Discussing Geocentrism

How the Geocentric Universe Works with Modern Physics
Robert Sungenis, 18 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCe_LDKZSk0

The following are just comments and comment threads involving me:

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:52 It may be noted that the wikipedian article has been rewritten since then.

II

Ian Pardue

I'm a geocentric Christian that has a hard time explaining videos from outer space that shows the Earth moving. Can you explain that to me? It'll help me spread geocentrism

Samuel Flippin

Not a geocentrist, but that's easy to explain. The camera is moving, not the Earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Confirming Samuel Flippin.

Imagine a chopper circling a tower, and taking a motion picture of the tower.

The film, when shown, would look as if the tower were rotating, when it is in fact the chopper who took it from rotating angles.

Alexander Mendez

Where have you seen that? There's no video of the earth moving

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Alexander Mendez Timelapse from satellites.

But as said, the camera's what's really moving.

David Freeman

I got you my man. You have a hard time because space is fake. We live on a flat non-rotating plane and no one has ever passed through the firmament. Space as the mainstream defines it doesn’t exist. 🙏

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@David Freeman How about checking out my answer.

Kiran Patel

Do you realise why Geocentrism was replaced by heliocentric model? Nothing to do with video of planets moving. Most the comments you are from trolls or plain wrong.

If you want to persist with your geocentric view you have to explain the relative motion of planets, the observed parallax wrt distant stars and the orbital path of all the launches, in particular those of the missions to other planets.

If you then want a stationary, it gets even tricker to explain all the observations

The Ptolemy's geocentric model was the most successful geocentric model. Even this had to be modified with the addition of epicycles and subsequently addition of a non-stationary Earth. This did provide accurate map of planetary motion but still failed on the parallax effect. It also provided no explanation for the epicycles.

So, you can live with your geocentric model as long as you ok with it not matching reality.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kiran Patel "Do you realise why Geocentrism was replaced by heliocentric model?"

I am aware of the societal fact.

I am also aware of societal facts like in England and Sweden Protestantism replaced the Catholic truth. Or in Russia, Orthodox near truth was replaced by Communism.

Replaced by has no bearing on the actual truth value of the two propositions.

"Most the comments you are from trolls or plain wrong."

What do you mean by "most of the comments you"?

"If you want to persist with your geocentric view you have to explain the relative motion of planets,"

Tychonic orbits are perfectly feasible with angelic movers.

"the observed parallax wrt distant stars"

The phenomena mislabelled as parallax and aberration are both perfectly feasible as proper movements with angelic movers.

"and the orbital path of all the launches, in particular those of the missions to other planets."

This is the trickier part, nevertheless, I have found no clear indication that geocentrism breaks down here.

"If you then want a stationary, it gets even tricker to explain all the observations"

I am sorry, but what is "a stationary"? A stationary earth? That is geocentrism and hence doesn't make anything trickier than geocentrism.

"The Ptolemy's geocentric model was the most successful geocentric model."

It was replaced by the Tychonic one.

"It also provided no explanation for the epicycles."

Epicycles or Tychonic orbits are both perfectly feasible with angelic movers. Back then astronomers didn't think they had to explain "astrophysics" or "celestial mechanics" they left that to Theologians who provided Angelic Movers.

If you are an Atheist, fine, you won't believe in angelic movers, so you are doomed to be Heliocentric as long as you are Atheist.

If you are NOT an Atheist, how do you pretend to exclude Angelic Movers?

I see no mismatch with reality other than in deniers of angels and even worse, mismatch with own theology in those admitting angelsbut denying angelic movers.

Kiran Patel

@Hans-Georg Lundahl few points from your response:

1. The replacement of geocentric model with the heliocentric model was nothing to do with societal factor. It succeeded because it provided a better explanation for observations, I.e. was evidence led.

2. There was an error in my comment. I meant to state that most of the comments were from trolls or flat earthers.

3. I meant to state that a geocentric model with a rotating earth would have provided a simpler model. Such model was rejected by the Greeks due to misunderstanding of velocity and acceleration. As they did not have an understanding of gravity, they assumed that a spinning earth would be felt.

4. A static earth has a number of issues that ancient astronomers did not have to consider. In particular it required a spinning universe and the sun making a daily orbit around Earth. This would make such things as Lagranian points impossible.

5. The use of Angelic Movers in cosmology effectively died with the replacement of Aristotle cosmology. It relied on the stars being nothing more souls and our solar system being the extent of the universe. It has nothing to do with atheism.

With regards to orbits, if you are going to resort to magic to explain the impossible than you can justify anything just by saying that it must be done by magic. Such explanation has no predictive capability and ignores evidence to the contrary.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kiran Patel The two most important ones first. That's 1 and 5.

1. "The replacement of geocentric model with the heliocentric model was nothing to do with societal factor."

Naive.

5 "The use of Angelic Movers in cosmology effectively died with the replacement of Aristotle cosmology. It relied on the stars being nothing more souls and our solar system being the extent of the universe. It has nothing to do with atheism."

When you speak of "replacement of Aristotelic cosmology, you prove it was a question of societal factors.

Atheism is the only way in which you can "disprove" it. Subjectively, since Atheism is false.

But without affirming "no God, no angels" you cannot disprove it.

"With regards to orbits, if you are going to resort to magic to explain the impossible than you can justify anything just by saying that it must be done by magic. Such explanation has no predictive capability and ignores evidence to the contrary."

If it makes evidence to the contrary moot, it need definitely not ignore the observations used as "evidence to the contrary" ... by magic, you here mean non-reductionism or mind over matter. The fact that I and you can meaningfully write, is evidence that such non-reductionism or mind over matter is not excluded as valid explanations.

Atheists who are anyway challenged about what mind is, would obviously argue no non-embodied minds exist and no embodied mind can act on such a large scale. As a Christian I disagree.

2. "There was an error in my comment. I meant to state that most of the comments were from trolls or flat earthers."

These two categories are not the same.

3. "As they did not have an understanding of gravity, they assumed that a spinning earth would be felt."

While both non-feeling of the spinning due to getting used to it, and non-seeing due to the parallactic optic illusion are possibilities, and I think Oresme was taking both into account, when he said this possibility could not be assumed because it was a possibility.

The straightforward interpretation of what we see is a universe spinning around earth, the straightforward explanation for that is God spinning it around Earth.

4. "A static earth has a number of issues that ancient astronomers did not have to consider. In particular it required a spinning universe and the sun making a daily orbit around Earth."

That very much is part of the things they considered.

"This would make such things as Lagranian points impossible."

Not if Lagrange points spin along with the Sun.

III

johnmister john

There is a lot of misunderstanding of science here, plus some illogical nonsense.
The Earth is obviously not stationary.

Robert Sungenis

Well, John, we would all love to hear what you think is a "misunderstanding of science." The worst thing you can do on an issue like this is to use the hit and run method in which you make an accusation but don't show any evidence to prove your point. And if the Earth is "obviously" not stationary, then show us at least one scientific proof. As such, what I have found is that it is people like you who THINK they understand the science, but don't.

Kiran Patel

@Robert Sungenis first creationists have to show the mathematics work for each of nine planets instead of having a lot of special pleading.

Heliocentric model replaced Geocentrism as planetary motion could not be explained without more and more complex epicycles. So if creationists want to be taken seriously they need to do away with such epicycles and still replicate the planetary and solar relative motions.

Next they would have to explain why the angular velocity of all galaxies is the same so that these appear near static from our frame of reference. Having the whole universe orbit around Earth does not work as everything would then orbit with space-time and not through space. As such the fictitious forces would have different behaviour.

Of course creationists forget that everything, including matter, exists within an universal field and therefore its maximum velocity through that field is dictated by the property of that field. So next they have to explain why there is no upper speed limit and not just ignore all the research from the last 100 years.

Unlimited Hangout

@Kiran Patel 9 planets? Lol the world isn't one of the planets. Also, you have to do a lot of especially pleasing pleading to make the case that the world is a tilted, 1666kmph spinning, 66600-1.3 million mph flying Sky Pear Planet wrapped in water and air in the midst of a vacuum, as your canonical scifi spaceman teaching theories claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Kiran Patel "first creationists have to show the mathematics work for each of nine planets instead of having a lot of special pleading"

With angelic movers, mathematics doesn't circumscribe the mechanics. But I presume that Sungenis might say "exactly same maths as for your heliocentric model, as per Machian equivalence.

"as planetary motion could not be explained without more and more complex epicycles."

Tychonic orbits are not complex in theory. They are just complex to draw, or to describe mathematically, i e they are what we now call spirograph patterns. Copernicus rejected them because God couldn't possibly have created anything as ugly as that .... I think he never had access to a spirograph.

"Next they would have to explain why the angular velocity of all galaxies is the same so that these appear near static from our frame of reference."

It's some time since I watched the video, I think Sungenis has some theory about it on this or some other of his material. Certainly if you buy GWWTCWR the part about the physics and astronomy.

For my own part, I disagree more than he with modern cosmology. Galaxies - as replicas of the Milky Way, outside it, supposed to contain each, starting with MW, thousands of replicas of if not the solar system, at least the sun, this is not observed. It is concluded by some maths that wouldn't even stand without either Heliocentrism - or Sungenis' Neo-Tychonian model.

"Having the whole universe orbit around Earth does not work as everything would then orbit with space-time and not through space."

How about having space time and aether:

• stationary inside earth
• rotating daily between earth and above fix stars
• stationary above fix stars?

"exists within an universal field and therefore its maximum velocity through that field is dictated by the property of that field."

I do very much not forget it, as I think the field is, as high up as the fix stars, rotating each day. It's the thing that God primarily rotates, and then other things (including the fix stars and the sun) rotate with it. For the sun, no real problem, for the fix stars it's good to remember that they are not rotating through the field, only with the field 6.28 (two pi) times the speed of light. I agree individual fix stars could not move that fast through the field.

If I got Sungenis right, I think we are less opposed on this point.