Lol what a garbage video, it doesn't disprove anything..
Apollo, would you please ask Father Robinson to consider a debate with Dr. Sungenis?.
If the SSPX seeks the truth, surely they wouldn't be afraid to let their priestly scholar
defend his scientific arguments?
E rev around SA+ for you.
If you're so interested in slandering Dr. Sungenis, who's written numerous books on this topic why don't you ask him on his live show every Tuesday and Wednesday from 8pm-9:30pm EST. Or you could email him..
He is a busy man and obviously doesn't have time to refute every internet critique, nor does any sane man who writes a lot like he does.
You're free to your opinion but keep the ad hominems to yourself, it makes you sound like a juvenile.
There are plenty of proofs Aether exists. The Michelson-Morley experiment for one, which was replicated half a dozen times..
Look, you're obviously not interested in any opinion but your own, so do us all a favor and just keep it to yourself.
No, it's some guy's opinion on the intenet. Pretty much everyone believed in aether forever until modern "scientists" had to get rid of it to explain away the geocentric model..
You need to relax..
.
At this point in time, the SSPX has lost interest in the truth. This is NOT about
the SSPX, This is about an IDIOT who calls himself a "Dr".
I'll say a prayer for you, you need it.Oh you're so holy that you can see the state of my soul.
The SSPX superiors control Father Robinson's schedule and agenda. That's why I mentioned it..
If Dr. Sungenis is a dummy as you say, then Father Robinson can prove it in a most charitable
way, by demonstrating his superior arguments.
If Father Robinson's appearance in a public debate is deemed inappropriate, then he can bring
forth a surrogate debater, who can articulate Father's arguments.
.
You just don't get it. You cannot argue with Sungenis. Any more that you can
argue with Donald Duck about facts of Astronomy.
.
The videos, Testing Geocentrism 1-10, have nearly 50 arguments against
Geocentrism. Testing Geocentrism 10 shows what an IDIOT Sungenis is.
.
Maybe you just aren't listening, just determined to attack Fr Paul Robinson.
You are another attack dog at CathInfo. It's full of attack dogs, who cannot
understand the science enough to argue with it.
.
You guys think the Bible is a science text book written by God.
Please show me the "foundations" of the earth and the "four corners".
.
That's the limit of your brain power.
.
BTW, the Earth is called a "globe" in the Douay-Rheims Bible. How can you
have four corners on a "globe" ?
.
,
If I wanted to attack Father Robinson, it would be easy. His latest "foot-in-the-mouth" on the CÖVÌD virus, proved he knows very little about microbiology.
Father Robinson's educational credentials are that of a computer science engineer and a Roman Catholic priest.
He does not have a doctorate, but the SSPX calls him a professor. Is that a fair assessment?
The question is, why are you and Father Robinson afraid of an open debate?
Are you taking the position that is impossible to have a fair debate?
If so, I'd call that a non Catholic position.
Dr Robert Sungenis proven wrong ...
https://youtu.be/FH5S8nEo2eM?t=707 (https://youtu.be/FH5S8nEo2eM?t=707)
,
I don't know what Fr Robinson said about the CÖVÌD virus,
which has never been proven to exist, so far.
.
As for Dr Sungenis, the debate has already taken place and
Sungenis lost. However, Sungenis does not know that he lost
he just continues to live in his fantasy world.
.
If you really want to see the arguments against Sungenis,
you will watch the videos, Testing Geocentrism 1-10, on Youtube.
.
Can you handle that ? I don't think so. It's much easier to attack
people on CathInfo without looking at the arguments.
.
Watch Testing Geocentrism 1 and tell me where the error is ...
or SHUT UP.
.
. If you really want to see the arguments against Sungenis,
you will watch the videos, Testing Geocentrism 1-10, on Youtube.
.
Can you handle that ? I don't think so. It's much easier to attack
people on CathInfo without looking at the arguments.
.
Watch Testing Geocentrism 1 and tell me where the error is ...
or SHUT UP.
.
It's much easier to attack
people on CathInfo without looking at the arguments.
.
.It does not do any good to argue with IDIOTS, like Sungenis.
