Modern geocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

Part of a series on

Creationism

History of creationism Neo-creationism

Types of creationism

Young Earth creationism Old Earth creationism Gap creationism Day-Age creationism Progressive creationism Intelligent design

Mythology and theology

Creation myth Creation according to Genesis Framework interpretation Genesis as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Baraminology Flood geology Intelligent design

Controversy

History Public education Politics of creationism Teach the Controversy

Particular religious views

Deist · Hindu · Islamic · Jewish Pandeist

Creationism Portal ·  v • d • e

Modern geocentrism is the belief held by some extant groups that Earth is the center of the universe as described by classical geocentric models. This belief is often based on Biblical verses and is most common among American Protestants. This belief is directly opposed to scientific evidence that the Sun is essentially the gravitational center of the solar system, and that the location of the Earth is not privileged.

Contents 1 Overview of modern geocentrism 2 History of modern geocentrism 3 Biblical references 4 Catholic geocentricity 5 Jewish geocentricity 6 The modern scientific point of view 6.1 "There is no special position." 6.2 "The cosmic microwave background radiation determines the only special velocity." 6.3 "The inertial frame is the only special rotation." 6.4 Non-falsifiability of geocentrism 7 Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations 7.1 Gamma ray bursts 7.2 Quantization of redshifts 8 Forms of modern geocentrism 8.1 The observations 8.2 Geocentrism based on classical gravitation 8.3 Geocentrism based on a rigid aether 8.4 Geocentrism based on a radically different cosmology 9 See also 10 References 10.1 General 10.2 On redshift quantization 11 External links

[edit] Overview of modern geocentrism

The most popular modern geocentric description consists of a stationary Earth (neither rotating nor orbiting the sun) at the center of the universe. As in the Tychonic system, the Sun is thought to revolve around the Earth once per day, and the rest of the solar system orbits the Sun with Keplerian orbits. This revolution is considered to be a physical reality, not simply the choice of a rotating frame of reference. At a more detailed level, modern geocentric beliefs divide into two logically distinct groups, although some geocentrists hold both types of beliefs simultaneously^{[citation needed]}:

• The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way^{[citation needed]}, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

• Most^{[citation needed]} geocentrists are more extreme and reject essentially all of modern astronomy and cosmology. A belief commonly associated with this view is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate.^{[citation needed]} (Similarly, Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours.^{[citation needed]}) This substrate is referred to as aether (not to be confused with the classical concept of luminiferous aether). This aether is believed to revolve around the Earth in one sidereal day, but this revolution varies on a yearly cycle (in order to explain observations like aberration of light). An analogy is drawn to the gyroscope, which also exhibits a much slower precession on top of its primary rotation. This viewpoint does not adequately explain frame-dependent forces such as Coriolis forces, since it also rejects most of physics including the theory of general relativity (which would provide an alternate explanation of the Coriolis effect, even in a stationary frame)^{[citation needed]}. Particularly difficult among the Coriolis forces to explain would be the Eötvös effect.

[edit] History of modern geocentrism

The Ptolemaic model of the solar system held sway into the early modern age; from the late 16th century onward it was gradually replaced as the consensus description by the heliocentric model. Geocentrism as a separate religious belief, however, never completely died out. In the United States between 1870 and 1920, for example, various members of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod published articles disparaging Copernican astronomy, and geocentrism was widely taught within the synod during that period.^{[citation needed]} However, in the 1902 Concordia Theological Quarterly, Prof. A. L. Graebner claimed that the synod had no doctrinal position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any scientific model, unless it were to contradict Scripture. He stated that any possible declarations of geocentrists within the synod did not set the position of the church body as a whole.^[1]

The most recent resurgence of geocentrism began in North America in 1967, when Dutch-Canadian schoolmaster Walter van der Kamp (1913–1998) circulated a geocentric paper entitled “The Heart of the Matter” to about 50 Christian individuals and institutions. From these seeds grew the Tychonian Society and its journal, Bulletin of the Tychonian Society.

