In response to "Some Catholics seek to counter Galileo"

An Article entitled "Some Catholics seek to counter Galileo" tries to paint Robert Sungenis and Geocentrism as being against science. Of course the opposite is true, as shown below - 

Of course, Newton was the next to come up. Although Physics, as a discipline, is a mysterious entity that my brain simply refuses to fully grasp, I could see the basic flaws in his critique of Newton’s Laws. “F = ma!” he stated as if he had struck upon something significant. The same slide espoused Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. “Look,” he opined, “The force is the same no matter which object is rotating around the other! Geocentrism is just as valid as heliocentrism and Newton proved it!”

The church has proposed that Galileo’s model is against scripture and Popes have bound Catholics to the teaching of the church fathers, who were all geocentrists. We also note Hildegard Von Bingen’s visions of the universe have also been approved by the church, and as such, because she recorded a stationary earth, Catholics are encouraged to follow this God given information.

Regarding Newtonian mechanics, Catholic geocentrists have good reason to reject Newtonian mechanics as an accurate model of celestial mechanics because of problematic notions such as the barycenter, action at a distance, space as a void without properties, absolute space, the eclectic nature of the two body problem with its perturbations added in to account for all other bodies in the solar system, instantaneous gravity over any length.

One set of those pieces that scientists are currently trying to put back together is the so-called “Axis of Evil.” The hullabaloo is that the axes seem to point to the plane of our elliptical around the sun. This is consistent in the dipole, quadrupole and octopole. Here it is:

 . . . 

If you’re confused, so was I. I have no idea what these diagrams mean aside from something to do with cosmic background radiation. He referred to these images over and over again as proof of… something? Honestly, he made no effort to explain what we were looking at or what it meant. He did take this out of a Science editorial in 2007 by Adrian Cho (subscription required), who summarizes the controversy nicely.

Some suspect that the axis may be an illusion produced by an unaccounted bias in how the satellite works. And even those who have studied the alignments note that exactly how unlikely they appear depends on which mathematical tools researchers use to analyze them. Still, many are taking it seriously. “I would say that with a bit more than 99% confidence you can say there’s something strange,” Schwarz [of the University of Bielefeld, head of one of two teams who discovered the findings] says.

So, we found something we can’t explain. And, because we’ve not got another universe to compare this one against, we have no idea if this interesting phenomena is a statistical fluke, or something else entirely. We have no control group. It’s an observable thing, but, so far, it’s just a thing. The fact that I had spend 20 minutes reading about this phenomena to even have a cursory understanding of what he was talking about shows just how poorly he explained the concepts involved. It was a “Look!! Science!! I’m smarter than you so you couldn’t possibly understand this, but trust me, this is science!” kind of moment. He threw around words like “quasar” “isotropic” and “anisotropic” without definition or explanation. I was annoyed.

The dipole, quadrupole and octopole and the “Axis of Evil” are simple to understand in relation to geocentrism. The information clearly shows there is a universal symmetry around the earths equatorial plane, indicating that the universe is not homogenous and the Copernican principle is false. The diagram is thoroughly consistent with a geocentric universe and thoroughly inconsistent with the homogenous, ever expanding universe found in the pantheistic standard model.

Other “evidence” was the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which showed all the galaxies in the observable universe, with us at the centre. By definition, if we can see a specific distance all the way around us, we will be in the centre. . .

The diagram which Dr. Sungenis showed had a much larger “void” in the middle where there were no galaxies, likely due to a logarithmic scale, but I can’t be sure as he did not tell us what the scale was or what it meant. The galaxies also seem to occur in specific periods around the Earth, which he pointed out, but again, this proves nothing, as there could be a repeating period, and we are in the one across the middle which includes the Milky Way (not shown, because the Milky Way obscures our view of the universe)

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey is used by Geocenrists who cite published journal articles that have established from quantized red shift data, that the galaxies are located in broad shells around the earth. This evidence is very consistent with geocentrism and very inconsistent with a homogenous universe model.

Finally, he came to his piece de resistance, luminiferious ether. Not only has this concept been thoroughly debunked, he didn’t bother to explain what ether was, or why it had any sort of relevance to his theory. Honestly, I just don’t get it.

Your link to the article that you claim debunks the luminiferous aether theory is simply fallacious for the following reasons –

1. It assumes a moving earth when the MM was set up to provide evidence for a moving earth, hence the article suffers from begging the question.

2. It uses length contraction, which is merely a maths myth invented by Einsteins 1905 relativity paper to account for the null result, when assuming a moving earth.

3. It uses time dilation, which is merely a maths myth invented by Einsteins 1905 relativity paper to account for the null result, when assuming a moving earth.

4. It assumes 30km/s earth velocity, which is only an assumed velocity relative to the sun. Modern science pushes the idea that the earth is moving through space at around 600km/s, so why not use 600km/s instead of 30km/s, or maybe even 630km/s? Answer – the article doesn’t know what it is talking about.

So, your link does not debunk the aether at all. In fact it only shows how desperate modern science is to provide explanations for experiments that did not produce the required fringe shift.

If the earth moves through space at 600km/s, then there should be a large aberration of moon light, yet this aberration has not been found. Why? – Answer – the earth is stationary relative to the moon, therefore geocentrism is the only true model to account for the motions we see.

The rest of your article contains unsubstantiated statements about what Robert did and did not say or evidence in his talk. As such, your entire article smells of your confusions and blatant dishonesty.

JM