.Have a good evening (or day as the case may be), Apollo.
Like I said, "You cannot argue with IDIOTS".
No arguments from me.
.
Have a good evening (or day as the case may be), Apollo.
This is a rebuttal video to "testing geocentrism"
Written rebuttal linked in video description on youtube and also attached as pdf. It deals with the points raised in a relatively succinct manner.
Do you think the Sungenis video accurately represents and fairly rebuts points in the CHL video?
If you know of any decent direct rebuttals to geocentrism, by someone who can behave in a becoming manner, I would be interested in viewing or reading it.
E rev around S :popcorn:
A+ for you.
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun – the plane of the earth around the sun – the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy. "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.
In June, 2020, the 'axis of evil' observation was confirmed by a study conducted by Lior Shamir, which verified the same result via a different measurement. Shamir commented: "We have two different sky surveys showing the exact same patterns, even when the galaxies are completely different. There is no error that can lead to that. This is the universe that we live in. This is our home."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U&list=PLmWeueTF8l82THrHwihtcmhQdjcBQBXjT&index=1
The theory of gravity has been around for over three hundred years. From Newton to Einstein we have believed this theory that gravity is an internal force of mass, i.e., Mass creates Gravity. However, no one has ever truly understood this force, nor have they proven its existence. I am presenting a new theory about Gravity from a quantum mechanics (QM) point of view in which Gravity is not an unknown force coming from a mass; but is, however, an internal force in the atom. When we look at anything surrounding us, it is made from atoms and the building blocks of all atoms are made of Quantum Elementary Particles (QEP). Therefore, to say a mechanical movement creates quantum structure is not accurate. It should be the reverse; the accretion of QM structure is creating mechanical energy. A solid rested mass does not generate any force. Furthermore, a mass in space is weightless as we have experienced for decades by sending astronauts into space. Therefore, the theory of gravity also does not work with classical physics (CP) in space. We have never observed any indication of gravity in the weightless planets in space. My observation of the two theories of gravity, on Earth and in Space, is that they are based on a faulty foundation and neither of them is following the laws of CP nor QM physics.
So says Erik Verlinde, 48, a respected string theorist and professor of physics at the University of Amsterdam, whose contention that gravity is indeed an illusion has caused a continuing ruckus among physicists, or at least among those who profess to understand it.
...
“For me gravity doesn’t exist,” said Dr. Verlinde, who was recently in the United States to explain himself. Not that he can’t fall down, but Dr. Verlinde is among a number of physicists who say that science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that there is something more basic, from which gravity “emerges,” the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of individual investors or that elasticity emerges from the mechanics of atoms.
This guy is not only a blasphemous pig, mocking the Sacred Scriptures (thus revealing his true agenda ... perhaps he's a practicing sơdơmite?) but he's an imbecile. He's showing mathematical angles between earth and the sun. Is this moron not aware that all position and "maths" (that he keeps touting) is relative between the two objects. Planetarium software is known to use geocentric math ... because in a lot of ways it's much simpler. Their only argument from "maths" is the assertion that it looks simpler or more elegant. But the whole notion that the earth is simply rotating in a nice elliptical pattern around a stationary sun is utter "Bollocks" ... to use this moron's favorite term.
So this low-grade moron distorts the geocentric movement by speeding up the rotation of the universe around the earth to a ridiculous speed (as opposed to taking place in 24 hours) to make it look stupid (each cycle that he makes whip around the earth 5 times per second actually takes 24 hours). Then he contrasts that with the "simple elegance" of the elliptical motions. But that shows him to be a moron, for that simple motion is absolute BOLLOCKS.
Quoting from this video: "The old heliocentric model of our solar system ... planets rotating around the sun ... is not only boring, but also incorrect."
Let him take out his protractor and measure that one. And then I saw an article from NASA saying that, given the movement of the solar system within the galaxy, and then the galaxy through the universe, it's even much more complicated than that. But given all the mass in the universe, it's absolutely unclear which forces are acting on what other forces, and which are the stronger ones.
