Geocentricity Video - 23 mins.
THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC
ARGUMENTS FOR
GEOCENTRICITY
Geocentric Universe - Celestial Poles video; with Dr.
Neville Jones
Hundreds of experiments have failed to detect even a
smidgen of the purported 67,000 mph translational and
1000 mph rotational velocity of the Earth. Not only can it
not be disproved that "the Earth stands forever" (Ecc.
1:4) and has no velocity; it cannot be disproved that the
Earth is the center of the universe.
Albert Einstein invented Special Relativity to counter
experiments revealing that the Earth was motionless in
space, which then led him to General Relativity that
forced him to accept a motionless Earth as a viable and
worthy cosmological system.
Albert Einstein, whose theory of Relativity sought to
eliminate the possibility of having only one point in the
cosmos serve as a center, knew instinctively, however, that
the choice between a heliocentric or geocentric system was,
from both a scientific and philosophical point of view, totally
arbitrary. From the scientific viewpoint he enlightens us with
these words:
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between
the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite
meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with
equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and
the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,”
would simply mean two different conventions concerning two
different coordinate systems.
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be
detected by any optical experiment.”
Albert Einstein _ Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of
Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14,
1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.
“…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in
space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We
have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to
a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put
forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative
result.”
Albert Einstein_“Relativity – The Special and General
Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent
Illusion, 2007, p. 169.
“We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering
whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of
translation.”
Henri Poincaré_From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel
et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St. Louis, Sept. 24,
1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the
influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always
negative.”
Henri Poincaré_From Poincaré’s report La science et
l’hypothèse (“Science and Hypothesis”)1901, 1968, p. 182. L.
Kostro’s, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 30.
This subject generates far more heat than light in Christian
circles. Invariably the reaction is emotional because Christians
do not want to be tainted with the labels of "scientific
ignoramus" and such like. I here set out the basic arguments
that are given more fully in my "True Science Agrees with the
Bible" - Appendix 10.
A Preliminary Observation
What would you think of a university that never referred to a
scientific experiment simply because it contradicted the
present views of the universe and how it works? Even further
- what would you think of all academic establishments around
the whole world that never ever refer to three scientific
experiments because they contradict present views of this
universe. We will be examining these experiments that have
been carefully kept secret from all science undegraduates,
thus proving that the academic world is far from being the
"open, truth seeking" body that it so frequently proclaims.
(1) BIBLICAL SUPPORT.
There are many references to the sun "going down", "arising"
etc. NOT ONCE does the Bible ever refer to the earth rotating
or going round the sun. Those who say that the Bible is only
recording the "appearance" of the movement of the sun are (a) having to ADD to the most obvious meaning of the
understanding of the Bible passage; surely we can trust God to
mean what He says and say what He means - as He does
throughout the Bible.
(b) are adopting the same position as liberal critics who have
tried to destroy the Bible by saying that many of the sayings
of Christ were "adapted to the simple understanding and low
education of His hearers" and that we are more educated
today to correct what he said - or such like. The Bible is true
in its normal sensible understanding of its statements. We say
sensible because we do not literally interpret what are clearly
allegories and metaphors - this is usually used by critics to
ridicule Bible believers.
(2) THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION
There is a major Biblical problem facing Bible-believing
Christians who believe the earth goes round the sun
(heliocentrists). In the six days of creation, the sun is not
referred to until Day 4. Most contend that it was created on
Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so that they can have
the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its
creation. The problem is that the same word is used for the
creation of the sun as for other material or animals in Genesis
1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is
no distinction between creation from nothing and creation
from previously created material. Both words are used of
Man's creation.
To say that the sun had already been created before day 4 is to
twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific
case to save the heliocentric position - and Hebrew scholars
agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is
it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make
nonsense of the whole record of events.
So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How
then did the earth rotate around a non-existent sun for three
days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God give
the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun?
Surely the most obvious explanation is that the earth
(bhumandala) was created FIRST of all the universe - as the
Bible says - and the universe rotated around it - with all the
planets created later on Day 4. I give below the scientific
evidence supporting this sequence of events.
(3) SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS
Geocentrists are ridiculed as "unscientific" and "getting their
science from the Bible". However, there are four experiments
which clearly point to a geocentric universe. Only the
Michelson-Morley is ever referred to; the other three are
never mentioned in any university anywhere in the world.
(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June
2004)
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely
experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the
earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved through
the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the
result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached
the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained
away".
There is a simple model that can be pictured to explain the
reason for the experiment.
Imagine that you are on a lake in a small boat with a very
quiet engine (the earth), and not far away is a huge liner (the
sun). You are at the centre of the lake and the shore is a long
way off but you can see mountains on it etc. You notice that
the shore (the stars) is going past the large ship fairly quickly,
and you realise that either (i) you are circling the large ship
OR (ii) the large ship is circling you - and you cannot
immediately tell which one is circling which.You know the
distance between the two ships and timing how long it takes
for the shore to make a complete circle (1 year), you can say
that either the large ship is going round you at 30mph or you
are going round it at that speed.
There is a very simple test that will tell you which one is
circling which. What can you do to find out???
The answer is very simple.
You put your hand in the water (the aether)!!!
If you are moving through the water, then it is you going
round the large ship, and you can check your speed through
the water to see if it is 30 mph. If it is, then the large ship must
be stationary. HOWEVER, if you find that you are stationary
in the water, then it must be the large ship that is GOING
ROUND YOU.
The MM experiment showed that the earth was (almost)
stationary! So they had to invent the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction, and eventually Einstein swept the whole problem
under the carpet by mathematically removing the aether (the
water). That this brought huge problems into scientific
theories was ignored, and false evidence was produced
(Eclipse, travelling clocks, perihelion precession of Mercury)
to support the theory. There have been many attacks upon the
theory, but so powerful are the forces that support it that they
have had little publicity or real damaging effect upon the
"scientific" acceptance of the theory even today.
It is the following three experiments that are never taught to
science undergraduates.
(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I
forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the
aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2%
of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the
Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the
earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment
measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around
the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for
geocentricity.
(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v
20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the
starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's
"speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water
that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the
telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle
of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already
coming in at the original measured angle so that no
change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars
moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting
earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If
it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the
angle.
(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light
from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight
is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit
the bottom of the tube because its direction is already
determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing
down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube
would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the
tube.)
It is interesting that the original short two page report merely
lists the results and discusses the accuracy of the telescope
used. There is not the slightest reference to the astonishing
result that this experiment demonstrates - that the stars
are moving round the stationary earth.
(d) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus
1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table at 2
revs/sec complete with light and mirrors and camera with the
light being passed in opposite directions around the table
between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole apparatus was
detected by the movement of the interference fringes on the
target where they were recombined. This proved that there
IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this
completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that
says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this
experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More
recently Kantor has found the same result with similar
apparatus.
To summarise (A) The Sagnac experiment proved that there WAS an aether
which could be used as a reference frame for movements.
This demolished Einstein's theories of Relativity.
(B) Using the aether as a frame of reference, the MichelsonMorley experiment showed that we were NOT going round
the sun,
(C) Airey's experiment proved that the starlight was already
coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the
rotating aether/space (so sky ether/space is rotating, not us/
earth ).
(D) The Michelson-Gale experiment showed that the aether
was going round the stationary earth 1 rotation per day. (The
alternative that the earth was spinning 1 rotation per day
inside a stationary aether is disproven by Airey's experiment.
Note - to be pedantic, Airey's experiment involved
measurments of a small angle due to the high 30Km/s "speed
of the earth around the sun". The rotation of the earth at the
equator is only .45Km/s and is too slow to register any angle
change.)
These last three experiments are never taught at
universities, so consequently, scientists, including most
Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for
geocentricity. I asked 3 Christian physicists if they had
ever heard of them; not one had! In October 2004 I
commented on the UK creation forum "Re decrease in the speed of light - It MIGHT be constant
now, but most certainly was not in the past; it was still falling
until the 1950's. In addition, Sagnac's experiment proved that
there IS an aether, whilst Einstein's Relativity Theorem is
based on it NOT existing. Could I ask if ANYONE who did
science at any university if they were ever told about Sagnac's
simple experiment? I rather doubt it. So the fables of
Relativity are passed down from generation to generation.
What happened to truth? Malcolm."
I have just (1 March 2005) received an interesting response "J, My agreement with all below [i.e. my comment "above"].
After 35 years as a professional physicist, with a thesis in
relativity, I only learned of Sagnac's experiment last
year...... R."
In January 2007 another correspondent complained that his
professors never mentioned these important experiments "Dear Mr. Bowden, Thank you for your enjoyable and wellwritten website. I've enjoyed visiting there today. I was
especially interested in your comments on geocentricity,
which (as noted) are controversial. The amazing thing is that
NONE of the experiments cited were ever discussed in my
undergraduate education, nor the implications cited...."
"...All my life, I have heard the story of how Copernicus'
theory came to prevail. I would have thought that major
experimental evidence already in existence and calling the
theory into question would have at least been cited; and given
the importance of some of the philosophical extrapolations on
cosmology, theology, space exploration and public education
in the United States, one would have also thought that the
matter would have been intensely investigated until a
resolution of the data with the theory could be obtained. One
feels cheated as a student, of course, to keep finding
twenty-five years later these bodies of contrarian evidence
that never are mentioned in the classroom, unless a
student has already researched the topics and brings them
up..." (Emphasis MB).
