NeoGeocentrism: An Ill-Conceived Attempt to Drag Galileo Back Into the Culture Wars

Dear Reader: Please read from the bottom (Round 1) to the top of this post (Round 9) if you wish to follow the discussion in chronological order. I will post all future updates at the top of this article. 

Enjoy!

Round 9

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: JSalza@bdo.com, Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

This gets better by the moment. You are correct that I have turned the tables, and I thank you for so openly admitting defeat. 

Below, I have recopied the statement that I gather you are referring to as your "scientific statement." Your final statement, in the following sequence is crucial ("if we see planets revolving around stars or galaxies rotating around their respective centers of mass, this doesn't prohibit the star/planet or galaxies from revolving around the earth if the earth is the universe's center of mass.") 

Each star system, binary or galactic, has its own center of mass, and thus all objects in that system will revolve around its respective center of mass.

 

Likewise, all the mass of the universe has one center of mass, around which all other bodies will revolve. It makes no difference if some of those revolving bodies have their own local centers of mass.

 

In other words, if we see planets revolving around stars or galaxies rotating around their respective centers of mass, this doesn't prohibit the star/planet or galaxies from revolving around the earth if the earth is the universe's center of mass.

 

Your entire argument rests on this crucial statement "if the earth is the universe's center of mass." I have painstakingly demonstrated that in an expanding universe, scientifically-speaking the earth never has been, nor will it ever be "the universe's center of mass."

Plain and simply, your idea that "the earth is the universe's center of mass" is balderdash; it's an irrational statement of anti-scientific faith. Or, even better, in Kuhnian terms, you are clinging to a paradigm that was scientifically disproven hundreds of years ago. Further, every step forward for the science of astronomy has buried the folklore of geocentrism deeper in its medieval grave. 

If you want to breathe life into a dead theory, then be my guest Dr. Frankenstein. But don't call your medieval fantasy science, because there are no ideas in astronomy that are further removed from science than geocentrism. 

Vaya con dios, Amigos!

Tim

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <CAIRomeo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: tmcgett@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

John,

 

This is just the typical ploy that people of Tim's poor scientific caliber use when they don't have a scientific answer to the scientific challenges before them. They seek to turn the tables. I've seen it a hundred times.

 

Bob

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <CAIRomeo@aol.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: tmcgett@gmail.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the last email which gave the scientific reason why the universe can have the Earth as its center of mass and also have local centers of mass for star systems and their planets. You have yet to respond to that scientific fact.

 

Instead you engaged in all sorts of history about Copernicus and Galileo that we aren't interested in at this point. The challenge was for  you do show a scientific disproof for geocentrism. Either you have it or you don't, Tim. Don't waste my time with pataphysics and pasquinades. 

 

Round 8

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: John Salza <JSalza@bdo.com>
Cc: "CAIRomeo@aol.com" <CAIRomeo@aol.com>, "Robert.Bennett@rcn.com" <Robert.Bennett@rcn.com>, "gwwmovie@gmail.com" <gwwmovie@gmail.com>, "markjwyatt@yahoo.com" <markjwyatt@yahoo.com>, "jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com" <jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com>

John, 

You are missing Bob's reply to my straightforward question. 

If Bob has written an entire volume on this subject, then surely he can provide a simple statement that answers my question.

Tim

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM, John Salza <JSalza@bdo.com> wrote:

Bob, is Mr. McGettigan serious? Is he not aware that you have already published an entire volume showing the scientific evidence for geocentrism? What am I missing?

John

Round 7

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

You are too good to be true, but now I have you. 

You just claimed that you "can show mine scientifically." This is the moment that I have been waiting for. 

Do so. Show your scientific proof for your version of "geocentrism." Again, this means scientific proof, not an empty statement of irrational belief. 

I can't wait for your response. 

Tim

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:43 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

At least I can show mine scientifically. You obviously cant' show yours scientifically, so you resort to "sociology" and ad hominem. When you learn the science, Tim, try again. Still on the table is a scientific disproof of geocentrism. Either you have it or you don't.

 

Round 6

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

Robert, 

You do that. Clearly, you live at the center of your own convoluted fantasy universe. 

Tim

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:29 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

Just as I thought, Tim. You have no scientific disproof for geocentrism and no proof for heliocentrism. All you have is your own sociological prejudices. It wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that you're a sociologist, and obviously not a scientist.

 

I'll respond to your other sociological points in my next email, since they are just as inaccurate as your attempts at science.

 

Robert

Round 5

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism

To: CAIRomeo@aol.com

Robert,

Your recap is flawed. I have provided a corrected recap below. It is becoming clear that, if you cannot win the debate by advancing a rational argument that is supported by evidence, you will attempt to claim victory by manipulating the rules of engagement. You must have been a terror on the high school debate team.

