As for your first paragraph, I'm not talking about the dense matter causing everything to revolve, but rather about whether these particles have the inherent capability of preventing the flow of water for instance, and they clearly do not, as they're everywhere, and everywhere except for in solid matter (as we know it), we see free movement.

As for the third paragraph, Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible, so how can these particles fail to fill a vacuum?

OK Lad, say as you wish.  There's not much point in me going back and forth with you on this subject as apparently you refuse to read Sungenis' book on this subject matter where he explains and explains and explains.

Just one thing more though.  You assert here: "Dr. Sungenis says that any vacuum is metaphysically impossible"  This is quite a claim on your part.  Please back it up with exact easily verifiable proof of same such as a direct quote from him in a book or article or a statement by him in a video or an audio clip with the time frame for same.  (Hint: You apparently don't have a clue as to the nature of the vacuum Sungenis refers to.  This would make sense if you haven't read his book where he explains it.)

Understanding Gravity (From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy):

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hidden. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” --- Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 23:21-26).

I think we all know the meaning of the word gravity and universal gravity. There are, of course, many other known functions served by ‘gravity.’ Experience has shown us that without Earth’s gravity men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependent on the Earth’s perfectly created surface gravity, and it is this dependency that will make long-term space travel for humans almost impossible, without even considering the effects of radiation. Forget all that hype and nonsense written about men ‘conquering space.’ The truth is that in apparently gravity-absent (weightless) space the human body will eventually break down. First muscle tissue would start to degenerate for want of proper gravity-resisting exercise. Then the bones weaken, start to lose calcium and become brittle. The heart, no longer having to pump blood against the effect of gravity, loses strength and vigour. In time other physical defects would begin to show, such as bodily fluids shifting around causing swelling in various parts of our anatomy. Thereafter physical and mental stress as well as exhaustion would set in. Back on Earth no such problems exist, thanks to the Earth’s ‘gravity.’ All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mobility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.

As we look out at the sky from our immobile Earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movements, that is, a daily rotation around the Earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for comets and the precession of the stars. The Earth’s motionless centrality was said by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), however, and other Fathers of the Church, like St Gregory of nαzιanzus (†390) and St Basil the Great (†379), attributed the ‘gravity’ of a geocentric Earth to divine Providence alone.
 
‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7). There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted. The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.

Nevertheless, man has a few different theories as to what causes gravity. That next.

You're clearly deeply confused about this matter.  YOU yourself stated that this idea of infinitely dense space is predicated on the notion that nothing cannot exist (i.e. the metaphysical impossibility of there being nothing), and I've head Sungenis stating the same principle in some of his talks and interviews.

Either there can be "empty space" or there can't.

You repeatedly contradict yourself.  You YOURSELF stated earlier that empty space cannot exist, but then cited something about these particles being unable to fill ... empty space (a vacuum).

Ha, you are mistaken in saying that I am "clearly confused about this matter."  The fact is that when I or Sungenis spoke of nothing in the context in which you are referring to we spoke/wrote about a material nothing.  Ha, even I and Sungenis realize that God is something and that something exists everywhere and that His presence is not predicated on the presence of one or more of His creatures.

Again, I would challenge you to actually read Dr. Sungenis' small book (just under 50 big print pages including illustrations)  on this subject matter so that you can carry out a more intelligent and informed critique of his work on the subject in the same way that presumably you would wish one to read what you actually say in a substantial enough context so as to render a more just, informed, and intelligent critique of what you assert.

Nevertheless, man has a few different theories as to what causes universal gravity. That next.

Any Other Theories for Universal Movement:

Now if Newton's theory was the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of apples falling to the ground (or planets orbiting the sun), that would indeed have to elevate it into a ‘possible’ class. So, was his the only theory that could do so? Apples falling to the ground might well be pushed down. In other words, ‘gravity’ could well be a pushing effect rather than a pulling effect.

By 1748, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had also completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force, not a pulling force theory for moving celestial bodies. This theory was first proposed by Newton’s young protégé Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690 and revived by William Thomson in 1871. James Maxwell reviewed the idea in 1878, followed by Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, Nobel prize-winner Joseph Thomson, and even George Darwin, Charles’s son. The theory proposed space is filled with streams of countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on all the surface of a sphere, it goes nowhere. If, however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would now move due to ‘non-equilibrium.’   

There then was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ This formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun, not unlike Einstein’s surface curled space whirlpool theory we will see later. Indeed, Newton was at first attracted to this idea to serve his purpose but later dismissed the idea stating that: ‘Descartes’s vortex theory is in complete conflict with the astronomical observations, and instead of explaining celestial motions, merely confuses our ideas about them.’

Finally, there was Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, but decided against pursuing the idea. Newton however, while taking advantage of its effects of its attraction, was unable to show any connection at all between his theory and electromagnetism.

Now all the above are theories. But isn't it evidence that counts in science. So, is there any evidence that indicated what causes cosmic movements? That next.

Terrific.  I'm looking forward to it!

As for that thread the upcoming talk may be of interest to some on this forum:

• Dr. Robert Sugenis November 15, 2022 Did God create aliens? A critique of the new book by Paul Thigpen “Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith” posted at https://isoc.ws/

https://www.ncregister.com/interview/extraterrestrial-intelligence-and-the-catholic-faith

Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith
A conversation with Paul Thigpen
    ‘Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith’ (photo: TAN Books)
K.V. Turley Interviews July 23, 2022
Author Paul Thigpen earned a B.A. in religious studies from Yale University (1977) and an M.A. (1993) and Ph.D. (1995) in historical theology from Emory University, where he was awarded the George W. Woodruff Fellowship. In 2008, he was appointed as a lay representative on the National Advisory Council of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

He has published 35 books and more than 500 journal and magazine articles in more than 40 religious and secular periodicals for both scholarly and popular audiences. His work has been translated into 12 languages.