In 1984 Van der Kamp retired as leader of the Tychonian Society and Gerardus Bouw, an amateur cosmologist with a Ph.D. in Astronomy from Case Western Reserve University and a B.S. in astrophysics from the University of Rochester (Rochester, NY) succeeded him. In 1991 Bouw reorganized the Tychonian Society as the "Association for Biblical Astronomy" and changed the name of the Bulletin to The Biblical Astronomer.^[2]

Previous works include Bouw's earlier With Every Wind of Doctrine (1984), Walter van der Kamp's De Labor Solis (1989), and Marshall Hall's The Earth is Not Moving (1991). Other modern geocentrists include Malcolm Bowden, James Hanson, Paul Ellwanger, R. G. Elmendorf, Paula Haigh, and Robert Sungenis (president of Catholic Apologetics International, author of the 2006 book Galileo Was Wrong).

Modern geocentrists subscribe to the view that a literal reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview. For this reason, modern geocentrists are also creationists, many of which actively promote creationism in the creation-evolution controversy, and a few, such as Hall even argue against modern views of celestial mechanics, although most, particularly Bouw and Sungenis, use General Relativity against the modern view. However, many creationists hold that while the Bible makes explicit historical claims regarding the origin of the Earth and life in the creation account in Genesis, it does not explicitly endorse geocentrism. The most popular creationist societies (specifically Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research) explicitly reject the absolute geocentric perspective, and creationist journals such as TJ (now Journal of Creation) have rejected modern geocentric articles in favor of geokineticism (moving Earth)^[3] Geocentrists regard such groups as compromisers.^[4]

Modern geocentrists believe that they are the true standard-bearers for an appropriate integration of science and religion. In particular, Gerardus Bouw has claimed "Invariably, those [creationists] who do take more than a cursory look [at geocentricity] become geocentrists". Many modern creationists disagree, including Ph.D. astronomers such as Danny Faulkner ^[3][5].^{[unreliable source?]}

Morris Berman quotes survey results that show currently some 20% of the USA population believe that the sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know.^[6]

[edit] Biblical references

Modern geocentrists point to some passages in the Bible, which, when taken literally, indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis. One is Ecclesiastes 1:5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose

Another is in Joshua 10: 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:^[7]

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

At this point, the Wycliffe Bible Commentary says:

"The usual interpretation of the miracle described herein is that God prolonged the daylight about a whole day (v. 13) to enable the Israelites to complete their pursuit of the enemy. However, if the sunlight was extended for ten, twelve, or more hours, so that the entire ancient Near East could have observed the phenomenon - a more spectacular miracle than the crossings of the Red Sea and the Jordan River - then it seems strange that only one other reference to the event (Hab. 3:11) is to be found in the OT ... What Joshua deemed necessary for his pursuing troops, already tired from their all-night climb, was relief from the merciless sun in the cloudless summer sky ... The true explanation of this miracle, told in ancient, Oriental poetic style, tends to confirm the idea that Joshua was looking for relief from the sun. The word dom, translated stand thou still (v. 12b), means basically 'be dumb, silent, or still'; and then 'rest' or 'cease' from usual activity ... Robert Dick Wilson demonstrated that the root dm in Babylonian cuneiform astronomical texts meant 'to be darkened.' Thus the sun is spoken of as 'dumb' when not shining ... Joshua 10:12-14 may then be translated: 'Now Joshua spoke to Jehovah, in the day that Jehovah gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel; and he said before the eyes of Israel, "O sun, be dumb at Gibeon, and thous moon, in the Valley of Ajalon." And the sun was dumb and the moon ceased (shining), until the nation took vengeance on its enemies - Is it not written in the Book of Jashar - For the sun ceased (shining) in the midst of the sky, and (i.e., although) it did not hasten to set about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man; for Jehovah was fighting for Israel.'"

One may also note that miraculous contexts, such as this one and Hezekiah's miracle (II Kings 20:10-11, Isaiah 38:8), overrode one or more of the laws of physics and so would have nothing to say about geocentrism, whose description supposedly relies on no overriding of the laws of physics.

