Wednesday, September 15, 2010

"It is not the least charm of a theory that it has been often refuted ..."

"... therein lies its charm to subtler minds," said Nietzsche.

This aphorism reaches what I very much hope will be its ultimate verification, in Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, a 2007 book defending geocentrism.

Let's skip right past the book itself. What kind of 5-star comment on does a book defending geocentrism get?
The emperor has been called out on his nakedness, and we'll be faced with a choice: we can side with our own pride in humanity's intellectual abilities, indeed our very ability to define truth as we see fit, our hope in that man's ingenuity will figure things out eventually and lead us into the glorious future; or we can humble ourselves before the Creator of reality (and matter, and photons, and Planck dimensions) and trust in His Word as truth, in His knowledge of all things, and in His power to restore everything again.

This book exposes THE most widespread belief about reality as a myth. The only thing that could cause you to reject this (as you've been trained to do) is the reluctance to believe that humans, especially those we call "geniuses", could be so mistaken on such a widespread scale. If you're ready to see the side of things that your history books, your physics books, your mainstream science sources, your teachers and even your church is completely ignorant of (or trying to cover up), then I recommend this book.

Galileo was wrong, The Church was Right brilliantly exposes the scientific evidence that has been available for over 100 years which proves that the Earth is stationary at the centre of the universe. This book is of interest to the layman (like myself) and also to anyone with a university education in Physics. It is a book I will be studying for years to come.

This seminal book is a key part of the Great Awakening, when Man finally realises that much of what we accept as being true in the field of medicine, biology, physics, economics etc is wrong.

Geocentricity - Earth stationary at the centre of the universe would be an inconvenient truth because we will have to throw out 500 years of physics. More importantly it would be an inconvenient truth for the scientists who are almost exclusively secular humanists to admit that there is a Creator to whom we are all accountable.

Robert Sungennis & Robert Bennett are brave honourable men, and true scientists, who will be ridiculed now but who will eventually be regarded as heroes in the hopefully not too distant future. I salute them and their wonderful book which has opened my eyes. This book has been a wonderful voyage of discovery for me. Thank you!
Equal time for geocentrism in schools? Why not?

... You can attend the "Galileo Was Wrong" conference in South Bend, Indiana, if you like.

Next up: were the Church Fathers correct in placing Jerusalem at the center of the world? Learn the secret truth hidden from you by generations of secular-humanist cartographers!

... GOP Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, when not campaigning against masturbation, campaigns against teaching evolution:
Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned, evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory. But creation —

* * * Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.
I'm not aware that she's taken a public position on geocentrism, but I am half tempted to e-mail that Galileo link to Chris Coons's campaign and ask them to be sure and get her opinion on the subject. Hell, think how much of her base she could lose denying that the earth orbits the sun!


  1. If NASA has a video depicting the Earth's orbit around the Sun, then isn't this debate over?

  2. Allan, I suspect the gist to be something about how, "relatively speaking," geocentrism is mathematically equivalent to heliocentrism, purely a choice of a reference frame, yadda yadda yadda ... but I hope never to see the book to find out.