I have just revisited CatholicInfo to find at least three threads up on this subject of Robert Sungenis's and Rick Delano's movie THE PRINCIPLE. So, rather than post my comment on one I chose to start a new thread.

To understand the significance of THE PRINCIPLE one has to know the history of the Copernican Revolution and the details of the Galileo case in particular. The Galileo case led the then Pope, Paul V to dogmatise the fact that the sun moves around an immobile earth. He did so under the directions of the Council of Trent that forbids anyone interpreting the Bible contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

Then came Newton who convinced all to believe his theories were laws (facts). Then came a stream of other 'proofs' which were merely affirmations of consequents promulgated by astronomers, physicists and philosophers that are not proofs. So, in spite of many smart men like Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) who knew these 'proofs' were not scientific proofs, the rest in both Church and State had fallen into that intellectual heliocentric state of mind. Heliocentrism you see is a mind-belief, whereas geocentrism has at least a sensual confirmation. Once the mind accepts heliocentrism, very few can thereafter have an open mind on this particular subject.

So, based on these 'proofs' (as confirmed in 1992 by 'de labore solis's Galileo Commission) from 1741 to 1835 churchmen did a U-turn on that condemnation of Copernicanism/Pythagoreanism (that the sun is fixed and that the earth moves and that the Bible means this too) and pretended to reverse the 1616 decree. By this I mean all they did was concede that heliocentrism was now scientifically proven, drop the Index ban on books saying the sun is fixed and the earth moves, but did not dare touch the official Church decree.

In 1887 there came an experiment that could not find their orbital movement of the earth. To save heliocentrism the scientific world accepted the only way out open to them, another theory, this one called the Special theory of Relativity offered by Albert Einstein. Inherent in this theory was one fact of science, an agreement by science that absolute movement in space could not be found by way of the empirical method. In other words science could not, never did, and never will be able to say science proved heliocentrism or geocentrism.

So, whereas it was well known among honest philosophers up to then that scientific proof for neither existed, it was now out there in public, the proofs for a U-turn by churchmen never existed.

So, man being the prideful creature he is, was not about to let truth upset the status quo.

1) The antichrists were not going to let the world know science never FALSIFIED the geocentrism of Scripture, and
2) Churchmen (not THE CHURCH SHE HAD SPOKEN IN 1616 and 1633) were not going to let the flock know that the 1741-1835 U-turn they did was on a false premise.

So the sham went on into the 20th century, the antichrists and heliocentric-drugged intellectuals laughing at the CHURCH for defending geocentrism, while at the same time both churchmen and lay Catholics remained unwilling or unable to break through that mind-trap that is heliocentrism and face the truth of history.

From 1960, a few Protestants and Catholics tried to tell the truth but were met with derision and ridicule by both the antichrists and by those believing they were intellectually superior Catholics and Protestants. The prevailing propaganda continued to tell all how the CHURCH's Genesis was a regurgitated bunch of fairy tales and that by ridiculing geocentrism they were trying to save the CHURCH from further ridicule in our enlightened times.

Then along came yet another proof for that 4.5 billion year heliocentric world, the cosmic microwave background. Wikipedia says:
'The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[1][2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned the discoverers the 1978 Nobel Prize.'

Wiki adds: 'Precise measurements of the CMB are critical to cosmology, since any proposed model of the universe must explain this radiation.'

Now I recall reading one of Penzias and Wilson's books on the matter some years ago. In it they stated that the detected the earth moving through space. I wondered why this find never got a prize for the first 'proof' of the earth moving since Einstein said no way could science show which of the relative two (H & G) movements could be found by the empirical method.

Anyway, now it turns out that the CMB shows the earth is the centre of the world. The significance of this of course can only be seen in the history of CHURCH and SCIENCE as depicted above.

But guess what: the antichrists and protective super-intellectual Catholic are scurrying around trying to distract the significence of this find by attacking the persons of Sungenis and Delano, quiestioning their ability to assess the findings of science. They top this up by accusing Sungenis and delano as having a religious geocentric motive in making this movie so who could take them and it seriously and the intellectual christians whose mindset is in heliocentric cement are joining in with many regurgitating all those 'proofs' and 'reasonings' that tell the human race what they see with their eyes is a big LIE.

