“The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence ….””—Le opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. 7 edited by Vincenzio Viviani , pg. 361, [Translation by Robert Sungenis, Geocentrism 101 pg. 8]
2. Stephen Hawking admitted that Geocentrism was never refuted and that it has equal function to the Heliocentric system.
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2010, pp. 41-42)
3. Copernicus’ system was said to be the simpler system because earlier he affirmed only 34 epicycles. Yet his 1543 construction contained 48 epicycles, 8 more than Ptolemy.
“48 epicycles, compared to 40 in the Ptolemaic geocentric system.”
4. In Giovanni Riccioli’s, Astronomia Reformata, Tycho Brahe’s model was modified to included elliptical orbits and Riccioli remained a Geocentrist until his death.
6. If the stars are considered centered on the sun as it rotates around the motionless earth all the stellar parallax is easily explained, as Sungenis cites,
“It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other. If different stars were to show different amounts of parallax, that would rule out the possibility of them all being on one sphere, but still not really decide between Tycho and Copernicus….In fact, if we don’t worry about the distant stars, these two models describe identical relative motions of all the objects in the solar system. So the role of observation is not as direct as you might have guessed. There is no bare observation that can distinguish whether Tycho (taken broadly) or Copernicus (taken broadly) is right.” (University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8).” http://galileowaswrong.com/debate-on-geocentrism-part-1/
7. The Foucault pendulum can be explained by the universe rotating around the earth pursuant to the Coriolis effect.
8. Albert Einstein invented his theory of Relativity to explain away the Geocentrist demonstration of the Michelson–Morley experiment.
“While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson’s experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson’s null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.”
Objection: Geocentrism cannot be explained according to the Laws of Physics. There is no way to work out the Mathematics of it.
Answer: I have no problem admitting it for the so called Laws of Physics are man’s confusions and a product of his Narcissism.
Bertrand Russell said,
“All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: ‘If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true.” This argument is of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: “If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing.’ If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.” (The Scientific Outlook, pg. 51)
Morris Kline said,
“Thus one cannot speak of arithmetic as a body of truths that necessarily apply to physical phenomena. Of course, since algebra and analysis are extensions of arithmetic, these branches, too, are not bodies of truth….It seemed as though God had sought to confound them with several geometries and several algebras just as he had confounded the people of Babel with different languages…Nature’s laws are man’s creation. We, not God, are the lawgivers of the universe. A law of nature is man’s description and not God’s prescription.” (Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty , pg. 95-98)
Gordon Clark says,
“At best scientific law is a construction rather than a discovery, and the construction depends on factors never seen under a microscope, never weighed in a balance, never handled or manipulated…The given hypothesis implies certain definite results; the experiment actually gives these results; therefore, the hypothesis is verified and can be called a law. Obviously, this argument is the fallacy of asserting the consequent; and since all verification must commit this fallacy, it follows that no law or hypothesis can ever be logically demonstrated.” (The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, 57, 71)