In Which the Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 1

On March 29, 2011, Dr. Robert Sungenis descended on the puddled and pot-holed campus of that pinnacle of higher learning – the University of Manitoba. He provided a comprehensive lecture on why modern science is a large, looming monolith which suppresses reality, ostracizes non-believers and does some downright dirty things… which he, of course, kindly contrasted with the Catholic Church. He spoke (after a 20 minute technical delay) to a packed lecture hall 29 people who were willing to take some time out of their Tuesday night to entertain the notion of geocentrism. That is, Dr. Sungenis argued that the entire universe, including the Sun, revolves around us.

Dr. Sungenis is one of the top names in geocentrism, having co-written the definitive, and, as near as I can tell, only, modern textbook on geocentrism. (Side note: He shamelessly promoted this book throughout the lecture, claiming to be holding back valuable evidence in support of his ideas. The thing itself could be used to hold down a helium balloon in a hurricane, though at the $80 price tag, I would suggest finding a moderately sized boulder instead.) He obtained his PhD. from an unaccredited distance education program, and is quite proud of the fact that his doctoral dissertation is over 700 pages long. By contrast, normal research-based theses are around 150-200 pages long. Not only does that indicate the sort of quality of education Dr. Sungenis received, it is a lovely demonstration of his complete inability to get to the point.

Pictured: "Totally not a diploma mill" PhD education in Theology, Homeopathy or Energy Healing. Not pictured: PhD education in Website Design

So, Dr. Sungenis began his talk with a long and drawn out discussion that hardly seems worth mentioning but for two points. The first is that he quote mined and then insulted Carl Sagan. Blasphemer! The second is that his logic seems to come down mistaking correlation for causation in the downfall of the Catholic Church. It is as follows: People use Galileo as an example of things that the Catholic church has gotten wrong in the past. Since Galileo’s time, the Church has fallen in prominence and atheism has gained in popularity. Ipso facto, heliocentrism leads to atheism. Later on in the lecture, he actually said verbatim that if you did not believe in a geocentric universe you were atheist. He mentioned nothing of the numerous rational individuals who manage to somehow synthesize heliocentirsm and Catholicism. Nor does he ever demonstrate how accepting his model would mean that the Church is and always has been right about everything.

Ray Comfort - Prominent atheist?

Early in the lecture, I became acutely aware of the fact that Dr. Sungenis is a huge fan of quote mining. I was willing to forgive him for the Sagan misquote, as it is easy enough to unintentionally misconstrue Sagan’s literary devices and poetic language. However, one of his early quotes (and honestly, I don’t remember which, as there were plenty of them) contained so many ellipses that my only notes on the subject are “Ellipses seizure!!” This was a recurring theme over both days and descended from the precipices of “casual and appropriate reference to someone who had something thoughtful to say” to the dark depths of “dredging scientific papers for things that could be deliberately misrepresented.”

Dr. Sungenis, hard at work.

He then continued to say that current theories based on heliocentric models have not been proven. This is a familiar creationist claim that has been so thoroughly debunked that it’s almost tiresome to mention it. He, either deliberately or through some vast oversight in his research, fails to understand that theory cannot ever be 100% proven. The theory only works in every conceivable situation we have applied it to – and there are a great deal of those! Of course, what he asks scientists to provide him with are absolute certainties, and being good scientists, they give him assertions with qualifications. He interprets this as uncertainty and dissent, when in reality, it’s intellectual honesty.

Then, he moves onto a history lesson. He barely touches on Copernicus, except to say that he thought that the orbits should be perfect circles and that this was incorrect. He argues that the advancement of this knowledge proves that previous theory should have been utterly discarded when it was in fact refined (and simplified) to fit the observable evidence. Of Galileo, he has much to say. He argues that the Church was right to condemn his works, though fails to mention his imprisonment. Implicitly, he condones the censorship as the right call – the very censorship which he claims and opposes for today. He argued that the only reason that the Church (much later) allowed Galileo to be stricken from the blacklist was through “subterfuge.” Yes, it was a grand conspiracy, as Napolean had stolen the relevant records from the time, and someone else had argued that the Church objected to one particular aspect as opposed to the whole thing, but no one could prove anything, and so the church revoked the ban on publishing but did not condone heliocentrism.

That shifty jerk probably spat on orphans, too.

Though interesting from a historical perspective, I was confused as to what this had to do with anything. Though he was pointing out numerous ad hominem arguments against a sun-centred solar system, he did not stop to consider that perhaps, jackasses can have good ideas too. Whether there was grand conspiracy or not, whether some heliocentrist killed a geocentrist in a duel or not, whether Galileo had a fun time poking dying people with a pointy stick – it’s all irrelevant to the quality of the theories which they supported. Although Dr. Sungenis never considers his critiques a fallacy, could we hardly expect more from someone who has clearly never learned how to critically dissect science.

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!”

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

As Tim Minchin says in Storm, “Hm that’s a good point, let me think for a bit; Oh wait, my mistake, it’s absolute bullshit.” Dr. Sungenis defeats his very own point by referring to F = ma, which means that acceleration = Force/mass. Therefore, acceleration will decrease proportionally with the mass of the object, and the sun, which is far more massive, will accelerate less than a much smaller Earth. This point was never questioned, but I am truly curious as to how Dr. Sungenis fails to comprehend this basic observation about reality. You don’t need Newtonian physics to understand that the same force applied to a ping pong ball and a cement truck will have a lot more affect in accelerating a ping pong ball.

She could totally send your house flying with that paddle.

Perhaps anticipating that argument, he asserted that the earth was the central mass of the universe, and yet did not show how we could possibly exist on a planet, which, being more massive than anything else in existence, would not crush us into a fine dust by that same gravitational law. Ultimately, I believe that such confounding arguments were part of his strategy – if you get everything so utterly wrong, it’s nearly impossible to refute him without going back to the beginning and giving an hour long Grade 10 level lecture on Newtonian physics.

Ultimately, he asserted that Newton and Einstein should be made pariahs on the basis that they took a theory (heliocentrism) and modified it to fit the evidence. This was the proof, at last, that the whole system should crumble. Those nasty scientists had the gall to observe the universe and find a way to improve our model of it! I’m not sure what he would rather have – since Dr. Sungenis repeatedly attacked science for being stuck in a paradigm, does he want change, or doesn’t he? He seems to misunderstand that scientists don’t treat theories like antique vases. Nobody says, “Look, we’ve got a theory now, so put it on a shelf and for God’s sake, don’t break it.” Science takes that vase and throws it against the wall for the express purpose of breaking it. Usually, it doesn’t, but where the real science happens is when everyone bends down to pick up the pieces.

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:

And there you have it. Geocentrism is fact, ladies and gentlemen.

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.

Na na na boo boo!

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.

Look, we're at the centre of the observable universe!! ... Wait a minute...

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)

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.

Ultimately, Dr. Sungenis’ arguments fell into one of many fallacies: ad hominem attacks, nirvana fallacynegative proof fallacy, appeal to authoritycherry picking… it goes on and on. Dr. Sungenis’ talk was heavy on just that – talk – but it came up several furlongs short of anything a rational mind could call evidence.


Part 2 – the Debate, can be found here.

About these ads

29 responses

  1. Pingback: In Which the Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 1 « The Winnipeg Skeptics

  2. Hey that was a great writeup. My main criticism is to call this guy “Dr.” since as you said his “PhD” is as phony as a three dollar bill. Before anybody gets the idea that he has anything to say about Catholicism it should be pointed out that Sungenis has no official capacity in the Catholic Church and his bishop forced him to take the label “Catholic” off his organization.

    This bit stood out to me “one of his early quotes (and honestly, I don’t remember which, as there were plenty of them) contained so many ellipses that my only notes on the subject are “Ellipses seizure!!””

    Well Sungenis is not just a quote miner and mangler he is a serial plagiarist. He believes the moon landings were a hoax, 911 was a U.S. government conspiracy, that “The Jews” killed JFK and are behind every other nefarious thing you can imagine. Well you get the deal. You can check all this stuff out at http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/

    It’s always good to know who your dealing with.

    • Oh, I completely agree that he is not a real PhD – but I’d rather attack his ideas than his credentials. As for his other insane ideas, the fact that he denies pretty much everything in modern science except for the bits he wants to hear, I don’t think any other poorly founded ideas would surprise me in the slightest.

    • Working on it, working on it. :) Jusarious said he would – but I’m the one with the notebook I suppose. It’s just so daunting to have to deal with so much insanity at once! Ha ha.

  3. I was trying to do something today. But I find I am beating my head against the wall. This is so painful to write. And Flora has the notebook with all the notes. When I see her next I will obtain the notebook.

    I am working on drafts for several posts I have in limbo. This particular topic is bugging me. Everytime I get started on something I feel like walking in front of a bus.

  4. Pingback: In Which The Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 2 « Subspecies

  5. Pingback: In Which the Universe Revolves Around Robert Sungenis – Part 2 « The Winnipeg Skeptics

  6. Pingback: Earth Wars: Revenge of the Geocentrists | Subspecies

  7. Pingback: Geocentric Earth lecture « Science Notes

  8. Flora- have you read Galileo was Wrong?

    I am sorry that some of the words are confusing to you (quasar, etc.), but unfortunately this is a difficult topic to broach to non-scientists. Much of what your saying is that you are going to go al;ong witht he philosophical views and opinions of modern science rather than consider alternative explanations. Stephen Hawkings and George Ellis did write a book explaining that much of cosmology is philosophy, and it is this philosophy which outright frejectsd anything that clashes with the “Copernican Principle”. Look that up in Wikipedia for an explanation.

    As for the CMB mutli-poles, take a look at this site (Case Western University): http://www.phys.cwru.edu/projects/mpvectors/#publications

    Note that they say: “We focus mainly on the lowest cosmological multipoles (l=2 and 3) and show that alignment between the planes they define and the ecliptic persists at > 99.9% C.L.” (C.L. = confidence level)

    • Hi Mark,

      I am a scientist, and as a scientist, I know how to present my research both to fellow scientists and the public. You cannot give the same lecture to both, for fear of boring the former and confusing the latter. It is duplicitous to present data to the public without the intent of having them understand, especially if you are attempting to convince them of a view point which is not their own. I do consider alternative explanations – if I was not interested, I would not have attend the lecture at all. However, it is the utter lack of information provided that frustrated me with his presentation. I spend a lot of time in lectures from both scientists and science educators alike, and any of them would have ben appalled at Sungenis’ presentation, not for its content, but for his deceitful, disingenuous methodology.

      I never said that the dipole/quadipole/etc. did not exist. It does seem to be a real phenomena (indeed, I quoted an article by real scientists who research it), but Sungenis did not even attempt to explain what it was to the audience, nor could he explain what we were looking at when directly asked. That is not acceptable behaviour from any lecturer, regardless of content. Presenters are responsible for the content of their lectures. If his lecture were a thesis defence, he would have been failed by his committee. As a “PhD.” he should have known that.

      Edited to add: No, I have not read Galileo was Wrong. I refuse to pay the $100-something for it. If someone would lend me a copy of it, or I found a cheap used copy, or if they had given away a free copy as was promised at the debate, I would be happy to read it. In any case, the fact that Sungenis refused to speak directly of any evidence contained in his book suggests to me he did not want to be publicly challenged on its contents. If his data are so powerful, why hide them?

  9. Flora,

    Both the debate and the presentation by Dr. Sungenis were recorded. I listened carefully to them both. You should be very ashamed of yourself. You are a spreader of much falsehood.

    Neither the debate nor the presentation were anywhere near to how you present them here. You appear to be some sort of vicious hellcat who has nothing better to do than spend a great deal of time in not only very falsely characterizing the debate and presentation, but going way beyond that to smear Dr. Sungenis’ good name.

    It is as though you take a real passionate glee in spreading your virulent calumny/poison about. I really pray for you that you stop spreading such falsehood. To tell falsehoods with the intention of deceiving is to lie.

    • 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.

      The dipole, quadrupole and octopole and the “Axis of Evil” are simple to understand in relation to geocentrism are easy to understand. 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.

      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.

      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. http://johnmartin2010.blogspot.com/2011/07/arguments-that-invalidate-relativity.html

      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.

      JM

      • JM, It’s interesting that you would assert that Newtonian physics cannot account for the orbits of our planets. Jusarious actually just downloaded a universe simulator, which uses our current knowledge of physics to create planets. It allows you to play with the variables, place planets as you choose, etc, then predicts their behaviour based on Newtonian calculations. I suggest you try it, http://universesandbox.com/ If you take the Earth (with its known properties) and make the Sun (with other planets orbiting it) orbit around the Earth, within 15 years, the Earth flies directly into the Sun.

