Robert Sungenis is a fraud

[Aquila]

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-bungles-high-school-physics/

www.geocentrismdebunked.org/simple-scary-mindset-robert-sungenis/

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf

This is just to provide a counterpoint to the constant anti-Catholic hawking of geocentric nonsense by certain members of this forum.

[Kaesekopf]

Interesting.

Thanks for posting this.

[Rube]

I cannot bring myself to go through the links, but I do know that the geocentrism, in the mind of Sungenis, is first and foremost a religious belief, but he spends all his time on science which gives the impression that he considers it primarily scientific. When he had his $1000 challenge some years ago, I took the challenge. My debunking made him admit that 'there are other laws out there'. Once he did that, he showed the challenge was really a farce because he believes that it really isn't a scientific challenge at all, but a religious belief of faith.

[Daniel]

I cannot bring myself to go through the links, but I do know that the geocentrism, in the mind of Sungenis, is first and foremost a religious belief, but he spends all his time on science which gives the impression that he considers it primarily scientific. When he had his $1000 challenge some years ago, I took the challenge. My debunking made him admit that 'there are other laws out there'. Once he did that, he showed the challenge was really a farce because he believes that it really isn't a scientific challenge at all, but a religious belief of faith.

I don't think he has ever claimed that it is primarily scientific.  The reason he uses science, by my impressions, is that he's claiming that science has never proven any model to be correct (many people falsely assume that the currently-accepted acentric model and big bang cosmology have been scientifically proven).  He also uses science to show that geocentrism does not violate any known scientific law, so it's not to be thrown out.  And he uses science to show that all the real/observed scientific evidence points toward geocentrism/a motionless earth/etc..

What exactly was the evidence that you submitted to his challenge?  There are other laws out there that we don't know about, but I do agree with you that that's a very bad argument if he was using it to refute some sort of proof that you presented.

[Cassini]

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-bungles-high-school-physics/

www.geocentrismdebunked.org/simple-scary-mindset-robert-sungenis/

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf

This is just to provide a counterpoint to the constant anti-Catholic hawking of geocentric nonsense by certain members of this forum.

As the subject of the Galileo case is of interest to me I google around reading discussions on it. I came across this forum and found much to interest me. In order to make a contribution I had to register. Before that I had to read the rules and ethos of this traditional Catholic forum. Rolling down the science section I could not believe that anybody would be allowed name a thread 'Robert Sungenis is a Fraud on what is called a traditional Catholic forum.'

To demonstrate this accusation Aquila posts three websites, the theme of which is Newton's THEORY of universal gravity. It is quite obvious to me that all concerned actually believe Newton's THEORY is some sort of LAW that can determine a mathematical truth. To accuse a man of being a FRAUD based on a two-sided argument about a theoretical heliocentrism and a theoretical geocentrism shows me the ignorance concerning this subject is rampant of Catholic forums.

It seems to me Robert Sungenis is not the fraudster here but the idea that heliocentrism has some sort of scientific credibility.

[GloriaPatri]

Cassini, you seem to not understand what the word 'theory' means. The word does not merely mean some idea that needs to be further investigated. Though many people, in their everyday lives, use the word theory in that way, what they're really trying to say is hypothesis. The word theory means a hypothesis that has been heavily substantiated with a body of supporting evidence.

Hence why Newton's Theory is taught in high school and introductory college physics. Because the evidence has shown his original hypotheses to be true.

[Bonaventure]

Well duh

[Heinrich]

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-bungles-high-school-physics/

www.geocentrismdebunked.org/simple-scary-mindset-robert-sungenis/

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf

This is just to provide a counterpoint to the constant anti-Catholic hawking of geocentric nonsense by certain members of this forum.

As the subject of the Galileo case is of interest to me I google around reading discussions on it. I came across this forum and found much to interest me. In order to make a contribution I had to register. Before that I had to read the rules and ethos of this traditional Catholic forum. Rolling down the science section I could not believe that anybody would be allowed name a thread 'Robert Sungenis is a Fraud on what is called a traditional Catholic forum.'