Is it any wonder, therefore, that Christian geocentrists
find their most vociferous opponents are fellow Christian
creationists to whom geocentricity comes as a shock. They
do not want to be tarred with such a heretical brush that
will only increase the great ridicule they are already
receiving for their stance against evolution?
THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE
How can the universe rotate so rapidly without disintegrating?
There is growing evidence that the aether has "Planck
density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are
like corks in very dense water comparatively. (compare that
cords/ ropes to Bhagavatam, Sadaputa presentations & Surya
Siddhanta explaination that stars are attached with ropes) This
whole universe sweeps round the earth because otherwise it
would collapse in on itself due to its density. The mechanics
of this system forces the other planets etc. to describe ellipses
in their orbit around the sun.
Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling
the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates
Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather
etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11
March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe)
rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced
exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of
Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of
heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations
of the superiority of the geocentric model.
Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around
the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth
carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis.
The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the
earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly
collapse upon itself.
____________________________________________
Some may question if the geocentric model would make it
impossible for NASA to predict spacecraft orbits etc. This is
easily dealt with.
Assume you are looking at an orrery - a mechanical machine
with the planets on long arms rotating around the sun which is
at the centre. In this machine the sun is stationary at the centre
and the planets rotate around it and also spin on their axis.
This is the accepted way in which the planets move around
the sun.
Now imagine that, while it is working, you pick the whole
machine up by holding the earth. Everything now rotates
about the earth, but their relative positions as they go round
the sun and to each other are exactly the same as before.
Einstein's relativity does not come into it.
What people do not realise is that NASA works out every
spacecraft trajectory related to the earth - as though the
earth were the centre of the planetary system. This is NOT
presented as further scientific evidence as it is only used to
make the maths easier, but it is interesting nevertheless.
________________________________________
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE CENTRALITY OF
THE EARTH.
THE "WALLS" OF GALAXIES
The position of 200,000 galaxies have been plotted and they
have shown that there are several "walls" of galaxies, all
centred on the earth. The picture shows just a slice of the
survey and contains 33,500 galaxies.
Evolutionists would expect to see a very random distribution
of galaxies - or all heavenly bodies - but this in not what is
found. Strips of galaxies in long chains are obvious and they
are ALL roughly centred on the earth. This is far greater than
pure coincidence could have obtained.
Notice also that even the thinning out of the galaxies is
centred upon the earth. This sparser number of galaxies could
have been over a large area not centred upon the earth - but
even this is centred upon the earth.
There are, however, two other indications that the earth is the
centre of the universe
REDSHIFT "STEPS"
Light from distant galaxies is redder the further you go from
the earth, but it is not a smooth decrease. The redshift
increases in distinct "steps" of wavelength. These steps are
only apparent from the position of this earth. If an observer
were to move a fairly small distance away from the earth, then
these steps would become blurred and the redshifts would be
more like a smooth curve.
From his examination of the structure of the atom, Barry
Setterfield has produced a paper explaining how these redshift
steps could have arisen.
VARSHNI'S "SHELLS" OF QUASARS.
In a very similar manner, Varshni showed that if quasars
(large and bright star-like objects at great distances from
earth) are plotted against their distance from the earth, they
collect into "shells" with distinct gaps between them - just as
for the redshift steps. Again, moving away from the earth,
these shells would not be apparent, so the earth is at the centre
of these shells - as well as the redshifts and galaxies!
If we accept that the earth was created on day one, all the
other heavenly bodies could have been made by God on day
four to centre on the earth as a sign of the earth's special
importance in the universe - and for the bafflement of modern,
godless, astronomers!
PHILIP STOTT'S lecture on Geocentrism to Christian
Scientists in Switzerland and its Surprising Results!
(Added 19.6.04)
Philip Stott has lectured in many countries on a wide range of
creation topics. In May 1992 he gave a lecture on
geocentricity to a group of Christians in Switzerland. In an
email he mentioned this event as follows.
"After a lecture on geocentricity in Switzerland to a group of
Christian scientists (many of whom work at CERN), the
physicists were so upset that some were actually in tears.
Their biggest source of frustration was that they could not
refute my lecture. Unbeknown to me they met afterwards and
decided to send an audio tape of the lecture to Jean-Marie
Mouseca, the physicist they considered the most competent to
rebut it. He was in America at the time. On receipt of the tape
he spent considerable time in the library checking my
statements and looking for refutation. He found none, but
found even more support for geocentricity than I had given.
