Galileo Was Wrong: A Scientific Documentary on Geocentrism
A Review by Harry Hamlin Ricker III, MS, former engineer for Johns Hopkins Applied Physics
Galileo Was Wrong, A Scientific Documentary On Geocentrism, produced by CAI Publishing INC., is a science series that presents its audience with something other than the usual scientific theories we are "supposed to" believe in. This film covers important topics in modern physics and cosmology, using the most up to date research to document the most important scientific discoveries of our lifetime. It is an astonishingly good film, the best that I have seen of its kind. It has such a high positive educational value that it ought to be introduced as part of the curriculum in every advanced high school and college introductory physics course. It would also be suitable for classes like physics for liberal arts, astronomy, and cosmology. Every college in America should expose its students to this film, because of its unique educational value. And, since it is far superior to the NOVA and Discovery science programs, it should also be aired on PBS, BBC, and other television networks.
The documentary is the creation of writer and executive producer Robert Sungenis, co-producer Keith Jones, and their small team of really talented people. Though working on a shoestring budget, they produced an amazingly professional and astoundingly beautiful film. Austin Sungenis, Robert's son, wrote the original music score. Keith, with input from Robert, created the graphics and animations, which give the film its credibility. Certainly the animations are the most important part of the film, as they help make a lot of the difficult scientific concepts understandable to the viewer.
The film coherently presents its thesis that the modern geocentric model of the universe is the correct one. The geocentric model is based on natural philosophy, informed by theology, and places the earth in the center of the universe. The earth is stationary and immobile; while the sun, planets, stars of our galaxy and other galaxies, and quasars revolve around it. This cosmological model is supposed to have been discredited by Galileo's discovery of the four moons of Jupiter, which revolve around that planet. Hence follows the name of the film, Galileo Was Wrong. But that title is somewhat misleading, in that the film is not about Galileo or his proof that the earth moved through space in its annual revolution around the sun. This 4.5 hour documentary goes far beyond the Galileo case. It is a detailed, valid, and compellingly scientific demonstration that the earth is stationary in space at the center of the universe.
Now this is a pretty astounding claim; and it is tempting to dismiss it as not worthy of being discussed or investigated. However, the evidentiary basis of the film is accurate scientific data. The documentary should be viewed, and its arguments for geocentrism digested and carefully analyzed, by anyone who is interested in investigating real factual science. This film would be considered unworthy of investigation only by those who prefer to blindly and unquestioningly accept the established beliefs currently being taught in schools.
This review gives scores in the following subject areas on a scale of 1 to 10: Educational Value-10, Scientific facts-10, Scientific Merit-9, Historical Accuracy-9, Technical Proficiency-10, Entertainment Value-9, Speculation-8.
The reader should take notice that these are very high ratings, and that is because this writer thinks this is an outstanding scientific documentary film.
Technical Proficiency: Score 10: The film opens with a stunning montage of astronomical scenes accompanied by an amazing musical score. I was mesmerized watching and listening to this introductory sequence. Though it is longer than most sequences of this type, I could have watched it for a very long time, over and over again. It was that compelling, as just pure sight and sound entertainment. The film uses standard documentary practice, presenting graphics and voice over narration. In particular the film sequences of Einstein were very interesting to me. I would have liked to have viewed more film sequences with voice over. There was a lot of use of animated graphics to depict the geocentric and heliocentric cosmological models. These are very high quality and made the concepts discussed by the narrator much easier to understand. There were some amazing graphics in which original letters were displayed and passages cited in narration. Other places scientific documents were shown on screen while the narrator cited the underlined or highlighted passages. This gave a positive impression of authenticity. These cited passages were in themselves very important to an understanding of the history of science. They pulled many discordant facts together to present the story in its historical context. The audio was good quality and the video was flawless, with the exception that in some places there appeared to be a DVD malfunction that lasted briefly. Overall this is a very high quality video production.
Educational Value: Score 10: GWW has a high factual content. It provides an overview of scientific objectives to be accomplished; it applies the scientific method in a dramatic way; and it demonstrates the means by which science achieves its goals. The film provides a thorough and complete discussion of the history, scientific experiments, theories, and interpretations of data used in the past. It shows how science grows by incorporating new discoveries and new interpretations. The experimental evidence is described in detail and the facts that the experiments support are fully analyzed.
Entertainment Value: Score 9: I gave the film a 9 rating for entertainment value. This is a high rating, because I was entertained for 4.5 hours. The film kept me interested despite the fact that I was familiar with most of the topics being covered. I cannot give a score of 10 for entertainment value, however, because the film was marred by being somewhat tedious and overly long. There were a lot of drawn out narration sequences and that tended to cause my mind to wander and daydream. This is not easily fixed in a film that covers so much ground. Fortunately the presentation is divided into self-contained chapters that can be viewed in different sessions.
