ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Geocentrism

Updated on August 27, 2016
Source

Continued from “The Principle” http://hubpages.com/education/The-Lies-from-LIGO

The television networks keep bringing back re-runs, and the nit-wits of “science” and religion, like Robert Sungensis, keep bringing back nonsense like flat earth, and geocentrism. But Robert’s science falls flat and he only thinks the universe revolves around him.

A follower of the geocentrism “movement” (if he doesn’t have a movement soon he might explode) says this:

“There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe. Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.” - Mark Wyatt

Yes, there can be many “explanations” for any particular phenomenon. Science is all about explanations, but if it is not rational, then it isn’t an explanation. There are far too many problems with the proposition of a stationary earth at the center of a rotating universe to cover in one small article, but anyone can Google the subject and do their own research just to see how preposterous geocentrism and its proponents are.

I’ll outline just a couple of the claims here to illustrate the silliness, but mainly I want to discuss why persons such as Sungensis can get a following in the first place.

I went to several internet offerings and read through the comment sections to get a feel for it. Of course, there is the obvious; sheeple worshiping authority. AND, what higher authority than the bible and “True Science”?

“True Science Confirms Bible Geocentrism. “The Bible teaches that the Earth is stationary and immovable at the center of a "small" universe with the sun, moon, and stars going around it every day. All observational and experimental evidence -- and non-occult math, i.e., true science -- supports the Bible teaching.” - http://www.fixedearth.com/true-science-confirms-bible-geocentrism.html

“The measurements and experiments that prove that this is what is happening have been done and can be repeated by anyone with a high school education.”

Please note that a devotee of Geocentrism said that and the following:

In reference to Flat Earth hypothesis and Geocentristism: "Both points have been supported by calculative evidences and by different groups but the fact that they are 'assumptions' leaves me to wonder. God does not support confusion but he gives enlightenment.”

So even though we note some folks can interpret their holy scriptures to support a stationary earth at the center of the universe, the more salient point for me is that they think science supports such ideas. It is because they have been taught that measurement and experiment is science. They are not. That is engineering. Engineering is empirical. Science explains. In other words, it is conceptual.

”If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.”

Anyone can observe something. Explaining phenomena towards understanding reality is the goal of science.

Robert Sungensis devotes a great deal of time, in his book Galileo Was Wrong, to coordinate systems telling us how, regardless of which system, Ptolemaic or Copernican (Geocentric or Heliocentric), the motions we observe will be consistent. Where do such notions come from? None other than Albert Einstein.

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"

Even though he says he doesn’t endorse relativity, Sungensis claims that geocentric and heliocentric system must be equivalent or relativity is wrong. This is only one thing that he presents as supporting evidence for his proposition that the earth is stationary and every galaxy, planet, and sun in the Universe rotates around it. Rational scientists understand this is a false dichotomy because relativity is irrational, as is the geocentrist view. There are far more problems for the “theory” than relativity or conjuring up a cosmic gyroscopic to account for our observations.

For one thing, stars a long way off would have to rotate faster than the speed of light, and the view from the poles would show stars to be stationary. However, the real issue I wish to present is made very clear by the statement above from Mark, and these, from some of his commenters:

”It is unbelievable how anyone with use of the reason could not understand such a simple proof against rotation “of The Earth, believe in such a nonsense as the alleged rotation of The Earth is and consider himself rational. This claim that The Earth moves around itself, this is not a science, this is an unbelievably audacious and insane lie, false ideology and false religion.

”No experiment can prove such a lie. Thus if they are interpreted as proofs that The Earth moves their interpretation is obviously false.

”Thus what The Church, The Scripture, popes and Church Fathers has always taught turns out to be the truth and science. Also turns out that there is no conflict between The Church and science but only between The Church and false science (no science) and between science and false science (no science).”


BUT truth, proof, lie, false, religion; these are all opinion and have no place in science at all. They belong only in religion.

“- lots of scientists seem to believe in geocentrism or say it can't be proven either way. So we have to rely on the word of God.”

It is very common to see these sort of calls to popularity. But science is NOT about consensus, or popularly held beliefs.

“I thought what Hubble and Hoyle and many others said was quite clear. Everything is relative so we can't tell.”

