Articles by David Palm copyright © 2014-18
[Links to other sites in support of specific ideas do not necessarily imply agreement with or endorsement of any view expressed thereon.]
- For the Fifth Time – The Roman Catechism Does Not Teach Geocentrism
- St. Maximilian Kolbe Was No Geocentrist
- Robert Sungenis: Incompetent in Physics
- Geocentrist Dodges Pioneer Challenge, Part 2
- Top Geocentrist Fails Pioneer Challenge
- Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration: Illuminating the Earth’s Motion
- Paranoid Much? The “Principled” Response to Flat Earth Geocentrism
- What is the Single Best Argument Against Geocentrism?
- A Reader Thanks Geocentrism Debunked
- Getting on the Wrong Wavelength: More Basic Physics Blunders by the Geocentrists
- Flat Earth has Global Appeal while Ball Earth Geocentrism is Flat-lining
- Why Geocentrism is “Junk Science”
- Growing by Leaps and Bounds?
- General Relativity Leaves No Room for Strict Geocentrism
- Equivocation, Thy Name is Geocentrism
- Sungenis Tries to Proposition His Readers
- Dark Matter Illuminates Geocentric Double Standards
- St. Basil “Dogmatic” on Geocentrism? Nope!
- Aether, Springs, and Light: Physics Blunders in Galileo Was Wrong
- Sungenis vs. Pope Benedict XV: Was Dante a Marginal Catholic?
- It Really Is That Simple: Geocentrism Lacks Basic Evidence
- Robert Sungenis, Physics Major?
- Sungenis Fails the CMB Alignment Challenge….Twice
- Conspiracies — Yeah, That Sounds Reasonable
- Sungenis Followers Double Down
- The “Simple” and “Scary” Mindset of Robert Sungenis
- Karl Keating’s “The New Geocentrists”
- Geocentrism: Tempest in a Teapot or Theological Shipwreck?
- Will the New Geocentrists take The CMB Alignment Challenge?
- Yes, the CMB Misalignments Are a Problem for the New Geocentrists
- Technical Article: The Derivation and Meaning of the CMB Anisotropy Vectors
- The Politics of Promoting Geocentrism
- "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." –St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19
"No; that argument about man looking mean and trivial in the face of the physical universe has never terrified me at all, because it is a merely sentimental argument, and not a rational one in any sense or degree.
I might be physically terrified of a man fifty feet high if I saw him walking about my garden, but even in my terror I should have no reason for supposing that he was vitally more important than I am, or higher in the scale of being, or nearer to God, or nearer to whatever is the truth. The sentiment of an overpowering cosmos is a babyish and hysterical sentiment, though a very human and natural one.
But if we are seriously debating whether man is the moral center of this world, then he is no more morally dwarfed by the fact that his is not the largest star than by the fact that he is not the largest mammal.
Unless it can be maintained a priori that Providence must put the largest soul in the largest body, and must make the physical and moral center the same, 'the vertigo of the infinite' has no more spiritual value than the vertigo of a ladder or the vertigo of a balloon." (G.K. Chesterton, "Man in the Cosmos," The Illustrated London News, 19 February 1910)
- "The insignificance of Earth was as much a commonplace to Boethius, King Alfred, Dante, and Chaucer as it is to Mr. H.G. Wells or Professor Haldane. Statements to the contrary in modern books are due to ignorance. . . . the spatial insignificance of Earth, [was] asserted by Christian philosophers, sung by Christian poets, and commented on by Christian moralists for some fifteen centuries, without the slightest suspicion that it conflicted with their theology" (C. S. Lewis, Miracles, 78).
The 1616 Report of the Theological Qualifiers Contains At Least One Error, As Even the Geocentrists Must Admit
The geocentrists’ attempt to apply the label “formally heretical” to Copernicanism runs afoul of a strict reading of the 1633 decree, since those words of the 1616 committee report were cited but not formally adopted in the latter decree.
But there is an additional difficulty for the geocentrists who want to insist that the 1616 report of the theological qualifiers was formally adopted by the Holy Office rather than merely cited. Even they must admit that the 1616 report’s insistence that a mobile earth is “false and absurd in philosophy” has now been proven to be wrong. What is meant by “philosophy” in that report is, of course, natural philosophy or what we would today call science. As I have pointed out elsewhere, there were in 1616 certain scientific questions raised by the proposition that the earth orbits the sun and revolves on its axis which could not be answered by the Copernicans. These include the perception that if the earth was hurtling through space and rotating at such high speed we should experience a kind of “devastating motion” that would lay waste the surface of the earth.
But now even geocentrists have to admit that these objections have long since been answered—not least by the fact that we have actually placed probes on Venus and Mars which even the geocentrists have to admit revolve on their axes and there is no such “devastating motion” caused by their axial revolution. And so we now know that there is nothing in principle absurd or false in natural philosophy, i.e. scientifically, with a mobile earth. Therefore, even if they might be partially excused on the basis of the incomplete nature of the evidence presented to them in favor of the motion of the earth, the theological qualifiers of 1616 were wrong in at least this part of their ruling.
But how then can the geocentrists insist on the correctness of the theological ruling in the face of the obviously false philosophical ruling? The only way that the geocentrists could get around this would be to try and prove (as I have seen some attempt) that “philosophy” here means something other than “natural philosophy”. But then the torture that was never applied to Galileo himself would have to be applied instead to the text of the 1616 report and the 1633 decree.
Ultimately the geocentrists can avoid this real conundrum by simply adopting a canonically correct strict reading and by agreeing with the Commissary General of the Holy Office that the 1633 decree did not adopt but merely cited the 1616 report.