Scientific Facts: Score 10: In this category, the film is outstanding, and something not to be dismissed. The documentary is carefully researched and it is meticulous in presenting the technical details. This is enhanced by the graphics that aid the viewer in understanding complex descriptions of experimental results. The film covers a lot of material, and does not cut corners in giving the scientific facts, which are based on the most current research. Interpretations of experimental data accord with fully established scientific principles - they are not made up or misinterpreted. The educational level assumed for the audience is fairly advanced. The film is intellectually challenging, but the presentation of complex scientific material is done well, so that the viewer can grasp it with the aid of the animations and graphics. Information is marshaled and presented in relevant order.
Scientific Merit: Score 9: This rating is subjective and reflects this reviewer's personal opinions on what constitutes good science. I gave the film a rating of 9 because I was not quite satisfied that the interpretation of some of the data was exactly correct. To be clear about this, the difference between the facts and the interpretation is basically what is most important in science. The film does a really good job of presenting the facts from the philosophical perspective of building a cosmological model based on geocentrism. Scientific merit in my view refers to the overall quality of the conclusions based upon the presented facts of the case. There were some, but not many places where the film was obscure or ambiguous or perhaps I should say unconvincing. The really strong point of the film that justifies recommending that it be shown to students is its high educational value and the fact that it is actually doing real science. Students are shown exactly how a scientific argument is constructed and demonstrated, using empirical facts to make the case. Overall, the film received a 9 rating because the arguments were based upon sound logical reasoning, with factual evidence in support, and were mostly convincing.
Historical Accuracy: Score 9: I gave this rating because I did not think all of the facts were correct in every instance. That means there were some places where I thought there was a slight error. These instances involve complicated technical details and were not significant with regard to the overall accuracy of the film. The film was not perfect but very close.
Speculation: Score 8: A higher rating would imply little speculation. The rating given relates mainly to the area where the film discusses a geocentric cosmological model. The film's conclusions, that the geocentric model is the correct one, are based on the evidence that was presented - results of experiments and observational investigations. Since there is little scientific discussion of geocentric cosmology in the scientific literature, this model is just the producer's interpretation of the facts. Because the geocentric model has not been discussed much in the scientific community, there is an element of speculation in the model. But I think it is not a model born out of fantasy, or unbridled speculation.
Hello Suzanne and welcome to EvC. I am watching this film now and I noticed that on this website from which the video came from, The Principle (from your other topic) was mentioned. I know very little about these things and was hoping that you could briefly enlighten us as to where you arrived at these topic ideas, what your particular beliefs are regarding them, and why you agree with the video in question. our Forum Guidelines stipulate that bare links (or videos) without any supporting opinion or original thoughts of the topic originator (that be you) are discouraged. You have given us a review of the film by another person--but we want to hear in your own words why you want to promote it.
So...before I promote this topic, tell us a bit more about yourself and your beliefs, fields of study and interest, and reasoning behind your topic proposal. We welcome new ideas here at EvC.
The thesis of the film is that the most current scientific research does not support the heliocentric model that is accepted as correct by the scientific community. There are a lot of experiments that contradict or falsify the motion of the earth revolving around the sun. The most famous is the Michelson-Morley experiment, which, along with others, is discussed in detail in the film. Discussion of the experiments is one of the best parts of the film because the evidence is presented in a clear, logical manner, and in historical order. There is an extensive discussion in the film of various attempts to remove the discrepancy between the experimental facts and the heliocentric model, the special relativity theory being the greatest of those attempts. The film establishes that the experimental data forms the foundation of the relativity theories of Einstein, his special relativity theory being a direct response to the results of these experiments; and explains that Einstein's theory attempts to remove the experimental fact that the earth is not measured to be moving at the required velocity according to the heliocentric model. The evidence is presented in a compelling way, and the explanations of the experimental data are understandable. This section of the film is important and needs to be presented and explained in every modern physics course. The film treats the evidence as fundamental physics, and explains it in a manner that is clear and precise. This is why this film needs to be viewed by a wide audience.
In this reviewer's judgment the arguments presented for the geocentric model are convincing. Geocentrism is not a new or alien idea. The idea that all motion is relative, and that this is an obvious fact, is proclaimed by all the current physics textbooks. Even Galileo used a relativity of motion argument to justify his claim that the earth moves around the sun, which creates an inherent difficulty in deciding for heliocentrism versus geocentrism. The fact is that the relativity principle obviates the heliocentric model just as much as it supports that model. The argument is basically a two edged sword. The relativity argument cuts both ways. It can be used to argue for the moving earth, but then just as well against the moving earth. If all motion is relative, then the reference coordinate system is only a convention.
The current convention is that the earth moves, but it doesn't have to be the only way to view the earth. We can view the earth as at rest and the universe moving around it. Unfortunately, the heliocentric argument is perpetuated in spite of a great contradiction in science's own view of itself. Science has staked itself upon a “know-it-all" view that there is only one correct truth; and has simultaneously decreed that all truth is relative. The "know-it-all" view demands a concept of absolute truth and the idea that science deals in absolute truth in an absolute universe of facts. Unfortunately, this idea is contradicted by the theory of relativity that science uses to justify its claims. In the relativity view of reality, all truth is relative. Hence there is a logical contradiction in the philosophy of science.
The next difficulty for science has to do with the claim regarding the center of the universe. In the geocentric system, the earth is at rest in the center of the universe. Galileo advanced that the sun was the center and the earth moved around the sun. Yet the claims of heliocentrism sowed the seeds of its own destruction, even as the moving earth it proposed appeared to destroy the geocentric system. For the earth could not be at the center, if it moved around the sun in a finite bounded universe. The Copernican principle, the current dogma of science, clams that the universe is not finite and bounded, and does not have a center. But if the universe is infinite and unbounded and has no center, then neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism is valid. This difficulty has not been clearly understood in current science dogma. The Copernican principle concludes incorrectly that all locations in space are equally unimportant. We live on the earth, and that makes the earth a special place. From our perspective, we are at the center of the universe.
The conflict between science and religion can be expressed in the following way: Theology and Philosophy, both of which deal with human existence, find intolerable the idea that we humans are insignificant and therefore not special. On the other hand scientific materialism seeks to minimize the importance of human existence. We are just an accident and so nothing special in that view. From the viewpoint that human existence is special, the idea that the earth is not the center of the universe is absurd, particularly since all the evidence certainly points to that conclusion. What is not understood in this debate, is that, in a universe where the principle of relativity rules and there is no definite center, the argument of geocentrism versus heliocentrism is largely a waste of time. Mathematics tells us that we can pick any point in space to be the center, since there is no privileged mathematically defined center. That follows if the space is infinite and unbounded. What is remarkable about the film Galileo Was Wrong is that the scientific evidence is pushing science towards the geocentric viewpoint. That is something that believers in heliocentrism are resisting. The problem for science is that there are inconsistencies within the heliocentric system of thought, and these need to be corrected. Adopting geocentrism is a simple way to fix the problems. The film is a step towards accomplishing this.
To conclude, this is a science documentary that ought to be required viewing in schools and universities around the world. It is an educationally rich film that demonstrates what science is about, how science is done, and the implications of science in our culture. This is the best educational science documentary film that I have ever seen and I recommend that anyone who has an interest in physical science, astronomy, cosmology, and theology view this film.
Harry Hamlin Ricker III is a retired electrical engineer who writes commentaries on physical science, science history, impact of science on society and the philosophy of science. He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Virginia Tech and a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He has worked for Illinois Institute Of Technology Research Institute, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, and Communications Satellite Corporation. He has been an amateur astronomer for nearly 50 years and was leader of the Natural Philosophy Alliance relativity interest group for five years. He lives in Newport News, VA.
quote: The fact is that the relativity principle obviates the heliocentric model just as much as it supports that model. he argument is basically a two edged sword. The relativity argument cuts both ways. It can be used to argue for the moving earth, but then just as well against the moving earth. If all motion is relative, then the reference coordinate system is only a convention.
There's a big problem with that argument. Only inertial reference frames are equivalent. You can't treat an accelerating reference frame in the same way.
This scene documents the disparity between the claims of modern science and scientific realities. The science establishment asserts that many and varied proofs exist for an Earth that moves in space, spins on its axis, and revolves around the sun. These assertions are branded as truths, and taught in schools and universities. They are taken for granted by the vast majority of scientists and laymen. But in reality no one in all of human history - not Copernicus, not Galileo, not Kepler, not Newton, not Einstein, not Hawking - has ever proven that the Earth moves. And though many prominent and celebrated scientists, including Einstein and Hawking, freely admit that heliocentrism is nothing more than their preferred model of cosmology and their philosophical preference, the science establishment marches on with its unproven claims, and actually covers up the fact that it has no proof for its cherished cosmological perspective.
In this scene, Galileo is given credit for his authentic contributions to science, including his discoveries of the phases of Venus and Jupiter's moons. However, as is clearly pointed out, despite his assertions, Galileo never produced any real scientific evidence that the Earth moves. In his time, sophisticated scientific instruments did not exist; and what he considered viable proofs would today be summarily dismissed out of hand. Ironically, and unknown to many, Galileo formally abjured his adherence to the teachings of Copernicus a year before his death. His explicit renunciation of heliocentrism is preserved in a 1641 letter to his colleague, Francesco Rinuccini. The contents of the letter, and Rinuccini's attempt to erase Galileo's signature, are presented in detail.
