Robert Sungenis is a fraud

[Cassini]

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.

Please show me where I ever accused Pope Pius X of teaching the Galilean heresy?

Given the Fathers and all theologians up to Copernicus's time, including the fathers of the Council of Trent all believed in sensual and biblical geocentrism, even inserting it into the Trent catechism, and the fact that two popes defined and condemned heliocentrism as formal heresy, even putting Galileo on trial for HERESY, you are in effect accusing THE CHURCH of teaching BULLSHIT.

As regards undermining the Church's infallibility, well the 1616 decree is the only infallible definition ever made on the matter. Robert Sungenis defends this infallibility, for which you call him a fraud.

And that about sums up your contribution Aquila.

[Quaremerepulisti]

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.

Well you are wrong.  What VLBI is able to do is measure diurnal variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (as well as slowing of the speed over time, which why leap seconds are needed).  Yes, we can transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating at a constant angular velocity, instead of the earth.  But because of the variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (in the frame in which universe is not rotating) when we transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating what we will see is the earth rotationally oscillating back and forth.  Also, because of the slowing of the speed over time, if we "play back the clock" we will see the earth rotating, and then slowing, and then coming to a stop.

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.

It can't.  Even in a geocentric frame the earth will oscillate back and forth and will have slowed to a stop.

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.

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.  Even in that frame, however, the earth must still have rotational oscillations as I have said.

[Cassini]

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.

Well you are wrong.  What VLBI is able to do is measure diurnal variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (as well as slowing of the speed over time, which why leap seconds are needed).  Yes, we can transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating at a constant angular velocity, instead of the earth.  But because of the variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (in the frame in which universe is not rotating) when we transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating what we will see is the earth rotationally oscillating back and forth.  Also, because of the slowing of the speed over time, if we "play back the clock" we will see the earth rotating, and then slowing, and then coming to a stop.

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.

It can't.  Even in a geocentric frame the earth will oscillate back and forth and will have slowed to a stop.

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.

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.  Even in that frame, however, the earth must still have rotational oscillations as I have said.

So we are back to square one Quaremerepulisti, the tides can have a geocentric or heliocentric explanation? I agree to that much.

[GloriaPatri]

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.

Well you are wrong.  What VLBI is able to do is measure diurnal variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (as well as slowing of the speed over time, which why leap seconds are needed).  Yes, we can transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating at a constant angular velocity, instead of the earth.  But because of the variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (in the frame in which universe is not rotating) when we transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating what we will see is the earth rotationally oscillating back and forth.  Also, because of the slowing of the speed over time, if we "play back the clock" we will see the earth rotating, and then slowing, and then coming to a stop.

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.

It can't.  Even in a geocentric frame the earth will oscillate back and forth and will have slowed to a stop.

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.

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.  Even in that frame, however, the earth must still have rotational oscillations as I have said.

So we are back to square one Quaremerepulisti, the tides can have a geocentric or heliocentric explanation? I agree to that much.

You are not back to square one, Cassini. Even in a geocentric frame, where the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth still oscillates. It doesn't stay still. It moves. No matter how you look at it, an absolutely stationary Earth is not possible.

[Cassini]

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.

Well you are wrong.  What VLBI is able to do is measure diurnal variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (as well as slowing of the speed over time, which why leap seconds are needed).  Yes, we can transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating at a constant angular velocity, instead of the earth.  But because of the variations in the speed of the earth's rotation (in the frame in which universe is not rotating) when we transform into a frame in which the universe is rotating what we will see is the earth rotationally oscillating back and forth.  Also, because of the slowing of the speed over time, if we "play back the clock" we will see the earth rotating, and then slowing, and then coming to a stop.

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.

It can't.  Even in a geocentric frame the earth will oscillate back and forth and will have slowed to a stop.

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.

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.  Even in that frame, however, the earth must still have rotational oscillations as I have said.

So we are back to square one Quaremerepulisti, the tides can have a geocentric or heliocentric explanation? I agree to that much.

You are not back to square one, Cassini. Even in a geocentric frame, where the Sun revolves around the Earth, the Earth still oscillates. It doesn't stay still. It moves. No matter how you look at it, an absolutely stationary Earth is not possible.

Well Gloria, you can put your certainty in that VLBI process, I will put it in my Catholic faith.
First let us deal with the doctrinal aspect of your position.

(2) The second proposition, that is, "That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement," was unanimously declared "to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith."