The CHURCH does not need scientific proof for an act of faith. Indeed it would not be an act of faith in the Scriptures if there were scientific proof or even the possibility of proof. This was spelled out by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615.  It was he who was vindicated in history, not the heretic Galileo. The Copernican revolution claims for 300 years science has proofs for heliocentrism. The Copernicans lie. THE PRINCIPLE merely add one more FALSIFICATION that the Church was wrong. It was science that disclosed this new evidence. THE PRINCIPLE is merely letting a few more see this.

Watch however, in both Church and State, the Newtonians will dominate; they will defend science's heliocentric 'proofs' in spite of the fact that even the dogs in the street now know that no 'proofs' really exist, while at the same time dismissing the PRINCIPLE's scientific findings. They have to. The truth would have consequences for both faith and science . For example, when you have Vatican Council II calling the Pope and Holy Office of 1616 and 1633 'troublemakers,' based on those 'proofs' you can imagine what would follow if the truth prevailed.

Individually however, if any feel brave enough, you can break free from the illusionary drug that is the mindset of heliocentrism, then be objective and realise both H and G are acts of faith. The CHURCH has decreed Geocentrism true and heliocentrism heresy. Then take your pick.

I checked out that cowardly forum CATHOLIC ANSWERS where I once got barred for defending geocentrism to see if they had a thread on THE PRINCIPLE. They had, in their media section. It has only about five posts on it, one of which gave the following website

 http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

This website was specifically designed to poison anybody intending to take the matter of geocentrism seriously. It engages the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the defenders of geocentrism.

Interestingly, it invited questions or comment. As I began to read it and its links with the usual old arguments trying to debunk what cannot be known by science - not that these guys would know that - I spotted a quote from St Augustine. The Copernicans love to quote St Augustine. Having read the quote they gave for a website designed to debunk geocentrism I could not believe it. Go read it for yourself. So I decided to e-mail the site as invited. Here is what I wrote:

 
'I visited your website posted on Catholic answers to read:
 
This website is intended to help those encountering a group of individuals who are marketing books, conferences and new movies designed to promote their claim that the earth is motionless and the entire universe rotates around it.

Help them in what way sir? I presume you mean help them to be prejudiced against any possibility that geocentrism could be true? That that is not 'helping' anyone seeking the truth.
 
No doubt you quote St Augustine to support your position of 'helping' people find the truth of it.

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though,  and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are" (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19).
 
Here above you quote St Augustine who clearly believes in a geocentric world according to his own very words (underlined). He then says: 'It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though,  and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters..' As a geocentrist then, surely it is HELIOCENTRISM that St Augustine was referring to - and as if in accord with Christian writings -  as if heliocentrism could be in accord with Christian writings.
 
And I have only begun to read the rest of the 'help' put up. Would you like me to comment on any more or do you only respond to Copernicans?
 
God bless

Do you think they will be answering me?

But guess what: the antichrists and protective super-intellectual Catholic are scurrying around trying to distract the significance of this find by attacking the persons of Sungenis and Delano, questioning their ability to assess the findings of science.

This tactic proceeds from a presumptively unopposed rhetorical reliance on the erroneous presupposition that the fundamental cosmological structure of the finite, created Universe is a DEMONSTRABLE truth properly and exclusively reserved to physical science.

As you have stated, and as I merely wish to emphasize, modern science makes several fabrications, two of which are:

a) that the fundamental cosmological structure of the finite, created Universe is NOT observable, but IS demonstrable, through inductive, deductive, and/or quantitative reasoning; and

b) that the fundamental cosmological structure of the finite, created Universe CANNOT BE a matter of Divine Revelation; and, as such, cannot be held as a tenet of the Catholic Faith.

Modern Catholics have swallowed these erroneous presuppositions, hook, line, and sinker.

Neo-traditionalism is currently undergoing an internal re-structuring, re-positioning process, which is tantamount to reactionism - tantamount to a reaction against the growing awakening around the world that there is something very fishy with the ideological scions of scientism. The neo-trad anti-warrior now comes out squarely and forcefully against what he refers to as protestant fundamentalism. For the neo-trad, 'protestant fundamentalism' is nothing other than the truly Catholic belief that the Sacred Scriptures are inerrant in their entirety - inerrant in their literal sense.

