Geocentrism Disproved: Ken Cole vs. Robert Sungenis
Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism: How Newton's laws prove that
the earth orbits the sun by Ken Cole
Earth
is the center of the universe? Almost everyone takes for granted that
Earth orbits the sun and that the solar system orbits the center of the
Milky Way galaxy. However, some folks interpret the Bible to say that
the earth is the center of the universe and "cannot be moved"
(e.g. Joshua 10:1213; 1 Chron 16:30; Psalm 93:1). A fairly wellknown
Catholic apologist named Robert Sungenis, who has written books such as Not
By Faith Alone and Not By Bread Alone, recently stated his
belief in Geocentrism. Moreover he charged that even science itself
cannot discount Geocentrism! His coming book Not By Science Alone
(published as Galileo Was Wrong) will supposedly show how
Geocentrism is still scientifically viable and he's still offering $1,000
to the person who can disprove Geocentrism.
Having spent the last five years studying physics and atmospheric
science, I thought the idea of 'science not being able to disprove
Geocentrism' was a little hard to swallow. So I thought it would be
helpful, interesting, and fun to show that science, well... CAN disprove
Geocentrism  quite simply and elegantly as a matter of fact. I came up
with a logical disproof of Geocentrism, based only on Newton's Laws
from high school physics. I then submitted it to Robert Sungenis,
waiting to see whether he agreed that I had disproven Geocentrism.
For your enjoyment, I have posted our entire correspondence. Some of
it includes boring, technical geekspeak. Following each response, I've
done my best to summarize each side's ideas in a 'Summary Notes'
section, so that even people who don't care for physics can understand
what the discussion is about.
Geocentrism Disproved: Ken Cole's Disproof of Geocentrism
Round 1: Robert Sungenis' First Response / Ken Cole's First CounterResponse
Round 2: Robert Sungenis' Second Response / Ken Cole's Second CounterResponse
Round 3: Robert Sungenis' Third Response / Ken Cole's Third CounterResponse
Round 4: Robert Sungenis' Fourth Response / Ken Cole's Fourth CounterResponse
Geocentrism Disproved: Ken Cole's Disproof of Geocentrism
Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism: How Newton's laws prove that
the earth orbits the sun by Ken Cole
Section A
Premise (A1): Newton developed his physical laws, which
form the basis of orbital mechanics. These equations include his
second law of motion: F=m*a and his law of gravitation:
(Gravitational Force)=G*m1*m2/(radius)^2.
Premise (A2): Since Newton formulated his laws, they
have always been verified by the motion of objects travelling much
slower than the measured speed of light. There has never been an
observable case where Newton's laws did not hold for objects
travelling much slower than the measured speed of light.
Premise (A3): In order for Newton's laws to correctly
predict motion in the solar system, gravitational forces from all
massive bodies must be correctly taken into account by scientists.
Gravitational force according to Newton is directly related to
mass. Gravitational force is also directly related to and varies
according to a spacecraft's distance from each of these bodies
as seen in G * m1 * m2 / (radius)^2 from (A1). (These massive
bodies include the sun, Earth, moon, planets, etc.) The sum of
these gravitational forces equals the 'F' in F=m*a.
Premise (A4): Scientists send spacecraft (which travel
much slower than the measured speed of light), and have done so
multiple times, through the solar system using Newton's laws
with exact precision. Such spacecraft include Voyager 2, Pioneer
10, and the Apollo moon missions. In other words, the spacecrafts'
motion, as described by the 'm*a' in F=m*a, was correct or
true.
Premise (A5): Given (A1), (A2) and since the motion of
the spacecrafts were true (A4), then the scientists' calculation
of the solar system's bodies' gravitational forces (A3) must
also be true.
Conclusion (A): Scientists possess a correct and
accurate understanding of each body's gravitational force in
relation to the spacecraft and, consequently, a correct
understanding of each body's mass. 
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
 Isaac Newton, Letter to Robert Hooke, February 5, 1675

Section B
Premise (B1): Geocentrism places Earth in the center of the
solar system, and all other bodies (including the sun) rotate around
Earth.
Premise (B2): According to Newton's laws, less massive
objects orbit more massive objects.
Premise (B3): If (B1) is true, then (B2) predicts that the Sun
is less massive than the Earth.
Premise (B4): But Conclusion (A) is proven true, and
scientists understand that the Sun is more massive than the Earth.
Premise (B5): Given (B4), then either geocentrism (B1) is
false or Newton's laws (B2) are false.
Conclusion (B): Either the geocentric view is incorrect or
Newton's laws are incorrect.
Section C
Premise (C1): But (A2) is true.
Premise (C2): Bob Sungenis' definition of proof is that '...explanations
must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous
and comprehensive.'
Premise (C3): (C2) defines (A2) as proof that Newton's laws
are correct.
Premise (C4): Given (C3) and Conclusion (B), then (B1) is
false.
Conclusion (C): Geocentrism is false, and Newton's laws
are true. Newton's laws then correctly predict that Earth orbits the Sun.
Summary Notes:
Basically, the idea behind Section A of this proof is that we know
Newton's Laws are right since we've successfully sent spacecraft
through the solar system  we know how gravity works. We know that very
massive objects have a greater gravitational pull than less massive
objects. Particularly of note: Newton's Laws squarely contradict
Geocentrism. In order for the moon to orbit the earth, for example, the
earth has to be much more massive than the moon. That's the only way
the earth can create a big enough gravitational pull to 'hang on' to
the moon.
That is why the earth can't be the center of the universe according
to Newton's Laws: the earth would have to be more massive than every
other object in the universe, so it could have a big enough
gravitational pull on to 'hang on' to everything. Robert Sungenis
wants to believe that Geocentrism and Newton's Laws pleasantly
coexist, but Section B of this proof clearly shows that either Newton is
right or Geocentrism is right.
Section C of this proof shows that by Robert Sungenis' own standard
of 'proof,' Newton's Laws are true and Geocentrism must be false.
Did Robert Sungenis think I had disproven Geocentrism? Read his First
Response to my proof!
Round 1: Robert Sungenis' First
Response / Ken Cole's First CounterResponse
Robert Sungenis' First Response  Text written by Robert
Sungenis in his first response is preceded by 'Sungenis 1.'
Sungenis 1: Ken, you're missing one thing. Newton's law that
smaller bodies revolve around larger bodies is true only in isolated
systems in which there is one large body and one small body. (In fact,
Newton had problems explaining what would happen if a third body, or
even a multiple number of bodies, came between two bodies whose mutual
force was originally calculated using the inverse square law).
But the fact is our universe is not an isolated system. It includes
innumerable galaxies. These galaxies directly effect the movement of
the sun, which in turn would effect how the sun moves in relation to
the earth.
For example, in the heliocentric system to which you hold, you
believe the sun is revolving around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000
mph. What is it, in your system of mechanics, that holds the
sun in this orbit? Obviously, it is the gravitational balance between
the Milky Way and the inertia of the sun, according to Newton's
laws. Thus, you would have to admit that the sun's movement is
controlled by the stars in the Milky Way.
That being the case, we can also create a Geocentric model of the
universe. Using Newtonian mechanics, we can construct a mathematical
model of the universe such that the earth is at the very center, the
sun is in the middle, and the stars are on the rim. If all these
bodies are positioned in the exact places they need to be, with the
exact masses they need to have, it would result in a system in which
the force of the stars carry the sun around a central earth, much like
the rim of a spinning bicycle wheel carries the spokes around the
axle. This would not be hard to design at all. A good computer could
figure out what the proportions of distance and mass would have to be
to satisfy both a Geocentric universe and Newtonian mechanics.
So I'm sorry, Ken, but you haven't disproved Geocentrism. In
actuality, you have allowed us to demonstrate once again that the same
laws with which you work are the same laws that govern a Geocentric
universe.
Summary Notes:
In Robert Sungenis' first response he hits a few points:
 The idea that smaller bodies (like the earth) orbit larger bodies
(like the sun) is only true if there's only a total of two bodies
in an 'isolated system.' Although he doesn't state it, he's
challenging Premise (B2) of my original proof.
 He says that the universe isn't an 'isolated system,' and
that all the galaxies of the universe contribute to the movement of
heavenly objects.
 We can think of the universe as a 'bicycle wheel,' with the
earth at the center, the sun in the middle, and the stars at the
rim. A computer could then figure out a way to arrange all the
heavenly bodies to 'satisfy both a Geocentric universe and
Newtonian mechanics.'
 He says I did not disprove Geocentrism, but instead allowed him to
make a stronger case for Geocentrism.
What did I think of his First Response? Read on to find out!
Ken Cole's First CounterResponse  Text written by Ken
Cole in his first counterresponse is preceded by 'Cole 1.' Text
previously written by Robert Sungenis in his first response is preceded
by 'Sungenis 1.'
Cole 1: I'd like to address your response to my challenge. I will
focus on your objection to my proof, which was in the first two
paragraphs of your response. It specifically challenges Premise (B2)
in my proof:
Sungenis 1: Ken, you're missing one thing. Newton's law that
smaller bodies revolve around larger bodies is true only in isolated
systems in which there is one large body and one small body. (In fact,
Newton had problems explaining what would happen if a third body, or
even a multiple number of bodies, came between two bodies whose mutual
force was originally calculated using the inverse square law). But the
fact is our universe is not an isolated system. It includes innumerable
galaxies. These galaxies directly effect the movement of the sun, which
in turn would effect how the sun moves in relation to the earth.
Cole 1: No. You are misunderstanding Newton's laws. Premise
(A1) outlined two of Newton's laws: his Second Law of Motion: F=m*a
and his Universal Law of Gravitation: (Gravitational
Force)=G*m1*m2/(radius)^2. I would like to clarify that these laws
alone state that more massive objects revolve around less massive
objects. When you stated, 'Newton's law that smaller bodies
revolve around larger bodies...' you implied that Newton had an
orbital law distinct from the two in Premise (A1).
In this discussion of orbital mechanics, Newton's Second Law and
Universal Law of Gravitation apply to everything that has mass,
without exception. There are no special cases in which they do not
hold. It is misleading to say that they only apply to 'isolated'
systems, since the universe itself can be considered an isolated
system. Additionally, these laws apply to any system, regardless of
number of bodies it contains. It can have two or three bodies, or even
nine or 'N' number of bodies.
When you say that Premise (A1) '...is true only in isolated
systems in which there is one large body and one small body,' you
are incorrectly referring to the classic 'Nbody problem.'
The 'Nbody problem' addresses the fact that every body exerts
a gravitational force on every other body in a given system. All these
bodies are moving and changing their forces on each other. Once you
have more than three bodies (or 'N' bodies) in a system, it gets
to be a headache trying to predict where any one body will be and how
it is moving at some point in the future, and calculations get complex
and messy, rather than elegant and clean.
Here's how the 'Nbody problem' would apply to our
discussion. If you sat down to calculate the motion of the solar
system, say 100 years from now, it could take you eons to come up with
a solution. But let's say you wanted to stop before that. The longer
you keep calculating, the more accurate a solution you will get. But
at no point between now and the eons it would take to find a solution
would you calculate the sun to be orbiting the earth. The underlying
Newtonian physics that the Nbody problem assumes will never allow it.
Which means that my Premise (B2) is not overturned for any number of
bodies in the system.
Regardless of the Nbody problem, you can get an extremely accurate
idea of the motion of the solar system in the future and there are a
couple of good practical ways to do it. One is to just let a computer
handle the messy calculations for you, and the other is to forget
about factoring in bodies that exert a negligible force.
Some
excellent examples of scientists doing this are:
 The motion of Jupiter's moons around Jupiter. This is a
wonderful example of how Newton's laws work, and how the Nbody
problem is solved. In this case, Jupiter has a whopping three
dozen moons! That's four times as many bodies as the solar
system. Yet Newton's laws hold perfectly (including less massive
objects orbiting more massive) and computers can accurately
predict the motion of each. This is verified by visual telescopes,
radio telescopes, and we can even watch movies of the moons
orbiting!
 The same applied to Saturn's two dozen moons.
 The case of spacecraft of Premise (A4). They performed perfectly
using Newton's Laws and in solving the Nbody problem.
So your objection has no bearing on the validity of my Premise
(B2). I will therefore reassert my proof. As it stands, geocentrism is
false and I believe I have won your challenge. I appreciate your
honest response.
Summary Notes:
I'm replying to Robert Sungenis' first response to my proof. His
response was probably his strongest argument against my proof, since it
addresses a specific premise of the proof.
He brings up the socalled 'Nbody' problem, which makes it
difficult to predict exactly where, in the solar system for instance, a
planet or moon will be in the future. This is because so many planets
and moons each have a gravitational pull on each other.
