Wednesday, September 15, 2010

If we traded him for future considerations, I don't think we'll get much

I suppose that at least it's nice when the nut isn't an evangelical Protestant. Well, okay,  he once was a Protestant. But we shipped him off to he moved over to Rome. And make no mistake about it, Robert Sungenis is as nutty as a fruitcake.

He has organized the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. That's right--not Young Earth Creationism, but geocentrism.

Don't worry about the weather--after all there is no Coriolis force.


Posted by at

4 comments:

  1. nedbrek9:52 AM

    That's funny.

    I had never heard of Sungenis until the last few weeks. He has been debating James White.

    He argued in favor of the Bodily Assumption of Mary, using Marian apparitions as proof...

    ReplyDelete
  2. B Nettles2:11 PM

    Heck, I'm not even a heliocentrist. I'm a general relativist with a fondness for a gravicentrist simplification.

    I wonder what they think about elliptical orbits around the center of mass?

    Notice that the guy talking about mechanics isn't even a Ph.D. If you haven't made sacrifices at the "altars" of Jackson and Goldstein, go away! Yes, when it comes to talking irrationally about good physics, I AM a degree snob. Speaking of talking irrationally, why isn't Coyne on the list?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crude4:41 PM

    Actually, there's a question I have about this guy after talking with one of his.. I assume co-writer. And forgive me for asking such a remedial question.

    Is geocentrism - and to be clear here, I just mean the claim that the earth is at the center of the universe, as opposed to vaguer ideas that the earth "never moves" (Tectonic plates, etc) - demonstrably false? Or is it that we have non-geocentric models which are more useful and less cumbersome day to day, so the geocentric model is defunct in a pragmatic sense?

    I ask this because when I was discussing this and bringing up the usual layman responses (Galileo, etc), and the impression I got was that Sungenis and company aren't arguing that geocentrism is demonstrably true, but only that it hasn't been shown to be false. Which strikes me as a tremendously low bar to set, but either way, it made me pull back and think of how to handle it.

    As a quick aside, is heliocentrism also considered false (and if so, is it for the same reasons?)? B Nettles mentioned general relativity, which also came up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:19 PM

    Are we sure that this isn't a parody?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)