Also, don’t bother trying to delineate what I can or cannot do within the context of this debate. You are not an (or in) authority.

Tim

Revised Recap

1. You challenged me to provide evidence that would disprove geocentrism.

• Geocentrism being understood as a medieval cosmology which asserted that the earth stood still at the center of the universe, and the entire cosmos whirled around that fixed and singular central body.
• Geocentrism arose from pre-Enlightenment, naked eye observations of the heavens which, from the (unaided) perspective of earth-based observers, appears to arc in a circular fashion around the earth
• Of course, by making careful observations and exacting calculations, Copernicus demonstrated that the widespread perception that the earth lay at the center of the universe was false.
• To make sense of Ptolemy’s epicycles and the strange “drift” in calendars that were based on an earth-centered cosmology (this was very troublesome for the Catholic Church in Copernicus’ era because it played havoc with setting an appropriate date for Easter), Copernicus developed a heliocentric model of the cosmos
• Though still a too-limited astronomical theory, heliocentrism did resolve many of the subtle astronomical anomalies that crude geocentrism could not address
• Copernicus dawdled over publication of his theory in part because he was a perfectionist and in part because he feared the wrath of the Catholic Church
• In Copernicus’ day, Catholic authority derived from a perspective that is based upon geocentrism and is usually referred to as The Great Chain of Being
• This perspective asserts that, because common sense observations seemed to imply that the earth was the center of the universe, then one can leap to the conclusion that, being at the center, the earth must also be the most important object in the cosmos
• Further, The Creator (according to the self aggrandizing logic in the Christian bible) placed people--God’s most important creations because they were cast in the image of god--on the earth
• Thus, the most important creations (people) lived on the most important real estate in the universe--and, again, we know the earth is the most important place because common sense, naked eye observations seem to indicate that the cosmos swirl around the earth
• The Great Chain of Being also asserts that those in “loftier” social positions (such as bishops, cardinals, popes, kings, queens, etc.) were closer to god in the vast geocentric hierarchy--and, thus, titled power-mongers were not only “closer to god” but their ruling mandate was also sanctified by God
• Clearly, medieval power-mongers had a lot riding on the preservation of the geocentric perspective and were loath to countenance challenges to their convenient, ruling ideology
• This is why Copernicus took the precaution of dying before he challenged geocentrism and, thereby, the vast and jealous mechanisms of power which rested upon geocentrism
  

2. I accepted your challenge and provided a single scrap of evidence which fundamentally undermines geocentric theory: billions of spiral galaxies in an expanding universe

• As Galileo pointed out, if astronomers observe heavenly bodies that are themselve orbited by other heavenly bodies then geocentrism has been disproved
• Again the medieval version of geocentrism asserts that the earth is the one and only center of the universe because it was created by god to stand (statically!) as the central and, thus, most important locality in the cosmos
• Observing objects in orbit around other heavenly bodies (at first, moons around Jupiter, but subsequently much more vast, distant and numerous spinning galaxies) implies a significant demotion for the earth
• Again, earth’s importance in the original geocentric theory was based upon the conviction that the earth was “the one and only” center of the universe.
• If objects orbit around other centers of attraction, then the earth suddenly becomes just one among many (neither better nor worse than any other) “centers”
  

3. In response to my disproof of geocentrism, you replied by promoting a very different version of geocentrism (*I have quoted your version of “neogeocentrism” in full below) than the classical version adhered to by the Catholic Church and Inquisition.

• Again, the medieval Catholic church could not officially tolerate the idea that even one object in the cosmos could orbit a center beside the earth. Other “centers” meant that the earth was nothing special.
• Thus, the Inquisition forced Galileo to recant under a threat of execution and excommunication for incorporating subtle support for heliocentrism in a number of his publications
• I must refer to your version of geocentrism as neogeocentrism because you admit to heavenly phenomena (“Each star system, binary or galactic, has its own center of mass, and thus all objects in that system will revolve around its respective center of mass”) that the original version of geocentrism was explicitly designed to exclude--and that star-gazerslike Galileo were forcibly prevented from uttering in public lest they undermine the most central tenet of geocentrism and, by extension, The Great Chain of Being

           *Here’s your version of neogeocentrism:

Each star system, binary or galactic, has its own center of mass, and thus all objects in that system will revolve around its respective center of mass.

Likewise, all the mass of the universe has one center of mass, around which all other bodies will revolve. It makes no difference if some of those revolving bodies have their own local centers of mass.

In other words, if we see planets revolving around stars or galaxies rotating around their respective centers of mass, this doesn't prohibit the star/planet or galaxies from revolving around the earth if the earth is the universe's center of mass.

4. Given that you had advanced a theory that was unequivocally at variance with classical geocentric theory, I asked you:

a) To explain how you could admit to evidence that disproves geocentric theory (there are countless gravitational “centers” in the universe) and yet still claim to champion the theory that you had just disproved

b) To provide evidence that, “ the earth is the universe's center of mass.”

• In response, you beat a hasty retreat by refusing to offer any evidence that  “the earth is the universe's center of mass.”
• Quite simply, you cut and ran because there is no empirical evidence to support your claim--rather, if anything, astronomical science has demonstrated that the opposite is true.
• Ever since the big bang, rather than being in tow to a common center of gravity, the expanding universe has been in flight from a common center, and is, in fact, accelerating away from that ancient big bang singularity
• You claimed that being accused of egotism was an attack on your person
• Not so. My comment was not an insult, it was a diagnosis.
• In other words, there is no evidence that “ the earth is the universe's center of mass.”
• Your assertion is a baseless fantasy. It is an unscientific, irrational conviction that you embrace as an article of faith in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (e.g., Edwin Hubble and the expanding universe)
• Further, given your inordinate investment in the irrational belief that “ the earth is the universe's center of mass,” no amount of rational argument or scientific evidence will dislodge your erroneous belief
• Your belief is founded upon egotism: you want to believe that, in spite of any evidence to the contrary, you and your convictions lie at the center of the cosmos and are, therefore, the most important phenomena in existence
• That’s egotism in a nutshell
• And egotism makes for bad science
• I can’t change what goes on inside your head
• However, I can demonstrate that the only place where the universe cycles around the earth is in your imagination
• In reality, the universe works very differently
  

5. You asked me to provide evidence that disproves geocentrism. I have already done so. But now I will also provide evidence that disproves geocentrism and your convoluted, irrational and retrofitted version of neogeocentrism.

• Throughout her illustrious career, Vera Rubin has examined issues pertaining to astronomical “spin”
• In other words, Rubin has searched the cosmos for evidence that even on the grandest scale matter, energy, time and space--and even the cosmic void itself--are in motion. Importantly, Rubin suspected (much as the ancient Greeks) that the universal dance of the cosmos was circular
• As Rubin searched for evidence of such circular cosmic motion, she achieved a number of extraordinary breakthroughs in the field of astronomy
• For instance, Rubin managed to discover evidence of dark matter--massive, weakly-interacting, invisible particles--that remains undetectable, but that must exist in order to keep spiral galaxy structures gravitationally intact
• Rubin also made important contributions to the identification of the largest matter and energy structures in the universe: galaxy clusters and super clusters
• Over the 14.6 billion years or so that the universe has existed, in certain “localities” matter and energy has swirled together circularly to form extraordinarily expansive astronomical superstructures
• However, on the grandest scale--the outer fringes of the observable universe--a very different form of motion prevails
• Rather than moving in any sort of cyclical motion around a gravitational center, the universe is accelerating away in every direction from an ancient singularity of creation: the big bang.
• Though it is not yet known why this is happening, on the furthest fringes of the universe some sort of “dark energy” appears to be accelerating the expansion of the universe
• It is almost as if the “void of space” is itself imbued with an energy that is inflating the structure of the universe as the boundaries of the universe expand.
• The nature of the expanding/accelerating universe provides abundant evidence that matter and energy are being repelled from--rather than being drawn toward--a common center.
• Further, the “common center” never was, is, or will be the earth.
• The common center of the universe was the big bang
• Finally, there is no evidence whatsoever that the universe is in cyclical motion
• The only discernible motion of the cosmos is outward expansion
• Thus, rather than revolving around (or being drawn to) a common center, the universe is being more energetically repelled outward with no end in sight
• Given that all of the available evidence suggests that the cosmos are expanding outward, there is no basis to make a rational claim that the universe is revolving around the planet earth
• Still, as I mentioned above, you might continue to insist that the universe does revolve around the earth
• However, I believe that I have made it abundantly clear that the only place that the universe revolves around the earth is in your imagination
• In reality, the earth and its inhabitants play an infinitely smaller, but all the more fascinating, role in the empirical scheme of things

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:02 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

Tim,

 

Let's recap. You were asked for a disproof of geocentrism. You offered some bit about spiral galaxies disproving geocentrism due to the notion that a center of the universe wouldn't allow any galaxies to rotate. Sorry, but that is a false scientific assertion. It would be no more true than asserting that the heliocentric solar system can't have a center of mass near the sun because Jupiter shares a center of mass with its 18 moons.

 

Your second attempt to answer the issue is merely an attempt to change the subject and put the burden on me. You were asked for a disproof of geocentrism, not for a philosophical objection to why you don't like geocentrism. We already know you don't like it. Your challenge is to prove scientifically that either there is no center of mass for the universe (at the same time it allows many local centers of mass) or that the Earth cannot occupy that center of mass.