To demonstrate this accusation Aquila posts three websites, the theme of which is Newton's THEORY of universal gravity. It is quite obvious to me that all concerned actually believe Newton's THEORY is some sort of LAW that can determine a mathematical truth. To accuse a man of being a FRAUD based on a two-sided argument about a theoretical heliocentrism and a theoretical geocentrism shows me the ignorance concerning this subject is rampant of Catholic forums.

It seems to me Robert Sungenis is not the fraudster here but the idea that heliocentrism has some sort of scientific credibility.

Good post. There are some angry elves here.

Welcome to the forum.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Indeed. There are some folk round here hell-bent on ensuring the Earth, birthplace of God incarnate, be relegated to some cosmic backwater of the universe.

[Cassini]

Cassini, you seem to not understand what the word 'theory' means. The word does not merely mean some idea that needs to be further investigated. Though many people, in their everyday lives, use the word theory in that way, what they're really trying to say is hypothesis. The word theory means a hypothesis that has been heavily substantiated with a body of supporting evidence.

Hence why Newton's Theory is taught in high school and introductory college physics. Because the evidence has shown his original hypotheses to be true.

Remember what we are discussing here, which order of the universe is true, biblical geocentrism or scientific heliocentrism. In 1741 the Holy Office under Pope Benedict XIV were of the opinion Isaac Newton and Stellar parallax had proven heliocentrism true. Based on this illusion the infamous U-turn into Modernism began.

Top of the list of reasons given by churchmen thereafter was to quote St Augustine like so:

'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken, for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.'

Now note clear and CERTAIN reason, in other words certain PROOF. How then did Newton's theory become a proof. Did you know there were other theories of universal gravity on offer at the time?
By 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton's - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies that could cause either geocentrism or heliocentrism.

Then there was René Descartes's 'vortex theory.'

So, what happened to these alternative theories? Well there are two answers to this question, one at the 'scientific' level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In Le Sage's case, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like many other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics or the mathematics of Le Sage's theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt planetary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a Fellow and President of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later again however, as is prone to happen in theoretical physics, Le Sage's theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science, and again we stress, for what it is worth, now holds that such particle collisions can be 'elastic' on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. Le Sage's theory, they now hold, would not melt planetary bodies. So why wasn't it readmitted at that time as a possible scientific theory for cosmic movement. Well we now know why, don't we?
     
'A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage... Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun's attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth's shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage's theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.'

Gloria writes: 'Hence why Newton's Theory is taught in high school and introductory college physics. Because the evidence has shown his original hypotheses to be true.'

Ok, some things you may not be aware of. Newton theory is based around elliptical orbits. I can tell you orbits are not ellipses but Cassinian ovals. Did you not know also that Albert Einstein found another flaw in Newton's theory that wouldn't work, 'action at a distance.' Yes, why do you think Einstein needed to invent a theory of universal gravitation of his own? How then can you say Newton's theory is true?

[Quaremerepulisti]

There does seem to be some confusion as to what is meant by a scientific "theory".  It's certainly more than merely a hypothesis; it denotes a hypothesis that has been confirmed over and over again by data, such that to doubt it would be preposterous.  And no one today does doubt Newton's law of gravity.  It's used in a wide variety of applications.

But that doesn't mean that a theory is the last word on things, for two reasons.  For one, the theory is not an ultimate explanation; one can ask why the theory is the way it is.  There will need to be another theory to explain the first one (whether it's relativity, quantum gravity, or something else).  And then of course, there could be a third theory to explain the second one, and so on, because science does not deal in ultimate explanations, only in proximate ones.  Secondly, the data available is not with infinite precision and does not cover every possible range.  So, it is possible that a modification will be found to be necessary with newer data.  This doesn't "disprove" the theory, but only shows the limits of its applicability.  This was the case with Newton's law of gravity over very long distances, and it's the case for classical physics in general over very small scales, where quantum uncertainty comes into play.