        Conversely, if the Earth is the central mass for the universe, as Sungenis himself said was the case, please account for how we are not all crushed into a black hole like a neutron star. We know the mass of the Earth based on our gravitational constant (9.8 m/s) at the surface. Please explain how we experience this particular level of gravity without the currently known mass of the Earth.

        The clusters in the SDSS are well accounted for. From Wikipedia:
        The observable matter is spread homogeneously (uniformly) throughout the universe, when averaged over distances longer than 300 million light-years.[24] However, on smaller length-scales, matter is observed to form “clumps”, i.e., to cluster hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, the largest-scale structures such as the Great Wall of galaxies.

        The MM experiments were designed to demonstrate a luminiferious ether, and did not. This is not begging the question. If you have experimental evidence in which you attempt to prove that the sun revolves around the earth, then please demonstrate it. Piggy-backing onto someone’s else’s work is not science. It is fair game to disagree with them, but you cannot present their own data, interpret it differently, and do no further research to back it up.

        If you think can invalidate relativity, discuss it with someone who understands relativity. I am not a physicist and am not aware of why there would be light aberration at the speed we travel through space. To debate complex topics with laymen on the subject is not fair – I simply do not know enough about it to discuss it appropriately with you. Furthermore, my ignorance on the topic does not invalidate it, I merely know that my knowledge on the topic is limited, but everything that I do understand about it is based on evidence and makes sense both observationally and conceptually.

        Otherwise, I would gladly substantiate my claims but Sungenis has forbidden me from doing so (as is his right within copyright laws). Some of your friends seem to have viewed the proceedings and you might wish to convince them to post it publicly.

    • James – please indicate where I have lied about what occurred. This article is intended to be a humour piece, because any scientific analysis of the lecture or debate would have been deathly boring to read, with nothing to talk about apart from logical fallacies. I would have gladly presented any data which Sungenis put forward. There was nothing. I took copious notes at the experience and recorded it, and did not miss any major points.

      If you are so certain that I am lying, please back up your claims, and convince Sungenis to allow me to publish my copies of the events. Even better, publish your own. If I have been dishonest, I will gladly rescind my statements. When I challenged Sungenis on his own dishonest quote mining (as I happened to have Stephen Hawking’s book with me), he would not back down. To be presented with factual reality that opposes your opinion and ignore it is dogmatic.

      • JM, It’s interesting that you would assert that Newtonian physics cannot account for the orbits of our planets. Jusarious actually just downloaded a universe simulator, which uses our current knowledge of physics to create planets. It allows you to play with the variables, place planets as you choose, etc, then predicts their behavior based on Newtonian calculations. I suggest you try it, http://universesandbox.com/ If you take the Earth (with its known properties) and make the Sun (with other planets orbiting it) orbit around the Earth, within 15 years, the Earth flies directly into the Sun.

        >>> JM – Newtonian mechanics is logically inconsistent even though it seems to produce maths results. Several problems with the model are well known, but the model is still used because it has maths “success”. In the end it is a flawed system, even by modern cosmological standards. The standard model assumes no place in the universe is stationary, yet Newtonian mechanics assumes an absolute space.

        Why then does Newtonian mechanics hang around? Because it’s eclectic mix of idea, plus maths, plus assumptions produces the results we need. Does this mean Newtonian mechanics is a reflection of what really goes on with the motion of the planets and the sun? No.

        +++Conversely, if the Earth is the central mass for the universe, as Sungenis himself said was the case, please account for how we are not all crushed into a black hole like a neutron star. We know the mass of the Earth based on our gravitational constant (9.8 m/s) at the surface.

        >>> JM – Please explain why the central mass of the universe would collapse into a black hole using Newtonian mechanics, which permits a body to be at the barycenter of a rotating motion. I don’t think you can do this, for the simple notion of a barycenter at the center of a rotating universe is quite simple within a Newtonian model.

        +++Please explain how we experience this particular level of gravity without the currently known mass of the Earth.

