Sungenis and Conslomagno Discusas Geocentrism in BBC Interview

Robert Sungenis appeared on a BBC radio program with Bro. Guy Consolmagno (Vatican Observatory) to discuss ID. The BBC introduced Robert as the author of Galileo Was Wrong. Then they asked him if he believed the sun went around the earth. Robert answered. The BBC commentator turned to Consolmagno and tried to get him to deny it. He would not! The best he would give them is what Robert has been saying all along- the heliocentric system is the preferred system for ease of use.

I have Roberts recollection of the exchange, here.

Mark Wyatt

I read your post a few days ago, and also the feature on the exchange that Bob put on his website. I think it’s rather interesting that Consolmagno would not deny geocentrism, but I don’t really know enough to argue whether or not the sun gos around the earth or not.

Well, you should read Galileo Was Wrong, by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett (Ph.D.'s). It is written with the layman in mind. After reading it you will at least have a good feel for what the issue is all about.

Mark Wyatt

I find this fascinating and it goes to show that science can explain only so much. I remember seeing magazine advertisements from the 1950s where doctors endorsed cigarettes as being healthy. Scientists ponder theories and later another scientist comes along and ponders a “better” theory or “disproves” a previous theory and teaches society that the old theory was really right. Pluto may yet be declared a planet again.

Interesting. Is there a full transcript of this available anywhere?

This is the closest to a full transcript:

You may also keep an eye on this thread (or better yet sign up with the BBC forum and ask them to play the interview):

Mark Wyatt

what do you want from us, trth_skr?

Yes, anyone with any understanding of the relative nature of motion will admit that the sun is going around the earth just as much as (and in fact because of) the earth revolving around the sun and the earth rotating on it’s axis. And yes, that (the axis rotating thing) is why we see the sun moving in the sky…from our reference point (which is a valid one). From our valid reference point, it is the sun moving and not the earth spinning…so the ancients were actually quite right.

BUT…so what? Because the sun is the center of gravity, the force causing the orbit, and because other things are in rotating relationships with it…it’s just easier to use the sun. It’s hard math to have the sun rotating around 8 planets at once (though it is, in fact, from various reference points). When we use earth’s reference point…all of them are still revolving around the sun even as earth spins…it just gets very complicated…

So…what do you want us to admit?

Just to chime in here…

I have yet to read this book (I have to get through a whole lot of others before I add a 1000+ pager to my list.) But there is one thing I will admit - I never, not in my (Catholic) schooling, not in my college courses, and not since, have heard talk about the validity of earth as a central reference point in the universe - even with the understanding that the nature of the universe does not allow for any ‘true’ central point. I’ve only heard that primitives thought the sun revolved around earth, and were proven utterly wrong by the power of science. So I find this pretty interesting to hear about.

trth_skr does stick to this topic, and does a lot of cheerleading for the book, obviously. On the other hand, I’ve yet to see a thread where they didn’t act extremely courteous, even in hostile territory. If they have a valid point about the universe and cosmology that is commonly misunderstood, hey, it’s worth some reminding, don’t you think?

I guess I will reply with ‘who is us?’. There are new people on the forum who have never heard of this. They would be interested. There are those who find it very interesting (as you haev just heard) and who like to hear news and have discussions about it. Then there are those who are tired of it. But they don’t have to participate in the discussion. Of course they are most welcome to from the set-up of the forum and my perspective, too.

So I want to discuss this issue on a forum, and this seems to be the right one.

You are talking about the relativistic perspective, and I have discussed that on my blog, here, and other places. Galileo Was Wrong also discusses the relativistic perspective (to a much greater extent than I ever have). But Galileo Was Wrong goes well beyond the relativistic perspective. Here is my Galileo Was Wrong:

Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., and Robert Bennett, Ph. D. have just released Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I (the Scientific Evidence). This book demonstrates through history, philosophy, and mainly through science itself that modern science has not demonstrated that the earth moves or is not in the center of the universe. It demonstrates that in fact observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicate that the earth does not move and is in the center of the universe. Scientist after scientist admit candidly that “it appears that the earth is standing still” or that " we appear to have a priviliged position" (i.e., are at center). Of course science offers complicated explanations as to why every observation indicates that we are at the center and not moving, yet somehow actually we are not at center and are moving. By studying the history of the observations and experiments the authors clearly show that the observations and experimental results, when they present themselves, are rejected out of hand by the scientists, without even considering one of the simplest explanations- THE EARTH IS AT CENTER AND IS NOT MOVING. Rather science becomes more complicated to reconcile the observations with the undemonstrated assertion that the earth is moving and not in the center. Now we must accept that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypercube or donut (in order to escape the possibility that we are at center) and that objects (and clocks) shrink in the direction of travel (to escape the interferometric evidence that we are not circling the sun at 30 km/second), etc.

This book will change the reader’s view on what is reality and what is not.

I have read the book (a few times). In fact I helped produce the book (I helped with most of the figures and some formatting, etc.). So, yes, I am somewhat biased (actually Robert asked me to help because of the energy I spent on the topic, not vice-versa), but I am here to tell you this book will change a lot of minds.

