Friday, November 5, 2010

Off Center

The Geocentric Model
 [ ... this is the final post in a series that began here ... ]

There were two other main points my reader wanted me to consider in his appeal. Both were contained in separate booklets he included in the package he mailed to me. The most astounding one was a booklet titled, "The Exegesis of Cosmological Passages Supporting Geocentricity."

I am not being sarcastic when I say that I literally could not follow the logic of this document but, from what I gather:
  1. The earth was created first, then the heavens, but both were created "from within the initial mass of water."
  2. The noun (shamayim erets) which names "the heaven(s) and the earth" demands that there are "two physical heavens."
  3. Psalm 147:15 ("his words run swiftly") means that God placed his "spinning power" only in the heavens.
All this (and more) to say that "the earth was not rotating or moving. Indeed, the earth was in no shape to do anything. It had nothing to hold it together. If it tried to spin in this condition, water and matter would make a muddy mess all over the universe."

This was all proven true by the Sagnac Experiment ("which measured the rotation of the aether of the Sun"), and the Michelson-Morley Experiment ("which measured the Earth's annual velocity around the Sun to be zero"). The conclusions of these confirmed that "the earth just won't move."

I am no physicist but I do know this -- Michelson and Morley were the first to accurately measure the speed of light. When they did, one of the things that led to their breakthrough was the realization that the long-assumed "aether" that everyone thought made up the stuff of outer space, actually did not exist. Michelson and Morley's work determined that the speed of light was constant -- a scientific fact that led to Einstein's Special Relativity Theory, and eventually to his General Relativity Theory.

Yet, here we are 120 years later being told that an experiment surrounding "the rotation of the aether of the Sun" helps prove that the Earth does not move. I also find it ironic that a short glance at a description of the Sagnac Effect shows that it is employed in current technology like ring lasers and inertial guidance systems "that need to take the rotation of the Earth into account in the procedures of using radio signals to synchronize clocks."

I honestly feel badly for folks like my reader/critic who are constrained by their own pre-ordained commitment to a young earth that they must insist that the earth is the unmoving center of the universe --  to insist that others also accept a "fact" that is so plainly false.

If your view of the world demands that you perform these kinds of mental gymnastics to prove it, you might want to reconsider what you are thinking. I'm not sure what else I could possibly say about that.


  1. Hi, been enjoying your blog.

    While I'm not a young earther, one thing that I disagree with did catch my interest.

    I've been reading William Lane Craig's Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity. It it, he argues for a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity theory, which does postulate an aether. Lorentz was fully aware of the Michelson-Morley Experiment, which actually brought about his realization of the Lorentz–Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz explained the Michelson-Morely experiment by pointing to the contraction of length that the measuring rods used in the experiment would experience. Whichever arm of their interferometer was parallel to the direction of movement would be contracted, thus giving the appearance that the earth is stationary within the aether (since the light had a shorter distance to travel when the arms were contracted).

    This isn't justification for concluding that the aether doesn't exist. This was just an epistemic block that meant that it wasn't possible to measure the earth's movement in the aether due to the length contraction that the interferometer experienced.

    Now, this isn't to say that geocentricism is true, because it clearly isn't, but rather that the rationalization used to determine that the aether doesn't exist isn't based on empirical evidence (it's based on positivism).

    Actually, there have been things that we have detected that have been suggested could be the aether. For instance, the microwave background radiation. The earth's speed actually has been measured against that.

    Anyway, I just saw that you mentioned something I've been studying lately and I thought I'd give my perspective on it.

  2. bossmanham:
    You obviously are much better educated on this topic than I am. And I have neither the ability, nor the inclination, to dispute what you've said -- especially when you got it from WLC :-)

    This is a fair distinction ... even if it is NOT the distinction my YE friend was citing to make his claims.

    Thanks for setting me straight!


Though I do not moderate comments, I reserve the right to delete any comment that I deem inappropriate. You don't have to agree with me, but I don't tolerate abusive or objectionable language of any kind.