        >>> JM –It is well known in modern physics that the cause of gravity is unknown, beyond any vague appeal to space-time bending or mass attraction. So, I have to admit that fundamentally nobody on earth really knows what the fundamental cause of gravity really is until we have a very good understanding of the nature of the firmament and the aether flow.

        How then do we know what level of gravity is on earth without knowing the mass of the earth? We measure the effects of gravity on bodies located on earth, such projectiles and falling objects. These gravity tests allow us to discover some features of gravity on earth due to the interaction of the aether flow around the earth.

        +++The clusters in the SDSS are well accounted for. From Wikipedia:
        The observable matter is spread homogeneously (uniformly) throughout the universe, when averaged over distances longer than 300 million light-years.[24] However, on smaller length-scales, matter is observed to form “clumps”, i.e., to cluster hierarchically; many atoms are condensed into stars, most stars into galaxies, most galaxies into clusters, superclusters and, finally, the largest-scale structures such as the Great Wall of galaxies.

        >>> JM – Wicki is lying about the SDSS because there are published articles that show the matter distribution is in broad shells around the earth. Galaxies, X-rays, Quasars and globular clusters are all focused in on the earth in concentric shells. This is the conclusions of modern investigations, yet its either downplayed or ignored by modern science in favor of the rather bankrupt materialist, pantheist standard model.

        +++The MM experiments were designed to demonstrate a luminiferious ether, and did not.

        >>> JM –The experiment was designed to test the motion of the earth through the luminiferious ether and a motion of 30km/s was understood to have a predicted fringe shift that did not occur. Why then assume the earth is moving and ignore the possibility of an aether when no definitive evidence exists for a moving earth? Surely the scientific method requires all possible scenarios to be taken into account. As such, the aether and stationary earth model cannot be dismissed due to the MM null result. What can be ignored is the proposed relativity answer for the null result, which contains many logical inconsistencies.

        +++This is not begging the question. If you have experimental evidence in which you attempt to prove that the sun revolves around the earth, then please demonstrate it. Piggy-backing onto someone’s else’s work is not science. It is fair game to disagree with them, but you cannot present their own data, interpret it differently, and do no further research to back it up.

        >>> JM –we can use the results of any experiment within the geocentric model. This is the power of the model. The results of the MM and M-Gale experiments show a small fringe shift that changes with time of day and season.

        Some evidence for a stationary earth may be found here –

        http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Flower%20Pattern.htm
        http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Restoring%20forces.htm
        http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Negative%20parallax.htm
        http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Schroter.htm

        Other evidence for geocentrism includes -

        There is no aberration of moon light, which concludes to the earth being stationary relative to the moon.

        The CMB monopoles, quadropoles and octopoles show the universe is symmetric around the earth.

        The aether has been detected by Galaev – http://www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm

        The Sagnac effect shows light travels at c+-v relative to the absolute stationary earth.

        The action of a coil with a magnet produces current in accordance with a motion relative to the absolute stationary earth.

        light from galaxies twists slightly as it passes through space. This is consistent with a rotating universe.

        Airy’s failure is consistent with a stationary earth surrounded by an ether that causes aberration of light.

        Stars remain in the same focus all year round, indicating the earth does not move in space.

        Michelson-Gale experiment detected a daily and seasonal shift in the aether flow, which has a source running near the North Pole.

        Satellites work assuming and earth centered frame, showing a stationary earth is the preferred reference frame, in accord with geocentrism.

        Other experimental evidences as presented in GWW
        +++If you think can invalidate relativity, discuss it with someone who understands relativity. I am not a physicist and am not aware of why there would be light aberration at the speed we travel through space.

        >>> JM –The fundamental ideas of special relativity are rather easy to understand. You can access the 1905 paper here http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ and see my invalidations of the model here – http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/116413-johnmartin2009-s-discussion-of-modern-physics/page13 – see posts 367 – 372.

        +++To debate complex topics with laymen on the subject is not fair – I simply do not know enough about it to discuss it appropriately with you.

        >>> JM –Fair enough, but the two fundamental postulate of relativity are easy to understand so you should be able to read at least the first few pages of the 1905 paper and see my invalidations of the theory.

        +++Furthermore, my ignorance on the topic does not invalidate it, I merely know that my knowledge on the topic is limited, but everything that I do understand about it is based on evidence and makes sense both observationally and conceptually.