Condemned are the supposed orbiting of the earth around the sun and its supposed revolution every day as in the Copernican system. To say the earth shakes back and forth like as belly-dancer without actually orbiting and rotating could be said not to contradict the censure.

For me, I will stick to the literal anyway.

"He has made the world firm, not to be moved." --- (Ps. 95:10).
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever." --- (Ecclesiastes 1:14).
"Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabilitatem suam); it shall not be moved for ever." --- (Ps. 103:5).
"He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved." --- (Ps. 92:1).

Now you may say you cannot doubt that VLBI. Well I will, that kind of science, measuring the movement of the earth by way of the stars reminds me of the geodesic measurements used to 'prove' Isaac Newton right about his earth bulge.

'He [Newton] argued that the Earth at an early pastry stage would bulge out about this distance [14 miles]. This bulge had not yet been observed. A short time later, measurements of the earth confirmed the prediction.' --E.M. Rogers: Physics for the Enquiring Mind, Princeton University Press, 1960.

Do a little research into this confirmation and you find it is all a joke.

'This result... proved that the Earth was flattened at the Poles. Later, large errors were found in the measurements, but they were in the "right direction."' --- Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535.

Finally:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler  and Larry D. Hothem,  Member, ASCE

'INTRODUCTION: The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): "Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S." Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the earth [the stars in the case of a geocentric system] and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.'   

And that is why I have little faith in science being able to prove anything about the size or movements of the earth.

[MilesChristi]

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.

Well, we are a podunk race, God decided to choose...the Jews were a tiny insignificant people living among the great powers...Nazareth was a podunk town...Europe was absolutely smashed after the fall of Rome...God's choices are not always abvious

[Cassini]

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

Genetic fallacy.

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.

Further to our debate Quaremerepulisti I found this on  http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html

Phil said: Congratulations Eric! At last the voice of logic has dared to challenge the illogical status quo! I'm almost convinced, but just have a couple of niggling queries. What are your thoughts on seismic activity? Events such as quakes, volcanoes, tectonic plate drift and tides?

Eric Dubay said...
Thanks for the comments Phil and Thomas! Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tectonic plates drifting can be explained the same way they are in the ball-Earth model, but not the tides, tides being caused by "the Moon's gravity" is a ridiculous assumption that's clearly not happening, otherwise all bodies of water on Earth would be so affected, including lakes, ponds, marshes etc. and not just the massive oceans. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, using their own math and "law," it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth's greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon's lesser gravity to supersede the Earth's gravity at Earth's sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon's. Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth's tides, when in actuality the Earth's tides vary greatly. Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon's gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon's grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

"If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (130-131)

"Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet ... That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" (259-260)

[james03]

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.

It's been disproved.  We sent a satellite out and filmed Pluto.  Explain that to me in a frame of reference where the earth is not rotating, and the orbital velocity of Pluto is the speed of light.  Give me a rough estimate on the amount of fuel required to get the satellite up to the speed required to film Pluto.

[GloriaPatri]

I accept general relativity, which is why I admit the possibility of a frame with the universe revolving around the earth at a constant velocity.

It's been disproved.  We sent a satellite out and filmed Pluto.  Explain that to me in a frame of reference where the earth is not rotating, and the orbital velocity of Pluto is the speed of light.  Give me a rough estimate on the amount of fuel required to get the satellite up to the speed required to film Pluto.

Under GR non-inertial reference frames, such as one in which the Universe revolves around a stationary Earth, are allowed to move at velocities in excess of c. QR can do a better job of explaining it, but that is the gist of it.

[Aquila]

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

Genetic fallacy.

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.

Further to our debate Quaremerepulisti I found this on  http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2014/11/the-globe-earth-lie.html

Phil said: Congratulations Eric! At last the voice of logic has dared to challenge the illogical status quo! I'm almost convinced, but just have a couple of niggling queries. What are your thoughts on seismic activity? Events such as quakes, volcanoes, tectonic plate drift and tides?

