Talk:Robert Sungenis
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Sungenis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 14 days  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.
|
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Geocentrism is NOT pseudoscience
editAnybody who has read Dr. Sungenis' books on the subject of geocentrism knows that calling it pseudoscience is dishonest. He deals with all the relevant science and provides a reasonable interpretation of the data. The person who has used this pejorative label in order to discredit him obviously doesn't realise that Albert Einstein acknowledged that a geocentric view can account for ALL the scientific data. Please remove this smear of "pseudoscientific" for the sake of neutrality.[1] Knowledgeispower3 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you find a reputable scientist who says this, and provide where they said it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- First, you may change the frame of reference to whatever you like and physics would still work. Earth is in no way special in this respect: any frame of reference is as good as any other one. The belief that mainstream science endorses geocentrism is delusional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- A reputable scientist who says this? Wolfgang Smith. You should read his book Ancient Wisdom and Modern Misconceptions: A Critique of Contemporary Scientism (2003), Chapter VIII (The Status of Geocentrism). Smith is a mathematician, physicist, philosopher of science and metaphysician. yuri vieira (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK, you have one. who says it has scientific merit. But it is still a fringe view, and thus pseudoscience accdor9ing to most experts, and we go with the scientific weight (see wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- First, ad hominem arguments like
Anybody who has read Dr. Sungenis' books on the subject of geocentrism knows that calling it pseudoscience is dishonest.
have no place here. - Second, while it is true that in General Relativity a geocentric coordinate system is as valid as a heliocetric coordinate system, that does not mean that the geocentric and heliocentric views are equivalent; the geometry does not depend on the choice of local coordinates. An observer will see the worldline of the Earth winding around the worldline of the Sun[a] in either coordinate system. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ More precisely, an observer will see both winding around the center of mass of the Solar System.
BLP violation
editAn IP is edit warring in violation of WP:BLPSPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The introduction is not neutral and has to be rewritten
editRobert A. Sungenis (born c. 1955)[1] is an American Catholic apologist and advocate of the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe.[2] He has made statements about Jews and Judaism which have been criticized as being antisemitic, which he denies.
This introduction is not neutral at all and has to be changed as the rules of Wikipedia point out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
This part "advocate of the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe" has to be changed. That the earth is the center of the universe is not a belief, it's a viewpoint and there are many scientists who hold to this viewpoint so it cannot be written that it is pseudoscientific. Just because something is not a majority viewpoint it does not make it a belief or unscientific. If Wikipedia would have existed in Galileo's time would it have been tolerated that his viewpoint be called an unscientific belief? It should not have been. So this has to be changed according to the principle: "Avoid stating opinions as facts"
- Its what he is noted for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- No. Geocentric coördinates are convenient. is a view; The Earth is the center of the Universe. is a belief. In fact, in General relativity the term center of the Universe doesn't even have a meaning. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- The gist that here at Wikipedia we are not second-guessing science, but we take it for granted. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)