By: DAVID RICE To: J.J. HITT Re: Geocentrism Contra Mundum No. 6 Winter 1993 What is Geoce

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: DAVID RICE To: J.J. HITT Re: Geocentrism ----------------------------------------- Contra Mundum No. 6 Winter 1993 What is Geocentricity? by Gerardus D. Bouw Copyright 1993 Gerardus D. Bouw ------------------------------------------------------------ To hear tell, geocentrism, the ancient doctrine that the earth is fixed motionless at the center of the universe, died over four centuries ago. At that time Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish canon who dabbled in astrology, claimed that the sun and not the earth was at the center of the universe. His idea is known as heliocentrism. It took a hundred years for heliocentrism to become the dominant opinion; it did so with a complete lack of evidence in its favor. Yet the victory of heliocentrism has been less than total. Over the years geocentrism has had its spokesmen. Among scientists who adhered to the centrality of the earth were three generations of Cassinis: a family of astronomers who dominated French astronomy from the late seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries. Astronomers, pastors, and educators in the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church maintained the geocentric truths well into the twentieth century. They, with the reformers such as Luther, saw that the embracing of heliocentrism would weaken not only science, but also the authority of the Bible. The second of these two concerns: how the Bible's authority is weakened by heliocentrism; stems from the firm manner in which the Bible teaches geocentricity. Geocentric verses range from those with only positional import, such as references to 'up' and 'down'; through the question of just what the earth was 'orbiting' the first three days while it awaited the creation of the sun; to overt references such as Ecclesiastes 1, verse 5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Perhaps the strongest geocentric verse in the Bible is Joshua 10:13: And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. It not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day. Here the Editor of scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, endorses the daily movement of the sun and moon. After all, God could just as well have written: "And the earth stopped turning, so that the sun seemed to stand still, and the moon seemed to stay." That wording would be not more "confusing" to the reader than anything in Job chapters 38 through 41. [1] About the immobility of the earth the Bible seems clear enough. The nineteenth-century mathematician Augustus de Morgan put it quite succinctly when he wrote that those who try to get around the Bible's wording: make strange reasons. They undertake a priori, to settle Divine intentions. The Holy Spirit did not mean to teach natural philosophy: this they know beforehand; or else they infer it from finding that the earth does move, and the Bible says it does not. Of course, ignorance apart, every word is truth, or the writer did not mean truth. But his puts the whole book on its trial: for we never can find out what the writer meant, unless we otherwise find out what is true. Those who like may, of course, declare for an inspiration over which they are to be viceroys; but common sense will either accept the verbal meaning or deny verbal inspiration. [2} [Emphasis added.] In other words, either God writes what he means and means what he writes, or else he passes off mere appearances as truths and ends up the liar. The ultimate issue is one of final authority: is the final say God's or man's? This is brought home again and again by humanists, such as the twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell and astronomer Ivan King, who point to the church's abandonment of geocentricity as having "freed" man from the ancient God-centered outlook on life to the modern man-centered outlook. [3] The Copernican Revolution, as this change of view is called, was not just a revolution in astronomy, but it also spread into politics and theology. In particular, it set the stage for the development of Bible criticism. After all, if God cannot be taken literally when He writes of the "rising of the sun", then how can He be taken literally in writing of the "rising of the Son?" The other of the two concerns over heliocentrism, as expressed by the reformers, is that the earth-centered view is better science than is heliocentrism. Although hints of that have sporadically surfaced in physics over the last 150 years, only in the last decade has this claim become substantial through a new discipline called geocentricity. Whereas geocentrism was a concept which divided the universe into independent parts, geocentricity is an integrative approach, starting from the very smallest parts and integrating them into a unified view of the universe. For being only eleven years old, geocentricity has been surprisingly successful. To illustrate the difference in approach between geocentricity and heliocentrism, consider the derivation of the equations which technicians use to orbit space ships. Now some will insist that since satellites are sent up using heliocentrically-derived equations, that the space program is proof of heliocentrism. This erroneously assumes that the geocentrically-derived equations would be different from the heliocentric ones. That such is not the case has repeatedly been shown in scientific papers since the turn of the century. [4] These papers show that the geocentric model is entirely compatible with phenomena such as the stationary satellite, the Foucault pendulum, the equatorial bulge, and how the distant stars can be 'moving' faster than the speed of light; [5] in short, they answer every argument based on the Coriolis and centrifugal effects. The main difference is that geocentric models must always take the existence of the universe into account whereas heliocentric models always ignore it. Other than that, the differences between heliocentrism and geocentricity are philosophical and theological. [6] To further illustrate the difference the geocentric theory can make in viewing the universe, consider the two rivals' views on what space looks like on very, very small scales. At a scale much smaller than nuclear particles, modern science describes space as "foamy". The size of these foamy bubbles or "grains" of space is very small, amounting to only about 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002 centimeter (written as 2x10-33 cm). Each grain has a mass of about 0.00002 gram. According to the heliocentrically-based view, the grains spontaneously appear out of nothing, exist for a brief instant (5x10-44 second), and then vanishes into the nothingness from which they came. Strictly speaking, this violates the first law of thermodynamics which claims that energy can neither be created or destroyed by any natural process. The geocentric theory explains the grains of space without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics. It takes the grains at face value, presuming them to be real. The medium of the grains is tremendously dense (4x1993 gm/cm3): so dense that one would have to pack 1039 universes into a cube one centimeter on a side in order to match their density. Geocentric theory has identified the grains as making up the firmament of Genesis chapter 1. [7] It has been shown that because of the presence of nuclear matter - the materials which makes up our every-day world - the firmament must rotate once every 24 hours. [8] In other words, the model of the firmament mathematically mandates the Biblical, geocentric 24-hour period. The material objects of the universe are not at all aware of this rotation. Thus arguments about stars moving faster than the speed of light are based on incomplete knowledge. And dense though it is, we effortlessly move thorough the firmament. That, too, follows from the equations. The firmament goes a long way towards explaining some of the mysteries of modern science. It readily explains why more massive nuclear particles are smaller than less massive ones. In the every-day realm it explains why, in general, mass depends on volume. It explains why very large objects, such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies seem to be as much as 500 times more massive than is indicated by the amount of light they generate. [9] In addition, the firmamental model readily accounts for such experimental results as the Sagnac effect, the Faraday disk-generator paradox, earth's night-time electric field, and ball lightning. All of these point to geocentricity as serious science. Despite the testimony of all the equations, and despite the published testimonies of top scientists to the viability of geocentricity as a model of the universe, and despite the inability of experiments to establish its truth or falsity; some will still scoff at geocentricity. How can one ever determine which is the truth? Only by going outside the universe and taking a look around can one ascertain the truth of the matter. Without that ability to 'look around outside', physics cannot resolve the debate. However, since God does know what is beyond the universe, should His word not be taken as the final authority? It is the testimony of God as found in the Bible which constitutes the foundation of modern geocentricity. May it ever be so. CM --------------------------------------------------- For more information about geocentricity and the Bible and astronomy, the interested reader can write to: Association for Biblical Astronomy 4527 Wetzel Avenue Cleveland OH 44109 ___------------------------------------------------- ... "HolySmoke is more popular than Jesus." -- J.J. Hitt to Steve Wallis *


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank