Galileo Was Wrong- The Book

[Markjwyatt]

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D., and Robert Bennett, Ph.D. have released their book, [i][url="http://www.geocentrism.com"]Galileo Was Wrong[/url][/i], on cdrom.

The book is 1000+ pages of scientific evidence supporting and explaining geocentrism.

Anyone who takes the time to read this book will come away with a different perspective on geocentrism, and will have to wonder how we could have been fooled so easily for so long.


Mark Wyatt

[Era Might]

I care about Robert Sungenis's opinions about science almost as little as I care about his opinions on Pope John Paul II.

[quote]The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are," according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."

--Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus"[/quote]

[philothea]

Dude! Are you saying the Law of Falling Bodies is wrong? But, but, but... I've tested it myself.

Oh... he means [i]Copernicus[/i] was wrong. Woops.

Total nonsense. All of modern physics began with, and agrees with heliocentrism. The magnitude of the conspiracy required is unthinkable. High school freshmen doing their homework would need to be silenced.

[Guest JeffCR07]

oy vey, Sungenis. You don't have a PhD in physics, or astronomy, or astrophysics, or math. You have a handful of scientists that you base your argument around. Does the fact that the entire rest of the scientific world disagrees with you necessarily mean you're wrong? No, but if I don't understand physics and math, then I have more than [i]prima facie[/i] evidence to go with the swarm of PhDs in the science departments of my school.

[jswranch]

Why is this not a dead issue? It is all a matter of relative motion.

Does it really matter? He may be able to make a case that Galileo proofs were insufficient. I am not an astronomer.

[philothea]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1012083' date='Jun 25 2006, 07:06 PM']
Why is this not a dead issue? It is all a matter of relative motion.

Does it really matter? He may be able to make a case that Galileo proofs were insufficient. I am not an astronomer.
[/quote]
Orbits are not relative. Linear motion is relative.

He cannot make any case unless he launches his own spacecraft and gathers his own data. He may have a mathematical scheme based on geocentrism which predicts the motions we observe, since the pre-Copernican system of epicycles predicted planetary motion just fine. But geocentrism is not what actual spacecraft observe, not what telescopes see, and furthermore, geocentrism makes nonsense of the entire theory of gravity, including everything Newton, Einstein, and many others, ever did.

And, in case you don't know... just using your TV is proof that Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein were right.

Edited June 26, 2006 by philothea

[Jnorm888]

At first I thought this was funny but now I don't know. I kind of feel sad for those that are anti-Galileo.







INLOVE Jnorm


Instead of attacking Galileo why not look into the politics that went on. Galileo's fellow scientist were against him. The Roman Church didn't take sides until she was pressured to by Galileo's scientific enemies.

Some Protestants have to defend Rome when it comes to this for the naturalist always bring up Galileo.

Edited June 26, 2006 by jnorm888

[philothea]

[quote name='jnorm888' post='1012154' date='Jun 25 2006, 08:41 PM']
At first I thought this was funny but now I don't know. I kind of feel sad for those that are anti-Galileo.

Instead of attacking Galileo why not look into the politics that went on. Galileo's fellow scientist were against him. The Roman Church didn't take sides until she was pressured to by Galileo's scientific enemies.

Some Protestants have to defend Rome when it comes to this for the naturalist always bring up Galileo.
[/quote]
Yeah, I'd normally be just amused, but stances like Sungenis's make Christians look like utter nitwits. Especially because he's pretty well known.

From what I've read, the Church's problem with Galileo was not so much about science, but about Galieo publicly mocking the pope, who he'd kind of been friends with.

(BTW, your avatar is very cool, Jnorm. )

[MichaelF]

Ask an engineer if current orbital mechanics are wrong. He or She will laugh.

If currently-understood theories of celestial motion were even slightly off, the Apollo astronauts would have had a very different experience, if they had survived at all. We also would not have been able to land probes on other planets (such as Viking and Mariner).

Much like Biology, the practical applications (or problems therein) will show any errors.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='MichaelF' post='1012299' date='Jun 25 2006, 10:56 PM']
Ask an engineer if current orbital mechanics are wrong. He or She will laugh.

If currently-understood theories of celestial motion were even slightly off, the Apollo astronauts would have had a very different experience, if they had survived at all. We also would not have been able to land probes on other planets (such as Viking and Mariner).

Much like Biology, the practical applications (or problems therein) will show any errors.
[/quote]

Yea, but we all know the moon landing, apollo mission, and Hubble are just one big conspiracy - its not like any of that actually [i]happened[/i]

Edited June 26, 2006 by JeffCR07

[Chester]

I thought that stellar parallax was proof that the Earth revolved around the sun.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1012333' date='Jun 26 2006, 05:00 AM']
Yea, but we all know the moon landing, apollo mission, and Hubble are just one big conspiracy - its not like any of that actually [i]happened[/i]
[/quote]
That's what I was going to say.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' post='1012187' date='Jun 25 2006, 10:16 PM']
Yeah, I'd normally be just amused, but stances like Sungenis's make Christians look like utter nitwits. Especially because he's pretty well known.

From what I've read, the Church's problem with Galileo was not so much about science, but about Galieo publicly mocking the pope, who he'd kind of been friends with.

(BTW, your avatar is very cool, Jnorm. )
[/quote]
He supposedly wanted to edit the bible to reflect his scientific theory...

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1012415' date='Jun 26 2006, 09:59 AM']
He supposedly wanted to edit the bible to reflect his scientific theory...
[/quote]
I don't think Sungenis would go that far.

[homeschoolmom]

I think she meant Galileo... but it took me a minute to figure that out.