        >>> JM –I agree in part, but the fundamentals of relativity are not difficult to grasp and it is in the fundamentals that the theory falls apart.
        +++Otherwise, I would gladly substantiate my claims but Sungenis has forbidden me from doing so (as is his right within copyright laws). Some of your friends seem to have viewed the proceedings and you might wish to convince them to post it publicly.

        >>> JM –I don’t believe you can pull apart the geocentric model at all. Several physicists with PhD’s have tried and failed already.

        JM

  10. JM, your ignorance on the subject is apparent even to a layperson. I find it insulting to my intelligence that a person, such as Sungenis, would hold a lecture and a debate for a subject he is not willing to share information on. The whole event was geared towards the “buy my book” slogan which, in the world of proper academia, is unacceptable to the highest degree.

    A person/scientist is to present ACTUAL data that they have discovered by using the scientific method, they are to interpret said data, and then present it along with references to other experiments. Robert Sungenis did nothing of the sort. Like all creationist/geocentric people he spent his time quote mining and stacking up fallacy after fallacy. Of course the religious in the room bought it, they are used to accepting arguments from authority as truth, but we in the scientific community were not impressed to say the least.

    The only reason he “won” the debate was that the event was mainly publicized in churches. It was only by shear coincidence that we stumbled upon a posting on Kijiji and spread the word to the rest of the skeptical community. This is another way that Robert Sungenis and the religious right control who questions their insane ideas on reality. Of course they could not bar us from the debate but it was clear that questioning was not acceptable.

    It boggles my mind to this day that when probed for evidence, Sungenis merely told the audience to buy and read his book. The debate was to have a draw for said book but that was ignored at the end because, one could only assume, Sungenis did not like people challenging his ideas. Also, any study worth its weight is FREE for anyone to access and read once published.

    JM a challenge to you – Point me to ACTUAL peer reviewed studies demonstrating positive conclusions supporting ANYTHING regarding geocentricism and I would surely change my mind. We (the scientific community) don’t want to hear your interpretation unless you have something to contribute to the data/study presented. For the record the M/M experiments don’t show anything other than they are histories more famous “failed” experiments.

    And a little advice, diploma mills such as the international university that Sungenis claims to have received a doctorate from in this area of study are laughed at by anyone with half a brain in their cranium.

    2CP

  11. Jusarious, you people obviously pride yourselves on being skeptics, but what a sorry lot which finds comfort in ripping on someone who actually was skeptical about much of the prostituted scientific establishment and was man enough to write about it; one who actually had the guts to go out and get a real (contrary to your slanderous falsehoods) Ph.D. and then go out and painstakingly put together what is reputed to be (Feel free to try showing otherwise.) the most comprehensive and detailed scientific treatise on the isssue of helicentricity versus geocentric cosmology ever offered to the public.

  12. James Phillips – Sorry to burst your bubble but Calamus Distance Learning does not a PhD. make. I refuse to call Robert Sungenis a doctor when he holds an obvious fake degree. I mean really, a distance learning facility on a secluded island in the south Pacific is his choice of study. Does that very idea not tingle your suspicious sensor. This is not a university, it’s a scam as far as I can tell. But if you want to evoke the tomato/tomaato fallacy (that i just made up) then by all means.

    Your right about one thing, I do pride myself on being a skeptical critical thinker. It pains me that you suggest you were a skeptical thinker until some unknown event that made you change your mind about critical thinking.

    Skepticism is not about bigotry or name calling, nor is it about “slanderous falsehoods”, it is about reality and evidence. I consider myself one of this denomination due mainly because my unusually powerful and large bullshit detector located north of my spine. Everyone has one, just not everyone uses it correctly. Skepticism is about questioning everything. It is a powerful tool that should not be turned off. Skepticism has the ability to bring people together to share ideas and opinions in often heated but genuine discovery.

    The issue is not that Sungenis can write a crap load of words in a book, which I have not read but would be happy to do so if you or anyone in possession of the book would lend me a copy, it’s that the theory of heliocentricity is so well documented and supported by Newtonian Physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc., that no matter how many times a geocentric personality stomps their feet and screams at the top of their lungs, it will not be toppled without a demonstration of positive results.