However, this doesn't help Robert Sungenis at all for a few
reasons:
 The Nbody problem applies to the future, not to what's
happening right now. Newton's Laws right now describe the earth
orbiting the sun.
 Even looking into the future, Newton's Laws describe less
massive objects (earth) orbiting more massive objects (sun). The
messy calculations to predict exactly where each planet and moon
will be in the future can and should be left to a computer.
 The three examples of realtime applications of the Nbody problem
outlined above.
 If he wanted to use this argument against my proof, Robert
Sungenis would have to assert that Newton's Laws in Premise (A1)
can't be definitively applied to the solar system. He would then
have to refute Premise (A3) and (A4), which he can't do.
Check out Robert Sungenis' next response!
Round 2: Robert Sungenis' Second
Response / Ken Cole's Second CounterResponse
Robert Sungenis' Second Response  Text written by Robert
Sungenis in his second response is preceded by 'Sungenis 2.'
Sungenis 2: Ken, when I used the 'Nbody' problem, I wasn't
doing so to deny any of Newton's laws. I was only posing the problem
to you to show just how complicated it is to figure out how Newton's
laws are distributed when three or more bodies are involved.
Nevertheless, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, so let me try to
explain from a different angle.
From the heliocentric perspective, I'm sure you would agree that
the sun is a smaller body than the conglomeration of stars at the
center of the Milky Way. That being the case, you would have to agree
that the sun's movement is dependent on the force of gravity
emanating from the central core of the Milky Way. In your system, the
force of those stars is what keeps the sun revolving around the Milky
Way to the tune of 500,000 mph. Otherwise, the sun would go streaming
off into oblivion.
Since that principle is true in your heliocentric system, let's
put the same principle to use in the geocentric system. Let's start
out by saying that the earth is the center of the universe, the sun is
93 million miles away, and the stars are light years away. Now, you
would have to agree that, since the Milky Way controls the movement of
the sun in a heliocentric system, it would also have to control the
sun in the geocentric system, for the Milky Way, in both the
heliocentric and geocentric system, would exert the same force on the
sun.
Now, imagine that the earth doesn't exist. Imagine that the
center of the universe in the above system is just empty space. Would
it be possible to construct a universe in which the sun is 93 million
miles from the center, and the stars lightyears from the center, and
have both the sun and the stars revolve around that center point? You
would have to agree that the answer is YES. The sun and the stars
could be positioned at the precise distances needed so that the
centrifugal and gravitational forces from the stars and the sun would
balance and thus allow for that kind of universe to exist. To help, a
computer could be used to figure out just what kind of masses and
distances would be needed to make this model work, and it will work,
based on Newton's laws.
Let's develop the picture a little more. The sphere of stars
around the center point fill the entire surface area of the sphere. If
we imagine the universe as a big ball, there are stars on the top,
bottom, and every where inbetween on the surface of the sphere, and
in various layers beneath the surface. Thus, the force of gravity from
the top to the bottom, and all around the sphere (if the stars are
placed correctly), are going to offset each other. They could be
placed in such a way where the force of gravity is zero, or almost
zero, at the center of the sphere.
In fact, there was a study done at Cal Tech about 25 years ago that
discovered just that. They had calculated all the known forces in the
universe and found that they all canceled each other, but they had one
problem  the earth was in the center of the cancellations! It is the
same thing that Varshni found in 1975 when he measured all the
distances of the 348 known Quasars. He found that they were situated
in concentric spheres, and the earth was at the center of each sphere!
So if all the gravitational forces, according to Newton's laws,
are offsetting each other, that doesn't leave too much of a problem
in finding just the right balance of forces in that sphere of stars to
place the sun at such a point where it was controlled just enough to
have it go around the central point. Again, if you know physics, you
would have to agree that such a scenario is indeed possible, and a
computer could be used to figure out the needed dimensions. If the sun
is 93 million miles offcenter, then it will require a certain mass
and a certain speed to be given to the sun in order to keep it in
balance between the sphere of stars that surround it.
Now, after all that is done, instead of having nothing at the
center, put the earth in the center. The same principle is going to
hold, although a slight adjustment to the distance of the sun from the
center will be needed in order to compensate for the mass of the
earth. All of Newton's laws would be obeyed.
Thus, as you can see, Newton's laws don't disprove a geocentric
system, rather, all one need to is find the right configuration of
masses and forces and Newton's law will work quite easily in the
geocentric system.
Summary Notes:
Robert Sungenis starts off by clarifying that he only brought up the
Nbody problem to show the difficulties of applying Newton's Laws to
the sun and planets, not to deny Newton's Laws themselves.
He talks about how the gravitational pull of all the stars in the
Milky Way galaxy contribute to the motion of the solar system in the 'heliocentric'
view of the universe. The solar system orbits around the central core of
the Milky Way galaxy.
He then applies this concept to a geocentric view of the universe.
The gravitational pull of the stars in the Milky Way and all the
galaxies keep the entire universe circling the earth, where Earth is the
calm center of a whirling cosmos. All of the stars and galaxies are
placed in such a way so that their gravitational pulls offset each
other.
He talks about a study where supposedly all the known forces in the
universe cancelled themselves out precisely at earth's position in the
universe. Quasars also exist in spheres centered on earth.
Finally, Robert Sungenis says his system is in perfect accordance
with Newton's Laws.
Read my counterresponse!
Ken Cole's Second CounterResponse  Text written by Ken
Cole in his second counterresponse is preceded by 'Cole 2.'
Cole 2: Okay, I think I understand the system you're trying to
describe... where earth happens to be at the center of a universe that's
revolving around a fixed point. Where gravitational forces from all
heavenly bodies cancel each other at this center point, or as you put
it, 'They could be placed in such a way where the force of gravity
is zero, or almost zero, at the center of the sphere.'
But there's a HUGE problem with this, if you subscribe to Newton's
laws, which I mentioned in my Premise (A1): if there's no net
gravitational force at the central point, there can be no rotation.
According to Newton, circular motion requires an acceleration, and an
acceleration requires a force. If there's no force, there's no
acceleration. The only force there would be in orbital mechanics is
gravitational force.
In other words, the only way every body in the universe could
rotate around the earth is if every body were ACCELERATING toward the
earth. And according to Newton, the only way this can happen is if the
earth is much more massive than every object in the universe. But that
just gets us back to my original proof.