 

Do you have any scientific proof, Tim, or is this discussion going to devolve into ad hominem?

 

As for my empirical proof, that is not on the table at this point in time. You are the one who accepted the challenge to disprove geocentrism or prove heliocentrism. Let's get through that stage first.

 

Robert

Round 4

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

That is pathetic. You admit that there is a universe of other "centers of the universe" but because, from your perspective, your center is more important than all the others everything revolves around your center of the universe. 

You are confusing astronomy with egotism.

By the way, apart from your claim that the earth is the center of the universe, where is your empirical proof? 

Happy Father's Day, 

Tim

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:04 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

Each star system, binary or galactic, has its own center of mass, and thus all objects in that system will revolve around its respective center of mass.

 

Likewise, all the mass of the universe has one center of mass, around which all other bodies will revolve. It makes no difference if some of those revolving bodies have their own local centers of mass.

 

In other words, if we see planets revolving around stars or galaxies rotating around their respective centers of mass, this doesn't prohibit the star/planet or galaxies from revolving around the earth if the earth is the universe's center of mass.

 

 

ROUND 3

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

Agreed. 

Disproof of geocentrism: countless spiral galaxies in the universe. If there is only one center of the universe, how can there be so many other (trillions upon trillions) of heavenly bodies revolving around other centers?

Tim

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:35 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

Tim,

 

Post anywhere you like. I will do the same. Just don't edit any of my responses, and I won't edit any of yours. And keep the topic to geocentrism\heliocentrism. Also, I'm not going to complain about your insults below because I understand what a shock this might be for you. All I can tell you is that I've been through many such discussions in the past and the tables are always turned by the end of it. So good luck. Take your first, best shot. Either give a proof for heliocentrism or a disproof of geocentrism, and I will respond in kind.

 

Robert 

 

ROUND 2

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: CAIRomeo@aol.com
Cc: Robert.Bennett@rcn.com, gwwmovie@gmail.com, JSalza@bdo.com, markjwyatt@yahoo.com, jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com

Hilarious. 

Here's the deal. If we are going to pursue such a crackpot discussion, you will have to agree to permit me to post all of these exchanges on one or more of my blogs. 

Agreed?

Tim 

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:15 PM, <CAIRomeo@aol.com> wrote:

Timothy,

 

James Phillips sent me a copy of the email you sent to him regarding www.galileowaswrong.com website. I am the owner and director of that website.

 

I read your complaint that you feel both Galileo and the Church were wrong, but I didn't see any proofs of why you feel that way in regard to the Church's stand on geocentrism.

 

In other words, do you have any proof for heliocentrism (or acentrism) and disproof for geocentrism?

 

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. 

 

ROUND 1

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy McGettigan <tmcgett@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Critique of Geocentrism
To: james phillips <jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com>

James:

Thanks for bringing that website to my attention. I will share the site with my theory students when we cover the topic of cosmological conflict. Unfortunately, I do not have time to develop a point-by-point critique of the perspective expressed at www.galileowaswrong.com, however, you must surely gather that I am of the mind that the website in question would be more accurate if it was titled "Galileo and the Catholic Church were wrong." 

Galileo's cosmology was flawed in that he advocated a heliocentric perspective over the Catholic Church's (more deeply) flawed geocentrism. Heliocentrism was wrong to the extent that it barely scratched the surface of the radical cosmological 're-centering' that was required to make sense of a larger and far more exotic universe than the ancients could even begin to imagine. 

Further, as an advocate of academic freedom and freedom of speech, I must also add that if the Catholic Church--an institution that is presumably the earthly standard-bearer for the "Prince of Peace"--actually cared about its principles, then it should have disbanded rather than empowering the Inquisition, the most monstrous perversion of Christ's golden rule ever conceived. For many, MANY reasons, the Catholic Church was wrong, is wrong, and, so long as it continues to propagate the disjointed folk tales that have been compiled into its master narrative, will always remain wrong. 

Galileo may have been wrong, but at least he was headed in the right direction. 

I cannot say the same for the Catholic Church. 

Sincerely, 

Tim McGettigan

On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:12 AM, james phillips <jamesbatesphillips@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Professor McGettigan: I came across your work recently and noticed that you have written about Galileo and geocentrism.  I have been interested in this subject matter for some time and it seems like a certain Robert Sungenis has raised a number of intriguing points regarding same.  I was wondering if you could take a look at his work at www.galileowaswrong.com or www.galileowaswrong.blogspot.com and offer some sort of critique on it.  If so I would be most delighted to hear back from you. Best wishes, James Phillips

Image of Geocentric worldview furnished courtesy of By Haukurth at en.wikipedia [Public domain or Public domain], <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AGeocentrism.jpg">from Wikimedia Commons</a>