His latest book is Extraterrestrial Intelligence and the Catholic Faith: Are We Alone in the Universe With God and the Angels? (TAN Books). 
On July 15, he spoke via email to the Register. 

 
Given your previous books on aspects of spiritual warfare, are the alleged encounters with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI) simply a form of demonic deception?
As even a few secular commentators on this matter have noted, some of the alleged “alien abduction” or “alien encounter” reports do seem to have parallels with historical and contemporary accounts of experiences that the Church recognizes to be diabolical. Even so, we can’t simply dismiss the entire phenomenon as a globally extended case of demonic deception. The great majority of sightings and personal experiences related to UFOs (“Unidentified Flying Objects’; aka UAPs, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena”) don’t fit that pattern at all.
 
Is there anything from the saints that can help point us to an understanding of this subject? 
Though they rarely addressed the matter directly, notable Fathers and Doctors of the Church (St. John Chrysostom, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and others) offer us theological insights that help us understand how the existence of ETI is possible from a Catholic perspective. More directly to the point: Pope St. John Paul II, St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio), Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich and Venerable Andrea Beltrami were all reported to affirm the existence of ETI. Padre Pio’s comments about extraterrestrial races are especially intriguing, given his oft-demonstrated and verified gift of knowledge granted by God about hidden matters. 
 
Is belief in ETI compatible with Catholic Church teaching?
After years of study and prayer, I’ve become convinced that it is. Some Christian theologians of the past have asserted that there can be no intelligent species other than humanity and the angels (fallen and unfallen). But their reasoning was most often flawed by a reliance on certain philosophical or scientific assumptions of ancient pagan philosophers that have proven to be wrong — such as the notion that planet Earth is the center of the universe. Others have insisted, for example, that the existence of other intelligent species would somehow diminish God’s special relationship with the human race. Yet, as St. John Paul II once said of aliens: “They are children of God as we are.”
 

Do the sacred Scriptures shed light on this topic?
Many have argued that ETI cannot exist because it’s not clearly stated in the Bible. Scripture, however, is also silent about atoms and microbes, dinosaurs and duck-billed platypuses; yet we know these things are indeed real. The Bible is not intended to be an exhaustive description of all that exists, and the knowledge of alien existence is not essential to our salvation. 
 
Would the confirmed existence of ETI undermine the Christian faith, as some have claimed?
The Church could accommodate such new scientific knowledge, just as she did the 16th-century scientific revolution demonstrating that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. If we were to encounter directly an alien species, with the possibility of communication, the Church would, of course, have many questions to ask about their spiritual and moral status. The answers to those questions would then shape the Church’s response to such creatures. As we examine the issues involved, we’re pressed to delve much deeper into the meaning of traditional Catholic teaching about the omnipotence and creativity of God, the image of God in humanity, the fall of the human race, the nature of the Incarnation, the means and scope of redemption and the reality of the “last things.”
 
Why did you decide to write a book on this topic? And why now?
Though, as I’ve noted, this book is not primarily about UFOs, recent events of the last few years have brought that topic into international prominence in a new way. Most recently, the U.S. Congress held the first hearings on the topic in half a century because of the national security implications of countless intrusions into our air space and waters by crafts of unknown origin exhibiting behaviors that seem to defy physics as we know it. The Pentagon has finally admitted publicly that we cannot account for many such phenomena and that they must be studied. I’m confident that more congressional hearings will be held, and eventually we will learn much more about what the Pentagon and the intelligence community already know. 

Meanwhile, several scientific organizations are now attempting to gather data about UFOs on their own, and their findings will be made public. If we are moving toward a public, authoritative disclosure confirming the existence of ETI, Catholics need to be prepared to incorporate that new information into their understanding of the universe. But they need not fear that such a discovery or disclosure would undermine their faith. 
 
What do you make of the seeming growing fascination with the paranormal and related topics in the wider media? Is there a potential positive at play here for evangelization? 
I’m convinced that in a world where our communion with God, the angels and the saints has been denied, people will seek out paranormal “communion” with anything out there that seems to be personal and beyond the confines of our mundane lives. The result has been disastrous for those who for this reason have delved deeply into the occult.

With that in mind, I do warn those with an interest in UFOs to avoid seeking in the possibility of extraterrestrials some substitute for the reality of God. They must especially reject what has come to be known as the “ETI myth” — the notion that salvation will finally come to our sinful Earth through extraterrestrials who have “evolved” into a higher plane of consciousness. That’s a false hope.
Meanwhile, yes, this situation presents a marvelous opportunity for sharing our faith. Many secular people today have been led to embrace not science, but scientism—the presumption that science is the only reliable source of knowledge and that whatever science cannot account for must not exist. This mistaken claim excludes the existence of God, angels, miracles, heaven and much more.
Even so, many of these people, through their interest in UFOs and the paranormal, are now being pressed out of that materialist worldview by what they are learning about these subjects. I’m glad to see them slowly escaping the cage of a merely mechanical cosmos composed strictly of impersonal matter and energy. They have begun moving instead toward the glorious horizon of an infinite, personal, loving, redeeming God — and I want to help them on that journey of discovery.

K.V. Turley K.V. Turley is the Register’s U.K. correspondent. He writes from London.

In pushing heliocentrism Galileo was found to be suspect of heresy.  Query as to whether the Church has ever found anyone suspect of heresy for pushing globe earth or for that matter flat earth.

Well, more than that, helliocentrism was declared to be heretical, and non-geocentrism (slight difference) to be proximate to heresy.  No, the shape of the earth hasn't been anathematized, but I could swear that there was a Pope who condemned the notion of there being Antipodeans ... but that's fuzzy in my recollection.