THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY

7/29/2019 THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY

1/7

9/19/13 geocexpl.htm

homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm

RETURN TO CREATION START PAGE

INDEX PAGE

NEXT CREATION PAGE - "Ape-men" reconstructions

VIDEO OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING GEOCENTRICITY

I have made a 23 min. video of the scientific evidence supporting geocentricity. This can be viewed NOW by clicking

on the following link below. When in that page, click the bottom left arrow buttons to start, stop and pause. To return

later to see the rest of video, drag the small blue button at the bottom to go to the stage you want to see from. To

return to this page hit the "Back Button" at the top left hand corner of the site. (If the page does not appear, go to the

strip at the top of the page referring to security, click on the line and disable one or more of the security blocks

mentioned.)

Geocentricity Video - 23 mins.

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY

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 earthrotating 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
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Aprecon.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/creatp1.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/geocenvid.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Aprecon.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/creatp1.htm


2/7



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 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


3/7



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 thisexperiment 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 Michelson-Morley 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.

(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'sexperiment. 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 well-written 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


4/7



density" - it is extremely dense and the sun and planets are like corks in very dense water comparatively. 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 earthcarrying 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 i

found. Strips of galaxies in long chains are obvious and they are ALL roughly centred on the earth. This is far greaterthan 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.

The "walls of galaxies" centred upon the earth. Fig. Varshni's rings of quasars.


5/7



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 observe

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 da

four to centre on the earth as a sign of the earth's special importance in the universe - and for the bafflement ofmodern, 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 SwitzerlandMouesca (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."

___________________________


6/7



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. Inthe "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 inview 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.


7/7



25.9.99

RETURN TO CREATION START PAGE

TO THE NEXT CREATION PAGE - "Ape-men" reconstructions

RETURN TO THE INDEX PAGE
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Aprecon.htmhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/creatp1.htm

Documents

THE BASIC SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS FOR GEOCENTRICITY