Is there a Conspiracy Against Geocentrism?
John: My knowledge of this issue comes from collegiate level astronomy classes.
R. Sungenis: Understood. I was a physics major in college, and also took astronomy classes, at a major university. They didn’t get into the issue at all. They just assumed heliocentrism was proven by the Foucault pendulum, and other such arbitrary “proofs.” My guess is that your experience was the same.
John: Surely Scripture was not inspired to be written for scientific knowledge?
R. Sungenis: Depends on what you mean. If one is looking for micro-science, such as E = mc^2 or F = ma, one won’t find it in Scripture. But if one is looking for macro-science, e.g., the original construction of the cosmos, all one need do is read the first few sentences of Scripture. Granted, Scripture is not a “science textbook,” but when Scripture touches upon a matter of science it is telling us the truth. Analogously, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, but when it touches upon a religious matter (e.g., “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”), we assume it is telling the truth.
John: Are we really going to say that all astronomers and scientists in the field are in a mass conspiracy to suppress this truth?
R. Sungenis: If geocentrism were true, would you expect the proud and revered lions of modern science to admit it? Wouldn’t the discovery of geocentrism, in one fell swoop, demote them all to a bunch of charlatans who hadn’t the slightest idea what they were talking about? And would it not restore the Catholic Church to the highest pinnacle of humankind, since it was the only institution that defended geocentrism by putting its magisterium on the line? Trust me, modern scientists would sacrifice their life to suppress geocentrism. There is simply too much at stake. This issue is much more than a scientific debate. It is a debate about the nature and future of the world and mankind.
Let me show you one example of how desperate scientists become when they discover the possibility of geocentrism. Here is Edwin Hubble after he found clear and indisputable evidence in his telescope that the Earth was in the center of the universe, then rejected it in his book, ironically called, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59):
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.
John: And in this conspiracy our great Church, and its head at the Vatican is also fooled?
R. Sungenis: That’s a sword that cuts both ways. If you think that today’s popes aren’t fooled by the unproven claims of modern science, then you automatically accuse our popes of the 16 and 17th century of being fooled into thinking that geocentrism was not only correct, but a matter of faith and morals, since they condemned heliocentrism as a “formal heresy” in 1633. So which popes were being “fooled”? Let’s put it another way: Did the Holy Spirit decide to take a vacation from the Church in the 16 and 17th centuries when it made formal declarations against heliocentrism, or do we accept the fact that no pope since the trial of Galileo has ever officially declared heliocentrism as proven science, including John Paul II’s address to the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1992?
John: Just because data is not always released or made known to the public does not mean we are being kept ignorant to something; many cults use this sort of reasoning.
R. Sungenis: Granted, but then you will find yourself in the position of putting the majority of the Catholic Church into the cult business, since (1) the Fathers of the Church were in consensus endorsing a geocentric universe and condemning heliocentrism; (2) the medievals followed suit; (3) four popes officially endorsed geocentrism and condemned heliocentrism by using the Church’s magisterium (Pius V, Paul V, Urban VIII, Alexander VII); (4) Scripture is replete with references to the sun moving and the earth remaining still. So, you have the Fathers, Tradition, Scripture and the Catholic magisterium as your target for a “cult.”
John: Aside from this, it seems to me fundemental for the Earth to rotate about the Sun due to the Sun’s mass and our relative position to it. But I suppose this is beside the point.
R. Sungenis: No, it’s not beside the point at all. It is the FUNDAMENTAL issue, because if modern science cannot prove that the earth goes around the sun, then there is no basis for the Catholic Church to deny geocentrism and accept heliocentrism. The fact is, the argument that the earth must go around the sun because of the respective mass of each is fallacious, and modern science, irony of ironies, comes to our aid on this issue. Here are just three of many quotes I could give you on the subject. The first from Fred Hoyle (the famous astronomer who coined the term “The Big Bang”):
Although in the nineteenth century this argument was believed to be a satisfactory justification of the heliocentric theory, one found causes for disquiet if one looked into it a little more carefully. When we seek to improve on the accuracy of calculation by including mutual gravitational interactions between planets, we find – again in order to calculate correctly – that the center of the solar system must be placed at an abstract point known as the “center of mass,” which is displaced quite appreciably from the center of the Sun. And if we imagine a star to pass moderately close to the solar system, in order to calculate the perturbing effect correctly, again using the inverse-square rule, it could be essential to use a “center of mass” which included the star. The “center” in this case would lie even farther away from the center of the Sun. It appears, then, that the “center” to be used for any set of bodies depends on the way in which the local system is considered to be isolated from the universe as a whole. If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, 1973, p. 85.)
Here is another:
As we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force, –mgamf, on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits….In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth….Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface in the form –2mgvme ´ ωUe, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ωUe is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars. (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191.)
The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating. (Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 1923, pp. 24, 41.)
John: Who started talking to you about geocentrism? Obviously you did not hear it in a formal or academic setting, or by experimentation or observance.
R. Sungenis: The Catholic Church told me about it. All I had to do after that was examine the scientific data to see if it was correct, and sure enough, it was.
John: I have the utmost respect for you Mr.Sungenis. In fact, I am watching a debate between you and James White as I type this message. You are absolutely brilliant; I just don’t understand how you can believe in the above content though.
R. Sungenis: You won’t understand it until you do the investigation into the science and the history. I’m attaching an article that will be published in a Catholic magazine shortly. It will give you a bird’s eye view of the issue. I’m sure you will see in it thing you have never known before.by