“You would be better to buy Sugensis' book rather than ask me since he explains all those things with his co writer- a physicist.”

“Until the recent times (from 16th/17th century onwards) vast majority of scientists and people in general rejected Heliocentrism as false.”


These calls to authority are common in religious circles but if you think the Catholics are the only ones prone to call on authority or popular belief, here’s what the scientific minded persons have to say:

“The internet you're using to promote this idea, relies on modern physics for its very existence. Without modern physics, we would not have been able to put the relay satellites in orbit which transmits the internet signals around the earth.”

“There is no question in the scientific community about whether the Earth is rotating and whether the Earth goes around the Sun or not. If there were a debate you would hear about it on TV on a regular basis. NASA knows that the Earth rotates.”

“We live in a world of technology that is informed by the mathematics of physics.”

Evidence, experimentation, proof, mathematics, authority, popularity, or belief has nothing to do with reality, and nothing to do with science. Only rational explanations for phenomena should be considered in any endeavor to understand such things as the motion of planets and stars. In order to be objective, the scientific inquiry must remove the subjective observer. Naturally, it is observation that leads us into a scientific inquiry in the first place, but it is not subjective interpretation such as observation and experimentation which can inform our reasonable and rational mind and lead us to understanding. Since mainstream science has used the tools of religion (authority, evidence and proof) and built irrational theories upon irrational hypotheses, we need to start over from the beginning. First we must overthrow the old scientific method of experimentation based on observation and the language of mathematics. We replace this with the Rational Method of scientific inquiry which is conceptual and uses the language of illustration. Then we have to explain the physical mechanisms that underlie all phenomena at the fundamental level of matter before we move on. For, if we can not understand electricity, magnetism, light or gravity, we can not understand even the simplest thing about how planets and stars move or don’t move about each other.

See how in this example what is one man’s truth is a lie to another:

“1. Foucault's pendulum proves the rotation of the earth.
”2. Measurements of parallax show that if the earth were stationary the heavens would have to slide back and forth twice a year.” - Jim

“Sorry Jim, that was a standard textbook neophyte science answer. Mach's principle accounts for Foucault pendulum with a stationary earth. Look it up. Parallax is also explained by a rotating universe.”

Rational science has a lot to say about Mach’s principle, and Foucault’s pendulum, but if it is the case that “There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe” then we have to choose one, because although there can be many different explanations for any one particular phenomenon, there is only one underlying mechanism behind it. It is because of scientist’s belief that: “True scientific exploration starts with what we can observe most closely and measure most accurately”, that so many interpretations are possible, and why the sheeple turn to authority.

One website rebuts geocentrism on the basis of Dark Matter. Obviously, someone has bought into mainstream position of dark matter which is absurd. So we see it is not just Sungensis that appeals to mainstream nonsense to support their irrational claims. We are told by another that geocentrism lacks basic evidence, but evidence is not part of any rational scientific method. Sungensis’ Planck Medium is contested based on his bad math and understanding of centrifugal force, yet math explains nothing, and ether is an irrational and untenable position to begin with. While it may be the case that “Working scientists universally reject geocentrism because there is no observational evidence to support it, whereas on the other hand there is a perfectly clear simple explanation for why the earth doesn’t plunge into the sun– it’s rotating around its star according to the universal law of gravity, like any other planet” the author of that statement can’t begin to justify gravitation using discrete graviton particles.

Speed of light, earth’s rotation, the Gulf stream AND Jet stream, expanding lunar orbit, geosynchronous satellites, and epicycles can only be understood when the mechanism for light and gravity are explained with the physical objects that mediate their phenomena. Electromagnetic constants do not explain electricity and magnetism or light, nor does relativity’s warped space or Newton’s formula explain gravitation. Stop by the facebook group Rational Scientific Method to learn the Rational Scientific Method, and explore with us what those mechanisms might possibly be.

So, why can Robert Sungensis and his geocentric views get a following?

Because they aren't following science, they are following the religion of the Pope, Big Bang Creationism, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.


NOTE: All quotes come from Geocentrism.com comment section and from articles on the Geocentrism Debunked website.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.