Geocentrism article, scan converted to text

The pages were scanned into text: there are errors:

The below text is the content of the file embedded above.

----------------------------------

Greek Cosmology: Geometry of the Universe

The first "scientific" model (i.e. based more on observation than

on myth ology) of th e universe was that of a flat Earth and a

hemispherical sky covering it. The "scientific" idea that geometry and

numbers are clues to understanding natural phenomena originated with

Pythagoras. He considered the sphere to be the most "perfect"

geometrical shape. Further, he assumed that, as the Creator is perfect,

and as geometry and nature are related, G-d would create a

"perfect"(i.e. spherical) Earth. Inde ed, Anaximander had deduced, from

observations of the stars, that the Earth is spherical. In addition,

Anaximander had reasoned that if the Earth is spherical, the sky must

also be spherical (rather than hemispherical) in order to cover it.

The Earth and sky were both found to have "the most perfect

shape". As a result,the Pythagorean idea of the connection beteen

nature and geometry received strong impetus. The reasoning of the

ancient Greeks was approximately as follows: since G-d is "perfect",

one should expect G-dly activity to manifest itself through "perfect"

geometrical figures. From this, it follows "logically" that the

"G-dly" celestial bodies are perfectly spherical or circular, are

embedded into spherical shells, and that these spheres revolve about

the earth so that the celestial bodies have exactly circular orbits.

Accordingly, Pythagoras extended Anaximander's ideas in order to

account for all celestial motion as "circular" or "spherical" motion.

He introduced the idea of the spheres as carriers of the heavenly

bodies so that the observed motion of the celestial bodies was

"explained" by of the circular motions of the spheres which bore them.

The "sphere" system was improved by Aristotle, "perfected" by

Ptolemy, and remained the accepted system until Copernicus.

{Fig. 2}

The Permanence and Unchanging Nature of the Celestial Bodies

The celestial bodies were considered to be "perfect" in every way:

as such they were "of necessity" unchanging and permanent.

The Luminance of the Celestial Bodies

The moon was of course observed to change shape from circular to

crescent, and this was correctly related to the fact that the moon

shines only due to its reflection of the sun's light. Thus it was

accepted that the moon, although perfectly spherical, appeared in

different shapes depending on its position. However, the other

celestial bodies were considered to be perfectly circular and they were

also believed to shine on their own, as befits "heavenly" bodies.

The Motion of the Celestial Bodies: Proof of their Vitality

Before Galileo discovered the law of inertia, it was not known

that bodies in motion would remain in motion -- and that the only

reason this was not evident on Earth is (only) because the friction

with other entities interferes to slow down and stop moving bodies.

Thus the fact that the celestial bodies constantly move without

stopping was attributed either to the "fact" that G-d or the angels was

"pushing" them, or to the "fact" that they were living beings which

moved of their own will! In addition, before Newton's Law of

Gravitation, it was not known that the orbiting of one body about

another was due to the same force of gravity which pulled objects on

earth and caused them to "fall", and that the circular motion of

orbiting bodies resulted from the falling motion itself. Thus, just as

the fact that these bodies were able to maintain continuous motion was

attributed to the fact that they had life, so too "fact" that the

form of this motion was that of a perfect circle was attributed to

their desire to please G-d!

The Old Cosmology

In order to understand why the findings of Copernicus et alia

seemed such a threat to religion, one must understand the

mind-set of that time. Generally speaking, all people accepted the

existence of some sort of supernatural power as fact. There was no

knowledge of science, and thus all phenemona were attributed to

directly willed action rather than to the "automatic" interplay of

matter/energy according to certain fixed "natural" laws. Thus, the

structure, properties and motion of the celestial bodies were

considered to result directly from the Will of G-d rather than from

G-d's natural law.

The Attribution of Aristotle's Cosmology to the Bible

Indeed, Aristotle himself believed that the "heavenly bodies" were

intelligent living beings! Since Aristotle's "logic" was considered

impeccable and unimpeachable, this was the accepted view until the

scientific age. Even more so, since the theologians accepted this

theory as well, they endeavored to show that the Bible predicted it!