    Robert Sungenis may have narrated the last few hundred years in his book but he has not offered anything that has yet to be investigated and challenged. Should he (or anyone for that matter) decide to study the universe in such a way as to not evoke biblical methodology, then I would be willing to support the endeavor.

    In simple terms, conduct an experiment that shows positive results for the geocentric hypothesis, I will be willing to endorse the study. For whatever that is worth.

    I was at this lecture and debate, I filmed it. The film turned out terrible and I would love to view the debate again where I can hear the speakers without cranking my volume. I would love to share this with my fiends however swore not to distribute the footage. Surgenis would benefit from sharing the footage that many other people viewed so that people don’t have to take OUR word for what transpired.

    My impressions of the evenings in question mirror that of lady Flora. No evidence was presented both evenings. The debate was crappy, the lecture was worse. Arguments from authority, quote mining (to which we called him out on one in particular, I wanted to call him out on his Carl Sagan quote but I let that one slide), fallacy after fallacy ejected from the mouth of this man to test my patience. I wanted to stop him and remind him that in a scientific presentation to laymen, one should keep the lecture clear and organized.

    A catholic priest in the room (I hear the catholics are supposed to subscribe to this hypothesis) seemed to find the evening upsetting before the audience questions even started. Sungenis emitted a tone of arrogance and ignorance the entire evening. If that was unintentional I would suggest he review the tape and improve on his speaking skills. Engage the audience and accept criticism.

    It is late and I am babbling tired. Make sense of what I have written above. I assure you it makes more sense than those two evenings in April ever did.

  13. Jusarious,

    Question. Why don’t you “skeptics” use your full real names on these blogs? Are you afraid of something?

    I notice that you folks are very prone to make rash judgments about people and their credentials before all the evidence has been studied and dispassionately weighed in the balance. I’d sure hate to have you sitting in a jury box if I was on trial for anything, especially if you knew I was a Catholic and even worse if you knew I was a geocentrist unless perhaps you decided I was not guilty by reason of insanity.

    Seriously Jusarious, listen to what you say and when you do realize that people most often perceive faults (rightly or wrongly) in others which they themselves are most guilty of. Physician heal thyself.

    It is wise for everyone to remember that pride blinds (and that pride goeth before the fall), although the problem often lies in the application. A proud person is often too proud to recognize any blindness on his part and often has nothing but contempt for one who even mentions it.

  14. I believe that Juliet was talking about me when she coined the famous phrase:
    “What’s in a name?
    That which we call a rose
    By any other name
    would smell as sweet.”

    We had such a great thing going in the 1500′s but I had to ruin it by being a moron.

    Excuse me Mr Authority on Evidence. I forget that you have all the answers to everything. If you could point me to the part which says that Calamus Distance Learning Center is an accredited institution I would gladly redact my statements with an apology.

    OH! WAIT! I already searched their website. They say they are not responsible if the a country does not accept their designation. Face it Mr., it is a diploma mill.

    Wanna know something cool? I will be the first to let you in on a little secret. I am in the process of dissecting his entire powerpoint that was presented to me that fateful evening. Let’s just say I have already caught him displaying false quotations on his first few slides. Quoting someone incorrectly is… what is that term? oh yeah, dishonest. I believe perjury is punishable by an eternity in hell if Christianity were true. Good thing it’s not because you both would have been in rough shape indeed.

    In a trial, if I was in the jury, I would convict/acquit you based on your actions and not your race, sexual preference, what you had for breakfast, or religion. What I can’t seem to get through to you is I base my life on EVIDENCE. Everyone should.

    The last two paragraphs in your response, calling me a poo poo head (in so many words) does not make me respect you. I am guilty of nothing other than being honest to myself and my readers. My eyes are so open I must wear sunglass when I sleep! Just wish the rest of the world would do the same so my stock in Oakleys will go up.

    I will end with a quote:
    “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
    Carl Sagan

  15. Correction: Flora and I are working on dissecting the presentation. She has already found the false quotation. Got so caught up talking about me I lost track of reality (that was sarcasm).

  16. Pingback: LUEE Episode 7: Geocentrism and Biblical Cosmology « The Winnipeg Skeptics

  17. Pingback: Episode 7: Geocentrism and Biblical Cosmology « Life, the Universe, & Everything Else

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s