On my next lecture tour in Switzerland Mouesca (who had
returned to his post as research physicist with the French
nuclear research establishment at Grenoble) drove hundreds
of kilometres to meet me and thank me for opening his eyes.
He told me that he has come to the conclusion there is only
one reference source that he can trust, and that is the Bible.
Many have told me that accepting geocentricity has changed
their attitude to the Scriptures, changed their lives and
strengthened their faith..
Yes, I agree with what you say about what the world will
think. The world, and many Christians, look upon me as an
utter fool (I have been devoted a whole chapter of ridicule in a
South African theological text-book). Is that my criterion?
God is true though all men be liars. I would rather be a fool
for the gospel than keep quiet about their lies for the sake of
respectability."
___________________________
In connection with evidence supporting geocentrism, there
was an item in Richard Corliss' "Science Frontiers" No. 133
Jan-Feb 2001 which I copy here.
...........................................
ASTRONOMY - THE FINGERS OF GOD
We present the following quotation without comment because
"tvf" (the author) has obliged in his review of a recent article
in "Science".
LARGE SCALE STRUCTURE OF THE UNIVERSE
A vast redshift survey of over 100,000 galaxies shows
hundreds of superclusters and "Great wall"-like structures, but
also "the ends of the biggest structures in the universe". Vast
clumps and dark voids are seen. [tvf: No comment is made (in
Science) on the clumps and voids both being elongated in
directions along our line of sight. This phenomenon is called
"the fingers of God" because galaxies seem to line up in
filaments pointing at us. The simplest non-theological way out
of this dilemma is to jettison redshift as a reliable distance
indicator.]
(Van Flandern, Tom; Meta Research Bulletin 9:48, 2000.
Citing; science, 288:2121, 2000.)
............................................................ .
Whilst not evidence, it was interesting to learn of John
Calvin's geocentric views from a friend who wrote;
I have just come across an interesting statement by Calvin that
proves that he was wiser than many of his followers. In the
"Argument" which prefaces his commentary on Genesis, he
says: "We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the
heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is
placed in the centre."
Then comes an irritating and lengthy footnote from his
nineteenth-century translator and editor. I quote in part: "The
erroneous system of natural philosophy which had prevailed
for ages was but just giving way to sounder views, at the time
when Calvin wrote.... Up to that period, the earth had been
regarded as the centre of the system, and the whole heavens
were supposed to revolve around it......"
Interestingly, it is not the first time that I have distrusted the
footnotes of nineteenth century editors of older works.
--------------------------GEOCENTRISM STILL ALIVE AND KICKING!
(Added 14.3.06)
I came across a website in which the ongoing interest in
geocentricity was briefly referred to as follows "The geocentric movement is not dead today. Martin
Selbrade(sp), who lives in Calif, is a scholarly one. He has
debated men from ICR. Also several men from Cleveland,
Ohio are geocentrists, including at least one who has a Ph.D
in astronomy. When Ken Ham was in Newark, DE several
years ago, I asked him if he was familiar with the geocentric
view. He said, Yes, that he had all their books and spoke very
well of the view. However, he said he could not push it as he
already has his hands full combating evolution. Also a British
scientist, a Christian, wrote a book on creation, where the last
chapter makes some strong suggestions as to the validity of
geocentrism. His name is Malcolm Bowden.
[MB-This is in "True Science Agrees with the Bible" - the last
APPENDIX - and I am not a qualified "scientist", nor a "Dr."
as I have been addressed at times!]
What is so interesting about the Bowden book is that Duane
Gish wrote the foreword! The author told me that he was
surprised that Duane would write such an article in view of
what he said in that last chapter about geocentricity. So in
view of these two instances, it is possible, even likely, that
Ham/Gish and company may be taking a less severe view of
geocentricity than what was true perhaps as recently as 10
years ago. So in my mind, I am not at all certain that this
ancient view is so fantastic after all. There are a number of
websites dealing with this, so I get the impression that the
view is very much alive, but not adopted yet by very many
people. Oh, yes, the name of the Cleveland Ph.D is Gerardus
D. Bouw. His fellow cohort is James M. Hansen, who teaches
in Cleveland also.
Professor Philip Stott, who lives in South Africa, has made at
least seven trips to Russian universities, teaching geocentrism
there where it is welcomed. Ironically, the Christian groups in
Russia will not allow him to speak to them. Only the secular
schools will.
________________________________
Malcolm Bowden.
25.9.99
RETURN TO CREATION START PAGE
TO THE NEXT CREATION PAGE - "Ape-men"
reconstructions
RETURN TO THE INDEX PAGE