In Psalm 104: 5 (according to King James Version numbering) this verse is found:

[God] (w)ho laid the foundations of the Earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

A suggestion that the Earth is stationary (relative to Heaven) is Isaiah 66:1:

Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.

And another in I Chronicles 16:30

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Creationists ascribing to an inerrant, literal reading of the Bible such as those at Institute for Creation Research would argue that interpreting the descriptions of heavenly/spacial events as phenomenological rather than strictly scientific or literal is important.^[8] For one, it shows that science and the Bible are not contradictory. The Bible describes things as man describes them (sunrises, sunsets, etc.). Also, it shows that the Bible is very careful to avoid specifics that would make no sense to the majority of readers throughout the majority of history. While the descriptions may not be strictly scientific, they are not erroneous or inaccurate. The Bible describes the heavens from man's perspective, and not in intricate detail. This is in great contradistinction to Apocryphal and Koranic descriptions of cosmology, which are very specific and demonstrably inaccurate (e.g. 2 Esdras 6:42, 1 Enoch 72, Koran 41:9-12). Finally, they would argue that it is necessary to interpret the seemingly geocentric passages as phenomenological because it is easily demonstrable that the Bible describes other heavenly events in similar language (the moon's light, stars falling from heaven, etc.).

They would also argue that the Bible does not mix the phenomenological hermeneutic (or, interpreting the passage as being merely a description of the observer's point of reference) with the literal hermeneutic (or, interpreting the passage as what the observer saw, but also what literally happened. However, their critics would respond that Isaiah 13:10 does mix these two hermeneutics.

For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Geocentrist's critics argue that this passage includes (according to their interpretation) literal descriptions (the sun going forth) as well as phenomenological descriptions (sun & stars darkened, moon actually shining light).

Those who allow for phenomenological descriptions can say that Amos 8:9 (“I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day”) simply means that the day will be dark at noon. Yet the geocentrist must hold that the sun literally doubles its orbit around the earth during the Tribulation period. However, even this would not solve it, because it says that the entire earth is dark. (See Amos 5:20—“Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?”)

Joel 2:2—“…a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness…”

Zeph 1:15—“That day is a day of…darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness…”

A faster-spinning sun would only mean that the days were shortened, & would not plunge all the earth into darkness. Micah 3:6 & Jeremiah 15:9 are similar:

...the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them."

...(Jerusalem's) sun is gone down while it was yet day..."

Yet the sun dictates night & day. This clearly is both metaphorical & phenomenological. Specifically, it is called Jerusalem's sun. This refers to the daytime over Jerusalem specifically. Yet if the sun truly did "go down while it was yet day", this would mean its orbit increased in speed, even in a geocentric cosmology. The passage is therefore interpreted as a metaphor for the arrival of darkness in the land.

Ezekiel 32:7-8 "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD."

In this passage, the only literal language is the "darkness upon thy land".

Recently, geocentrists have developed a new paradigm that God created the earth first and the heavens later, making the Earth incomplete at first and surrounding it with a "firmament" (a now-obsolete theoretical concept comparable to "sky") before completing it. This relates to geocentrism because it is claimed that God did not place the earth in the heavens, but rather created the firmament around earth, putting it in the center of the universe. However, not all geocentrists are in agreement on this position. The leading proponent of modern geocentrism, Gerardus Bouw, holds that planets & stars were created before the earth^[9]. Hence, the heavens they are in must have been created prior to the creation of the earth.

Geocentrists tend to be careless or sloppy with their interpretations of passages, attempting to prove their own view of Biblical cosmology without keeping passages in their intended context. For example, geocentrists cite Psalm 119:90:

...thou hast established the earth, and it abideth (see also Ecclesiastes 1:4).

The word "abideth" means "to stand", and geocentrists claim this further proof of their position. However, critics point out that the context of this passage is about the Bible and its endurance. To claim this discusses a stationary earth seems out of place in this passage. Also, they would argue that the Hebrew word used here for established and abideth is also used in other passages to refer to the sun, moon, stars, and the heavens. For example:

Proverbs 3:19 says that the heavens are "established". In fact, it compares the establishing of the heavens to the founding of the earth.

