Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II Released
The Galileo Was Wrong book is now complete. Currently, there are two volumes available:
1. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.
2. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume II : The Historical Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis. 400 pages.
The current first volume is part of the original Volume I, and the second volume conatins the moved parts, plus sections on Scriptural support for geocentrism, the view of the fathers and theologians, and a very large section on the ecclesial case for geocentrism, amongst other things. The books are available in hardback, downloadable PDF, or on cdrom. The cdrom contains many extras, including animations of the geocentric and heliocentric system, including parallax, retrograde motion, the seasons, Newton's laws of motion, Greek and Indian systems, plus more. Purchase of the hardcover books will include a cdrom.
The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes.
Both these books are a "must read " for serious students of truth. This topic challenges a basic consensus in our current world, and can lead to understanding just how successful the deception [i.e., of the beast] has become. Very few in the centuries since Galileo have taken the time, and done the research to present the case for geocentrism. Almost all commentators start with the presumption that the earth moves, then attempt to reconcile the evidence to the presumption. All who read Galileo Was Wrong will be pleasantly suprised at what occurs when a researcher is open to the possibity of geocentrism. Things become more sraight forward and simple. There is no need to deconstruct Urban VIII's intent (i.e., he was insulted by Galileo), no need to read a condemnation of geoecentrism into John Paul II's 1992 speech (where none was stated). There is no need to ignore the fact that most observations place us in the center and not moving, then try to create more complex scientific theories to reconcile the observations with theory (i.e., making matter shrink, time contract, space warp, etc.).
posted by Mark Wyatt at Friday, August 24, 2007
11 Comments:
"Almost all commentators start with the presumption that the earth moves, then attempt to reconcile the evidence to the presumption."
How does this book differ from this approach, except that it starts with the presumption that the earth is stationary and then attempts to reconcile the evidence to the presumption?
Is all of modern astronomy a big conspiracy, trying to cover up geocentrism? If not, why hasn't modern science been inundated with claims by reputable scientists that heliocentrism is wrong? Can one simply start with NO presumption, take modern observations as they are, and honestly arrive at a geocentric model? I highly doubt that.
ubiquitous:
Read teh book. I think you will find it more interesting than you think.
Mark
What kind of scientific evidence does the book present for geocentrism?
THIS IS A LOAD OF BULLSHIT!!!!!!!
I have a good laugh when I come across stuff like this. Since the dawn of man, superstitions have sought to explain what is mysterious to humankind, only to be shammed by our greater understanding through science. At one point we couldn't explain how lightening occured, so we said that the god Zeus MUST be throwing them down at the earth - there is not other good explaination! And we worshipped the Sun and Moon because they were so mysterious and we didn't understand them. Wherever human's fail to understand nature and the universe, there stands a mythologist ready to insert GOD into the question mark. There is nothing wrong with taking the humble route and saying "we don't know but we are searching for an answer that is probable and repeatable". Until then, all superstitions will continue to be debunked by the onwards march of great minds of science. And all the church can do in the aftermath is try to cover up it's arrogance in matters such as the workings of our solar system.
You give Catholics a bad name. No wonder the rest of the world is against us when nutjobs like you print this ridiculous stuff.
It is both shocking and sad to see some of the obscenity and juvenile name calling on open display here, neither of which is characteristic of a devout Catholic, (although I am not assuming all the bloggers here to be Catholic).
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church has stood behind the theological tradition of a geocentric universe to this day, notwithstanding any muddying of the water by John Paul II regarding the case of Galileo. This should not be a source of scandal for the Church Militant, but it is a source of scandal for Catholics who fear what the world (which hates Christ) might think of them.
In any event, for those not held captive by the world's dogma of heliocentrism, big bang (which can absolutely not be reconciled with Genesis I), time warps, dark matter, etc. and who would wish to see for themselves exactly why the Catholic Church has officially taught what She has regarding geocentrism rather than otherwise they would do well to be humble enough to read Dr. Sungenis' great work on the subject. In addition to finding solid theological proof (by no means superstition) for geocentrism starting with the 100% inerrancy of Sacred Scripture (an infallible dogma of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, by the way), they will also find rock solid scientific refutation of the supposed proofs of science (often more appropriately referred to as scientism).
James B. Phillips
The desire to have things the way you wish them to be is essentially the modus operandi of the small child. When you mature, you learn to handle facts and data. Anyone who has seen the earth photographed from above, from the moon, has seen it move in place. It rotates. Everything follows from that. You don't have to be smart to understand this. You do have to be able to accept the world isn't exactly as you might have it be. I wonder what lesson G-d really meant us to learn here? The lesson of denial? The lesson that truth is what I decide it is? Or, perhaps, the lesson that we don't know everything and we find things out and grow from that knowledge.
I find it very peculiar that whenever the topic of cosmology arises there is not a single person that appeals to logic and observation, but instead the appeals are to ad hominem attacks such as "cook, nutjob, smallchild, etc.". Why is that the situation if the case is so cut and dry as we are told? Another observation is that it is faulty "science" when one does not begin with the empirical observations and then arrive at a theory that is consistent with the observations. All of these so called "scientists" begin by attempting to make observations fit their theory. The only problem is that it doesn't work that way, never has and never will. What is actually taking place in the name of science is complete fabrication and falsehood, as simple as that.
The so-called controversy in science is nothing more than the politics of propaganda, and for that reason, we constantly are fed hearsay about what so-and-so said or believed, but rarely any material, testable, repeatable, AND observable facts.
Cyrus
Unfortunately this is what happens when one's ultimate authority is a church which also claims itself to be infallible. While the RCC views on geocentrism were not "infallibly" defined, it still taught people error for a very long time. This suggests to me that the RCC is not a reliable teacher.
The only alternative to this conclusion is to believe that the RCC has never erred in all of its teaching, even when it has taught demonstrable errors.
I am afraid I am going to have to use this material for a blog entry! It provides a very good snapshot of a conservative RC approach to the RCC past errors.
Jason: read the catechism, not this site. This site misunderstands magisterial teaching authority. And so do you, I'm afraid.
As to this blog, geocentrism is nonsense.
The single best proof that the earth rotates: satellites in polar orbit are able to cover the surface of the earth. This would be impossible of the earth did not rotate.
Post a Comment
<< Home