Galileo Was Wrong

[lrkun]

The Idea



Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.



Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.


Comment:

Is this a poe site? Apparently it is serious.

The Review "Bites"



Readers agree.



"There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today"
(Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., Astronomy)



"In their over 700-page book, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos"
(Vincent Schmithorst, Ph.D., Physics)



"Galileo Was Wrong is a work of monumental proportion which ranks, in my opinion, on a par with the meticulous observations of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, and the tireless efforts of Walter van der Kamp"
(Neville Jones, Ph.D., Physics)



"In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners...Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it"
(E. Michael Jones, Ph.D., ed. Culture Wars)



"Sungenis and Bennett examine the anomalies that arise from the Copernican model...A must read for those who can set aside prejudices and a priori assumptions"
(Joseph Strada, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering)



"The book Galileo Was Wrong forcefully addresses the history, science, theological, philosophical, and worldview implications of our place in the universe"
(Russell T. Arndts, Ph.D., Chemistry, LSU)



"It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the reader"
(Martin Selbrede, Chief Scientist, Unipixel)



"Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have done a great service to science and to men of good will. Those who see the universe as the handiwork of the benevolent God need no longer be subservient to fairy tales"
(Anonymous, Ph.D., MIT);



"Galileo Was Wrong is a model for the kind of scholarship we need today -- intellectual understanding not as an end in itself, but as a commitment to reality, infused with moral passion, love for the earth, common sense and philosophical sensitivity"
(Caryl Johnston, M. Ed., Jefferson Medical College).

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well, in the relativistic view of things, all observers have an equal claim to being at rest, which means that the universe does orbit the Earth, from a certain perspective (ours). However; it should also be noted that to view the universe in this way would require that some bodies necessarily violate the cosmic speed limit, because for the cosmos to orbit the Earth every 24 hours would require that they circuit at velocities well in excess of c.

 

[RichardMNixon]

However; it should also be noted that to view the universe in this way would require that some bodies necessarily violate the cosmic speed limit, because for the cosmos to orbit the Earth every 24 hours would require that they circuit at velocities well in excess of c.

:shock: :!: Would the Earth not be considered an inertial reference from for use in the study of space? I've never quite understood the distinction between inertial and noninertial frames? How is this issue resolved mathematically?

Well, in the relativistic view of things, all observers have an equal claim to being at rest, which means that the universe does orbit the Earth, from a certain perspective (ours).

I have thought about this before but I didn't get terribly far, that is, is heliocentric really "correct" since it's just a mathematical abstraction? I should think it's certainly easier to calculate planetary motion based on it than on a geocentric model, so that's one bit in favor of it. Plus gravity tells us the Sun has more of a say in the solar system than the Earth does. Finally if you look at the Sun and Earth as they orbit the center of the Milky Way (a Lactocentric model?), the Sun will have a much smoother path than the crazy spiral the Earth will carve through the orbit. Am I overthinking this?

 

[Deleted member 619]

However; it should also be noted that to view the universe in this way would require that some bodies necessarily violate the cosmic speed limit, because for the cosmos to orbit the Earth every 24 hours would require that they circuit at velocities well in excess of c.

:shock: :!: Would the Earth not be considered an inertial reference from for use in the study of space? I've never quite understood the distinction between inertial and noninertial frames?

The distinction between inertial and non-inertial frames is simply that the non-inertial frame is accelerating, and therefore has no claim to being at rest.

How is this issue resolved mathematically?

It's resolved in relativity, by the simple expedient of relativity providing the only means to a vector that must be agreed upon by all observers, regardless of their frame of reference, be it inertial or non-inertial. That vector is, of course, the vector through spacetime.

I have thought about this before but I didn't get terribly far, that is, is heliocentric really "correct" since it's just a mathematical abstraction?

Well, even the heliocentric view is incorrect. We have a heliocentric solar system, but the cosmos is another matter entirely. Much of the confusion here lies in the history of the usage. Bear in mind that, when the heliocentric model was proposed, it was still assumed that we were at the centre of everything (and, in some respects, we are at the centre of everything. The problem is, so is everything else in the cosmos).

I should think it's certainly easier to calculate planetary motion based on it than on a geocentric model, so that's one bit in favor of it. Plus gravity tells us the Sun has more of a say in the solar system than the Earth does. Finally if you look at the Sun and Earth as they orbit the center of the Milky Way (a Lactocentric model?), the Sun will have a much smoother path than the crazy spiral the Earth will carve through the orbit. Am I overthinking this?

A little bit. If you think about a geocentric model, the Earth doesn't describe an orbit, crazy or otherwise, because it's static. The sun certainly does rule the solar system gravitationally.

 

[Pulsar]

Well, in the relativistic view of things, all observers have an equal claim to being at rest

Good luck explaining stellar aberration with geocentrism.

P.S. can we move the discusson to the other thread?

 

[Time Lord]

this is sort of off topic but i have always seen galileo as a hero, he is as steven hawking described him, "father of modern observational astronomy."
He was the first person to actully observe and try to explain the four moons of jupiter, he also was one of the first person to observe the sunspots and tried to explain them.
Even after the catholic church told him that they did noyt like his work, he still continued,.
i personally rekon that galilo was not just one of the most important men in science but one of the most important men in creation because he was brilliant and for that reason i believe that he will always remain one of humanities greatest hero because of what he done.

 

[journierman]

More about Sungenis "credentials" here http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/search/label/fake doctorate

Please note that Sungenis has no official capacity in the Catholic Church and was forced by his bishop to take the name "Catholic" off of his organization. Thank you.