If we applied Newton's laws to your model, the model would fall
apart. We would not have day or night (assuming the earth doesn't
spin on its axis), nor would we have seasons. Nothing would move
toward or away or around the earth at all.
Simply put, there's no way to construct a geocentric universe
that has any physical basis if you subscribe to Newton, which was
Conclusion (B) in my proof.
Let me know if you have anymore questions or clarifications, but I
believe I have concretely disproven geocentrism.
Summary Notes:
I reply to Robert Sungenis' most recent response by reflecting the
system that he's describing, indicating that I do understand the
picture he's trying to paint. However...
This picture just doesn't work. The system he's describing is out
in Fantasyland, as far as Newtonian physics is concerned.
The reason is that he wants to put earth at the calm center of a
happily whirling universe. That doesn't work with Newton's Laws. In
Newtonian language, orbiting is another way of saying 'accelerating
towards' or being 'gravitationally pulled towards.' So if every
object in the universe were to orbit the earth, Newton would translate
it as saying 'every object in the universe is being gravitationally
pulled and accelerating towards Earth.'
In order for that to happen, then the earth would have to be much
more massive than every object in the universe, including the sun. But
we know that the sun is more massive than the earth (Conclusion A). So
Robert Sungenis' system is an inherent contradiction, and a physical
impossibility.
Another point is that the earth can't be a 'calm center' where
all the gravitational forces cancel out. If that's the case, according
to Newton, then NOTHING would be orbiting the earth, and the earth would
be orbiting nothing. It would be adrift in the universe, with no days or
seasons. It would be a depressing situation of utter darkness, where no
hope of life could ever exist.
But Robert Sungenis does not concede his challenge.
Read Robert Sungenis' Third Response!
Round 3: Robert Sungenis' Third
Response / Ken Cole's Third CounterResponse
Robert Sungenis' Third Response  Text written by Robert
Sungenis in his third response is preceded by 'Sungenis 3.' Text
previously written by Ken Cole in his second counterresponse is
preceded by 'Cole 2.'
Cole 2: Okay, I think I understand the system you're trying to
describe... where earth happens to be at the center of a universe that's
revolving around a fixed point. Where gravitational forces from all
heavenly bodies cancel each other at this center point, or as you put
it, 'They could be placed in such a way where the force of gravity is
zero, or almost zero, at the center of the sphere.'
But there's a HUGE problem with this, if you subscribe to Newton's
laws, which I mentioned in my Premise (A1): if there's no net
gravitational force a the central point, there can be no rotation.
According to Newton, circular motion requires an acceleration, and an
acceleration requires a force. If there's no force, there's no
acceleration. The only force there would be in orbital mechanics is
gravitational force.
Sungenis 3: Not a huge problem at all, Ken. First, tell me, in your
heliocentric universe, who gave the planets the first acceleration
force they needed to go around the sun? As you know from physics,
unless the planets were put into motion (i.e., an acceleration in
Newtonian mechanics for rotating bodies), then the planets would fall
straight toward the sun. You have two possibilities: (a) either God
created the planets in their whole substance and put them in motion
around the sun, or (b) there was a Big Bang 15 billion years ago, and
somehow, the sun and the planets came out of it and the planets found
themselves rotating around the sun. Incidentally, you can't claim
that God intervened somewhere along the line in option 'b,' since
that would translate into God creating the force needed to initiate
the movement of the planets around the sun.
Whether you answer 'a' or 'b,' I can use either one to
provide the same force needed to start the universe rotating in the
geocentric universe. Once the force is there, Newtonian mechanics will
keep it there.
What laws of motion are involved? The same laws that keep a bicycle
wheel spinning around the axle once it is spun. It's called angular
momentum. You don't need a mass at the center to create angular
momentum. All you need is a pivot point that will allow the weighted
rim to rotate. Once the wheel is spun, it will go on indefinitely
unless acted upon by a net external force to stop it. Angular momentum
can actually counterbalance gravity, since that is the principle
behind gyroscopes. In fact, in the geocentric universe, the precession
of the sun against the earth which is the cause of its annual march
through the zodiac and our seasons, is precisely the same precession
that occurs at the major axis of a gyroscope.
The geocentric model has stability because it has mechanical
equilibrium between the angular momentum of the rotation and the force
of gravity. The equation for this mechanical equilibrium has been
formulated by L. M. Ozernoy in 1967.
Cole 2: In other words, the only way every body in the universe could
rotate around the earth is if every body were ACCELERATING toward the
earth. And according to Newton, the only way this can happen is if the
earth is much more massive than every object in the universe. But that
just gets us back to my original proof. If we applied Newton's laws to
your model, the model would fall apart. We would not have day or night
(assuming the earth doesn't spin on its axis), nor would we have
seasons. Nothing would move toward or away or around the earth at all.
Simply put, there's no way to construct a geocentric universe that has
any physical basis if you subscribe to Newton, which was Conclusion (B)
in my proof. Let me know if you have anymore questions or
clarifications, but I believe I have concretely disproven geocentrism.
Sungenis 3: Ken, not only have you not disproven geocentrism, you
have shown that you have not accounted for the origin of the
acceleration of rotating bodies which is needed in the heliocentric
system.
While I'm on this subject, let me give some more of the physics
involved in the rotating universe. As I indicated in my last emails,
the universe is composed of particles at the Planck dimensions. Modern
science knows that these Planck particles exist but they don't know
how to incorporate them into their Big Bang theory except to say that
Planck particles pop into existence for 10^44 seconds and then pop
back out again. Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we
cannot detect the Plank particles unless we can somehow get to Planck
dimensions, but that only happens at extremely large of small scales.
Some of the more popular theories regard the Planck particles as 'superstrings.'
A Planck particle consists of the smallest dimensions possible. The
Planck length would be 1.6 x 10^33. The Planck mass would be 2.17 x
10^5. The Planck time would be 5.39 x 10^44. The Planck temperature
would be 1.41 x 10^32. The reaction time for Planck particles is
10^78 seconds, which would explain why the force of gravity can be
felt instantaneously over very long distances  something Einstein
could not explain.
Taking into account the needed balance between the rotational
energy and the gravitational energy, the universe of Planck particles
would have to rotate at a sufficient rate to form an equilibrium
against the gravity. Using Ozernoy's formula, as it turns out, the
speed required is that the universe rotate in a 24 hour period, which
amounts to 3.6 x 10^5 radians per second. The centrifugal force
created by this 24hour rotation period is sufficient to
counterbalance the inward force of gravity.
