star trek actress will rescue you from Galileo

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe she is running out of money.

The guy she made the DVD for not only has an absurd view of how the universe works, but is also an Anti-Protestant, Antisemitic nutjob.

Is he catholic? I have never heard of him?

Yep.

In my college history class, my professor mentioned something about an object on EARTH not moving and I spoke up and said, "... but the Earth is moving , therefore, the object is moving".

In response, he said, "Can you prove that?"

Not yet addressed on this thread, is Robert Sungenis "geocentrist" argument that the Earth is the center of the universe, as presented here, http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... g-and.html

Mr Sungenis appears to argue that if the 3D coordinate system used to model the universe always puts the Earth at (x,y,z) coordinates of (0,0,0), then the Earth by way of mathematical modeling is always at the center of the universe.

So, I wonder as my history professor challenged me, can the helocentrists *prove* what they claim is so absurdly true without resorting to arbitrary mathematics ??

Space agencies prove the Earth is at least rotating. If the Earth wasn't rotating there would be no benefit to launching rockets closer to the equator to "steal" energy from the motion. The rocket equations would be completely ruined and nothing would reach a proper orbit.

From a mathematical perspective you could use the Earth as the geometric origin (0, 0, 0) of your cosmic model, however the mathematics describing the motion of the other celestial objects "around" the Earth would be unbelievably complex and arbitrary. Just picture one of those clockwork models of the solar system that has the Sun at the centre then picture moving a movie camera with the earth (to freeze the Earth's movement) and see the sun and planets motion... you would notice other planets suddenly stopping and going in the opposite direction and all manner of weird motions.

Using the Sun as the origin (0, 0, 0) has much more simple mathematics to describe the motion of the planets around the sun.

From a non-mathematical perspective you have to explain the apparent motion of the sun each day across the sky and also explain the changing route of this arc according to the seasons. Again having the sun at the centre of our solar system easily explains both days and seasons.

When you are considering the motion of the stars within our galaxy it is necessary to consider the origin (0,0,0) to be the centre of our galaxy and all the stars in our galaxy to be rotating around that centre. The Sun is just one of the many stars on one of the spirals sticking out; it has no special place in the galaxy.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could believe this in 2014, and even invest money in promoting it, as it goes contrary to proven science and even logic.

I mean I doubt even the people who easily pick up on far fetched theories would fall for this one.

But not all people operate in a logical or even sane way, even if they are not truly clinically insane.

Scary.

Some folks are so blinkered by their holy book that they will go to the lengths of falsifying testimony or evidence in support of their faith. However, most religious fanatics just turn a blind eye to the truth and chose never to learn about reality and instead live their life in a religious fantasy world.

The models do not "put the earth at the center of the universe". Its the other way around: the models are created by placing the earth at the center of the 3D grids. The reason being that thats how we measure heavenly bodies- by how far they are from us on earth, and in what direction they are from earth- for the obvious reason that Earth is where the observers are.

Mr. Sungenis does.

Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawkings concur with Mr. Sungenis - that the Earth can be modeled as the center - based on the quotations on the before mentioned website.

Einstein is quoted as saying, "Either coordinate system could used with equal justification".

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 12 Apr 2014, 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Does WHAT?

You stated the "models do not ... ". However, Mr. Sungenis does.

Mr Sungenis's model puts the Earth at the center of all celestial bodies i.e. the center of the universe.

you're being even more illogical than I thought you were.
Mr Sungenis is not himself a scientists. So what does it matter what 'model' he sets up?

JRR Tolkien created a 'model of the universe' in which there are hobbits, orcs, and hobgoblins.

What is your point?

Maybe I mustunderstood you. But I thought that you were saying that Mr. Sungenis was citing the work of actual scientists to bolster his claims.

That Mr. Sungenis CITES scientific models made by actual scientists that show the earth to be at the center of 3D cartesian grid maps of the Universe. Not that he created those models- that he CITES them to support his notion of a geocentric universe. The implication being that if you map the universe- the earth somehow 'ends up' at the center of the map of the universe.

My point is that its the other way around. When you make a map of the universe you place the earth at the center first. So thats why the earth always "ends up" at the center of maps of the universe.

Im sure he quote mines. But Einstein wasnt, and Hawkings, is not a heliocentric.

It mattered to the person who created this thread.



This thread is about Mr. Sungenis, and his geocentric model.



He may. However, the website linked before, quotes Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings who both acknowledged that geocentrism is empirically equivalent to heliocentrism (i.e., science has no empirical basis for using the heliocentric model over the geocentric model).



Mr. Sungenis does not think science has it right, so he is arguing his position. He is not going to cite someone who he thinks has it wrong.



What is being discussed here is whether the Ptolemic system or the Coppernicus system is representative of the universe.

Mr. Sungenis is arguing his version of the Ptolemic system.

What is ironic is I remember Captain Janeway's hero in the series was Leonardo Da Vinci whom she admired for his ahead-of-his-time scientific curiousity and genius. Although unlikely, it has me wondering if the documentary writer set her up on purpose.