But with regards to geocentrism, it doesn't really matter.  I refuted Sungenis years ago by using the tides.  It's known there are diurnal variations in the earth's speed of rotation due to the tides.  In a geocentric system, the best you can do is have the earth oscillate back and forth, but it cannot be absolutely stationary.  Similarly with the earth's rotation slowing due to tidal friction.  In a geocentric system, you can pick one point in time in which the earth is stationary, but the earth's rotation will have slowed down before then.  Also, earthquakes and things of that nature will have to cause at least a slight oscillation (e.g. due to changes in rotational inertia).

And Cassini is right about the Church's flip-flop.  Either the Church erred in the original condemnation of the earth's motion or it erred when officially allowing it to be taught.  And this is true regardless of whether the earth is actually moving or not.  Apologists have tried to dance around this issue for years.  But there is no avoiding the conclusion that the Church can err in the ordinary magisterium, because it did err, no matter how you slice it.

[Cassini]

There does seem to be some confusion as to what is meant by a scientific "theory".  It's certainly more than merely a hypothesis; it denotes a hypothesis that has been confirmed over and over again by data, such that to doubt it would be preposterous.  And no one today does doubt Newton's law of gravity.  It's used in a wide variety of applications.

But that doesn't mean that a theory is the last word on things, for two reasons.  For one, the theory is not an ultimate explanation; one can ask why the theory is the way it is.  There will need to be another theory to explain the first one (whether it's relativity, quantum gravity, or something else).  And then of course, there could be a third theory to explain the second one, and so on, because science does not deal in ultimate explanations, only in proximate ones.  Secondly, the data available is not with infinite precision and does not cover every possible range.  So, it is possible that a modification will be found to be necessary with newer data.  This doesn't "disprove" the theory, but only shows the limits of its applicability.  This was the case with Newton's law of gravity over very long distances, and it's the case for classical physics in general over very small scales, where quantum uncertainty comes into play.

But with regards to geocentrism, it doesn't really matter.  I refuted Sungenis years ago by using the tides.  It's known there are diurnal variations in the earth's speed of rotation due to the tides.  In a geocentric system, the best you can do is have the earth oscillate back and forth, but it cannot be absolutely stationary.  Similarly with the earth's rotation slowing due to tidal friction.  In a geocentric system, you can pick one point in time in which the earth is stationary, but the earth's rotation will have slowed down before then.  Also, earthquakes and things of that nature will have to cause at least a slight oscillation (e.g. due to changes in rotational inertia).

And Cassini is right about the Church's flip-flop.  Either the Church erred in the original condemnation of the earth's motion or it erred when officially allowing it to be taught.  And this is true regardless of whether the earth is actually moving or not.  Apologists have tried to dance around this issue for years.  But there is no avoiding the conclusion that the Church can err in the ordinary magisterium, because it did err, no matter how you slice it.

OK Quaremerepulisti, we agree on the nature of theories and that they do not represent certainties. It follows that to allow a condemned heresy to be believed based on theories is irresponsible.

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone after Galileo's tidal-fiasco bases their heliocentric belief on the tides. 'It's known there are diurnal variations in the earth's speed of rotation due to the tides' you say. Well now, there is a fact that I never heard about. The earth goes faster and slower every day you say, but always gets there at the same time I suppose? How do they measure the earth's rotational speed? According to the speedsters on this forum the earth rotates at many speeds, from the Equator to the poles. Perhaps you can inform us Quaremer as to how they measure rotational speed.

Then there is a big assumption, the tides causes them. Is that not a theory Quaremer? If not perhaps you can tell us how this fact can be known.

As we all know, the theory is that the tides are caused by Newton's gravity SUCKING up the waters of the earth by the sun and moon as the earth rotates. Could the tides not be an effect of a pushing form of gravity rather than a pulling gravity?

In 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed 'ultra mundane Corpuscles' and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which traverse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on the surface of a sphere it goes nowhere. If however, something shields the pressure of the 'ultra mundane Corpuscles' on any part of that sphere it would move due to 'non-equilibrium.' Here then is another theory whose effect would be exactly the same as Newton's pulling theory, pushing the waters of the earth to cause the tides.
You can go on and on with theories, but please do not pick one as the truth.

Here is more on the tides that keep many believing in heliocentric science.

'It must be emphasised that the above account is very elementary and is designed only to explain the basic causes of tides. Their actual behaviour is much more complex... Careful observation of tidal behaviour at any particular place often leads to the conclusion that it's at complete variance with the theory.' --- Larousse Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Prometheus Press, N.Y., 1959, p.172.

Yes, like have you ever seen the 'attracting' moon (and sun) directly above with the tide fully out? I have, often. Moreover, if the sun and moon suck oceans and seas up as they say they do why are there no tides as a result on the largest lakes in the world, those huge areas of water all over the globe?

To base a heresy on the belief that the tides prove a fixed sun and a moving earth shows me a belief based on faith, scientific faith, not true science.

[Quaremerepulisti]

OK Quaremerepulisti, we agree on the nature of theories and that they do not represent certainties. It follows that to allow a condemned heresy to be believed based on theories is irresponsible.

Absolute certainties are impossible based on the problem of induction.  Theories can however represent very strong moral certainties, to the point where it would be against reason to disbelieve them. 

The earth's motion (which is what we are talking about here) was condemned as "at least erroneous in faith" though not explicitly as heretical.  No one today holds the sun is the unmoving center of the universe so that part of the condemnation is irrelevant.

But now, and for a long time before now, the Church explicitly allows the earth's motion to be taught.  So the Church erred then or it is erring now.

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone after Galileo's tidal-fiasco bases their heliocentric belief on the tides.

Genetic fallacy.

'It's known there are diurnal variations in the earth's speed of rotation due to the tides' you say. Well now, there is a fact that I never heard about. The earth goes faster and slower every day you say, but always gets there at the same time I suppose? How do they measure the earth's rotational speed?

In that case you are not nearly as well-informed on this topic as you think.  It's a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry.  The diurnal variations have been directly measured.  But we know the position of the water in the oceans changes with the tides.  Therefore the earth's rotational inertia changes, and therefore its rotational speed will change.

If you transform into a geostationary frame, you will still have oscillations back and forth due to the tides.

According to the speedsters on this forum the earth rotates at many speeds, from the Equator to the poles. Perhaps you can inform us Quaremer as to how they measure rotational speed.

I just did.  But the first sentence here betrays a gross ignorance on your part of this topic.  You need to learn Physics 101 before you jump in here with all guns blazing.

Then there is a big assumption, the tides causes them. Is that not a theory Quaremer? If not perhaps you can tell us how this fact can be known.

Yes, conservation of angular momentum is a theory.  It is a theory which all the evidence supports and which none contradicts.  Therefore it not a "big assumption" that the tides are causing the changes in earth's rotational speed.

As we all know, the theory is that the tides are caused by Newton's gravity SUCKING up the waters of the earth by the sun and moon as the earth rotates. Could the tides not be an effect of a pushing form of gravity rather than a pulling gravity?

Yes.  And so what?  That has nothing to do with anything I've said here.

Yes, like have you ever seen the 'attracting' moon (and sun) directly above with the tide fully out? I have, often. Moreover, if the sun and moon suck oceans and seas up as they say they do why are there no tides as a result on the largest lakes in the world, those huge areas of water all over the globe?

The tides will be much less because the amount of water is so much less than the oceans, but tides have been measured in lakes such as Lake Baikal in Siberia.

To base a heresy on the belief that the tides prove a fixed sun and a moving earth shows me a belief based on faith, scientific faith, not true science.

I have nowhere said anything about a fixed sun.  But true science shows the earth does move, at least with diurnal rotational oscillations.

[Aquila]

Quaremrepulisti, I enjoyed your demolishing of Cassini, who has been claiming for a long time on various forums the the Popes have allowed heresy to be taught for centuries (including holy Popes such as Pius X). These people are, IMO, enemies of the Faith who use this geocentric bullshit to undermine the belief in the Church's infallibility.

Sungenis is, again, a fraud who cannot perform basic maths. So is Cassini.

[Cassini]

OK Quaremerepulisti, we agree on the nature of theories and that they do not represent certainties. It follows that to allow a condemned heresy to be believed based on theories is irresponsible.