Summary Notes:
Sungenis starts off his response by stating that the apparent
contradiction between Newton and geocentrism isn't that much of a
problem. He says that when God created the universe and put the planets
into motion, He simply established a geocentric system and that
Newtonian laws have kept it as such.
He introduces the concept of 'angular momentum' which applies to
spinning objects, such as a bicycle wheel. The sun and planets act very
much like a bicycle wheel in geocentrism. He states that a mass at the
center isn't necessary for angular momentum.
Sungenis says I haven't disproven geocentrism, and that I can't
account for how the planets are accelerating in the 'heliocentric,'
or suncentered, solar system. He brings up Planck particles (a concept
related to Quantum physics) and gives a lot of detailed information
about how they would relate to geocentrism.
Read my thoughts on this response!
Ken Cole's Third CounterResponse  Text written by Ken
Cole in his third counterresponse is preceded by 'Cole 3.' Text
previously written by Robert Sungenis in his third response is preceded
by 'Sungenis 3.'
Cole 3: My last email explored how a geocentric universe and
Newtonian mechanics are in opposition, which was Conclusion (B) of my
original proof. I will now examine your arguments in objection to
Conclusion (B): the position that Newtonian mechanics do not
contradict geocentrism.
Sungenis 3: Not a huge problem at all, Ken. First, tell me, in your
heliocentric universe, who gave the planets the first acceleration force
they needed to go around the sun? As you know from physics, unless the
planets were put into motion (i.e., an acceleration in Newtonian
mechanics for rotating bodies), then the planets would fall straight
toward the sun. You have two possibilities: (a) either God created the
planets in their whole substance and put them in motion around the sun,
or (b) there was a Big Bang 15 billion years ago, and somehow, the sun
and the planets came out of it and the planets found themselves rotating
around the sun. Incidentally, you can't claim that God intervened
somewhere along the line in option 'b,' since that would translate
into God creating the force needed to initiate the movement of the
planets around the sun. Whether you answer 'a' or 'b,' I can use
either one to provide the same force needed to start the universe
rotating in the geocentric universe. Once the force is there, Newtonian
mechanics will keep it there.
Cole 3: But Newtonian mechanics predict that less massive objects
orbit more massive objects. The only way one object will orbit another
is if it accelerates toward the other object due to a gravitational
force. The initial conditions of the system (including initial
positions, velocities, and accelerations) do not matter; the system
will simply develop according to Newton's laws, if you hold them.
Those laws do not allow for a geocentric universe, so a geocentric
system will not exist.
Sungenis 3: What laws of motion are involved? The same laws that keep
a bicycle wheel spinning around the axle once it is spun. It's called
angular momentum. You don't need a mass at the center to create
angular momentum. All you need is a pivot point that will allow the
weighted rim to rotate. Once the wheel is spun, it will go on
indefinitely unless acted upon by a net external force to stop it.
Angular momentum can actually counterbalance gravity, since that is the
principle behind gyroscopes. In fact, in the geocentric universe, the
precession of the sun against the earth which is the cause of its annual
march through the zodiac and our seasons, is precisely the same
precession that occurs at the major axis of a gyroscope.
Cole 3: Gravitational Force is what makes angular momentum 'angular'
in orbital mechanics. The spokes of a bicycle wheel keep the rim
attached to the axle; the spokes exert a force, or tension, in order
to allow for angular momentum. The sun exerts a force on the earth,
toward the sun, to allow for angular momentum in its orbit. The
geocentric system cannot allow for angular momentum since the earth
cannot exert a gravitational force, toward the earth, to keep every
heavenly object 'angular' and in accordance with Newton's laws.
Sungenis 3: The geocentric model has stability because it has
mechanical equilibrium between the angular momentum of the rotation and
the force of gravity. The equation for this mechanical equilibrium has
been formulated by L. M. Ozernoy in 1967.
Cole 3: To claim that 'the force of gravity' contributes to
equilibrium in a geocentric system belies Newton's laws, which
describe less massive objects (earth) accelerating toward more massive
objects (sun). For a geocentric universe to agree with Newton, the
earth would need to be more massive than every heavenly body in the
universe. Geocentrism and Newton's laws are in opposition.
Sungenis 3: Ken, not only have you not disproven geocentrism, you
have shown that you have not accounted for the origin of the
acceleration of rotating bodies which is needed in the heliocentric
system.
Cole 3: The initial condition is irrelevant, since the universe
operates according to Newtons' laws. I have accounted for the 'origin
of the acceleration of rotating bodies which is needed in the
heliocentric system,' in Premise (A1) of my original proof:
gravitational force. If you do not agree that gravtiational force is
the origin of acceleration for rotating bodies, you do not agree with
Newton's laws.
Sungenis 3: While I'm on this subject, let me give some more of the
physics involved in the rotating universe. As I indicated in my last
emails, the universe is composed of particles at the Planck dimensions.
Modern science knows that these Planck particles exist but they don't
know how to incorporate them into their Big Bang theory except to say
that Planck particles pop into existence for 10^44 seconds and then pop
back out again. Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, we
cannot detect the Plank particles unless we can somehow get to Planck
dimensions, but that only happens at extremely large of small scales.
Some of the more popular theories regard the Planck particles as 'superstrings.'
etc....
Cole 3: Planck and Einstein do not concern my original proof, which
only deals with Newton. Both men agreed with Newton, so I need not
address them in this discussion.
You have not given a valid objection to my original proof, which
still stands. As such, you have one of two choices:
 abandon Newton or
 abandon geocentrism.
If you abandon Newton, you can only claim geocentrism for theological
reasons, not scientific reasons.
However, according to your definition of proof, we have proof that
Newton's laws that I outlined in Premise (A1) are true. Therefore, I
have shown that geocentrism is false and needs to be abandoned.
Summary Notes:
I first respond to Sungenis' idea that a geocentric universe was
created and Newtonian mechanics can keep it there. I again repeat the
concept that if the sun orbits the earth, according to Newton, then the
earth has to be much more massive than the sun (which is false). It
doesn't matter if the universe started as a geocentric system, just as
it doesn't matter if a ball is first travelling upward into the air.
Gravity makes the ball come back down, and likewise the sun's gravity
will make the earth orbit the sun.
When Sungenis brought up the angular momentum 'bicycle wheel'
analogy for the solar system, he's confusing two different situations.
With orbiting bodies, you absolutely need a mass at the center or else
gravity won't exist to 'hold' on to the orbiting body. In the same
way, a bicycle wheel has spokes that 'hold' the rotating rim to the
axle.
