Read, as I did, most of the posts on this thread, I failed to find the root cause of the controversy between a geocentric world and as heliocentric one, the Catholic Bible.

As geocentrism is the order of the senses, the vast majority of human beings accepted this until about 1800AD. The Bible in many places confirmed this, especially at the Council Of Trent (1545) when Catholicism reached perfection.

‘The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain… He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations (Psa. 103:5).’--- The Catechism of Trent:

In the 17th century, Copernicus gave a geometrical and mathematical credibility to the heliocentric order. This was followed by Kepler and Galileo who claimed the Bible was interpreted wrong by ALL the Fathers and theologians up to then. Thus began the greatest conflict in history between Faith and reason (I say reason because there was no science involved at the time). Pope Paul V decreed it was formal heresy to deny the moving-sun depicted in Scripture in many places. History recalls that observations discovered (like stellar aberration and parallax) were said to be proofs for heliocentrism and thus a falsification of geocentrism. In 1820, popes Pius VII and Gregory XVI conceded to advice from the Holy Office and allowed books on heliocentrism to be read and believed. Thus as Fr Hull said in his book, the divinely protected Catholic Church made 'the only one really big, obvious, and unundebatable blunder in their whole history.' To this day, because of the 'proofs' of science, the Catholic Church is accused of getting it wrong when it defined and decreed the Bible reveals geocentrism.

Now let us discuss the science as found in the book the Earthmovers, a book with not a single reference to Sungenis's 'Galileo Was Wrong.' In other words it was researched long before and after Sungenis, an investigation that would also find the truth on its own like Sungenis and many other did for the last 100 years.

On this thread there is mentioned the ether, our friends Apollo and Roscoe I think reject its existence as all Einsteinians must do. An experiment, The M&M test, was carried out many times over 50 years to find ether by way of light from an orbiting Earth. Every single time an interference fringe was found but not the 30klm/s needed to show an orbiting Earth. Over time that fringe came down to .9klm/s. Because they needed the 30klm/s to show the Earth orbits the sun, and it didn't, they said it was a null/nil result. Einstine came to the rescue to save heliocentrism. He gave his STR that said no ether exists, nothing faster than the speed of light, and RELATIVITY exists. The only part of his theories that is proven is that relativity exists. In other words, heliocentrism and geocentrism are plausable. In other words, Einstein, speaking for true science this one time, ADMITS GEOCENTRISM WAS NEVER PROVEN WRONG.

‘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

Now note the above remark carefully, that the order of the universe is a metaphysical matter. Now metaphysics is the business of the Church and therefore the 1616 decree still stands as a never abrogated papal decree, that heliocentrism is formally heretical. Now readers on this forum are mostly Catholic, and the word of God is enough for you to know the truth that the universe is geocentric.

But now let us go back to science. Even Sungenis takes Newton's theory of gravity seriously. It is only one of many theories, non-provable and non-falsifiable. Domenico Cassini found orbits are electromagnetic courses. Videos have been put up on this thread supposedly debunking geocentrism, but you cannot debunk relativity. The last real bit of science is the M&M test. Einstein's GTR supposedly denied it showed a non-orbiting Earth. The smaller interference fringe did show either as the universe rotated areond the Earth. A heliocentric Earth needs a goose (orbiting) and a gander (rotating) fringe.

Now real science says you cannot prove a theory but you can falsify it with one single contradiction. Now read Russle above again. He says you can reverse the geocentric and heliocentric models and the physical positions will remain the same. well, Walter van der Kamp did this and they don't when comparing a reversal of the two models to find stellar aberration. Thus Einstein's STR is falsified and science is back to the M&M test that shows there is no orbiting Earth.

Finally, to date there is NO PROOF for a geocentric or a heliocentric universe, so you can all dismiss the videos put up by Roscoe and Apollo as just more tricks trying to show the Bible, Fathers and Churchmen until 1820 were wrong. Nor is there scientific proof for geocentrism, only a maybe proof by way of the M&M test.

For me at any rate, and many friends on CIF, God gave us proof when he told us in His Bible that what we see is the truth, the sun and stars rotate around the Earth every day. My, how special are we.  
                     

So they basically threw out the notion of ether because they refused to admit that the earth might not be in motion.

Then they invented the concept of dark matter because they refused to question Big Bang theory.

So these scientific developments are root only in their own biases.

This is why they tried to "canonize" Einstein, make him the genius of all geniuses, because he came along to save the idea that the earth is in motion.

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.

Good analysis, Lad.

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.

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.

Given the Catholic faith also teaches about creation, the study of the origin and structure of the universe (cosmology) in 1616, and St Thomas said theology was the queen of all sciences, we could say the question of Relativity, called metaphysics by Russell, did in this case come under the auspices of Church teaching.    

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.

Condemned as heresy;

‘That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.'

If we read the condemnations again carefully, we find the 1616 ruling only condemned the denial of a ‘local’ motion for the sun. Now the word ‘local’ means ‘pertaining to position in space,’ so the heresy above is only to say it does not move around the Earth. The rotational motion of the sun was known by the movement of sunspots, first observed by Thomas Harriot in 1610, Johannes Fabricus in 1611, and then by Galileo shortly after that. The Scriptures do not deny a rotation of the sun so it cannot be considered denied in the 1616 decree.

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.

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.