My name is John Turnbull. I am a mathematician. I work in the neurology
dept. at the Cleveland Clinic. I've been lurking on this reflector for
several months. I enjoy the discussions but never intended to participate -
I don't have the time. But I couldn't resist with the topic of geocentricity.
James Hanson was my advisor when I was an undergraduate at Cleveland State U.
Please don't hold that against me. I AM NOT A GEOCENTRIST!!
A few comments I have on the subject:
1) James Hanson does not have an earned Ph.D. although he was promoted
to full professor because of his long established history of quality
publications in his area of numerical methods and symbolic manipulation
languages.
2) The current cosmology is technically NOT heliocentric. No modern astronomer
believes the sun is the center of the universe. The sun is one of many stars
orbiting about our galaxy and the galaxy itself is not at the center.
Current cosmology is acentric.
3) Decisive refutation of geocentricity is not as obvious as it may seem.
Appeal to disconfirmations from general relativity theory is circular because
the two propositions that lead to the development of the theory of relativity
are a) the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all observed frames of
reference and b) the Newtonian laws of physics are observed in all inertial
frames of reference. The first of these is the conclusion of the
Michelson-Morley experiment. But there are two possible conclusions of this
experiment a) there is no ether or b) there is an ether and our speed relative
to it is zero. Hence the theory of relativity presumes non-geocentricity.
The investigators chose the first since they presumed a-priori that we are
NOT fixed at the center of the universe (or least fixed with respect to an ether).
Arguments made from classical mechanics (Foucault's pendulum, geosynchronised
satellite orbits, etc. are also reasonably answered).
4) Planning a trip to the moon CAN be done with a geocentric model. In fact,
Ernst Mach worked out the physics as to how it could be done. He, of course,
was not a geocentrist, but proposed a model for how one could approach the
problem from a geocentric perspective.
5) I suspect there may be an increase in geocentricity in the YEC community.
Russel Humphreys has written a book recently titled _Starlight and Time_.
Russ has proposed an intriguing explanation of how it is possible for us
to observe stars billions of light years away on an earth not more than a
few tens of thousands of years old. Russ has revived an earlier cosmology
that was considered and later abandoned in favor of our current model.
The current cosmology is NOT an infinite Cartesian space with a uniform
distribution of stars everywhere. The current cosmology is a finite
non-Euclidean universe which Einstein modeled using Riemannian field tensors.
In short, these tensors mathematically describe gravitational distortions in
space. Earlier applications of general relativity to model the universe lead
Einstein et. al. to conclude that there are two meaningful models of our
universe. One is finite and bounded the other is finite and unbounded.
In the finite-and-bounded approach, one would not expect to see a uniform
distribution of stars in all directions (assuming stars are more or less
uniformly distributed throughout) unless one were at or near the geometric
center of the universe. If one were near one end of the universe, the stars
towards that edge would be less dense than in the opposite direction.
The other model is that the universe is finite and unbounded and that we
are all on the surface of a 3 dimensional space expanding in 4-space.
In this model, stars would look reasonably uniform in all directions regardless
of where one observes because light from stars on the other end of the universe
would curve all the way around in reach us from the other side. The first of
these approaches was too anthropocentric and was therefore discarded for a-priori
philosophical reasons. In fact, it is known as the *Cosmological Principle*
or more recently the *Copernican Principle*. In Hawking's words: "However
we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of
ideology....Indeed we are now so democratic that we would not claim our
position in space is specially distinguished in any way. We shall, following
Bondi, call this assumption the Copernican principle." [Large Scale Structure
of Space-Time], 1973, Cambridge Press, Hawkings and Ellis.
So if Humphrey's model is correct, then we are either at or near the center
of a finite universe because we do see a reasonably uniform distribution of
stars in all directions.
So here is my question: Let us assume for the sake of argument that Russell
Humphreys' model stands the test of time and offers a viable alternative.
It is reasonable to see why non-theists would reject the finite-and-bounded
for anti-anthropocentric biases, but should Christians also reject it
for the same philosophical reasons, and why? There may very well be a
choice in anthropocentric/anti-anthropocentric models, but there doesn't,
at present, seem to be any choice of accepting an anthropic universe.
I therefore, don't see the anti-anthropocentric view being empirically
convincing.
In some ways, I hesitate in introducing myself with this post, because I
am NOT a geocentric but I am curious as to what others believe is a reasonable
Christian view regarding anthropocentricism and the anthropic principle.
-jpt
--John P. Turnbull (jpt@ccfadm.eeg.ccf.org)Cleveland Clinic FoundationDept. of Neurology, Section of Neurological ComputingM52-119500 Euclid Ave.Cleveland Ohio 44195Telephone (216) 444-8041; FAX (216) 444-9401