I repeat the concept that the earth would have to be much more
massive than the sun for Newton to agree with geocentrism.
Sungenis says I haven't accounted for the 'origin of acceleration'
of the suncentered system, but that observation is a fundamental
oversight on his part since the acceleration comes from the sun's
gravitational pull on the earth!
In response to his Einstein and 'Planck particle' jargon, I
simply respond that it has nothing to do with my original proof. In
fact, if he has to resort to these topics then he obviously can't deal
with arguments in my original proof, which are very clearly laid out.
Read what Robert says next!
Round 4: Robert Sungenis' Fourth
Response / Ken Cole's Fourth CounterResponse
Robert Sungenis' Fourth Response  Text written by Robert
Sungenis in his fourth response is preceded by 'Sungenis 4.' Text
previously written by Ken Cole in his third counterresponse is preceded
by 'Cole 3.'
Cole 3: But Newtonian mechanics predict that less massive objects
orbit more massive objects. The only way one object will orbit another
is if it accelerates toward the other object due to a gravitational
force. The initial conditions of the system (including initial
positions, velocities, and accelerations) do not matter; the system will
simply develop according to Newton's laws, if you hold them. Those
laws do not allow for a geocentric universe, so a geocentric system will
not exist.
Sungenis 4: No, Ken, Newton's laws do not discount a Geocentric
system. If the universe was created initially as a sea of Planck
particles that housed atomic elements, the very presence of that
matter would require the universe to rotate in order to keep it from
disrupting. This is precisely why I went through Leonid Ozernoy's
equation for the mechanical equilibrium of rotating bodies, that is, a
body is in mechanical equilibrium when energy of the rotation and the
energy of gravitation are evenly distributed. First, from a larger
perspective, since the matter in the universe, without rotation, would
cause it to collapse in on itself, there is need for a rotation
sufficient to generate enough centrifugal force to keep the elements
from collapsing. This, as you can see, agrees entirely with Newton's
laws, and it is a certainly much better explanation than modern
science's postulation that the universe is made up of 99% Dark
Matter which nobody has been able to find. Second, the current
estimate of the amount of atomic material in the universe, according
to Ozernoy's equation, will require an angular velocity of 3 to 7 x
10^5 radians/second, which is how fast the universe would naturally
rotate with that amount of matter within it. This is required so that
the gravitational and rotational energies can reach equilibrium. So,
as you can see, all the laws of physics are obeyed. You can look up
Ozernoy's work and his equation on the Internet, if you're
interested.
Cole 3: Gravitational Force is what makes angular momentum 'angular'
in orbital mechanics. The spokes of a bicycle wheel keep the rim
attached to the axle; the spokes exert a force, or tension, in order to
allow for angular momentum. The sun exerts a force on the earth, toward
the sun, to allow for angular momentum in its orbit. The geocentric
system cannot allow for angular momentum since the earth cannot exert a
gravitational force, toward the earth, to keep every heavenly object 'angular'
and in accordance with Newton 's laws.
Sungenis 4: Yes, but I'm not relying on the earth to create the
angular momentum. I'm just putting earth in the center of the
structure, much like the eye of a hurricane is motionless yet in the
center of a rapidly moving sphere of water. As noted above, I am
attributing the angular momentum to the law of physics which says that
mechanical equilibrium is reached when its gravitational energy and
rotational energy are evenly distributed. According to that formula,
the gravitational force of the material of the universe creates its
rotational velocity in order to reach equilibrium. The more matter,
the faster the rotation. It just so happens that there is just enough
matter in the universe so that the rotation period is 3 to 6 x 10^5
radians per second, which, coincidentally, transpires in 24 hours.
Cole 3: To claim that 'the force of gravity' contributes to
equilibrium in a geocentric system belies Newton's laws, which
describe less massive objects (earth) accelerating toward more massive
objects (sun). For a geocentric universe to agree with Newton, the earth
would need to be more massive than every heavenly body in the universe.
Geocentrism and Newton's laws are in opposition.
Sungenis 4: No, you are misapplying Newton's laws, Ken. As I said
before, if we were talking about an isolated system of one larger body
against one smaller body, granted, the smaller body would orbit the
larger body. But the universe, to be sure, is not an isolated system.
The local bodies (those that have smaller objects orbiting larger
objects) are all embedded in the universal body, and as such, they all
contribute to the gravitational sum which will then need a rotational
sum in order to reach equilibrium. It's the total matter in the
universe itself that you're not paying attention to. You're
fixated on local systems without taking into account the rest of the
universe. But I'm not surprised, since much of current understanding
has been oblivious to the fact that the Newtonian mechanics we see on
earth is not caused by some inherent force of gravity within the
earth, but to the movement of the stellar sphere around the earth
which creates the Coriolis a nd centrifugal forces we experience.
Cole 3: The initial condition is irrelevant, since the universe
operates according to Newtons' laws. I have accounted for the 'origin
of the acceleration of rotating bodies which is needed in the
heliocentric system,' in Premise (A1) of my original proof:
gravitational force. If you do not agree that gravtiational force is the
origin of acceleration for rotating bodies, you do not agree with Newton's
laws.
Sungenis 4: No, Ken. The problem is you are not viewing Newton's
laws correctly, or, at the least, have a myopic understanding of how
they fit into the larger picture.
Cole 3: Planck and Einstein do not concern my original proof,
which only deals with Newton. Both men agreed with Newton, so I need not
address them in this discussion. You have not given a valid objection to
my original proof, which still stands. As such, you have one of two
choices 1) abandon Newton or 2) abandon geocentrism. If you abandon
Newton, you can only claim geocentrism for theological reasons, not
scientific reasons. However, according to your definition of proof, we
have proof that Newton's laws that I outlined in Premise (A1) are
true. Therefore, I have shown that geocentrism is false and needs to be
abandoned.
Sungenis 4: I suggest you pay a little more attention to Planck and
Einstein. First, Einstein did not agree with Newton, at least totally.
Einstein said that gravity was caused by a warping of the spacetime
continuum. Newton equivocated between LeSage's corpuscular theory of
gravity, and the idea that bodies had an inherent force of gravity
within them. In the end, he never had a physical explanation for
gravity, and that is why Einstein created the warping of space for the
answer.
Nevertheless, it is apparent by your failure to deal with Ozernoy's
equation, that you don't understand it, nor do you know how to
incorporate Newton's formulas within it.
