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 10:12-13; 1 Chron 16:30; Psalm 93:1). A fairly well-known 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 geek-speak. 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 Counter-Response

Round 2: Robert Sungenis' Second Response / Ken Cole's Second Counter-Response

Round 3: Robert Sungenis' Third Response / Ken Cole's Third Counter-Response

Round 4: Robert Sungenis' Fourth Response / Ken Cole's Fourth Counter-Response

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 Counter-Response

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.'
4. 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 Counter-Response -- Text written by Ken Cole in his first counter-response 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 'N-body problem.'

The 'N-body 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 'N-body 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 N-body 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 N-body 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:

1. The motion of Jupiter's moons around Jupiter. This is a wonderful example of how Newton's laws work, and how the N-body 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!
2. The same applied to Saturn's two dozen moons.
3. The case of spacecraft of Premise (A4). They performed perfectly using Newton's Laws and in solving the N-body 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 so-called 'N-body' 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:

1. The N-body problem applies to the future, not to what's happening right now. Newton's Laws right now describe the earth orbiting the sun.
2. 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.
3. The three examples of real-time applications of the N-body problem outlined above.
4. 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 Counter-Response

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 'N-body' 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 light-years 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 in-between 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 off-center, 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 N-body 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 counter-response!

Ken Cole's Second Counter-Response -- Text written by Ken Cole in his second counter-response 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 Counter-Response

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 counter-response 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 24-hour 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 sun-centered, 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 Counter-Response -- Text written by Ken Cole in his third counter-response 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:

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.

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 sun-centered 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 Counter-Response

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 counter-response 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 space-time 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 co-variance of the field equations.' In other words, Ken, Einstein's own Relativity theory, as expressed by his own co-variance 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) counter-response!

Ken Cole's Fourth Counter-Response -- Text written by Ken Cole in his fourth counter-response 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 point-by-point 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 non-inertial 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 space-time 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 co-variance of the field equations.' In other words, Ken, Einstein's own Relativity theory, as expressed by his own co-variance 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 counter-response? Will Robert Sungenis admit that Geocentrism can be easily disproven using basic physics?

From Gary Hoge's Catholic Outlook site on "Geocentrism" (2004)