Geocentrists Rejecting Relativity — The Great Inconsistency

Modern geocentrism has a Great Inconsistency at its very core.  To begin to make an intelligible case, the new geocentrists must appeal to General Relativity (GR).  And yet they vociferously reject GR.  Just how badly geocentrism fails to clear even the lowest scientific hurdle once this bogus appeal to GR is stripped away is documented in “It Really Is Just That Simple”.  Their scientific errors are documented in greater detail in “Here Comes the Sun: How the Geocentrists Persist in Scientific and Logical Errors”.

Below you will find statements by a number of the most prominent geocentrists, documenting their rejection of General Relativity.  Then you’ll find quotes from a number of commentators pointing out their Great Inconsistency.

Robert Sungenis:

“We will now seek to break down the facade upon which Relativity is built” (Galileo Was Wrong (GWW), vol. 1, 9th ed., p. 101).

“Relativity is a contradiction in terms . . .” (ibid., p. 293).

“. . . the erroneous tenets of General Relativity . . .” (ibid., p. 532).

“Of course the rejection of relativity is inherent in the acceptance of geocentrism” (GWW, vol. 2, p. 150).

“This is just more speculation from the already bankrupt theory of General Relativity . . .” (“There Goes the Sun…A detailed rebuttal to Alec MacAndrew’s critique of Geocentrism”)

“Let me say it again for the umpteenth time to MacAndrew: we don’t believe in General Relativity” (“There Goes the Sun…A detailed rebuttal to Alec MacAndrew’s critique of Geocentrism”).

Sungenis rejects Special Relativity as well: cf. “A Disproof of the Special Theory of Relativity

Robert Bennett:

“Relativity, quantum mechanics, Big Bang cosmology… all science fiction. . . . …but the Einstein universe includes inconsistent/illogical premises; Newton’s doesn’t . . . No, GR is inconsistent, and an inconsistent system is worse than being incomplete… it’s worse than being wrong . . . With its variable speed of light General Relativity contradicts Special Relativity, SR itself in turn being inconsistent in its premises. Karl Popper believed that inconsistent systems must be quarantined until repaired. Until made logically consistent – relativity can explain NOTHING” (“Dr. Robert Bennett Comments on Neil deGrasse Tyson’s View of Einstein and Darwin”)

Rick DeLano:

In answer to the question “Do you believe that relativity is correct?”, Rick replied, “I am certain that it is not correct” (link and link).

Calling Out the Great Inconsistency:

Many critics of geocentrism have picked up on this blatant inconsistency, that they both appeal to and reject GR.  Here are some examples:

Physicist Alec MacAndrew:

Surely it is deeply inconsistent and illogical to invoke physics in support of their claims that they think is wrong-headed, atheistically motivated, a product of the author’s moral degeneracy and medical ailments, and amounting to no more than science fiction – to do so smacks of desperation. (“Here Comes the Sun”, p. 17).


Now an honest scientist who rejects a particular theory, doesn’t turn round in the next sentence and use it to support his case – by rejecting it, he is proclaiming that it is not a good description of reality, so how can he logically and fairly use it in support of his idea, which presumably he believes does reflect reality? Of course he can’t – or shouldn’t. The fact that the neo-geocentrists rely on a theory they detest and reject is the fundamental Great Inconsistency at the heart of neo-geocentrism that has always been there and that they have never succeeded in resolving (“There He Goes Again”, p. 2).

Physicists Herman Hartman and Charles Nissim-Sabat:

[G]eocentrism precludes the relativity of accelerations and leads to an absolute space with a definite reference point while Mach argued against absolute space (“In Self-Contradiction, Machian Geocentrism Entails Absolute Space”, p. 1).

and, speaking of geocentrism’s claims:

We are well on the way to an absolute space, where the position of the Earth defines a standard of rest and a reference point from which distances of all other bodies can be measured. This is contrary to Mach’s teaching calling absolute space a “monstrous conceptio” (ibid., p. 12).

Astronomer Phil Plait:

What geocentrists are saying is that geocentrism is the one, true frame. Creationists must say that because that is what is says in the bible. Now pay attention here, because this is the important bit: to say geocentrism isn’t wrong, you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is therefore self-contradictory. It doesn’t work (link).


Sure, but part of the problem with this discussion is that there are at least two different forms of geocentrism under discussion. There’s geocentrism, which is the belief that the Earth is objectively located at the centre of the Universe, and all other views are wrong. And then there’s geocentrism , which basically involves pointing at the equivalence principle and saying “see, there’s a very limited, technical sense in which we’re not entirely full of shit”. And every time anyone brings up an objection to geocentrism, Rick [DeLano] responds with a defence of geocentrism , even though he doesn’t actually hold that position (link)


It’s just Rick’s usual bait-and-switch. He has two mutually exclusive versions of geocentrism; the one he actually holds, which requires relativity to be wrong, and his fall-back position, which requires relativity to be right. And every time someone brings up an argument against his actual position, he responds with a defense of his fallback position.

In short, he’s remarkably intellectually dishonest, even for a creationist (link).


It’s kind of like Rick’s [DeLano] climbed out on a tree branch then vigorously tried to saw the branch out from under him. If I propose a theory it should be able to explain objection within it’s own framework. What one certainly can’t do is attempt to explain away objections using premises that are explicitly rejected. For example if one argues that Mach’s principle is invalid, one can’t then turn around and use Mach’s premise as an explanation for the equatorial bulge of the Earth. It is all well and good to state “if Relativity is true” the objection is easily explained but not in defense of a theory that explicitly postulates that relativity is false, as Rick’s model of geocentrism does (link).


But the model your are preaching explicitly rejects GR, a coordinate shift of an inertial frame into a non-inertial could explain all of the above but your model reject such an explanation. For example you can’t explain oblateness of Earth with a coordinate change unless you accept that either the Earth is rotating or Mach’s principle both of which you deny. You can’t reject an argument then momentarily trot it out to explain away an observation. Nor is it a fallacy to momentarily accept the premise of your argument that the Earth is stationary and GR is false and then ask if these premises are consistent with observations. Your explanation for example of Foucault is not consistent with observations and contradicts your position on michelson-morley for example (link).


I think you missed the upper case G in Geocentrism.

GR supports geocentrism, but Geocentrism is anathema to it as GR says there is no preferred (or absolute) frame of reference, and that’s exactly what Geocentrism is (link).

“Van Rijn”:

[Quoting geocentrist Mark] Wyatt: GR does support geocentrism in that it shows that geocentrism is possible (per GR).

I call this RAAG – Relativistic Absolutist Acentric Geocentrism. You’re taking something that says there is no preferred reference frames and pointing at one reference frame. You are taking something where there is no geometric center and calling earth the center. It’s like asking “What is the center of the surface of a sphere?” Yes, you can pick the earth reference frame, but you could have a computer pick a random frame per second, from anywhere in the universe, and call that the center. It would be just as valid.

Wyatt: Never the less, the main reason to bring up GR is that it supports geocenrtism, not necassarily that it is the desired route to model it.

Well, either you are going with relativistic pseudo-geocentrism or some absolutist argument. Which is it? Because with RAAG, the question always is: Why pick earth? What is the scientific reason for picking earth. Remember, if you are going with an argument based on relativity, you can’t invoke aether or absolutist arguments.

I still haven’t seen an answer to this.