Answering Ken Cole

Here is what there is to be answered:

Ken Cole’s Disproof of Geocentrism
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/GeocentrismDisproved.htm

Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism: How Newton’s laws prove that the earth orbits the sun by Ken Cole

Section A Premise (A1): Newton developed his physical laws, which form the basis of orbital mechanics. These equations include his second law of motion: F=m*a and his law of gravitation: (Gravitational Force)=G*m1*m2/(radius)^2. Premise (A2): Since Newton formulated his laws, they have always been verified by the motion of objects travelling much slower than the measured speed of light. There has never been an observable case where Newton’s laws did not hold for objects travelling much slower than the measured speed of light. Premise (A3): In order for Newton’s laws to correctly predict motion in the solar system, gravitational forces from all massive bodies must be correctly taken into account by scientists. Gravitational force according to Newton is directly related to mass. Gravitational force is also directly related to and varies according to a spacecraft’s distance from each of these bodies as seen in G * m1 * m2 / (radius)^2 from (A1). (These massive bodies include the sun, Earth, moon, planets, etc.) The sum of these gravitational forces equals the “F” in F=m*a. Premise (A4): Scientists send spacecraft (which travel much slower than the measured speed of light), and have done so multiple times, through the solar system using Newton’s laws with exact precision. Such spacecraft include Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, and the Apollo moon missions. In other words, the spacecrafts’ motion, as described by the “m*a” in F=m*a, was correct or true. Premise (A5): Given (A1), (A2) and since the motion of the spacecrafts were true (A4), then the scientists’ calculation of the solar system’s bodies’ gravitational forces (A3) must also be true. Conclusion (A): Scientists possess a correct and accurate understanding of each body’s gravitational force in relation to the spacecraft and, consequently, a correct understanding of each body’s mass. Section B Premise (B1): Geocentrism places Earth in the center of the solar system, and all other bodies (including the sun) rotate around Earth. Premise (B2): According to Newton’s laws, less massive objects orbit more massive objects. Premise (B3): If (B1) is true, then (B2) predicts that the Sun is less massive than the Earth. Premise (B4): But Conclusion (A) is proven true, and scientists understand that the Sun is more massive than the Earth. Premise (B5): Given (B4), then either geocentrism (B1) is false or Newton’s laws (B2) are false. Conclusion (B): Either the geocentric view is incorrect or Newton’s laws are incorrect. Section C Premise (C1): But (A2) is true. Premise (C2): Bob Sungenis’ definition of proof is that “...explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive.” Premise (C3): (C2) defines (A2) as proof that Newton’s laws are correct. Premise (C4): Given (C3) and Conclusion (B), then (B1) is false. Conclusion (C): Geocentrism is false, and Newton’s laws are true. Newton’s laws then correctly predict that Earth orbits the Sun. Summary Notes: Basically, the idea behind Section A of this proof is that we know Newton’s Laws are right since we’ve successfully sent spacecraft through the solar system — we know how gravity works. We know that very massive objects have a greater gravitational pull than less massive objects. Particularly of note: Newton’s Laws squarely contradict Geocentrism. In order for the moon to orbit the earth, for example, the earth has to be much more massive than the moon. That’s the only way the earth can create a big enough gravitational pull to “hang on” to the moon. That is why the earth can’t be the center of the universe according to Newton’s Laws: the earth would have to be more massive than every other object in the universe, so it could have a big enough gravitational pull on to “hang on” to everything. Robert Sungenis wants to believe that Geocentrism and Newton’s Laws pleasantly coexist, but Section B of this proof clearly shows that either Newton is right or Geocentrism is right. Section C of this proof shows that by Robert Sungenis’ own standard of “proof,” Newton’s Laws are true and Geocentrism must be false.

Not going into the debate with Sungenis here.

My answer is on another plane. ALL of Newton's laws predict results of such and such type ONLY if one presumes the factors taken into account are the only relevant ones.

Take a globe the size of Earth. For example, Earth. Take another globe like a socker ball, or beanshaped object like a rugby ball (I often say my blog is of all subjects except socker, and this is really not about socker, I am using it for an illustration, or about rugby either). Let's say it is a rugby ball or a socker ball.

Include corresponding masses. Include one globe or beanshaped object lying on another globe, namely sport asset on Earth.

Newton's laws predict it will be staying there - unless there are other factors, like players.

And neither Cole nor Robert Sungenis in replying has taken into account that angelic beings, presumably good unfallen angels, could be moving all celestial bodies - they would be acting out a role analogous to the socker or rugby players.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Pius I
Martyred under Marcus Aurelius
11.VII.2017