New blog on the kid :Ultra-Brief Reply to David Palm on Observational Evidence for Strict Geocentrism · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :Sungenis, this is weak.
Before enjoying (or fretting over details in) Sungenis' reply, namely:
Galileo was Wrong : More Palm Reading from David, the “Not So Science Guy”
I go and look up what from top of pdf looks like title of David Palm's opusculum, entitled:
Geocentrism Debunked : Equivocation, Thy Name is Geocentrism
Here is a splendid opening paragraph:
At the heart of neo-geocentrism lies a deliberate equivocation. And Robert Sungenis’s “must read” reply to my article “It Really Is That Simple: Geocentrism Lacks Basic Evidence” is built entirely on this equivocation. He deploys it, as the geocentrists always do, to deflect attention from the fact that he was unable to produce any observational evidence in support of strict Geocentrism.
And of you noted the paragraph, unlike rest of the little work, is not talking about whether scientists consider "Geocentrism" or just "geocentrism" a possibility, it is rather about whether there is SOME observational evidence in support of strict Geocentrism. That is why it is so much more splendid than the rest.
Let's follow Palm's example and define words or phrases:
- "strict Geocentrism"
- theory holding that the Earth is strictly in and of itself, not just as per chosen frame of reference, centre of universe, and immobile, both as to yearly and as to daily motions, both of which then belong to Sun rather than to Earth.
- "observational evidence"
- Evidence gained by observation or evidence consisting of observations. That is sightings, hearings, tastings, smellings, feelings (yes, I know, temperatures are more often measured by sightings of thermometer contraptions, but the feeling "it is cold" or "it is hot" remains observational).
This means that sightings, feelings in and of themselves suggesting either that Earth is still or that the Sun moves are observational evidence for strict geocentrism.
True, they are habitually discounted by Heliocentrics. But they are there.
Here is how you get observational evidence for strict Geocentrism. You don't look into science books.
You see to it to be outside one morning at sunrise (Summer mornings are more comfortable as to temperature, less comfortable as to hour of sunrise, unless you were partying the night before and intend to go to bed AFTER doing the observation).
Or rather, before sunrise.
You also see to it, either to note in advance where the East is, or to remark (before sunrise) where it starts to get lighter. The direction where it starts to get lighter (unless you are unhappy enough to make a UFO sighting, to avoid which I recommend holy water and a rosary, or even bringing an exorcist along to the experiment) is the East. More or less. It might be somewhat more like North East by East in Summer. It might be somewhat more like South East by East in Winter. At either Equinox, it is likely to be due East.
Now, if you are not impatient, if you are not harrassed by the kind of stressing situations each day that are likely to make you impatient, if you have no diabetic trouble, nor any trace of it, if you pray your daily Rosary and so on, this is when you wait and look.
After a quarter of an hour or half an hour or whatever, there will be Sunrise.
This means that against the edge of sight to the East, you will see the Sun rising. When it starts to rise only top edge over horizon, you will be able to look at it. Also, enjoy how there is an edge between light and dark parts of heaven, and how the light starts pushing the dark back towards the West, until there is no dark part of heaven left above the edge of sight, also known as horizon.
This is direct observational evidence for strict Geocentrism.
Note, it is not absolute proof for strict Geocentrism. When the Heliocentrics discount this, they are not postulating the impossible. If Earth were turning around its own axis, as they claim, their explanation for why we nevertheless see this remains possible.
However, possible is not good enough.
If I said that the earliest Lautstand of Proto-Indo-European were like pre-Verner early Germanic, it would be possible. See this article of mine. But one Nelson Goering asked me, reasonably enough from the point of view which sees Proto-Indo-European as a unitary Proto-Language, why this possibility should be preferred, since not very probable, literally he asked:
Can I ask what the point of this would be? Even if we can notate the necessary sound changes, it doesn't seem very likely that we'd have shifts of (for instance) *t > *d and then *þ > *t in basically every branch _but_ Germanic.
His question is in the middle of the article, since it was originally posted as an OP with comments in a FB group and comprises among other comments my answer to his question.
In other words, even if Heliocentrics can say they CAN explain this observational evidence for strict Geocentrism in Heliocentric terms, what is the point? That does make accepting Heliocentrism subtler, but not more probable.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Albert of Cologne
Dominican Friar and Bishop
Other little pearl from Palm, same work and link:
It is a deeply dishonest equivocation for the geocentrists to continue to claim that somehow General Relativity “allows for” strict Geocentrism, when General Relativity inherently excludes Geocentrism’s most fundamental premises. It’s like arguing that Hinduistic polytheism – in which there are many gods and which inherently excludes the idea that any one god has ultimate supremacy over the others – somehow “allows for” the existence of just one God, with all the other “gods” being no gods at all. Or, coming at it from a different angle, perhaps an even better analogy would be to argue that atheism – which contains a rejection of theism right in its name – somehow “allows for” the existence of God.
Hinduism has a philosophical concept Ishvara or Ishwar (note that this is not the name of any single Hindoo deity) which corresponds to the just one God. Atheism in its modern version actually has its answering names for the five ways of St Thomas. Their god(s) of ways 1-2-3 is "matter/energy". Their god for cosmological argument is "failure of anything which according to the structure of matter/energy and already existing amalgamations of them can fail" - in other words, destruction, survival of the fittest/natural selection. Their god for "most noble" is either "nothing, nobility is a human illusion" or "most developed", that is "man" or according to some the future results of transhumanism. Sure, the Hindoos and Atheists don't allow for the Christian God. And part of the reason might be that Prima Via works best in this way if the universe really has ONE unified turn around Earth valid for all of the mobile univere above Earth, for all except the equally immobile (I suppose) Empyree beyond the Pearly Gates./HGL