God prepared the heavens in Proverbs 8:27;

The moon and stars are ordained in Psalm 8:3;

The day, the light and the sun are all established in Psalm 74:16; and

In Psalm 148:6, the sun, moon, stars, and the heaven of heavens are all established (this is the same word abideth, used in Psalm 119:90 to refer to the earth).

Geocentrists take passages such as Psalm 96:10 to be geocentric:

the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.

Some geocentrists (such as Gerardus Bouw) identify Mercury & Venus as the "morning stars" of Job 38:7 and the "wandering stars" of Jude 14 as references to planets^[9]. Given that these are planets, then they only appear to be stars.

Finally, the movement of the Holy Spirit during Day One of Creation is not orbital movement. It is translated as "hovered over" in most modern Bible versions and the words "moved upon" is translated as "fluttereth over" (Deuteronomy 32:11) and "shake" (Jeremiah 23:9) in the King James Version. This would seem to support heliocentricity rather than geocentricity, since it gives the image of a stationary Holy Spirit hovering above the earth. If the Spirit was shining light on earth, then the earth must be moving in order to create day and night, a point argued by Dr. Robert McCabe at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary [2].

[edit] Catholic geocentricity

The interpretation of scripture by the Church fathers is asserted by the geocentrists to be unanimously in favor of a geocentrist position^{[citation needed]}. The early Church Fathers, such as Augustine and Origen, argued against the heliocentrism of the pagan Greeks before Copernicus' time. Modern geocentrists often quote these works, which seem to admonish that scriptural references about geocentrism not be interpreted as allegorical or phenomenological, since such an interpretation could lead to the appearance that the Holy Spirit (who inspired the Scriptures) might be lying.^{[citation needed]}

Some Catholics, such as Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International, hold to geocentrism on the basis of interpretations of the history and teachings of the Church. The three popes who issued decrees on the subject (Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII) all ratified^{[citation needed]} the statement used in the 22 June 1633 condemnation of Galileo by the Congregation for the Index: "The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith "^[10].

Alexander VII declared in a Papal Bull that "the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture." The principles were advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation".^{[citation needed]}

These declarations have yet to be officially overturned by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, and there have been no official declarations on the subject since that time. Some point out that Pope John Paul II made an apology for the treatment which Galileo received, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992. The apology declared the incident to be based on a "misunderstanding".

[edit] Jewish geocentricity

Of the various Jewish denominations, only a small minority of Orthodox Jews, particularly some followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe maintain a geocentric model of the universe, based on the aforementioned Biblical verses and their interpretation of Maimonides to the effect that he ruled that the earth is orbited by the sun.^[11][12] This is an important basis in his calculation of Rosh Chodesh (the first day of the Jewish lunar month), however the great majority of Jewish religious scholars, who accept the divinity of the Bible and accept many of Maimonides' rulings as legally binding do not believe that the Bible or Maimonides command a belief in geocentrism ^[12][13] There is some evidence that geocentrist beliefs are becoming increasingly common among Orthodox Jews.^[11][12]

[edit] The modern scientific point of view

The consensus of scientists today is that

1. there is no center or otherwise special position in the universe,
2. from the standpoint of the laws of physics, there is no such thing as absolute rest,
3. there is a unique rotational velocity in which Newton’s laws of motion hold.

[edit] "There is no special position."

All the known laws of physics can be formulated without reference to any particular place, as long as an inertial frame of reference is chosen for the description. That this is true, as far as we can tell, at all places and has been true for all times is illustrated by the agreement of the laboratory value of the fine structure constant with that derived from the spectra of stars billions of light years away. (For references, see Is the fine structure constant really constant?.)