It is very important, as we move closer to the release date of The Principle , that we continuously work to expose the imposture of these two presuppositional fabrications.

The movie will do a lot of good to demonstrate, not how the heavens go, but how illusory is the credibility of the copernicanist establishment.

Interestingly, credibility - the credibility of the Roman Catholic Teaching Authority -  has always been the target of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Their strategy is simple: If they can destroy the credibility of the Teaching Church, they can rule the world.

Everything is now totally out of order. The order of credibility is now totally inverted.

That which has the right to the highest degree of credibility is that which has been Divinely Revealed. What God reveals is believed solely on His authority and His credibility. This apprehension, and obedience to it, has been lost because modern man, if he does not doubt the existence of God altogether, certainly believes not that God has revealed realities to men that are unattainable to unaided reason.

Let the movie come, and let it work the effect of hobbling scientism's credibilty - but let also sound reteaching of the true order of things immediately rush in to fill the sucking knowledge void.  

The reason why assailants choose to make personal attacks on RS and RDL is that they can rely on the two presuppositional fabrications above-described. If you can get folk to believe that the fundamental cosmological structure of the finite, created Universe is a matter reserved to the occult knowledge of the priest-geniuses of mathematics and physical science, then the field is ripe to make a harvest of ad hominems.

You know I really love that protestant guy in the cowboy hat because he represents something to me, and that is the almost absolute disgust that the common man feels towards all of the pseudo-authority hijacking the world.



Men no longer automatically believe that they hear truth in schools and on newscasts.

The secular 'truth' movement is going to go a long way in counterbalancing whatever garbage comes out of the establishment to destroy The Principle's credibility or minimize its impact.

Homo Regularens does not believe in global warming, does not believe his great grandfather was an ape, and now wonders if vaccines are making his kids allergic, ADHD, and autistic. This reacto-ideation is going to spread as reaction to communism spreads in its final takeover move.

I think The Principle couldn't come at a better time.

Quote from: cassini

In 1887 there came an experiment that could not find their orbital movement of the earth. To save heliocentrism the scientific world accepted the only way out open to them, another theory, this one called the Special theory of Relativity offered by Albert Einstein. Inherent in this theory was one fact of science, an agreement by science that absolute movement in space could not be found by way of the empirical method. In other words science could not, never did, and never will be able to say science proved heliocentrism or geocentrism.

If course, absolute movement presupposes that something is at absolute rest. Otherwise, measurement is impossible.

Is that correct, Cassini?

I shall quote from an unpublished book on the matter ( The Earthmovers) that gives a comprehensive easily understood explanation of the scientific situation Cantate.

‘I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’ --- Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615.

‘Give me but one firm point on which to stand, and I will move the earth’ wrote the famous Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212BC); unwittingly coining for posterity the problem faced by man in their quest to move the earth. No doubt most believe modern science has, or will figure out, the nature of the universe, its origins and laws and how the many movements within it are dictated by Newton’s mechanics of ‘universal gravity.’ In truth however, as we have learned, science isn’t within a light-year of understanding the nature of space by way of natural philosophy or the empirical method as it is called today. In fact it was Cardinal Bellarmine’s Catholic theology, quoted above, that was scientifically vindicated, and not Galileo as asserted by all for four centuries now. Yes, Bellarmine deducted by faith alone what it took science centuries to admit, that it will never be able to confirm as certain the true order of our universe. To bear out this vindication let us read the following:

‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science.  One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.”  Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.’ ---  Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.

There are therefore many areas in which science, as we call it, cannot produce proof or truth, and the order of our world is one of them. This being the case let us now remind ourselves what the papal commission on Galileo reported as the reason why the Catholic Church did its U-turn on Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree condemning Copernicanism as formal heresy:

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- L’Osservatore Romano; Nov. 1992.

