> Abstract: I comment on John Turnbull's recent posting on geocentrism,
> Glenn's response to same, and attempt to relate this, and recent
> discussions on geocentrism, to questions of scientific vs. theological
> explanations, and to the TE vs. PC debate.
>
> I will attempt some comments:
>
> a) There is an important difference between two "equivalent models" (such
> as I have been discussing in my earlier postings on geocentrism), which
> explain the same data in two equivalent ways, and two "NONequivalent
> models (such as the finite-and-unbounded and finite-and-bounded models),
> which predict different types of data.
>
> b) If no life exists outside the confines of the earth, then under the
> finite-and-bounded model all possible observers would be in the center of
> the universe, where (I gather from John's comments) no observational
> difference between the two models can be seen. If so, there WOULD be a
> sense in which one could properly view the two models as "observationally
> equivalent" - from a human perspective.
Actually, the two models are the standard Big Bang model (BB) and Russ's White
Hole Cosmology model (WHC). These two models are respectively based on a
finite-and-unbounded vs finite-and-bounded universe, but there's more
to it than that. I didn't explain all that in the first post. It would
have been too long. :-)
These two models (BB and WHC) are observationally equivalent only as far as
interpreting light coming from the most distant stars. However, since the
WHC model suggests that the earth and planets close to the earth are only
a few tens of thousands of years old, it is not observationally equivalent
to other observations, such as Rb/Sr, U/Pb, etc. estimates for the age of
the earth.
> c) When, in point 3 above, John states "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," I gather that he is mixing the two models.
> Presumably, the stars that are "billion of light years away" refers to
> the finite-and-unbounded model (the one that holds sway today), and the "a
> few tens of thousand years old" refers to the finite-and-bounded model.
No. Humphreys appeals to general relativity to show that clocks operating
on earth in a WHC since the beginning of time have elapsed a few tens of
thousands of years, whereas clocks operating on the most distant stars have
elapsed billions of years. This is due to the GR effect of clocks running
slower in high gravitational fields. This is demonstrated all the time by
clocks placed in satellites which are designed to run a little slower
(while they are on earth) than the ground station clocks, otherwise they
desynchronize when they put them up in space.
An other clarification is in order. Russ's model is quite different from the
strict geocentric models of Hanson, Bouw, etc. Hanson, Bouw, etc. are
strict geocentrists. They believe the earth is at the very center of the
universe and that the entire universe revolves around the world once every day.
They also do NOT believe in the special or general theories of relativity.
Russ Humphreys, on the other hand, is not a strict geocentrist and appeals
to the general theory of relativity to explain the apparent discrepancy of
observing light from objects billions of light-years away from a YEC
perspective. I mentioned Russ Humphreys because I thought it germane to
the original posts that questioned whether geocentrists are a small and
diminishing fringe element of the YEC community or not. The spirit of my
post is to say that the strict geocentrists are a small fringe element
that are perhaps growing slightly. On the other hand, I think that Russ's
influence may bring a resurgence of a less strict form of geocentrism that
could perhaps be more properly called anthropocentricism.
I hope I wasn't misunderstood in the first post as seeming to defend to
geocentrism because I belive it. I don't. However, having been exposed
to it (more than I care to have, with my advisor a geocentrist), I have
come to the realization that the cosmologies (and world views in general)
are more than a synthesis of the empirical. There are philosophical
presuppossitions and these presuppositions may influence our scientific
objectivity more than we care to admit.
But to be quite honest, the geocentric issue gives me the willies. It plays
into the "standard caracature" that Phillip Johnson talks about when he
refers to the scientific communities response to creationists. Citations of
geocentric fringe elements within the creationist community is an attempt to
marginalize creationists as flat-earthers. Creationists often respond in
kind by citing eugenics fringe elements of the scientific community such as
Lothrup Stoddard - Harvard anthropologist and author of such works as
_The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy_. I see little hope
of conflict resolution with efforts like these resulting in greater
polarization.
-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