Even if the laws of physics are independent of any particular place, one might still ask whether the arrangement of objects in the universe points to a special place for the Earth. But the Earth does not hold any obvious preferred place within the Solar System, nor does the Solar System appear to be in a preferred location within our Galaxy, nor is our Galaxy in a preferred location within the Local Group, which itself does not seem to hold a preferred location in the Universe. Furthermore, the consensus scientific opinion is that there is no evidence based on the distribution of astronomical objects that any particular position in the universe is special. (For references, see Large-scale structure of the cosmos.)

[edit] "The cosmic microwave background radiation determines the only special velocity."

All the known laws of physics can be formulated without reference to any particular velocity, as long as an inertial frame of reference is chosen for the description. Therefore if, from the point of view of physics, there is a special velocity in the universe, it can only be observed because some group of objects move with that velocity. The most popular choice of a reference is the cosmic microwave background radiation, whose velocity relative to the Solar System is about 370 km/s. It is also possible, with some modeling, to consider the local value of the velocity field of all galaxies, which is found to agree with the velocity of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

[edit] "The inertial frame is the only special rotation."

If the known local laws of physics are formulated in various frames of reference rotating relative to one another, the mathematical formulation of these laws vary. Generally, a centrifugal force and a Coriolis force, dependent on a direction and rate of rotation, must be introduced. In classical physics, these two forces are called fictitious forces because they do not obey Newton’s third law of motion. There are some special frames of reference, known as inertial frames, where these forces vanish. The rotation of these frames may be considered special, and indeed inertial frames are the only special ones known to physics. Equivalently, there is only one rotational frame of reference in which the axes of gimbal-mounted gyroscopes remain fixed. The Earth per se is not in an inertial frame, as evidenced by measurable centrifugal and Coriolis forces experienced by objects on Earth's surface.

In the framework of general relativity, the formulation of the laws of physics is identical in all frames of reference, even in rotating and accelerating frames. The fictitious forces are then a manifestation of the gravitomagnetism associated with the acceleration of the mass of the universe. This is the same effect that results in frame dragging, only in frame dragging the effect due to a rotating body is local and small. If the entire universe is rotating, the effect is massive. Even in general relativity, the inertial frames of reference can be considered special, because they are the only ones that allow the laws of physics to be formulated without explicit reference to distant masses. Compared to frames of reference with linear or rotational acceleration, inertial frames of reference also preserve local causality.

[edit] Non-falsifiability of geocentrism

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (September 2007)

If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone.^{[citation needed]} Other considerations (for example, those of theoretical or ontological parsimony urged by Occam's Razor) must inform our interpretation of observed phenomenon. In terms of the influential philosophy of science stemming from the work of Karl Popper, such non-falsifiable claims qualify as metaphysics and are not properly formulated scientific hypotheses.

Modern geocentrists have pointed out when defending their beliefs that physics allows for geocentric descriptions that can describe the physical universe if one allows for non-inertial reference frames.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations

This article is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Physics or the Physics Portal may be able to help recruit one. (March 2008)

Modern geocentrists have been known to point to certain astronomical observations as evidence which could be interpreted as placing the earth at the center of the universe. These observations also apparently have explanations that are compatible with the current scientific model of the solar system and universe^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Gamma ray bursts

One such observation is reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts", 2002 (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ~ S^-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma. (p.91)

Three pages earlier in the same book, Katz explains that one resolution of the dilemma would be that gamma ray bursts occur at cosmological distances:

If, on the other hand, bursts were produced billions of light-years away, from the edges of the observable universe, then the deficiency of faint bursts could be explained in analogy with the excess of faint radio sources: in far distant, and long ago, space, gamma-ray-burst sources were rarer than they are here and now. ... [I]n this cosmological picture the deficiency of faint bursts was entirely consistent with their isotropic distribution on the sky. (pp.88-89)

Although for many years astronomers tended to resolve the Copernican dilemma by ignoring the evidence for a deficiency of faint sources, starting in 1986, the case for nearby sources "began to unravel" (Katz, p. 94) and "the Copernican dilemma was finally solved by statistical studies of rough positions of a large number of bursts, the same kind of data that created it". (Katz, p. 93) More recently, the cosmological distance of gamma ray bursts has been confirmed by direct redshift measurements of a number of optical counterpoints. (See Category:Gamma ray bursts for examples.)