As for Einstein, little do you know, but he was forced to agree
that a rotating sphere of stars around a stationary earth would create
the same forces as a rotating earth against a stationary sphere of
stars. In an 1913 letter he wrote to Ernst Mach, he stated: 'If one
accelerates a heavy shell of matter S [let's put in here the sphere
of stars encircling the earth], then a mass enclosed by that shell
[let's put the earth in here as the 'mass' ] experiences an
accelerative force.' Einstein called the force of the sphere of
stars 'the rotational effect of distant detectable masses.' He
further stated in 1915 that, in regard to whether the spheres of stars
rotated around the earth, or vice versa, 'the required equivalence
appears to be guaranteed by the general covariance of the field
equations.' In other words, Ken, Einstein's own Relativity theory,
as expressed by his own covariance equations, guaranteed that a
rotating sphere of stars around a stationary earth is IDENTICAL in
regards to the laws of motion as a rotating earth against a stationary
sphere of stars.
As for the math you might be looking for, Hans Thirring, in ten
pages of tensor calculus (which I can forward to you if you want to
see it), stated: 'By means of a concrete example it has been shown
that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating
masses [the sphere of stars I've been talking about] forces appear
which are ANALOGOUS to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.' In
other words, there is no difference in saying that the stars rotate
around the earth or the earth rotates against fixed stars, since both
produce the same mathematical results.
Thanks for your challenge, Ken.
Robert Sungenis
Has Robert Sungenis done anything to help his case? Check out my
most recent (and final) counterresponse!
Ken Cole's Fourth CounterResponse  Text written by Ken
Cole in his fourth counterresponse is preceded by 'Cole 4.' Text
previously written by Robert Sungenis in his fourth response is preceded
by 'Sungenis 4.'
Cole 4: Below is my response to your most recent email. I will
include my original proof at the bottom of this email for reference,
so as not to lose sight of my original challenge in light of the
smaller details. My responses are pointbypoint and preceded by 'Ken
Cole 3':
Sungenis 4: No, Ken, Newton's laws do not discount a Geocentric
system. If the universe was created initially as a sea of Planck
particles that housed atomic elements, the very presence of that matter
would require the universe to rotate in order to keep it from
disrupting. This is precisely why I went through Leonid Ozernoy's
equation for the mechanical equilibrium of rotating bodies, that is, a
body is in mechanical equilibrium when energy of the rotation and the
energy of gravitation are evenly distributed.
Cole 4: Your objection to my original proof seems to remain with
Premise (B2): that Newton's Laws predict less massive objects orbit
more massive objects. I don't know why it's necessary to bring
Planck particles or theoretical concepts from Quantum Mechanics into a
discussion dealing strictly with Newton's Laws. Moreover, Planck
particles do not fulfill your criterion of proof as mentioned in
Premise (C2) of my original proof: '...explanations must be direct,
observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and
comprehensive.' Therefore, you can't suggest a hypothetical
scenario based upon Planck particles in order to refute my proof 
based solely on Newton's Laws, which do fulfill your
criterion of proof.
Regardless of Planck particles you have a very simple (or
difficult) task in order to refute Premise (B2) of my original proof:
you simply have to show me, using the equations I outlined in Premise
(A1), a scenario in which a massive sun would orbit a less massive
earth.
I would like to deal with Ozernoy's equation, although I have had
no luck in finding a specific equation he authored which deals with
mechanical equilibrium of rotating bodies. I would appreciate it if
you could define the equation and each variable in the equation, or
point me to a website that does the same. I suspect, however, that it
does not introduce any new theory or law but merely describes orbital
motion based on existing laws. I will operate on that assumption until
I discover otherwise.
Sungenis 4: First, from a larger perspective, since the matter in the
universe, without rotation, would cause it to collapse in on itself,
there is need for a rotation sufficient to generate enough centrifugal
force to keep the elements from collapsing. This, as you can see, agrees
entirely with Newton's laws, and it is a certainly much better
explanation than modern science's postulation that the universe is
made up of 99% Dark Matter which nobody has been able to find.
Cole 4: Yes, I think you're getting at the point I've been
making all along: according to Newton's Laws, if one object is
orbiting a second object, then the first object is ACCELERATING toward
the second object. And in orbital mechanics that acceleration is due
to gravitational force.
Above you wrote: 'since the matter in the universe, without
rotation, would cause it to collapse in on itself, there is need for a
rotation sufficient to generate enough centrifugal force to keep the
elements from collapsing.' The question is: why would the universe
collapse in on itself in your hypothetical scenario? If you subscribe
to Newton, it could only be due to a gravitational force, toward the
center of the universe, exerted on every heavenly object. This means
that whatever is in the center of the universe (in your scenario)
would have to be more massive than every other heavenly object in
order to exert such a gravitational force. If the earth is at the
center, then the earth would have to be more massive than every other
heavenly object  a point I've made repeatedly in our correspondence.
Another point: rotation does not generate centrifugal force.
Centrifugal force is the noninertial reference frame equivalent of
Centripetal force. In orbital mechanics, centripetal force is
gravitational force.
The bottom line: Since the sun is more massive than the earth, the
sun exerts a gravitational force on the earth, toward the sun. The
earth therefore must accelerate toward the sun (which would be the
centripetal acceleration), and therefore the earth orbits the sun.
This logic is followed in Section B of my original proof.
Sungenis 4: Second, the current estimate of the amount of atomic
material in the universe, according to Ozernoy's equation, will
require an angular velocity of 3 to 7 x 10^5 radians/second, which is
how fast the universe would naturally rotate with that amount of matter
within it. This is required so that the gravitational and rotational
energies can reach equilibrium. So, as you can see, all the laws of
physics are obeyed. You can look up Ozernoy's work and his equation on
the Internet, if you're interested.
Cole 4: If Ozernoy's equation does not introduce any new laws or
theory into the discussion, than the above suggestions have no bearing
on my original proof. If you disagree, please define Ozernoy's
equation and its variables for me.
Sungenis 4: Yes, but I'm not relying on the earth to create the
angular momentum. I'm just putting earth in the center of the
structure, much like the eye of a hurricane is motionless yet in the
center of a rapidly moving sphere of water. As noted above, I am
attributing the angular momentum to the law of physics which says that
mechanical equilibrium is reached when its gravitational energy and
rotational energy are evenly distributed. According to that formula, the
gravitational force of the material of the universe creates its
rotational velocity in order to reach equilibrium. The more matter, the
faster the rotation. It just so happens that there is just enough matter
in the universe so that the rotation period is 3 to 6 x 10^5 radians
per second, which, coincidentally, transpires in 24 hours.