Now it is one thing churchmen believing science proved heliocentrism true in 1741, but another saying it was so in 1992 when even the dogs in the street know otherwise. The problem for the ‘proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun’ came to a head in the wake of the famous Airy and Mitchelson & Morley experiment of 1887. This series of trials, which we will also examine later in detail, produced results signifying that there is no movement of the earth through space as it supposedly orbits the sun. For eighteen years after the M&M experiment, physicists searched for something that could explain away this unwelcome geostatic result. Eventually, in 1905, Albert Einstein offered what he called his Special Theory of Relativity intended to reinstate heliocentrism. Einstein had first to admit the fact that there is no experiment known to man that could detect absolute motion or absolute rest for us in the cosmos. Yes, science finally conceded that there is no empirical way of knowing the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot confirm for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine any absolute movement between the earth, sun and stars. In other words, even with modern scientific technology, we have never been able to resolve whether the sun and stars rotate around a fixed earth or if the earth turns about a fixed sun within a fixed stars cosmos. This now intractable problem for science is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look inwards at it, would it be possible for us to see which body or bodies are really fixed, if any is or are fixed, and thus know the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and are not able to get beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, man’s scientific knowledge of the true order of the universe has and will always be little more than conjecture. ( This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself. But McGrath still tries to save heliocentricm: ‘Gödel proved that however many rules of inference we formulate, there will still be some valid inferences that are not covered. In other words there are some statements that are true that we may not be able to show to be true. The philosophical implications of this are considerable.’ )
     
‘Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ --Bertrand Russell: quoted in D.D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.

Perhaps the most significent three words above are -AND THEREFORE ITS LAWS - . Throughout this debate and 'debunking' the Copernicans keep using gravity theories as laws.

No, Russel's 'metaphysical' description is just as important, that the truth of H or G is a metaphysical matter - a matter of faith. So take your pick, Catholic faith or that of scientism.

edit

.

Here's a summary from another thread, which addresses some of the same points:

Post

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/cnLYIbpNst4[/youtube]

I like this one too:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/YI849i1RYG8[/youtube]


The first link is a radio interview with Robert Sungenis, duration 2:42:39, 6540 views.


It touches on Special Relativity, and how its purpose was to attempt to explain away the baffling results of the Michelson-Morley experiments which provide empirical evidence that the earth is not moving.  But after all that, still, nobody has an answer to this question:  

"How can you say that a traveling astronaut ages more slowly than his twin who remains on earth, when special relativity says the one on earth might be the one which is 'moving'?"

In this way, General Relativity is inimical to Special Relativity, because its application destroys it.

The Lorentz transform is probably the most famous equation in all physics.  Einstein co-opted that formula but got rid of the ether, and nobody questions him because he's Einstein.

If Einstein couldn't give us a way to sidestep Michelson-Morley, then we would all be worshiping at the feet of the Catholic Church, and we can't have THAT!  

Sangac, another French scientist, in 1913, did the second leg of Michelson-Morley, where he had a circular set of mirrors that he rotated, to show rotation instead of revolution, to show there is absolute motion between the earth and space, a 23:56:04 sidreal rotation.  Michelson-Gale found the same thing.  What the former did with the earth's annual revolution the latter did with its sidreal rotation.

1:21:58 In heliocentrism, you have to have both a revolution of the earth around the sun AND a rotation of the earth on its axis, in order to account for the day-night rhythm and the 4 seasons.  If you don't have those, then heliocentrism is shot down.  You have to have both:  you can't have a revolution without a rotation, and you can't have a rotation without a revolution, otherwise heliocentrism is falsified.  

Nobody talks about Sangac's work, except to distort it with "the Sagnac effect."  John Deere has a tractor that runs on GPS, so it doesn't need a driver.  So then by going line-by-line in the software for the system, they found that there had been programmed in, the Sangac effect of Absolute Motion, without telling anyone.  

The Global Positioning satellites DISPROVE Special Relativity, because without using the Sangac effect, that tractor would fall into the ditch.  

Global positioning satellites are ONE BIG Michelson-Morley experiment.  That should make headlines.  But you won't see it in the headlines because everything has to fit into the equations of Albert Einstein!  All of modern cosmology is founded on this.

Special Relativity was invented in 1905 to deal with Michelson-Morley, but it did not answer gravity and inertial forces, but these things are not proven, either, and that's why it's still called a 'THEORY'.  Anyone who says that General Relativity has been proven by the bending of light around the sun, or what Eddington found in 1919, or the perihelion of Mercury that Einstein found, not Newton, that's all hogwash, too.  What Einstein did, he didn't expect:  there's no difference between a rotating earth and a fixed earth with the sun going around the earth, because everything is relative.