[edit] Quantization of redshifts

Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to supposed quantized redshift. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.

The first claimed observations of redshift quantization came from studies of galaxies. There have also been claimed observations of redshift quantization in quasar populations. Since these claimed observations were made, galaxy surveys have increased the quantity and quality of the redshift data enormously. Taken on the whole, it appears that the surveys do not show any quantization of redshifts, though many supporters of the idea have made the claim that the models are not applicable to the entire quasar sample. One study with a new database was specifically designed to test the most popular model of quasars associated with galaxies and that the redshifts of the galaxy pairings appear in regular intervals and are not homogeneous. The statistical methods were approved in advance by supporters of this model, but despite the prior approval, those supporting quantization still reject the result showing a lack of galaxy-quasar pairing.

Those scientists who still believe in quantized redshifts represent a very small minority.^{[citation needed]} It is also believed by some scientists that effects like the evolution of the universe, large-scale structures in the universe, and local clustering can, in some circumstances, mimic the trace of redshift quantization.

[edit] Forms of modern geocentrism

The simplest way to define a theory of geocentrism is to apply the appropriate coordinate transformation to existing theory. Geocentrists generally believe there is additional substance to their worldview that can be expressed in a theory with explanatory and, ideally, predictive power. There is no theory that is accepted by all geocentrists, and no theory that is formulated well enough mathematically to be falsifiable, but some general comments can be made^{[citation needed]}, as below.

[edit] The observations

The major observations to be explained, as expressed from a geocentric perspective, are

• variations in the length of the day^[14]
  • a general slowing down over time (attributed by modern science to tidal friction)
  • a variation over many years (attributed to changes in the Earth's core)
  • seasonal variations (attributed to changes in the jet stream and the distribution of ice and water)
  • occasional sudden changes (attributed to events like major earthquakes or particular weather patterns)
• motions of the stars and the Sun
  • daily motion in near circles centered on the Earth
  • monthly variation on top of that (attributed by modern science to the orbit of the Earth around the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system)
  • yearly variation on top of that with a radius of one astronomical unit
  • proper motions, i.e., movements of the stars relative to each other according to Newton's laws of motion and gravitation
• motions of the planets and of artificial satellites and space probes
  • daily, monthly, and yearly motions as for the stars
  • Keplerian orbits around the Sun on top of that
• physics on the Earth
  • centrifugal force
  • Coriolis force

Bouw claims that most of these are readily explainable from a geocentric perspective by starting with the universe as a whole. He cites eight references to support his claim.^[15]

[edit] Geocentrism based on classical gravitation

Some geocentrists believe that at least part of these observations can be explained as a result of classical gravitation with a particular mass distribution. Indeed, a uniform distribution of dark (and otherwise unobtrusive) matter, coupled with a quadrupole gravitational field imposed from the “outside”, could provide the centripetal force associated with the daily rotation. Gravitational fields uniform throughout the universe and rotating monthly and yearly would result in those components of the motion. On the other hand, classical gravitational fields cannot provide the torque needed to account for the variations in the length of the day, nor can they provide the Coriolis forces observed in planetary motion and in physics experiments on Earth.

[edit] Geocentrism based on a rigid aether

A different approach to accounting for the forces required to explain the observations is kinematic constraints. If all heavenly bodies (sun, planets, comets, stars) are rotating daily around the Earth, it is natural to suppose that they are embedded in a transparent but rigid material. Geocentrists generally believe in such a substance and refer to it as aether. This aether is not the same as the late 19th century concept of luminiferous aether, which was supposed to be the material through which light propagates. If a luminiferous medium does exist, then the null result from the Michelson-Morley experiment would imply a stationary Earth with respect to such an aether. Bouw stated in 2000 that he prefers the term firmament as being "the God-chosen name for the created aether".^[16]