Cole 4: You wrote: 'Yes, but I'm not relying on the earth to
create the angular momentum.' Here's the problem: gravitational
force puts the 'angular' in angular momentum. If the earth's
mass does not induce the gravitational force which allows for angular
momentum, then what does? You then indicate...
'As noted above, I am attributing the angular momentum to the law
of physics which says that mechanical equilibrium is reached when its
gravitational energy and rotational energy are evenly distributed.'
I'm not familiar with such a law of physics. If it exists, please
define the equation and its variables for me. As it stands, angular
momentum is a direct result of gravitational force toward the center
of the system. This means that the object at the center is more
massive than every other object in the system.
Again: If the earth is the the center of a rotating universe, it
must be more massive than every other object in the universe,
including the sun. This is a fundamental contradiction (see Section B
of my original proof).
Sungenis 4: No, you are misapplying Newton's laws, Ken. As I said
before, if we were talking about an isolated system of one larger body
against one smaller body, granted, the smaller body would orbit the
larger body. But the universe, to be sure, is not an isolated system.
The local bodies (those that have smaller objects orbiting larger
objects) are all embedded in the universal body, and as such, they all
contribute to the gravitational sum which will then need a rotational
sum in order to reach equilibrium. It's the total matter in the
universe itself that you're not paying attention to. You're fixated
on local systems without taking into account the rest of the universe.
But I'm not surprised, since much of current understanding has been
oblivious to the fact that the Newtonian mechanics we see on earth is
not caused by some inherent force of gravity within the earth, but to
the movement of the stellar sphere around the earth which creates the
Coriolis a nd centrifugal forces we experience.
Cole 4: A couple of points: (a) I believe we covered this ground in
our initial responses, but to restate: the universe can be considered
an isolated system. In fact, a 'system' can be defined quite
arbitrarily. (b) Newton's Laws consider every object in the universe
(see the Universal Law of Gravitation in Premise (A1) of my original
proof), and my proof is based solely upon Newton's Laws. I therefore
am considering every object in the universe.
Please clarify if you have any objection to Section A of my
original proof.
Sungenis 4: No, Ken. The problem is you are not viewing Newton's
laws correctly, or, at the least, have a myopic understanding of how
they fit into the larger picture.
Cole 4: If anyone's myopic here, it's Newton. His laws, which I
outlined in Premise (A1) of my original proof, are pretty blunt and
pretty absolute.
If I am viewing Newton's laws incorrectly, I welcome a simple
correction: Please point to the specific premise of my original proof
to which you object. Then, using the equations themselves ( F = m *
a and F_{grav} = G * m1 * m2 / r^2), give me the
values for each variable that would support a geocentric system. If
you can't do this, then you don't have a valid objection to my
proof.
Sungenis 4: I suggest you pay a little more attention to Planck and
Einstein. First, Einstein did not agree with Newton, at least totally.
Einstein said that gravity was caused by a warping of the spacetime
continuum. Newton equivocated between LeSage's corpuscular theory of
gravity, and the idea that bodies had an inherent force of gravity
within them. In the end, he never had a physical explanation for
gravity, and that is why Einstein created the warping of space for the
answer.
Cole 4: Yes, you're right, they did have differences in their
respective physical systems. However, they certainly did agree that a
geocentric system does not exist.
Sungenis
4: Nevertheless, it is apparent by your failure to deal with Ozernoy's
equation, that you don't understand it, nor do you know how to
incorporate Newton's formulas within it.
Cole 4: Admittedly, I have not been able to find a specific
mechanical equilibrium equation authored by Ozernoy using Google or
Yahoo. Please define this equation and its variables and I will gladly
deal with it. However, my original proof only deals with Newton's
Laws, which I have dealt with directly. A description of mechanical
equilibrium subservient to Newton's Laws should not interfere with
my proof.
Sungenis 4: As for Einstein, little do you know, but he was forced to
agree that a rotating sphere of stars around a stationary earth would
create the same forces as a rotating earth against a stationary sphere
of stars. In an 1913 letter he wrote to Ernst Mach, he stated: 'If one
accelerates a heavy shell of matter S [let's put in here the sphere of
stars encircling the earth], then a mass enclosed by that shell [let's
put the earth in here as the 'mass' ] experiences an accelerative
force.' Einstein called the force of the sphere of stars 'the
rotational effect of distant detectable masses.' He further stated in
1915 that, in regard to whether the spheres of stars rotated around the
earth, or vice versa, 'the required equivalence appears to be
guaranteed by the general covariance of the field equations.' In
other words, Ken, Einstein's own Relativity theory, as expressed by
his own covariance equations, guaranteed that a rotating sphere of
stars around a stationary earth is IDENTICAL in regards to the laws of
motion as a rotating earth against a stationary sphere of stars.
Cole 4: Again, my proof only deals with Newton's Laws, not
Relativity. However since Relativity does not fit your criterion of
proof ('direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable,
unambiguous and comprehensive') it should have no bearing on my
proof based on Newton's Laws, which do fulfill that criterion.
Besides, as you have made abundantly clear on your website, Relativity
pretty much quashes geocentrism.
Sungenis 4: As for the math you might be looking for, Hans Thirring,
in ten pages of tensor calculus (which I can forward to you if you want
to see it), stated: 'By means of a concrete example it has been shown
that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating
masses [the sphere of stars I've been talking about] forces appear
which are ANALOGOUS to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.' In other
words, there is no difference in saying that the stars rotate around the
earth or the earth rotates against fixed stars, since both produce the
same mathematical results.
Cole 4: Since Thirring, by assuming an 'Einsteinian graviational
field' and therefore assuming Relativity, his work (and whatever it
may indicate) does not have any bearing on my original proof, which is
based solely on Newton's Laws. Even if it did have bearing on my
proof, it's Relativistic assumptions would not alter the conclusion
that geocentrism is false.
As it is, my original proof still stands and I believe quite firmly
that I have shown geocentrism to be false. I have therefore won your
challenge. If you have an objection, please identify the specific
premise of my proof along with your objection.
Is this the final counterresponse? Will Robert Sungenis admit
that Geocentrism can be easily disproven using basic physics?
From Gary Hoge's Catholic Outlook site on "Geocentrism" (2004)
