# Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle

## “Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle”

www.yourepeat.com/g/Propitiatory

In an attempt to rebut Camille Carlisle, the Science Editor for Sky and Telescope magazine, Robert Sungenis, the leader of the modern geocentrists, demonstrates yet again that he is simply not competent to handle even high school level physics.  In a new article “Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle”, Dr. Alec MacAndrew points out still more basic errors in Sungenis’s work.  These are compounded by Sungenis’s replacement of the well-known and perfectly adequate mechanism of gravity with a made-up medium that, “magically [does] just what he needs it to do, while remaining completely undetectable whenever he doesn’t need it.”

This is what passes for “science” in geocentric circles.  As always, you have to ask yourself if you’re really going to exchange a centuries-long scientific consensus for what these fellows have to say.

Here are some excerpts from “Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle” to entice the reader for more:

You can explain anything at all, to your own satisfaction, if you make it up as you go along. Let’s look at this train wreck in more detail. . . .

Sungenis mangles not just freshman college physics but high school physics – pure ignorance. . . .

Sungenis tried to calculate the force using the alternative expression Fc=mω2r, as he gets the numeric part correct within rounding errors. But the exponent is wrong by a factor of a million. Yes, that’s right – unbelievably, Sungenis, in a dismal display of incompetence, gets this trivial sum wrong by a factor of a million. . . .

How does Sungenis explain the Sun’s annual revolution around the Earth, which requires a centripetal force not twice, not ten times, not 100 times, but 332,000 times greater than gravity provides? The geocentrists have invented an entity, which they call the “Planck medium”, and Sungenis claims that it “absorbs” the centrifugal force. Needless to say, he doesn’t describe the physical properties of this medium which allow it to “absorb” the centrifugal forces. Does it do so gravitationally, by viscous drag, by electrostatics or magnetics? Who can say? How can it “absorb” these stupendous dynamic forces, and yet be completely undetectable? Only Bob knows. . . .

In order to answer the challenge that the Sun orbiting the Earth is dynamically absurd, Sungenis has to invoke an ad hoc explanation, using a medium for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence, and which, in spite of its supposed mind-boggling density, is completely undetectable, directly or indirectly. He proposes no quantified mechanism by which this medium “absorbs” these vast centrifugal forces while allowing planets and satellites to move freely through it. No-one else performing real, complicated celestial mechanics calculations (like NASA or ESA for example!) has to invoke this fantasy. This made-up medium, this fairy dust has no physical interaction other than magically doing just what he needs it to do while remaining completely undetectable whenever he doesn’t need it – way to go, Bob. . . .

[Sungenis] often criticises cosmologists’ hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy, claiming that they are poorly evidenced ad hoc solutions to the problem of missing mass in galaxies and the accelerating expansion of the Universe. But here he is, proposing a solution to the dynamical problem of a revolving Sun, where he has to explain the problem that the gravitational force is a whopping 332,000 times too small to maintain the Sun in a an annual geocentric orbit, by invoking an entirely arbitrary, undetectable, unquantifiable and, frankly, magical idea. That’s ironic, because although the composition of dark matter is unknown, its presence can be and has been detected and quantified throughout the Universe by its gravitational interaction with other matter and with radiation. It is an entirely reasonable hypothesis that is consistent with other things that we know about the Universe – whereas Sungenis’s Planck medium not only lacks evidence but is incompatible with observations. . . .

the gravitational attraction between the Sun and Earth is equal to the centrifugal force of the Earth’s annual revolution.  Is this an amazing coincidence? Of course it’s not. It’s the simple consequence of Earth’s orbit around the Sun – the force of the Sun’s gravitational attraction is exactly equal to the centripetal force required for the Earth’s annual orbit at its distance of ~150 million kilometres from the sun – no magical media to “absorb” the centrifugal force is required, just straightforward orbital mechanics based on standard Newtonian physics, such as can be applied to all the planets, including the Earth. That’s physics, not geocentric wishful thinking.

## For the whole article, see “Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle”

This entry was posted in Credibility, Science. Bookmark the permalink.