By: DAVID RICE
To: J.J. HITT
Re: Geocentrism #1 of 2
[context cut by me--- drice]
JH> Besides, it's a lot of fun to sit in the lounge car and
JH> watch all the Flat Earth Christians standing along the
JH> track thinking that the train is stationary and they are
JH> the ones in motion.
Some Christians are also Geocentrists.
No. 6 Winter 1993
What is Geocentricity?
by Gerardus D. Bouw
Copyright [(c)] 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. 
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
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. 
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.  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;  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. 
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.
No. 6 Winter 1993
What is Geocentricity?
by Gerardus D. Bouw
Copyright [(c)] 1993 Gerardus D. Bouw
[PART TWO OF TWO---- SEE PREVIOUS MESSAGE--- drice]
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. 
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.  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
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.  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
[1.] There are those who would claim that the language used is
phenomenological, that it was not meant to convey the truth of the
matter. They like to equate Joshua 10:13 with verses like Isaiah
55:12 where the trees are said to "clap their hands". The problem
with that is that everyone since Adam can understand that Isaiah
55:12 is a literary devise; but there is not a clue to tell those
before Copernicus that Joshua 10:13 is not to be taken literally.
[2.] A. De Morgan, 1872. A Budget of Paradoxes, second edition;
edited by D.E. Smith , 1915, (Chicago & London: The Open Court
Publishing Co.), Vol. 1, p. 36.
[3.] For complete documentation of the Biblical significance of
geocentricity see G.D. Bouw, 1984. With Every Wind of Doctrine:
Biblical, Historical and Scientific Perspectives of Geocentricity
(Cleveland: Tychonian Society).
[4.] Barbour and Berttotti, 1977, Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38.1.
G. B. Brown, 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
H. Thirring, 1916, Phys. Z., 19:33.
J. Lense and H.Thirring, Phys. Z., 22:29.
P. Gerber, 1898, Ztschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
C. Møller, 1952. The Theory of Relativity (Oxford: Clarendon Press),
P. Moon and D.E. Spencer, 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
W.G.V. Rosser, 1964, An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity (London:
Butterworths), p. 460.
[5.] The speed of light is only a speed limit for bodies moving
thorough the stellar universe, not for rotation. Also see T.G.
Barnes, 1983. Physics of the Future, (El Cajon: Institute for
Creation Research), p. 127.
[6.] Sir F. Hoyle, 1975, Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course
(San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416.
[7.] It is common among Creationists to assume that the firmament
was a canopy of water in one form or another; but whether there ever
was a canopy before the flood, it cannot be equated with the
firmament simply because Genesis 1:17 tells us that God set the
stars in the firmament, not above it as would have to be the case if
the canopy was meant. Since God called the firmament "Heaven"
(Genesis 1:8) it must follow that the firmament is at least the size
of the universe.
[8.] G.D. Bouw, 1987. "A New Look at the Æther", in Progress in
Space-Time Physics, J.P. Wesley, ed. (Benjamin Wesley Publ.:
Weiderdammstrasse 24, 7712 Blumberg, West Germany).
G.D. Bouw, 1987. Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 43, p. 11.
J. Byl, 1988. Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 47, p. 6.
G.D. Bouw, 1988, Bulletin of the Tychonian Society p. 11.
G.D. Bouw, 1989. A detailed derivation in preparation.
[9.] This phenomenon is called "the missing mass". For a review see
G.D. Bouw, 1977, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 14(2):108.
... "... and then when she complained, why, I corrected HER, too."