So much for the "simplicity" of the elliptical pattern so that students can be brainwashed into making models of the solar system with styrofoam balls attached to a bigger ball with sticks. That is the level of this moron's thinking, and his hatred for Sacred Scripture are what turn him into a moron.
So this great genius starts with a strawman by picking on some poor guy making a youtube video ... taking on the "heavy hitters" as it were.
You seem somewhat less than impressed by CHL. :laugh1:
Recall that gravity has never been proven...
Heliocentrism depends entirely on the notion of "gravity" which has indeed never been understood or proven to exist. So heliocentism is nothing more than a theory.
So I can only conclude that he seems to have a serious blindspot in his brain, wisdom, etc. when it comes to science. I wish I understood why, but unfortunately I don't know Mr. P. M. well enough to know the backstory on this.
I didn't engage with him more fully earlier because I was on my phone and it was late in the evening for me, but yes everything Ladislaus said was on the money. Apollo conveniently ignored my Michelson-morely reference.
From what I read of the Galileo condemnation, the Church ...Good analysis, Lad.
1) condemned as heresy that the sun stood still
AND
2) condemned as error that the earth moves
So the part that was condemned as heretical, well, modern science has since confirmed that the sun moves, and there isn't a scientist in the world who believes that the sun stands still.
Now note the above remark carefully, that the order of the universe is a metaphysical matter. Now metaphysics is the business of the Church...
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It is a science which pertains to the natural order; i.e. it does not take Divine Revelation into account. Aristotle's The Metaphysics is widely studied to this day at both Catholic and non-Catholic institutions alike, and deservedly so.
Not a huge matter, of course, but clarity is always good for any discussion.
From what I read of the Galileo condemnation, the Church ...
1) condemned as heresy that the sun stood still
AND
2) condemned as error that the earth moves
So the part that was condemned as heretical, well, modern science has since confirmed that the sun moves, and there isn't a scientist in the world who believes that the sun stands still.
E & S are BOTH in motion :popcorn:
I imagine that apollo would find the whole "Axis of Evil" phenomenon to be quite disturbing.
Even the Jew Lawrence Krauss, who taught at Yale (among other places), remarked about it:
This was dubbed "Axis of Evil" by the largely-atheistic scientists because of its implications (here's another Jew):
So the scientists tried to explain away the original data, but then (yet another Jew):
Physicist/cosmologist Lawrence Krauss, who recently was featured on Edge("How Do You Fed-ex the Pope?"), recently convened a physics conference on St. Thomas, which included an all-star cast of cutting-edge theorists and physicists.edge.org (https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero)
[...]
They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.
(https://www.edge.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/event-images/838_13.jpg?itok=mydGXGz6)
[LAWRENCE KRAUSS:] I just returned from the Virgin Islands, from a delightful event — a conference in St. Thomas — that I organized with 21 physicists. I like small events, and I got to hand-pick the people. The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity. "
Yes gladius, thanks for that;
Metaphysics: The field of philosophy concerning first principles, which includes the study of being (ontology), the study of the origin and structure of the universe (cosmology), and the science of knowledge (epistemology).
Aristotle's book on metaphysics was divided into three sections: ontology, theology, and universal science.
E & S are BOTH in motion :popcorn:
You're getting warmer, roscoe. We'll have you writing: S revolves around E in no time :laugh1:Don’t push him too hard 🌝
I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission).Yessir.
Scientists claim that the galaxies and solar systems are moving through space at breakneck speed but don't feel the G-forces. So if we don't feel any movement of the earth when we're spinning at 1,000 MPH, and then flying through space at like 70,000 MPH ... with all that we can have butterflies fluttering around unmolested ... then why is it a problem for the entire universe to rotate around the earthy once every 24 hours?
If you know of any decent direct rebuttals to geocentrism, by someone who can behave in a becoming manner, I would be interested in viewing or reading it.
I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to throw in that I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission). I could go on for a long time about evidence that I've never seen explained by globe earth theorists. In that case, the issue with the entire Universe revolving around the earth once every 24 hours goes away. Nevertheless, that is not preposterous at all. Assuming a globe earth, imagine that an ant is on the surface of the earth. How fast is that ant going relative to it own unit of measure. It rotates around thousands of miles in one 24-hour period and doesn't feel it. Scientists claim that the galaxies and solar systems are moving through space at breakneck speed but don't feel the G-forces. So if we don't feel any movement of the earth when we're spinning at 1,000 MPH, and then flying through space at like 70,000 MPH ... with all that we can have butterflies fluttering around unmolested ... then why is it a problem for the entire universe to rotate around the earthy once every 24 hours?I knew enough geology, astronomy, cosmology to pass my undergraduate year classes. With these severe limitations in mind, I do think the flat earth idea is fascinating, but also consider there could be infinite dimensions to physical reality, which means everybody in this life is an idiot. Rocket scientists know as much as Joe the plumber.
Happy to be of service.
FWIW, the theology of Aristotle is natural theology, i.e. it does not have anything to do with Divine Revelation. God and things related to God -- i.e., theological matters -- can be limited to only what can be known by unaided reason, OR be expanded to include what can be known by reason illumined by supernatural Faith; clearly, Aristotle was limited to the former.
I don't want to derail this thread, but I have to throw in that I'm extremely sympathetic with Flat Earth theory and have read a lot of evidence that seems to lean in that direction, and a lot of evidence that NASA has been lying to us, the locking down of the Antarctic, lack of any real pictures of the earth (and moon) from space when they have the technology (they use CGI by their own admission). I could go on for a long time about evidence that I've never seen explained by globe earth theorists. In that case, the issue with the entire Universe revolving around the earth once every 24 hours goes away. Nevertheless, that is not preposterous at all. Assuming a globe earth, imagine that an ant is on the surface of the earth. How fast is that ant going relative to it own unit of measure. It rotates around thousands of miles in one 24-hour period and doesn't feel it. Scientists claim that the galaxies and solar systems are moving through space at breakneck speed but don't feel the G-forces. So if we don't feel any movement of the earth when we're spinning at 1,000 MPH, and then flying through space at like 70,000 MPH ... with all that we can have butterflies fluttering around unmolested ... then why is it a problem for the entire universe to rotate around the earthy once every 24 hours?
October 1st & 2nd 2021Is anyone here (Cathinfo members) planning on going?
Douglas County Fairgrounds
Castle Rock, CO—Kirk Hall
Robert Sungenis will discuss his books:
• Galileo Was Wrong, the Church was Right!
• Scientific Heresies: Their Effect on the Church
• The Geocentric Universe of St. Hildegard
PDFs attached below
What does the the Coriolis effect have to do with the speed at the surface due to rotation?They say this effect is caused by the Earth's rotation, but geocentrists say it is caused by the rotation of the universe around the Earth. Now this effect, credited to a 1,000 mph rotation, can cause the above, Why doesn't an orbiting Earth at 67,000mph cause a much greater effect?
But consider this also. The Coriolas effect is EASTWARD, that is, WITH the turn of the Earth. Now something rotating should leave its effect behind it, not ahead of it yes? In geocentrism, the universe turns WESTWARDS that shouls leave an effect behind it as the Coriolis Effect shows.Is this meant to be an argument for geocentrism or against the mainstream view?
A substantial amount of the rebuttal video involves the narrator saying CHL doesn't know about a modern geocentric model (apparently called neo-Tychonic).QuoteDo you think the Sungenis video accurately represents and fairly rebuts points in the CHL video?
The rebuttal video is someone reading the first part of Dr. Sungenis' paper which is attached to my previous posts (replies 25 & 26).
...
I have watched the first CHL video twice and I do think Sungenis makes a fair, although brief, rebuttal. It would take volumes to address all the claims that CHL makes.
Your quote missed including my last sentence; I duplicate and reaffirm it here:
Conversely, heliocentrism has the problem ofIs this actually claiming in mainstream science the rotation of the earth doesn't vary?
explaining why the Earth’s rotation does not decay but is always 23 hours, 56 minute and 4.7
seconds,
A substantial amount of the rebuttal video involves the narrator saying CHL doesn't know about a modern geocentric model (apparently called neo-Tychonic).
