for long baseline interferometry. See here for data extending back to 1984 of relative movement between America and Europe.

My general point is that different parts of the Earth move relative to one another so you need to be able to provide scientific evidence of motion relative to the actual centre, since such motion must exist somewhere on the surface of the Earth.

In science if you don’t have any data you lose. The data always wins.

rossum

 

[hansgeorg]

In science if you don’t have any data you lose. The data always wins.

Wonderful.

Now, here is some data for you:

• every day six billion pairs of eyes see a non-moving earth
• every day six billion pairs of eyes see the sun now in this now in that position, starting from east going on to west
• earthquakes and the minute continental drift that is supposed to have been measured by very expensive equipment in the space unavailable to most of these six billion pairs of eyes are not in the dimension this is considering. Neither are tides.

Just a little extra, a quote from your own link:

Assume that the drift is you measured is the exact drift, and it didn’t change. If Europe and North America were together at one time (Pangaea), how long did it take to separate to the current distance of 6000 km? Be sure to use the correct dimensions and show your calculation.

Words like “assume”, “if” and an “and” meaning “assume also”, now, that is not data. Very candid of the text to state this. But then it is of course science, not popularised science.