Dave Palm’s latest. Please enjoy some fresh content on Geocentrism Debunked:

Getting on the Wrong Wavelength: More Basic Physics Blunders by the Geocentrists:  Geocentrist leader Robert Sungenis answered our last slate of articles in part by insisting that by “using the parameters of modern science”, “it turns out that the Earth is the heaviest object in the universe, just as Aristotle said.”  His alleged support for this remarkable claim is laid out in more detail in a section of his book, Galileo Was Wrong.  Turning there we find yet again that when Sungenis and his associates try to do actual physics the results are shot through with demonstrable misconceptions, oversights, logical contradictions, and outright math errors.  All of these and more are on display in this section of the geocentric “bible”.  So has “modern science” really found that the Earth is the heaviest object in the universe, or have Sungenis and Co. again gotten the math and physics wrong?  You decide.

Growing by Leaps and Bounds?:  In a recent public email Sungenis claimed that their movement is “going forward by leaps and bounds”.  It’s an interesting statement when viewed in a larger context.  The new geocentrist movement is divisible into two inter-warring factions: geocentrists who believe the Earth is shaped like a sphere, and those who believe the Earth is flat.  The former have preempted the label “geocentrists” while the latter usually refer to themselves as “flat Earthers”.  Mr. Sungenis and his associates are firmly among the former.  But as shown in this article, it is actually the latter who are growing by leaps and bounds.  What’s more, as we see in the companion article, “Flat Earth has Global Appeal while Ball Earth Geocentrism is Flat-lining”, interest in ordinary ball earth geocentrism is pretty much limited to the United States, while Flat Earth geocentrism has appeal around the globe.

General Relativity Leaves No Room for Strict Geocentrism:  The neo-geocentrists continue to insist that, somehow or other, General Relativity “allows for” their own view, strict geocentrism.  They continue to cite a quote from Albert Einstein that supposedly supports this.  But they always leave off the last part of the quote, where Einstein says that General Relativity represents, “a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion . . . ” (my emphasis).  The neo-geocentrists are found yet again clinging to a dishonest equivocation, “supported” by quotes taken out of context, claiming that General Relativity which categorically excludes the possibility of one, absolute, motionless center of the universe somehow still “allows for” that same view.  It fools some people, it sells some books and DVDs, but it’s intellectually dishonest.

Thus, to be viable, geocentrism has to leave off its parasitic relationship to General Relativity and stand on its own two feet. That it cannot do, as outlined in Why Geocentrism is ‘Junk Science’”.