Having someone like Bro. Guy Consolmagno given the opportunity to express his opinion on this topic, and choosing not to deny geocentrism is very interesting. I know it is hard to imagine, but we really do not know that the earth is moving, nor do we know that it is not in the center. And actually, other than analogy (i.e., looking at other planets and saying ‘why are we different?’) and theory created precisely to say we are not moving / in the center (this is not conspiracy, you need to read the book), much of what we observe indicates that we are not moving and are in the center. It is the science, redesigned to reconcile presumptions (Copernicism) and observations (geocentrism) that "tells"us that we are not in the center and moving.

God Bless,

Mark Wyatt

Thanks for chiming…

This is what grabbed me on the topic when I first heard about it a few years ago. I could never had imagined it even a consideration. Well, after three years of research, discussion, etc. I am convinced it is areal possibility. Sr. Lucy (Fatima) talked about a “diabolical disorientation”. This could be key to understanding just how deep this disorientation has penetrated.

Mark Wyatt

I may read it someday, but right now I’m trying to get through all the apologetics books on my shelf, Not by Faith Alone and Not by Scripture Alone included!

good, no great books… you might add Not By Bread Alone to the set.

Surely you will see that the author goes to great lengths to provide references, documentation, input from Church Fathers, saints, magisterium etc… And no noted Catholic theologian or apologist has been anything but positive about those three books. And none of the endorsors of these books has withdrawn his endorsement.

Now, in the arena of physics, Robert Sungenis will take many hits and criticisms… all welcomed when you consider that **neither **helio or geo have **ever **been proven right or wrong.


I haven’t bought them yet but am currently reading (among other reading) Not by Bread Alone which is excellent.

ok, maybe its just me, by why is it such a big deal whether the Sun revolves around the earth, or vice versa?

I couldn’t care less. Should I?

enquiring minds want to know:D


all welcomed when you consider that neither helio or geo have ever been proven right or wrong.

Well, I think BOTH are proven right really.

I’ve only heard that primitives thought the sun revolved around earth, and were proven utterly wrong by the power of science.

Exactly. It is science trying to batter religion for no reason.

The scientists know quite well that given a frame of reference, the earth can go around the sun and the sun can go around the earth. They even know that from our reference frame…it is the sun moving, not us, so OF COURSE that’s what the ancients saw…and it’s valid. They also know that there is probably no “center” of the universe (just as there is no center to the surface of a sphere) but that from our perspective…earth seems to be.

And yet…they always tell the Galileo story as the great folly of religion. Any little kid will tell you what science has told them: you’re dumb and foolish and old fashioned if you think the sun revolves around the earth.

When people grow up…they can start to explore the whole relativity of motion thing…but the desired gut reaction sticks: the earth is not the center of the universe. And many teenagers and adults still don’t understand and would insist that the earth revolves around the sun, and that you’re stupid for saying otherwise.

Even though the scientists know that the sun revolves around the earth as much as the earth revolves around the sun…they for some reason believe the heliocentric model being held by the lay public (against visual evidence) is best for their POLITICAL agenda.

Oh, they’ll tell you it’s just because the equations are easier (not necessarily true if we’re talking about the earth/sun relationship and not other planets) but really…they for some reason want people to choose the sun as the reference point and center…and not the earth…even though either choice is valid, and frankly…using earth makes initial sense and jives better with true faith.

But for some reason they seem to want to: a)discredit religion, b)make people trust “science” and not their own eyes (which see the sun rise and set, but don’t see the earth spin), and c)make man not consider themselves special or worthy of special consideration.

Of course geocentrism claims that the earth is the only absolute rference frame.

Geocentrism claims that earth is the true center, not just the center from our perspective. We do not know that the universe is like a surface of a sphere. This is what science posits to get around the observations indicating that we are in the center. This is the isotropic principle. It is also Friedman’s second assumption. Here is what Stephen Hawking said in A Brief History of Time (as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong):

*…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever *
*direction we look in might **seem to suggest there is something ***
*special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might *
*seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away *
from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.

*There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might *
*look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, *
*too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second *
*assumption. **We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this ***
*assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: *
*it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in *
*every direction around us, but not around other points in the *

Based on the results of the various assumptions used by science (isotropic principle, unobservibility of our motion due to special relativity, etc.) plus the idea of a barycenter, and the assumption that the universe is not rotating, science posits that the solar system is approximately heliocentric, but actually barycentric. This makes sense if the assumptions were correct. But since they are only assumptions, it is necassary to ask ‘what if the assumptions are not correct?’. What if the 1st choice given to Stephen Hawking was chosen (i.e., we are at center).

Finally, the sun is the center of the solar system. It is a matter of what is defined as the solar system. Since the universe is rotating, and the earth is locked into place by the forces of this rotation, then the earth plays a diferent role in the operation of the solar system than the planets do. I.e., there is more going on than in the Newtonian type solar system, at least locally.

From an engineering perspective, you want to choose the simplest reference frame. If you are launching from earth, then earth is the easiest. If you are launching to the sun (from the earth) than start with an earth reference frame, than transform to the sun, etc. From this perspective, what Bro. Consolmagno said is perfectly reasonable. Note that he did not say that the underlying reality of the universe is non-geocentric.

And you are right, the earth does make the most sense since most of our observations are from the earth.

What is best for an engineer is not necassarily absolute truth.

Mark Wyatt

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit