Why Geocentrism is “Junk Science”

junk_scienceModern geocentrism is junk science because in place of a coherent, working theory which has explanatory power and makes valid predictions, it substitutes a matrix of special pleading gummed together with conspiracy theories.  So, on the one hand, the heliocentric model of the solar system predicts such phenomena as stellar parallax, stellar aberration, nutation, the equatorial bulge, Lagrange points, the correct position for geosychronous satellites, et al. – there is a simple explanation for these and a host of other phenomena predicted by the standard model, namely, that the Earth is rotating on its axis and revolving around its star like any other planet, according to well understood and observed laws, most notably of gravity.  These predictions are then verified by observation.



On the other hand modern geocentrism predicts none of those things – strictly speaking they should not exist in a geocentric system.  They have to be explained, or more accurately, explained away.  The alternative explanation of the modern, neo-Tychonic geocentrist is simply after-the-fact, ad hoc special pleading, with the entire geocentric universe now centered, ironically enough, on the sun (perhaps Galileo was right after all?) and shilly-shallying and bee-bopping and rocking and rolling in just the ways that mimic stellar parallax, nutation, etc. but with no explanation whatsoever for, or observational evidence of, the bizarre forces that would be required for such a Rube Goldberg lash-up of a universe.  In this regard they are just like the flat eathers and as Robert Sungenis has found he can hardly deny to the flat earthers what he so regularly arrogates to himself, namely, unlimited recourse to special pleading and conspiracies.  They are simply being more consistent.

In science not all explanations are equal – just having some explanation, any explanation, doesn’t make one’s view scientifically robust.  Astronomers and physicists have simple answers to the phenomena cited above (along with a host of others), namely, the Earth orbits its star and rotates on its axis like any other planet, according to the universal law of gravitation (and remember, this model correctly predicted many of those phenomena.) The standard explanation of those phenomena fits with the observation of St. Thomas that, “If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices” (link).

The neo-geocentric explanation to those phenomena consists of after-the-fact, ad hoc special pleading and invocation of media and forces for which they do not have a shred of observational evidence.  Their only other recourse is to General Relativity, a theory they vociferously reject as hopelessly wrong, the product of moral degeneracy and possibly even syphilis-induced insanity (while still appealing to it themselves whenever they’re called to establish their case on its own grounds.)  Therefore neo-geocentrism is neither philosophically nor scientifically robust – it’s correctly labelled junk science.

Posted in Credibility, Science |

Growing by Leaps and Bounds?

In a recent email announcement, Mr. Robert Sungenis stated that “Despite [David] Palm’s efforts, this movement is going forward by leaps and bounds, and, ironically, we have David Palm to thank, for the more of his caustic objections we answer, the more geocentrism is made credible.”

Leaps and bounds?  Let’s take a look at the full context.  The new geocentrist movement is divisible into two inter-warring factions: geocentrists who believe the Earth is shaped like a sphere, and those who believe the Earth is flat.  The former have preempted the label “geocentrists” while the latter usually refer to themselves as “flat Earthers”.

Mr. Sungenis and his associates are firmly among the former.  Yet it is the latter who are growing by leaps and bounds.  For instance, check out this Google Trends comparison of “geocentrism” and “flat earth”.  The trend line for “flat earth” is blue, while the trend line for “geocentrism” is in red:

geocentrism-to-flat-earth-trend-01-2014-to-11-2016If I were in charge of a marketing campaign, I would be thrilled with the flat Earth trend — interest in flat Earth geocentrism has skyrocketed in the past few years.

The plain old [ball Earth] geocentrism trend?  Not so much.  As Google Trends shows, interest in ball Earth geocentrism is flatter than the flat Earth.

Posted in Credibility |

General Relativity Leaves No Room for Strict Geocentrism

Geocentrist Robert Sungenis would like to convince you that a whole panoply of modern scientists “allow for” his strict Geocentrism, the view that the Earth is the immobile center of the universe.  But physicists writing from the vantage of General Relativity hold that any point in the universe can be treated “as if” it’s the center of all things.  It is only to that extent that they “allow for” a kind of “geocentrism” – but then they would also allow for moon-centrism and Alpha Centauri-centrism and tip-of-my-nose-centrism.  Since General Relativity inherently excludes the very concepts of an absolute center and absolute motion, these scientists most certainly do not allow for the strict Geocentrism espoused by Sungenis and Company.  The whole claim is built on a dishonest equivocation (for more, see “Equivocation, Thy Name is Geocentrism”).

Albert Einstein states this explicitly in a quote which the geocentrists regularly crop in order to wrench one phrase out of context (unfortunately not uncommon: see “Context Anyone? The (Literally) Incredible Geocentrists Strike Again”).  Here’s Einstein:

Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the Sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the Sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible! . . . Our new idea is simple: to build a physics valid for all CS” (A. Einstein and L. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, The Scientific Book Club and Company Ltd, p.224; my emphasis).

quote-when-you-take-somebody-s-quote-out-of-context-which-happens-all-the-time-nobody-s-ever-thomas-frank-10-14-68It should go without saying that there is no place for strict Geocentrism in a physics that itself has “no place for absolute but only for relative motion” and that therefore General Relativity does not in any way “allow for” strict Geocentrism.  Also, as soon as the neo-geocentrists insist that a immoble Earth is the one, absolute frame of reference of all the motion in the universe then they are compelled to start doing the heavy lifting of showing how their view fits all of the available evidence better than any other view.  This they never do.  Instead, they act as intellectual parasites who illegitimately grab bits and pieces of whatever they think will them to make their case.  Intellectual honesty should compel the neo-geocentrists to stop using this and other quotes from modern scientists who are speaking in the context of General Relativity.

Posted in Science |