Absolute certainties are impossible based on the problem of induction.  Theories can however represent very strong moral certainties, to the point where it would be against reason to disbelieve them. 

The earth's motion (which is what we are talking about here) was condemned as "at least erroneous in faith" though not explicitly as heretical.  No one today holds the sun is the unmoving center of the universe so that part of the condemnation is irrelevant.

But now, and for a long time before now, the Church explicitly allows the earth's motion to be taught.  So the Church erred then or it is erring now.

For the life of me I cannot understand how anyone after Galileo's tidal-fiasco bases their heliocentric belief on the tides.

Genetic fallacy.

'It's known there are diurnal variations in the earth's speed of rotation due to the tides' you say. Well now, there is a fact that I never heard about. The earth goes faster and slower every day you say, but always gets there at the same time I suppose? How do they measure the earth's rotational speed?

In that case you are not nearly as well-informed on this topic as you think.  It's a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry.  The diurnal variations have been directly measured.  But we know the position of the water in the oceans changes with the tides.  Therefore the earth's rotational inertia changes, and therefore its rotational speed will change.

If you transform into a geostationary frame, you will still have oscillations back and forth due to the tides.

According to the speedsters on this forum the earth rotates at many speeds, from the Equator to the poles. Perhaps you can inform us Quaremer as to how they measure rotational speed.

I just did.  But the first sentence here betrays a gross ignorance on your part of this topic.  You need to learn Physics 101 before you jump in here with all guns blazing.

Then there is a big assumption, the tides causes them. Is that not a theory Quaremer? If not perhaps you can tell us how this fact can be known.

Yes, conservation of angular momentum is a theory.  It is a theory which all the evidence supports and which none contradicts.  Therefore it not a "big assumption" that the tides are causing the changes in earth's rotational speed.

As we all know, the theory is that the tides are caused by Newton's gravity SUCKING up the waters of the earth by the sun and moon as the earth rotates. Could the tides not be an effect of a pushing form of gravity rather than a pulling gravity?

Yes.  And so what?  That has nothing to do with anything I've said here.

Yes, like have you ever seen the 'attracting' moon (and sun) directly above with the tide fully out? I have, often. Moreover, if the sun and moon suck oceans and seas up as they say they do why are there no tides as a result on the largest lakes in the world, those huge areas of water all over the globe?

The tides will be much less because the amount of water is so much less than the oceans, but tides have been measured in lakes such as Lake Baikal in Siberia.

To base a heresy on the belief that the tides prove a fixed sun and a moving earth shows me a belief based on faith, scientific faith, not true science.

I have nowhere said anything about a fixed sun.  But true science shows the earth does move, at least with diurnal rotational oscillations.

I have long ceased to be impressed with accusations of 'In that case you are not nearly as well-informed on this topic as you think.' They told the world this to say stellar aberration, stellar parallax, Coriolis force and the Foucault pendulum all prove the earth moves. Then the geodesists said their findings prove the earth bulges at the centre causing precession wobble. 

I asked you to explain a few things and all I get is physics rhetoric like 'Very Long Baseline Interferometry.' Wow, I am impressed, we are all impressed. Given you did not explain in simple language what I asked I googled it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry

In which we find: 'However, since the VLBI technique measures the time differences between the arrival of radio waves at separate antennas, it can also be used "in reverse" to perform earth rotation studies, map movements of tectonic plates very precisely (within millimetres), and perform other types of geodesy.'

Note the PRESUMPTION that the earth rotates, which assures all findings confirm a rotating earth. that is how it is done, always. It seems to me the same findings could be said if it were presumed the universe is doing the revolving.

Your other answers are simple arguments for your point of view. Geocentrism can equally present their side of the coin for these phenomenon. Neither can prove anything, merely falsify particular arguments for or against. The truth of the biblical universe will not be found in science, only in the Church's word that geocentrism has been revealed to us.

Currently science accepts relativity as a FACT, that is either H or G could be the scientific truth. If you think you have made a breakthrough, confirming H or a spinning earth, then go make a name for yourself up there with the greats like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein and Hawking.