It's like a carousel that's going too fast:  you're going to fall off even if the carousel is standing still and the universe is spinning around it, because the gravitational and inertial effects are identical, in either way you look at it.

From their own terminology of relativity, a geocentric universe is explained and understood.  Special relativity is a special case, in the absence of mass and gravity.  But we don't have any real world cases without mass and gravity. There are major contradictions between General Relativity and Special Relativity.

General Relativity does allow the universe to rotate around the earth, because 'everything's relative'.

The "big bang" has a dilemma:  they've been trying to come up with an equation to balance out gravity with the energy that's expended to expand the universe.  Without it, the whole big bang theory is falsified.  Some men have devoted their whole lives to its development.  The most recent proposal is the Multiverse, where one universe creates another universe, without a shred of evidence.  There are people who claim that dark matter proves it, but dark matter has not been found.  It's all circular reasoning from stuff made up in their head, because the other side is geocentrism, and they can't have that.

The Foucault pendulums you see in all the museums, are no proof the earth is rotating whatsoever.  Both systems will work, whether the earth is moving or fixed.  

Don't bother trying to look up Michelson-Gale in any of the college physics textbooks, because it isn't there.  You'll find a little bit about it on the Internet but they've so conflated it so as to make it incomprehensible.

Newton knew the stars are out there, but he didn't know how many or where they are, so he ignored them, and his consideration was a CLOSED SYSTEM of the sun, earth, moon and planets.  Newton did not include the forces of the 5 sextillion stars out there.  Today, we can see that the cuмulative effect of the stars far away BALANCE the effect of the sun in our solar system, and the earth could be in the very center, with the sun revolving around the earth, mathematically speaking.

Whether the earth's core is solid or liquid does not affect geocentrism.

We could be today at the same turning point that the world was at 500 years ago, when Copernicus said that perhaps the earth is moving.  If we have been chasing a lie for half a millennium, it has been because the alternative means we are answerable to the person who put the earth in the center of the universe, and, as Einstein, Hubble and the others have said, we cannot have that.

The proposition that the earth is standing still has not been answered.

All they have to say, is "that is unthinkable."  It's a statement of fiat.

If the Bible is wrong about the earth standing still, then WHAT ELSE is the Bible wrong about?  Rather, what would it be right about, if anything?  If it's in error in one place, it's in error in numerous places.

CMB ~ Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.  

The 'big bang' theory proposed by Hubble and others in the 1930's, had to be homogeneous and isotropic.  Homogeneous means all mixed up, like homogenized milk, with no fat globules.  We can't have one section with more or less background radiation than another.  In 1978, someone did some analysis of the skies, and found some inhomogenaity, some anisotrophy.  We have a smooth universe ('big bang') or a patchy universe.  A probe was sent out, found there is some areas with patchiness.  Head scratching.  Another probe, Wilkinson probe 2001, even MORE pronounced patchiness in the sky, but it's oriented in such a way, that it has an AXIS, in two ways, the Dipole and the Quadrupole.  Equator, and the ecliptic.  The whole universe as described by cosmic microwave background, points directly at the earth.  More head scratching, a LOT more.

Max Templar, an astrophysicist from MIT, first found this.  He put a note in his notebook.  Others wrote three sets of papers over the next 8 years, the last one in 2012, saying, "This is not going away."  They put a NAME on this orientation:  "The Axis of Evil."  In 2004, George Bush called Iran etc., the 'axis of evil', and then these scientists were using the same phrase regarding a new "enemy."  

Either the earth is in the center of the universe, OR ELSE MAYBE, all of our physics is wrong and we have to start over from the beginning.........  Okay.............

New probe, 10 times more sensitive than Wilikinson probe -- what did they find?  The same thing, even MORE so.  This was just released in March of 2013:  

"We have a problem but we're not going to tell you what the problem is."  
[Sounds a lot like Menzingen, don't it?!?!]

"Every once in a while, there is a paradigm shift." (Professor from MIT).................


 
_________________________________________________
The second video is "Geocentric Terrafirma Paradigm Shift," 36:24, 1702 views.

The author, writer and producer is a protestant zealot (not a bad one!) named Stuart Graham.  If he could leave out the Calvinism and Lutheranism it would improve things.  

.

My viewing was successful.  This movie is everything that I hoped it would be and a lot more.  I highly recommend it.