It's fitting that you chose the pagan sun god as your screen name.

Apollo, do you consider yourself a traditional Catholic?  What exactly possesses you to promote this stuff?  Do you think the person(s) going under the name Cool Hard Logic who put these blasphemous videos up has/have a single good thing to say about the Catholic Church or Catholic Faith?  He/she/they DO NOT.

There is an individual by the name of Robert Sungenis who has spent most of his adult life at the service of defending the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God.  If you are a Catholic and love the Catholic Faith and Holy Mother Church you would do well to look at Sungenis' answer to CHL both in the video and full transcript linked below.



This is a rebuttal to Cool Hard Logic's series on "Testing Geocentrism". This is the first in a series that we are producing based on the White Paper written by Robert Sungenis, PhD. The original full rebuttal can be read here: http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content... Visit http://www.galileowaswrong.com for more free information regarding Geocentrism.

Sungenis doesn't know Anything about Galileo case-- which is about PHYSICS, not Astronomy.

What Galileo did in 1616  was hardly original-- adopt the 3 part theory of Copernicus & demand that it be accepted as Dogma b4 there was any proof.

We now know that the first article of Copernicus( E rev around S) is true while articles 2( S is fixed in position) & 3( S is center of U) are false. So the Church was right to censor the mostly false Copernicanism.

See Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic for info on Galileo's errors re: Physics( atomism) & how this is related to Eucharist.

:cheers:

Stan, just to be clear Sungenis does not claim in any of his writings that science has proven or can prove geocentrism.  As a matter of fact, his position is that science can not prove geocentrism, nor that it can prove heliocentrism.

Sungenis has merely amassed, presented, and explained that which supports geocentrism in terms of Sacred Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.  At the same time he has gathered, presented, and explained a great deal of scientific evidence which appears to him and many others to support a geocentric universe.

Sungenis does not assume geocentrism is true.  He accepts it as true as a matter of his well informed Catholic faith.  So do I.  You apparently don't.  So be it.

You state: "Now, if geocentrism is false, he [Sungenis] would have not only wasted 'most of his adult life', he would have even harmed the Church by misleading people, driving some people away from the Church, and giving others a false notion of the faith. And endangered his own salvation in the process."  Quite an amazing thing for you to say -- especially when you realize that (as far as I know) no Catholic cleric with any authority over Sungenis has ever directed a single iota of warning, threat, admonition, etc. to him concerning all that he has done in the area of public dissemination/teaching/promotiopn of information concerning geocentrism.  Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch!  He remains a Catholic in good within the bosom of Holy Mother Church, even in a Church so corrupted in its human side with modernists who have nothing but contempt for geocentrism.  Hmmm.....that should tell you something.

You also state: "While I'm here: Sungenis' video near the end focuses on asking why the rotation of the earth is not slowing. As a matter of fact, science currently says that it is slowing - and we have leap seconds now and then in part to account for this."  Big deal!  You say as a matter of fact.  So what!  Science says this.  Science says that.  Look at the history of science.  What it "proves" today it "disproves" tomorrow and what it "disproves" tomorrow it "proves" the next day.  Science is true when it's true and false when it's false.  Our Catholic faith is true now and will never be false.  When science does not conflict with our Catholic faith science is true and when it does conflict with our Catholic faith science is false.  I know you don't consider geocentrism to be a matter of the faith.  So be it.

If the goal is a "model" that only fits observation to some degree of accuracy, infinite possible models could do that, not just two. That's kinematics. On the other hand, kinetics, or explaining the forces or causes involved - and making predictions - is something else.

It is perfectly obvious to see how desperate you helioers are to try to falsify certain statements of biblical geocentrists who have done their homework. I mention Walter van der Kamps falsification of Einstein 's Special theory of relativity that states

‘We know that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such difference has no physical significance…’ --- Sir Fred Hoyle: Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p.416. 

Or as you put it above:

‘Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exact equivalent descriptions referred to different centers – in principle, any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter…’--- Sir Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p.1.

Now Stanley, you haven't a clue how van der Kamp proved the above and your rhetoric about kinematics as pie in the sky. But here is his summation:

Now you are claiming that special relativity has been falsified "many times". No reference given, not even for the seemingly specific falsification you name. Can you provide peer reviewed verification that special relativity is "falsified". (I'm putting "falsified" in quotes because obviously SR is a special case of general relativity, so it wouldn't be expected to "work" where GR is needed - much like Newtonian physics is good except where SR or GR is needed.)

It is curious that people who have no apparent background in astronomy, science OR theology wish to pass judgment on several hundred years of thought and observation and attempt to redefine an entire field. What hubris.

Here then is the usual way the Earthmovers dismiss any objection to their mind-science, they make no allowances that anyone who is not being paid to kerep therir ideological cosmology alive can study the subject and make their own mind up about them.

Yes, Einstein had a mixture of Relativity that depended on so much theory and proofs that it would take an hour typing to go through all of it. Perhaps the best account I ever read was Gwynnes advice that Einstein's (Stanley's) physics was not only nonsense but simple nonsense.


   In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science.’


‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd even for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of science.


Let me give all an example of Einstein's 'science.' In a book called Special Relativity, University Mathematical Texts by Wolfgang Rindler. The contents of such books as these are not common knowledge so remain within the confines of various physics departments in educational institutions for future physicists, well clear of the psychiatric department for obvious reasons, as anyone could see if they read it carefully. First the introduction in it:


‘The first edition of Professor Rindler’s book [1939] was welcomed as a clear and concise introduction to the ideas of special relativity… An important feature is the provision of many original exercises, with hints and answers.

St thomas Aquinas said;

‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).  

Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism is NOT about Theology, sorry. 
It's about the science of ....................... Astronomy.