Re: [asa] geocentricity

As indicated several times in the past few years, I have a strong interest
in modern geocentricity (much information comes up with a google search),
and am right now completing an essay about it to be part of a collection on
the history of the "two books" (nature and scripture) metaphor. I'll try
not to be too lengthy in my responses below.

Ted

>>> "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net> 7/4/2007 8:44 PM >>>
Wayne made a few comments that triggered some questions in my mind. The ASA
office has been receiving a steady stream of documents from the geocentric
society folks. Perhaps the historians of science on this list can help
explicate a few questions.

1. What was the data cited as evidence for geocentricity prior to the
Kepler/Copernicus era? Would it qualify as a "data-verified theory" as we
think of it today?

In one sense (a legitimate one), *everything we observe* about the heavens
and the earth prior to telescopes supported geocentrism. Everything, at
least everything I can think of right now. Especially, it's blatantly
obvious to anyone that the earth is neither rotating on its axis once/day.
The ancients knew how large the earth is--its circumference was measured
pretty well by the third century BC--and they realized that a spinning earth
had crazy, counterintuitive implications that contradict common sense and
ordinary observations. It's just not possible to believe that someone in
the temperate parts of the globe is going hundreds of mph, is it?
Copernicus thought the earth orbited in a circle of radius ca. 10 million
miles, a far cry from our modern number of 93 million miles, but even his
"small" number gives an orbital speed of several thousand mph, on top of the
already incredible diurnal rotation.

All heavenly motions known to the ancients can be understood in terms of
the "obvious" fact that the earth is at rest, with the immense sphere of
fixed stars turning round us. The details of some phenomena require great
sophistication to explain fully, but great sophistication usually goes along
with sciences that try to get it right.

2. What is today the most direct and simplest data/observation that proves
heliocentricity? What was the first such argument?

Nothing "proves" heliocentricity, not yet. No one has yet gone "above" the
plane of the solar system, looked down on it for a few decades, and sent us
the video. Even that could be made consistent, perhaps, with some
sophisticated version of geocentricity via relativity of motion.

The first arguments for heliocentrism were probably those of Aristarchus of
Samos (see wikipedia for more). His views were not convincing to virtually
everyone, for many reasons including common sense and the inability to
observe parallax.

The fact that stars do have an annual parallax goes along perfectly with
heliocentrism, and Copernicans tried really hard to observe it for nearly
300 years before it was actually seen for sure (1838). It can be given an
"ad hoc" explanation in terms of geocentricity, of course, but it falls out
naturally from Copernican assumptions. Did this "prove" Copernicanism in
1838? No, since virtually all astronomers believed heliocentrism at that
point, despite the absence of observed parallax. IMO, what made converts of
most of them was Newtonian physics, which had arisen explicitly within a
Copernican context/mindset and which was so obviously accurate for
explaining so many things--including things that only really make sense (in
a non ad-hoc way) within a Copernican model, such as the oblate spherical
shape of the earth (owing to its rotation) and Kepler's laws. Within
Newtonian physics, which looks true independently of heliocentrism, it makes
no sense for the earth *not* to orbit the massive sun, and the obverse is
absurd.

3. What is today the most direct and simplest data/observation that shows
the earth rotates on its axis? Was Foucault's demonstration of the
latitude-dependence of the coriolis force the first such evidence?

Foucaut's demonstration is impressive, and probably convincing to most of
those sophisticated enough to understand the difficult physics behind it.
(The modern geocentrists are very sophisticated, and they do not find it
convincing.) As for the famous pendulum, it knocks down a full circle of
pins only at the poles, and at the equator it doesn't topple any pins at
all, but stays put. This is not a simple phenomenon. Someone living at the
equator might justifiably claim that the pendulum proves geocentrism.

I think that Newton's discussion of the tides and shape of the earth are
pretty convincing of the earth's rotation, myself. Long before Foucault.

The overall issue, IMO, has to do with "proof" and "truth." The truth
cannot always be "proved" in some rigorous manner that defeats all
counterarguments. Very often I suspect this is the case. Modern
geocentrists know a lot of science and are pretty smart. They seem to have
higher standards of "proof" than science can meet. Likewise, higher
standards of literalness in biblical interpretation. Thus, Gerardus Bouw
thinks that the principle of accommodation, even as found in Calvin, is a
path to atheism.

ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 5 10:13:09 2007