The Equitorial Bulge, Gravity, and the Catholic Church
Thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question in this format, and it relates to aspects of geocentrism, as per your volume 1, in several parts, as follows:
(a) You appear to accept the claim of the so-called equatorial bulge. What evidence is there in support? I understood that, inter alia, Cassini conducted a solid empirical study based on tangents and found zip.
R. Sungenis: Ben, I’m aware that there is a question about the bulge, and thus I don’t commit myself to it. The only thing I commit to is, if there is a bulge, then it can be explained by a rotating universe around a fixed earth as well as a rotating earth in a fixed universe.
(b) How good is the case for the same object having a different weight at the equator and the poles? I can’t find much on this.
R. Sungenis: I don’t think the case is good but I have not studied it in any depth. There is more evidence for weight difference based on height and obstacles, which implies an ether-based gravitational action (the one we hold to in Galileo Was Wrong).
(c) If geocentrism, why ipso facto a Catholic deity? Is this not a case of Van Der Kamp\’s modus podendo podens, or does faith cover it? (Let me know if I\’m exceeding the time/value proposition with this last one!).
Thanks in advance, Ben.
R. Sungenis: You mean modus ponendo ponens – an illogical syllogism. Being Catholic, I don’t think my support of geocentrism is illogical, since it was the Catholic Church Fathers (against the Greeks) that taught geocentrism unanimously; the Catholic popes that put themselves on the line by condemning Galileo and calling heliocentrism a “formal heresy”; and the Scriptures which were canonized by the Catholic Church which teach geocentrism. I don’t know of any other institution that has taught and defended geocentrism more than the Catholic Church.by