But that's simply wrong. The CHL video does in fact talk about the neo-Tychonic model starting at about the 11:45 mark (where Apollo had the video start). Before 11:45, the CHL video is going over other geocentric models and the reasons/observations they were abandoned. In discussing each of these other geocentric models, CHL says they didn't work for some reason X. And the rebuttal claims CHL doesn't know about the neo-Tychonic model that allegedly handles X.
Q What is your take on this?
Conversely, heliocentrism has the problem of
explaining why the Earth’s rotation does not decay but is always 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.7 seconds.
Is this actually claiming in mainstream science the rotation of the earth doesn't vary?
But if the earth is not rotating or moving, these effects would need to be variations in the movement of the universe around the earth.Why is that a problem? Incredible masses and distances are part of either model. "Wobble" would seem to be a reasonable explanation.
My take is that it seems you are trying to apply a rebuttal to CHL video 1 against a different video, CHL 10. See reply #32 (BTW I am accusing you of a mistake, not bad will for doing so)
No, it is not denying variation, it is asking why, in a heliocentric model, Earth's rotational speed does not continually decrease. In other words what started and what keeps the Earth spinning? 1000 years ago was a day longer? Will a day be shorter 1000 from hence?
Why is that a problem? Incredible masses and distances are part of either model. "Wobble" would seem to be a reasonable explanation.
... helio-centrism seeks to detach us from God, His creation, and His special love for man.
What does the the Coriolis effect have to do with the speed at the surface due to rotation?
To help you out: what is the Coriolis effect on someone standing on the surface of the earth?
Is this meant to be an argument for geocentrism or against the mainstream view?
Does it mean a westward Coriolis effect would be an argument against the geocentric system?
They say this effect is caused by the Earth's rotation, but geocentrists say it is caused by the rotation of the universe around the Earth.
Now this effect, credited to a 1,000 mph rotation, can cause the above, Why doesn't an orbiting Earth at 67,000mph cause a much greater effect?
But consider this also. The Coriolas effect is EASTWARD, that is, WITH the turn of the Earth. Now something rotating should leave its effect behind it, not ahead of it yes? In geocentrism, the universe turns WESTWARDS that shouls leave an effect behind it as the Coriolis Effect shows.
https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/ (https://scijinks.gov/coriolis/)
The answer to your first question Stanley is on the website. Science has a way of making all effects comply with the heliocentric order.
There is no westward Coriolis force.
This guy is not only a blasphemous pig, mocking the Sacred Scriptures (thus revealing his true agenda ... perhaps he's a practicing sơdơmite?) but he's an imbecile. He's showing mathematical angles between earth and the sun. Is this moron not aware that all position and "maths" (that he keeps touting) is relative between the two objects. Planetarium software is known to use geocentric math ... because in a lot of ways it's much simpler. Their only argument from "maths" is the assertion that it looks simpler or more elegant. But the whole notion that the earth is simply rotating in a nice elliptical pattern around a stationary sun is utter "Bollocks" ... to use this moron's favorite term.
So this low-grade moron distorts the geocentric movement by speeding up the rotation of the universe around the earth to a ridiculous speed (as opposed to taking place in 24 hours) to make it look stupid (each cycle that he makes whip around the earth 5 times per second actually takes 24 hours). Then he contrasts that with the "simple elegance" of the elliptical motions. But that shows him to be a moron, for that simple motion is absolute BOLLOCKS.
Quoting from this video: "The old heliocentric model of our solar system ... planets rotating around the sun ... is not only boring, but also incorrect."
Let him take out his protractor and measure that one. And then I saw an article from NASA saying that, given the movement of the solar system within the galaxy, and then the galaxy through the universe, it's even much more complicated than that. But given all the mass in the universe, it's absolutely unclear which forces are acting on what other forces, and which are the stronger ones.
So much for the "simplicity" of the elliptical pattern so that students can be brainwashed into making models of the solar system with styrofoam balls attached to a bigger ball with sticks. That is the level of this moron's thinking, and his hatred for Sacred Scripture are what turn him into a moron.
So this great genius starts with a strawman by picking on some poor guy making a youtube video ... taking on the "heavy hitters" as it were.