The aether hypothesis coupled with a huge rotating shell of matter at the outer position of the universe (similar to the "crystal spheres" of Ptolemy) provides for forces needed to explain the daily orbits of the stars and Sun as well as a way to synchronize the monthly and yearly motions. These periodic variations are claimed to result from gyroscopic precession, although the details of the model are not specified. When the finite speed of light is taken into consideration, the picture is more complex (at least assuming the enormous estimate of the size of the universe believed today- a point with which many geocentrists disagree). If we see all the stars moving at the same time, then the stars farther away must have moved earlier in order to allow their light time to reach Earth. This implies not a rigid aether but an aether supporting torsional waves that propagate with the speed of light and converge on the Earth. To explain the irregular or sudden changes in the length of the day in this way requires a reversal of the presumptive cause and effect, that is, the aether waves must cause the earthquake or weather pattern that is associated with that change in the length of the day. It is also difficult to reconcile the rigidity of the aether required to contain and synchronize the motions of the stars with the tenuousness implied by the fact that the proper motions appear to be uninhibited.

If simple aether theories might be able to explain some of the properties of the motions of the stars and Sun, more complex theories are necessary to explain orbits in the Solar System and experiments on the Earth. This is partly because the rigidity/tenuousness dilemma brought up for stellar motion is even more visible there, but primarily because a single centripetal force is no longer adequate. The observations can only be explained by separate centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

[edit] Geocentrism based on a radically different cosmology

Some geocentrists believe that the difficulties in the types of theories discussed above can be overcome by rejecting some of the assumptions that were implicitly made in that discussion. In particular, some geocentrists believe that the universe is very much smaller than the billions of light years calculated by modern scientists.^[17] A detailed theory of this sort is not available, so its plausibility and freedom from internal contradictions cannot be evaluated here.

[edit] See also

• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience

[edit] References

[edit] General

• Bouw, Gerardus: Geocentricity, Association for Biblical Astronomy, Cleveland, Ohio, 1992.
• Graebner, A.L. Science and the Church. Concordia Thelogical Quarterly VI(1):37
• Gibbs, W. Wayt, 1995. Profile: George F.R. Ellis; Thinking Globally, Acting Universally. Scientific American 273(4):28, 29.
• Hoyle, F., Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London, p. 78, 1973.
• Hubble, E.P., The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon, Oxford, 1937.
• Iorio, L., 2006. A note on the evidence of the gravitomagnetic field of Mars, Class. Quantum Gravity, 23(17), 5451-5454.
• Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, 1973
• Sungenis, Robert: "Galileo Was Wrong", 2006
• The Wycliffe Commentary, Moody Press, Chicago, Thirteenth Printing, 1976

[edit] On redshift quantization

• William G. Tifft, "Global Redshift Periodicities: Association with the Cosmic Background Radiation" Astrophysics and Space Science, 239, 35 (1996)
• William G. Tifft, "Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the CBR Rest Frame," Astrophysics and Space Science, (1997)
• Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies
• Halton Arp and Geoffrey Burbidge, "Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On", Physics Today, 37:17 (1984)
• E. Hawkins, S. J. Maddox and M. R. Merrifield, “No periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey data,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 336, Is. 1, October 2002, p. L15
• "No Quantized Redshifts", Sky and Telescope 104:28, 2002
• William Napier and Geoffrey Burbidge, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2003, 342, pp. 601–604
• Avi Rabinowitz. "EgoCentrism and GeoCentrism; Human Significance and Existential Despair; Bible and Science; Fundamentalism and Skepticalism". http://www.pages.nyu.edu/%7Eair1/GeoCentrism%20&%20EgoCentrism,%20Existentialist%20Despair%20&%20Significance.htm. 

[edit] External links

• FixedEarth.com by Marshall Hall
• Geocentricity.com by Gerardus Bouw
• Geocentricity 101 p1,p2,p3, p4 by Mark Wyatt
• Pro-Geocentric page by Robert Sungenis
• Anti-Geocentric page from one Creationist's perspective
• Geocentrism: Flogging a Pink Unicorn a critique of Modern Geocentrism
• Geocentrism and Creation from the Answers in Genesis website.