Eric Dubay said...
Thanks for the comments Phil and Thomas! Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tectonic plates drifting can be explained the same way they are in the ball-Earth model, but not the tides, tides being caused by "the Moon's gravity" is a ridiculous assumption that's clearly not happening, otherwise all bodies of water on Earth would be so affected, including lakes, ponds, marshes etc. and not just the massive oceans. If the Moon is only 2,160 miles in diameter and the Earth 8,000 miles, using their own math and "law," it follows that the Earth is 87 times more massive and therefore the larger object should attract the smaller to it, and not the other way around. If the Earth's greater gravity is what keeps the Moon in orbit, it is impossible for the Moon's lesser gravity to supersede the Earth's gravity at Earth's sea-level, where its gravitational attraction would even further out-trump the Moon's. Not to mention, the velocity and path of the Moon are uniform and should therefore exert a uniform influence on the Earth's tides, when in actuality the Earth's tides vary greatly. Furthermore, if ocean tides are caused by the Moon's gravitation, how is it that lakes, ponds, and other smaller bodies of standing water remain outside the Moon's grasp, while the gigantic oceans are so effected!?

"If the moon lifted up the water, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low instead of high tide caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about 6 feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea." -Thomas Winship, "Zetetic Cosmogeny" (130-131)

"Even Sir Isaac Newton himself confessed that the explanation of the Moon's action on the Tides was the least satisfactory part of his theory of Gravitation. This theory asserts that the larger object attracts the smaller, and the mass of the Moon being reckoned as only one-eighth of that of the Earth, it follows that, if, by the presumed force of Gravitation, the Earth revolves round the Sun, much more, for the same reason, should the Moon do so likewise, instead of which that willful orb still continues to go round our world. Tides vary greatly in height, owing chiefly to the different configurations of the adjoining lands. At Chepstow it rises to 60 feet, at Portishead to 50, while at Dublin Bay it is but 1 2, and at Wexford only 5 feet ... That the Earth itself has a slight tremulous motion may be seen in the movement of the spirit-level, even when fixed as steadily as possible, and that the sea has a fluctuation may be witnessed by the oscillation of an anchored ship in the calmest day of summer. By what means the tides are so regularly affected is at present only conjectured; possibly it may be by atmospheric pressure on the waters of the Great Deep, and perhaps even the Moon itself, as suggested by the late Dr. Rowbotham, may influence the atmosphere, increasing or diminishing its barometric pressure, and indirectly the rise and fall of the Earth in the waters." -David Wardlaw Scott, "Terra Firma" (259-260)

Wait...you cite a flat-earther blog as authoritative evidence?!

 

Are you a flat-earther too, Cassini? Because that would, arguably, make you a heretic...doesn't the Bible call the earth a globe?

[james03]

Under GR non-inertial reference frames, such as one in which the Universe revolves around a stationary Earth, are allowed to move at velocities in excess of c.

You didn't answer the question.  Give me a fuel estimate to accelerate the satellite to c.  You can assume the satellite weights 500 lbm as a rough estimate.

So there is only one frame of reference that makes sense.  Rotating Earth.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Under GR non-inertial reference frames, such as one in which the Universe revolves around a stationary Earth, are allowed to move at velocities in excess of c.

You didn't answer the question.  Give me a fuel estimate to accelerate the satellite to c.  You can assume the satellite weights 500 lbm as a rough estimate.

So there is only one frame of reference that makes sense.  Rotating Earth.

The fuel estimate is the exact same.  In a rotating frame there are Coriolis forces.

[james03]

Has nothing to do with it.

Place an observer at the radius of Pluto (from Earth) in an inertial reference frame with the Earth such that the Earth doesn't rotate.

Send a satellite up to the observer in a straight line.  Fuel usage is needed to reach escape velocity, reach whatever travel speed you want, then decelerate to the observer position.  Yes, to Pluto the satellite will seem to take a curved path to the observer, so there is your Coriollis effect.

But guess what, Pluto is still blowing by the observer and now the satellite at the speed of light.

[Cassini]

Wait...you cite a flat-earther blog as authoritative evidence?!

 

Are you a flat-earther too, Cassini? Because that would, arguably, make you a heretic...doesn't the Bible call the earth a globe?

Actually I am not a flat-earther but I found the subject interesting.

And no, the Bible does not state the earth is a globe. Nor did the Church ever consider it a doctrine, so even if I was it would not be a heretic.

[james03]

Next question, how much fuel was needed to get the satellite past the sun.  Note the satellite had to cross the orbit of the sun, which sun passed that point once per day.  Also, did NASA time the passing of the satellite so that it would cross the orbit of the sun around the earth so that the sun was on the far side of the earth?

Given the size of the sun, the satellite would impact the sun or be captured by it and sucked in, unless one huge amount of fuel was used, with precision timing.

Rotation is absolute, not relative.