Heliocentrism is also a point of view. It has never been proven by any experiment.
So if they are both a point of view, then why do you say that heliocentrism is wrong, and the geocentrism has been “proven as a scientific fact?”
Oh, I’m open to new ideas. I find them fascinating, even if they seem wacky at first.
That said, I’m a slow reader and there are other things already in the waiting list for me to read. You’ve read the books. Is there not something from them you can summarize, or share, or are there snippets of them online you can point us to?
If you have an open mind I suggest you read the two books I have suggested. Until then you are basing your opinion on a very biased source.
To what biased source do you refer?
I’m not qualified to debate the issue but until you read the books that I have suggested you are not qualified to debate the issue either. All you could offer are assumptions based on theory. Those are not “obscure books”. I can tell from your comments that your mind is closed on the issue.
If you are not qualified to debate it, then how are you qualified to make the assertion that the vast majority of the world’s scientific community is wrong – and that to disagree with you is to have a closed mind?
That’s great that you have read a few books and studied physics. Dr. Bennett who co-wrote *Galileo Was Wrong *not only studied physics but has a PhD in physics. Father Warkulwiz also has a PhD in Physics and worked in the aerospace industry and worked for the CIA specializing in ballistic missile systems. Scientists that believe in Geocentism are not idiots. They are willing to be criticized for their beliefs. Are you willing to study the other side?
I’m waiting. Tell me one fact or experimental result or even theory that supports what you are saying.
With your comments, I wonder if you are suggesting the the vast majority of scientists who do not believe in geocentrism are idiots?
Now, just because 100,000 people believe one thing and 10 believe the opposite, doesn’t make the 100,000 right. It does place some burden of proof on the 10 to do more than make statements disparaging the beliefs of the 100,000, if they want anybody outside their circle to even consider taking them seriously.
Will you read *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and The Doctrines of Genesis and then make up your mind?
I’d love to, but I’m afraid it’s low enough on priority that I probably won’t any time soon.
Dr. Sungensis also has a DVD on a lecture that should interest you. He also has a DVD that includes both volumes of his book and it includes computer animation comparing the Geocentrism and Heliocentrism models.
OK, to meet you part way I did some searching on YouTube and other places via Google and found a web site about the book “Galileo was Wrong.” From there I navigated to
a site where there was a critique by Dr. Sungensis of a work by an Alec MacAndrew regarding geocentrism.
I read maybe a third of the argument, from which I got at least a taste of the exchange.
It was actually interesting reading, and I tried to see it Dr. Sungensis’s way, but frankly the way he argued in the parts I read, were not very convincing at least from my engineering perspective. Like he would take something MacAndrew said, and apply it in a way that MacAndrews didn’t intend, by failing to recognize MacAndrew’s own limitations on his own statements.
Alec: Newton reasonably approximated the solar system as an isolated system of bodies (this is not strictly true, but the forces and influence of the rest of the universe on relative motions within the solar system are vanishingly small on the scale of years).
…
R. Sungenis: If that is true, then why does modern physics believe that the sun revolves around the Milky Way galaxy at the tremendous speed of 500 miles per second in order to escape the gravity at the center of the Milky Way? If the “forces and influence” is so “vanishingly small,” then the sun (and consequently our “solar system”) should be affected very little by a neighboring group of stars. But the truth is, our “solar system” is so greatly affected by those stars that the sun has to travel at break neck speed to avoid crashing into the center of the Milky Way.
And we are also told by modern science that the Milky Way itself is revolving around even greater systems of galaxies, and so on and so one. The bottom line is this: there is no place in the universe that is unaffected by the gravity of the stars, and this gravity is not “vanishingly small,” otherwise, modern science could not say that smaller systems are being forced to revolve around larger systems.
The real truth here is that Alec needs to plant in the reader’s mind the idea that our Sun-Earth system is an “isolated system,” as he wants to call it, for then he can succeed in applying Newtonian mechanics and making it work for heliocentrism (or whatever non-geocentric system Alec believes in). But the fact is, the Sun-Earth system is not “isolated.” How could it be “isolated” if it is this very system that Alec believes travels at 500 mps because of the tremendous pull from the center of the Milky Way? That’s hardly an “isolated” system. But without the “isolated system” as his foundation, Alec’s case to disprove geocentrism is futile.
This example, all by itself, is enough to discredit the way Dr. Sungenis argues his points. Either he is so blinded by his biases and his predetermined conclusion, or he’s simply dishonest in the way he argues. It’s one or the other. For the sake of non-scientists reading this, I’ll elaborate.
(continued)
) then, by definition, the earth will not move with respect to the chosen reference frame. That is like seeing a creature, giving it a name, and then telling everybody that you proved the creature is one of them. It isn’t about proof or natural truth; it’s about a human decision about what to call it. Similarly if you say, “all calculations shall be done with the earth as the reference frame,” then you are creating computational nightmares for anybody who wants to map the motions of the heavenly bodies or send a space probe to one of them, but you have the right to look at it that way.