Besides the fact that I, as far as physical nature is concerned, believe in stationary Earth which can be seen, depending on the metric or more broadly the topology employed, as the physical centre of the physical world.
So your naming Bellarmine as a target of my criticism is misplaced, as are your assumptions about my beliefs (again based in false dichotomies created by your crypto-materialist views)
But I know the level of your “research” into physics and arguments. Apropos Einstein, you quote extensively as authorities the work of two “social scientists”, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, who are notorious Social Constructivists and epistemological relativists, N.M. Gwynne, whose only qualifications are in languages and accounting, and Alfred Arthur Lynch, a dilettante engineer and politician.
I state this not as an ad homiem but point to these facts because no actual arguments are given, merely statements like “General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. [Einstein’s] Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense;” which amount to nothing more than appeals to their non-existent authority. Tensor calculus and differential geometry involve no major challenge to the intellect? I’m pretty sure every third year physics student I have ever known, including myself, would respectfully disagree. Again, no actual argument is ever made by you. Not one set of equations of motions is ever presented or solved: just scoffing at one thing after another, especially at any mathematics, without any logical structure linking one to the next and to a deductive conclusion.
And I don’t even say these things as a believer in “Big Bang cosmology”.
In fact, I’m a young Earth creationist who takes Genesis very seriously as a divinely revealed cosmogonic treatise that is not to be interpreted “allegorically”. I just don’t interpret it as a crypto-materialist. But then you obviously can’t get your head around what that means.