Scene 2, From Galileo To Einstein, aptly prepares viewers for the subsequent presentation of experimental results and scientific facts, by clearing away the mental cobwebs of preconceptions. Modern science can boast that it has possession of precision instruments not available to Galileo; but the fact is that four hundred years later, there still exits not even a shred of scientific evidence in favor of heliocentrism. As the following presentation will demonstrate, Galileo is really nothing more than the purveyor of a myth - a myth, nevertheless, of great proportions, a myth, which has taken hold of the best minds in academia and in the populace.
Have you posted a single word of your own in this thread?
In your previous thread (Movie - "The Principle"), once you stopped cut-n-pasting all we got was irrelevant nonsense like, "Substance is constituted into existence in such a manner as not to require the support of another being in its mode of existence," and non-answers like, "I'm very tempted to do Nope/Yup, but that would not be nithe."
I don't think you're here to discuss but to promote.
[Note: Scene III contains numerous graphic animations that enable the viewer to visualize the models and concepts discussed.]
From Ptolemy to Galileo presents the history of Cosmology through the looking glass of various astronomical models built upon measurement and observation, no less than upon philosophical viewpoint. As today, the ancient Greeks had two rival models of the Cosmos, one heliocentric and the other geocentric. The heliocentric model first appeared in the school of Pythagorus (6th century BC), and was further developed by Aristarchus (3rd century BC). Proponents of the geocentric model included Aristotle and Hipparchus. Nicolaus Copernicus, who published his first cosmological work around 1510, is often given credit for being the originator of the heliocentric model; in fact he did no more than resurrect the ancient pythagorean systems.
Heliocentric though it was, the Copernican model was based upon the Aristotelian axiom that circular movement is the most perfect; and it thus attributed to the planets uniform circular orbits. Though in following the ancients Copernicus placed Mercury and Venus in the correct positions relative to the Sun, he failed to get his model to work, because the planets do not revolve in perfect circles. Some mechanism was needed to account for the variabilities of motion observed in the planetary courses, and Copernicus chose to use epicycles, an artifice already employed in the geocentric model. The epicycle adds smaller circular orbits to the larger originals, in an effort to account for non-uniform planetary motion. The employment of this technique neither produced accurate representations - and therefore did nothing to improve Aristarchus' model - nor did it simplify the prevailing Ptolemaic system, which also used epicycles, but in a geocentric context. That system, developed by Claudius Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD, had been the reigning cosmological model for more than a millennium. Both systems suffered from inaccuracies, but the Copernican model suffered more - it had to employ 14 more epicycles than its Ptolemaic rival.
What were the problems with the Ptolemaic system? One was that Mercury and Venus were placed in the wrong position relative to the Sun. Galileo detected this problem when he observed the phases of Venus through his telescope. Another problem was that presented by the axiom for circular motion. To compensate for this difficulty, he invented two geometric devices, the previously mentioned epicycle, and the Equant. The Equant - one of the greatest achievements of astronomical science - is a geometric construct that creates non-uniform, variable speed orbits for planets that match their observed movements. Ptolemy’s Equant-based orbits were the forerunners of the elliptical orbits used by Johannes Kepler in his attempt to rehabilitate the Copernican model. Later, Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer, modified the geocentric model of the Cosmos by incorporating parts of the Copernican system. In the Tychonic model, the planets revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around a fixed Earth, which occupies the center of the whole system. Mercury and Venus are in their correct positions vís a vís the Sun. Though Tycho did not employ ellipses, his model can be constructed with them. This modification was, in fact, added to Tycho’s system by Giovanni Riccioli in 1665.
Johannes Kepler, an avowed heliocentrist and an employee of Brahe, for reasons more philosophical than scientific, refused to promote Tycho’s new geocentric model after the astronomer's death. He had no scruples, however, when he took possession of Brahe's voluminous recordings of planetary movements painstakingly compiled over a period of 40 years. Using measurements which Tycho intended to use in support of his geocentric model, Kepler tried to resuscitate the Copernican system. He discarded circular orbits and replaced them with ellipses, which served the same purpose as Ptolemy's Equant, allowing planets to travel at non-uniform speeds. In fact, Kepler’s ellipses and Ptolemy’s Equant are so similar that they can be superimposed.
Ultimately these models are geometrically and mathematically equivalent inverses of each other. Scene III concludes with a quote from well-known physicist George F. R. Ellis that sums up the implications: "I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds . . . What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."