Their purported motivation was to interpret the Bible in the truest way

they knew how. To them, the only valid interpretation of a biblical

passage was the strictly literal one. However, because of their heavy

Aristotelian influence, they endeavored to show that the literal

meaning was in conformity with Aristotelian philosophy. Specifically,

those passages having bearing on the structure of the universe were

interpreted by them in accordance with Aristotelian cosmology. Among

these were passages telling of the separation of the "heavenly waters",

the "spreading of the sky as a curtain" and so on. Since these passages

were interpreted absolutely literallym the Church came into violent

conflict with early Renaissance astronomers who claimed that these

descriptions were incorrect. Thus, this theory became dogma in the

Church. Due to this, astronomical theories contradicting Aristotle's

theory were seen as contradictions of the Bible, and therefore as

heresy.

The Double Resistance of the Church

In the Middle Ages and indeed until the modern age, the Europe of

Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo was essentially ruled by the Church.

Indeed, the European universities were essentially intellectual

training-centers for priests. Thus, new ideas in the field of science

came up against a twofold obstacle: the possibility of a claim that

they contradicted religious teachings of the Church; and the natural

hostility of the establishment (Church) scholars to any new theory

which threatened their accepted scientific views (which were mostly

based on ancient Greek philosophy). However, not only did the priests

have a double reason to fight certain new ideas, they also had the

power to suppress these ideas through the might of the Church! This

inevitably led to conflict between the Church and those who championed

any new ideas which were potentially controversial.

The Church's Objections to Copernican Theory : Background

The Church was opposed to Copernicus's ideas on two levels:

theologically, because they seemed to contradict a literal

interpretation of Scripture, and intellectually, because they

contradicted Aristotle's theories. However, theologians claimed that

the only source of Truth was the Bible. Thus they claimed that the

Bible contained/espoused/predicted Aristotle's cosmology. [5] As a

result, any attack on Aristotelian cosmology was considered an assault

against the Bible. Thus, the intellectual and theological objections

to Copernicus' ideas were often one and the same.

For example, the following verses:

[Note 4B] ‑òôÄ çâéÑ èâÅÖ íâóòå öáöé òôÄ çâéÑ èâÅ åÉÅâÖ íâóòÑ öÄ Ñ ôíâÖ

(Ü;Ä öâôÄòÅ) íâóòå åíé­

‑óÉã ÑàÖêÑ çâÅÇáã ÑâÅôâÖ ïòÄÑ ÇÖá-åí ÅôâÑ ;ïòÄÑ öÖÉëÖé çöÖêâÅÑ ÄÖåÑ

(Åã-Äã ;é Ñâíôâ) öÅôå åÑÄã çáöéâÖ çâéô­

‑(Ñ;Ä öåÑó) çô ÄÖÑ áòÖÜ ìÄÖô ÖéÖóé-åÄÖ ôéôÑ ÄÅÖ ôéôÑ áòÜÖ­‑­‑­

The very idea that the Earth could be moving and spinning was

considered by many to be absurd, since it was felt that this could not

possibly go unnoticed by its inhabitants. In fact, at the rotational

speed predicted by the Copernican theory, approximately 1000 miles per

hour, it was thought that the Earth would break into pieces which would

go flying off into the void! And who could believe that the Earth was

hurtling through space at over 65,000 miles per hour! Yet, as

Copernicus pointed out, if the Earth did not move at these speeds, then

the spheres must be moving at even greater speeds, since they would

have to traverse the entire circumference of the heavens in only 24

hours! Nevertheless, before Galileo and Newton explained the idea of

inertia, it was virtually impossible for mot people to believe that the

Earth could move at such fantastic speeds without man noticing it. In

addition, there were scriptural passages which seemed to imply that the

Earth was indeed stationary:

‑(Ñ ;Éó çâåâÑö) ÉíÖ çåÖí àÖéö åÅ ÑâêÖãé åí ïòÄ Éëâ­ ([G-d] has

established the Earth on its foundations so that it should not ever collapse

[Psalms 104]).

‑(Ñ:Ä öåÑó) çô ÄÖÑ áòÖÜ ìÄÖô ÖéÖóé åÄÖ ôéôÑ ÄÅÖ ôéôÑ áòÜÖ­ The sun rises

and the sun goes down and hastens to its place where it rises again

[Ecclesiastes 1:5]).

……

Until a few hundred years ago, the accepted views on cosmology

were based on those of the ancient Greeks. It was believed that the

Earth was at the center of the universe, the rest of which rotated

about the stationary Earth. This is termed the "geocentric" view of

cosmology. In addition, they believed the universe was finite. Many

believed that the Earth was flat.

{Fig. 1}

Indeed, without the relatively modern methodology of careful scientific

analysis these are the most reasonable conclusions to an observer on

Earth to make. Actually, however, none of these conclusions are correct.

The New Cosmology and the Church

Modern scientific cosmology essentially began with Copernicus

(1473-1543). His cosmology, as refined by Kepler and Galileo was

explained by Newton (1642-1747). During this 200 year period the

Church fought (with varying vigor) these new theories and declared them

to be heresies. When these theories eventually triumphed, the Church's

view was of course discredited.

Consequences of the Conflict

As a consequence of the conflict, science and religion were seen

by many as being inimical to each other. Since science was able to

prove its points by experiment and religion was not, science began to

win out and religion to weaken. Indeed, for many people today belief in

science is considered a reason for disbelief in religion. In addition,

since the Church attempted to use the Bible as proof against the new

cosmological theories, when the Church lost the fight, the Bible was

considered to have lost as well. Thus was begun the long process of

the "discrediting" of the divine origin of the Bible which continues

yet today.

*** don't throw out***

The issue of geocentrism versus non-geocentrism became a symbol of the

entire conflict, and still today seems to characterize it in the minds

of most people. We continue this usage here, and for ease in referring

to the opposing theories we refer to them in general simply as

"geocentrism" and "non-geocentrism", even where the position of the

earth is not the only issue.

[Note 3] All my conclusions are based on accepted ideas. The physics

and the analogies used to illustrate the technical concepts discussed

are in no way my own original work. However, of course the analysis

and conclusions are my own; thus, although I cannot claim that these

conclusions are "accepted ideas of physics", they are nevertheless

solidly based on such accepted ideas, and are therefore scientifically

valid.

***

***d0n't throw out*** [Note 4] Although, as stated before, the

physics concepts are not new, they are nevertheless far from widely

known even to most physicists, and the relevant literature is mostly

inaccessible to the non-expert. Thus, a simplified treatment of the

relevant material is given in the body of the article in order that

this paper be both self-contained and comprehensible to non-experts in

the field. Some material of less direct importance is relegated to the

notes and appendices. ***

This paper intends to analyze possible areas of conflict

existing today between Judaism and cosmology -- and to resolve any

such "conflict". Obviously, since Judaism is not Christianity,

the issues which bothered the Church do not necessarily contradict

Judaism. Nevertheless some issues involve both religions; issues

relating to the Torah itself (which forms part of the

Christian Scriptures as well) and certain philosophical ideas of

religion which were accepted by both Christian and Jewish theologians.

Philosophical concepts change with time both a reflection of the

general spirit of each generation and a result of the accumulated

knowledge bequeathed by previous generations. Thus, when we

speak of the historical conflict between science and religion, we

must realize that not only has science been changing, but so have

philosophical ideas. As a result of the changes on both sides, the

areas of conflict have also changed. Indeed some of the most

controversial issues raised by the Church's conflict with astronomers

are quite irrelevant nowadays both to theologicans and to

scientists. Nevertheless conflict itself has left a lasting

impression of the "defeat of religion by science".

The only way to counter this "impression" is to analyze the

historical issues, even if they are now irrelevant, and to show clearly

that not only are they indeed irrelevant to religion today, but that

they were irrelevant to religion even then. That is, to show that the

historical conflict was not betweeen religion and cosmology, but

between theologians and cosmology. This would then correct the

impression that religion was defeated by science, and was forced to

adapt in order to survive. Instead, it would be seen that science

simply forced some theologians to stop making false statements in the

name of religion -- and that once they refrained from incorrectly

mixing pseudo-science with religion, all conflict with science

disappeared.

Thus, if one wishes to resolve any apparent conflicts which may exist

today between Judaism and cosmology, one must consider the historical

Church-astronomy conflict as well. We begin with a discussion of Greek

cosmology, which formed the basis for the medieval Church cosmology.

…..

Bibliography

Armitage, Angus. The World of Copernicus, NY, Mentor, 1952. ben

Barzilai, Yehuda. Commentary on Sefer Yetzira, ed. Halberstamm,

Berlin: Mekitze Nirdamim, 1885, pp. 171-3. Callahan, JJ. "The

Curvature of Space in a Finite Universe", Scientific American, Aug.

1976 Carmell, Aryeh and Domb, Cyril (eds). Challenge: Torah Views on

Science and its Problems, Jerusalem-NY: Feldheim, 1975. Crescas,

Hisdai. Commentary on Sefer Yetzirah. d'Espagnat, Bernard. "Quantum

Theory and Reality", Scientific American, Nov. 1979, pp. 128-140, see

p. 140. Dreyer, J.L.E. A History of Astronomy, USA: Dover, 1953.

Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity, third edition, 1950.

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. "Copernicus" (by NR Hanson). Godel,

K. Rev Mod Physics, issue 21, 1949, p. 447. Grunbaum, Adolph.

"Philosophical Problems of Space and Time" H. Houl and H. Dehnen. Z.

Phys. 171, 178 (1963)

" " " " " Nature, 196, p. 362 (1962)

Jammer, Max. "Concepts of Space", Harper, 1960.

Lerner, LS and Gosselin, EA. Scientific American, vol. 228, no. 4, April 1973.

Lovejoy, A.

ben Maimon, Moses (Rambam or Maimonides). Guide for the Perplexed.

ben Maimon, Moses. Sefer Ha'mada.

Munitz, MM (ed.). Theories of the Universe. See article by JLE Dreyer.

Ne'eman, Yuval (ed.) To Fulfill a Vision, Addison Wesley, 1981. See

article by Nathan Rosen and its bibliography.

I. Oszvath and EI Schucking. Ann Phys. 55, 166 (1969)

" " " " " Nature, 193, p.1168 (1962)

Reichenbach, Hans. The Philosophy of Space and Time, NY: Dover, 1958.

Shklovskii, IS and Sagan, C. Intelligent Life in the Universe, NY: Dell, 1966

Thiel, Rudolph. And there was Light, NY: Mentor, 1962.

The Conflict Thesis and Cosmology, Open University Press, UK.

For excellent elementary discussion of absolute space, see:

Davies, PCW. Space and Time in the Modern Universe, Cambridge

University Press, 1977.

Berry, Michael. Principles of Cosmology and Gravitation.

For a theory of gravity in conformity with Mach's principle, see:

Sciama, DW. "Inertia", Scientific American, Feb. 1957.

……..

GEOCENTRISM

by Dr. Avi Rabinowitz

------------------------------

Avi Rabinowitz was born in Baltimore in 1955 and raised in

Montreal, Canada. He studied at Merkaz Ha'Torah Yeshiva where his

father, Rabbi Mordecai Rabinowitz, a musmach of the Mir Yeshiva of

Europe and Shanghai, was a Rosh Yeshiva and Principle. His paternal

grandfather was known as the Zabliner Rav. His maternal grandfather

was Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim in Baltimore, Maryland for

50 years until he settled with his wife in Eretz Yisrael.

After Avi came to Israel to study at Yeshivat Itri, his parents

made aliya and settled in Jerusalem. There he completed a BS in

Electro-Optics at the Jerusalem College of Technology. While

completing a PhD in Theoretical Physics at New York University,

Rabinowitz was a teaching fellow there and also taught physics and

astronomy at the City University of New York, Rutgers and Cooper Union.

Since returning to Jerusalem this year he has been devoting time to

writing on Jewish ideas and Torah-and-science themes. He hopes to

publish these writings, with G-d's help, in book form.

----------------------------------

Until a few hundred years ago, the accepted views on cosmology

were based on those of the ancient Greeks. It was believed that the

Earth was at the center of the universe, the rest of which rotated

about the stationary Earth. This is termed the "geocentric" view of

cosmology. In addition, they believed the universe was finite. Many

believed that the Earth was flat.

{Fig. 1}

Indeed, without the relatively modern methodology of careful scientific

analysis these are the most reasonable conclusions to an observer on

Earth to make. Actually, however, none of these conclusions are correct.

The New Cosmology and the Church

Modern scientific cosmology essentially began with Copernicus

(1473-1543). His cosmology, as refined by Kepler and Galileo was

explained by Newton (1642-1747). During this 200 year period the

Church fought (with varying vigor) these new theories and declared them

to be heresies. When these theories eventually triumphed, the Church's

view was of course discredited.

Consequences of the Conflict

As a consequence of the conflict, science and religion were seen

by many as being inimical to each other. Since science was able to

prove its points by experiment and religion was not, science began to

win out and religion to weaken. Indeed, for many people today belief in

science is considered a reason for disbelief in religion. In addition,

since the Church attempted to use the Bible as proof against the new

cosmological theories, when the Church lost the fight, the Bible was

considered to have lost as well. Thus was begun the long process of

the "discrediting" of the divine origin of the Bible which continues

yet today.

*** don't throw out***

The issue of geocentrism versus non-geocentrism became a symbol of the

entire conflict, and still today seems to characterize it in the minds

of most people. We continue this usage here, and for ease in referring

to the opposing theories we refer to them in general simply as

"geocentrism" and "non-geocentrism", even where the position of the

earth is not the only issue.

[Note 3] All my conclusions are based on accepted ideas. The physics

and the analogies used to illustrate the technical concepts discussed

are in no way my own original work. However, of course the analysis

and conclusions are my own; thus, although I cannot claim that these

conclusions are "accepted ideas of physics", they are nevertheless

solidly based on such accepted ideas, and are therefore scientifically

valid.

***

***d0n't throw out*** [Note 4] Although, as stated before, the

physics concepts are not new, they are nevertheless far from widely

known even to most physicists, and the relevant literature is mostly

inaccessible to the non-expert. Thus, a simplified treatment of the

relevant material is given in the body of the article in order that

this paper be both self-contained and comprehensible to non-experts in

the field. Some material of less direct importance is relegated to the

notes and appendices. ***

This paper intends to analyze possible areas of conflict

existing today between Judaism and cosmology -- and to resolve any

such "conflict". Obviously, since Judaism is not Christianity,

the issues which bothered the Church do not necessarily contradict

Judaism. Nevertheless some issues involve both religions; issues

relating to the Torah itself (which forms part of the

Christian Scriptures as well) and certain philosophical ideas of

religion which were accepted by both Christian and Jewish theologians.

Philosophical concepts change with time both a reflection of the

general spirit of each generation and a result of the accumulated

knowledge bequeathed by previous generations. Thus, when we

speak of the historical conflict between science and religion, we

must realize that not only has science been changing, but so have

philosophical ideas. As a result of the changes on both sides, the

areas of conflict have also changed. Indeed some of the most

controversial issues raised by the Church's conflict with astronomers

are quite irrelevant nowadays both to theologicans and to

scientists. Nevertheless conflict itself has left a lasting

impression of the "defeat of religion by science".

The only way to counter this "impression" is to analyze the

historical issues, even if they are now irrelevant, and to show clearly

that not only are they indeed irrelevant to religion today, but that

they were irrelevant to religion even then. That is, to show that the

historical conflict was not betweeen religion and cosmology, but

between theologians and cosmology. This would then correct the

impression that religion was defeated by science, and was forced to

adapt in order to survive. Instead, it would be seen that science

simply forced some theologians to stop making false statements in the

name of religion -- and that once they refrained from incorrectly

mixing pseudo-science with religion, all conflict with science

disappeared.

Thus, if one wishes to resolve any apparent conflicts which may exist

today between Judaism and cosmology, one must consider the historical

Church-astronomy conflict as well. We begin with a discussion of Greek

cosmology, which formed the basis for the medieval Church cosmology.

…..

GEOCENTRISM

by Dr. Avi Rabinowitz

------------------------------

Avi Rabinowitz was born in Baltimore in 1955 and raised in

Montreal, Canada. He studied at Merkaz Ha'Torah Yeshiva where his

father, Rabbi Mordecai Rabinowitz, a musmach of the Mir Yeshiva of

Europe and Shanghai, was a Rosh Yeshiva and Principle. His paternal

grandfather was known as the Zabliner Rav. His maternal grandfather

was Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim in Baltimore, Maryland for

50 years until he settled with his wife in Eretz Yisrael.

After Avi came to Israel to study at Yeshivat Itri, his parents

made aliya and settled in Jerusalem. There he completed a BS in

Electro-Optics at the Jerusalem College of Technology. While

completing a PhD in Theoretical Physics at New York University,

Rabinowitz was a teaching fellow there and also taught physics and

astronomy at the City University of New York, Rutgers and Cooper Union.

Since returning to Jerusalem this year he has been devoting time to

writing on Jewish ideas and Torah-and-science themes. He hopes to

publish these writings, with G-d's help, in book form.

----------------------------------

Until a few hundred years ago, the accepted views on cosmology

were based on those of the ancient Greeks. It was believed that the

Earth was at the center of the universe, the rest of which rotated

about the stationary Earth. This is termed the "geocentric" view of

cosmology. In addition, they believed the universe was finite. Many

believed that the Earth was flat.

{Fig. 1}

Indeed, without the relatively modern methodology of careful scientific

analysis these are the most reasonable conclusions to an observer on

Earth to make. Actually, however, none of these conclusions are correct.

The New Cosmology and the Church

Modern scientific cosmology essentially began with Copernicus

(1473-1543). His cosmology, as refined by Kepler and Galileo was

explained by Newton (1642-1747). During this 200 year period the

Church fought (with varying vigor) these new theories and declared them

to be heresies. When these theories eventually triumphed, the Church's

view was of course discredited.

Consequences of the Conflict

As a consequence of the conflict, science and religion were seen

by many as being inimical to each other. Since science was able to

prove its points by experiment and religion was not, science began to

win out and religion to weaken. Indeed, for many people today belief in

science is considered a reason for disbelief in religion. In addition,

since the Church attempted to use the Bible as proof against the new

cosmological theories, when the Church lost the fight, the Bible was

considered to have lost as well. Thus was begun the long process of

the "discrediting" of the divine origin of the Bible which continues

yet today.

*** don't throw out***

The issue of geocentrism versus non-geocentrism became a symbol of the

entire conflict, and still today seems to characterize it in the minds

of most people. We continue this usage here, and for ease in referring

to the opposing theories we refer to them in general simply as

"geocentrism" and "non-geocentrism", even where the position of the

earth is not the only issue.

[Note 3] All my conclusions are based on accepted ideas. The physics

and the analogies used to illustrate the technical concepts discussed

are in no way my own original work. However, of course the analysis

and conclusions are my own; thus, although I cannot claim that these

conclusions are "accepted ideas of physics", they are nevertheless

solidly based on such accepted ideas, and are therefore scientifically

valid.

***

***d0n't throw out*** [Note 4] Although, as stated before, the

physics concepts are not new, they are nevertheless far from widely

known even to most physicists, and the relevant literature is mostly

inaccessible to the non-expert. Thus, a simplified treatment of the

relevant material is given in the body of the article in order that

this paper be both self-contained and comprehensible to non-experts in

the field. Some material of less direct importance is relegated to the

notes and appendices. ***

This paper intends to analyze possible areas of conflict

existing today between Judaism and cosmology -- and to resolve any

such "conflict". Obviously, since Judaism is not Christianity,

the issues which bothered the Church do not necessarily contradict

Judaism. Nevertheless some issues involve both religions; issues

relating to the Torah itself (which forms part of the

Christian Scriptures as well) and certain philosophical ideas of

religion which were accepted by both Christian and Jewish theologians.

Philosophical concepts change with time both a reflection of the

general spirit of each generation and a result of the accumulated

knowledge bequeathed by previous generations. Thus, when we

speak of the historical conflict between science and religion, we

must realize that not only has science been changing, but so have

philosophical ideas. As a result of the changes on both sides, the

areas of conflict have also changed. Indeed some of the most

controversial issues raised by the Church's conflict with astronomers

are quite irrelevant nowadays both to theologicans and to

scientists. Nevertheless conflict itself has left a lasting

impression of the "defeat of religion by science".

The only way to counter this "impression" is to analyze the

historical issues, even if they are now irrelevant, and to show clearly

that not only are they indeed irrelevant to religion today, but that

they were irrelevant to religion even then. That is, to show that the

historical conflict was not betweeen religion and cosmology, but

between theologians and cosmology. This would then correct the

impression that religion was defeated by science, and was forced to

adapt in order to survive. Instead, it would be seen that science

simply forced some theologians to stop making false statements in the

name of religion -- and that once they refrained from incorrectly

mixing pseudo-science with religion, all conflict with science

disappeared.

Thus, if one wishes to resolve any apparent conflicts which may exist

today between Judaism and cosmology, one must consider the historical

Church-astronomy conflict as well. We begin with a discussion of Greek

cosmology, which formed the basis for the medieval Church cosmology.

……

Greek Cosmology: Geometry of the Universe

The first "scientific" model (i.e. based more on observation than

on myth ology) of th e universe was that of a flat Earth and a

hemispherical sky covering it. The "scientific" idea that geometry and

numbers are clues to understanding natural phenomena originated with

Pythagoras. He considered the sphere to be the most "perfect"

geometrical shape. Further, he assumed that, as the Creator is perfect,

and as geometry and nature are related, G-d would create a

"perfect"(i.e. spherical) Earth. Inde ed, Anaximander had deduced, from

observations of the stars, that the Earth is spherical. In addition,

Anaximander had reasoned that if the Earth is spherical, the sky must

also be spherical (rather than hemispherical) in order to cover it.

The Earth and sky were both found to have "the most perfect

shape". As a result,the Pythagorean idea of the connection beteen

nature and geometry received strong impetus. The reasoning of the

ancient Greeks was approximately as follows: since G-d is "perfect",

one should expect G-dly activity to manifest itself through "perfect"

geometrical figures. From this, it follows "logically" that the

"G-dly" celestial bodies are perfectly spherical or circular, are

embedded into spherical shells, and that these spheres revolve about

the earth so that the celestial bodies have exactly circular orbits.

Accordingly, Pythagoras extended Anaximander's ideas in order to

account for all celestial motion as "circular" or "spherical" motion.

He introduced the idea of the spheres as carriers of the heavenly

bodies so that the observed motion of the celestial bodies was

"explained" by of the circular motions of the spheres which bore them.

The "sphere" system was improved by Aristotle, "perfected" by

Ptolemy, and remained the accepted system until Copernicus.

{Fig. 2}

The Permanence and Unchanging Nature of the Celestial Bodies

The celestial bodies were considered to be "perfect" in every way:

as such they were "of necessity" unchanging and permanent.

The Luminance of the Celestial Bodies

The moon was of course observed to change shape from circular to

crescent, and this was correctly related to the fact that the moon

shines only due to its reflection of the sun's light. Thus it was

accepted that the moon, although perfectly spherical, appeared in

different shapes depending on its position. However, the other

celestial bodies were considered to be perfectly circular and they were

also believed to shine on their own, as befits "heavenly" bodies.

The Motion of the Celestial Bodies: Proof of their Vitality

Before Galileo discovered the law of inertia, it was not known

that bodies in motion would remain in motion -- and that the only

reason this was not evident on Earth is (only) because the friction

with other entities interferes to slow down and stop moving bodies.

Thus the fact that the celestial bodies constantly move without

stopping was attributed either to the "fact" that G-d or the angels was

"pushing" them, or to the "fact" that they were living beings which

moved of their own will! In addition, before Newton's Law of

Gravitation, it was not known that the orbiting of one body about

another was due to the same force of gravity which pulled objects on

earth and caused them to "fall", and that the circular motion of

orbiting bodies resulted from the falling motion itself. Thus, just as

the fact that these bodies were able to maintain continuous motion was

attributed to the fact that they had life, so too "fact" that the

form of this motion was that of a perfect circle was attributed to

their desire to please G-d!

The Old Cosmology

In order to understand why the findings of Copernicus et alia

seemed such a threat to religion, one must understand the

mind-set of that time. Generally speaking, all people accepted the

existence of some sort of supernatural power as fact. There was no

knowledge of science, and thus all phenemona were attributed to

directly willed action rather than to the "automatic" interplay of

matter/energy according to certain fixed "natural" laws. Thus, the

structure, properties and motion of the celestial bodies were

considered to result directly from the Will of G-d rather than from

G-d's natural law.

The Attribution of Aristotle's Cosmology to the Bible

Indeed, Aristotle himself believed that the "heavenly bodies" were

intelligent living beings! Since Aristotle's "logic" was considered

impeccable and unimpeachable, this was the accepted view until the

scientific age. Even more so, since the theologians accepted this

theory as well, they endeavored to show that the Bible predicted it!

Their purported motivation was to interpret the Bible in the truest way

they knew how. To them, the only valid interpretation of a biblical

passage was the strictly literal one. However, because of their heavy

Aristotelian influence, they endeavored to show that the literal

meaning was in conformity with Aristotelian philosophy. Specifically,

those passages having bearing on the structure of the universe were

interpreted by them in accordance with Aristotelian cosmology. Among

these were passages telling of the separation of the "heavenly waters",

the "spreading of the sky as a curtain" and so on. Since these passages

were interpreted absolutely literallym the Church came into violent

conflict with early Renaissance astronomers who claimed that these

descriptions were incorrect. Thus, this theory became dogma in the

Church. Due to this, astronomical theories contradicting Aristotle's

theory were seen as contradictions of the Bible, and therefore as

heresy.

The Double Resistance of the Church

In the Middle Ages and indeed until the modern age, the Europe of

Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo was essentially ruled by the Church.

Indeed, the European universities were essentially intellectual

training-centers for priests. Thus, new ideas in the field of science

came up against a twofold obstacle: the possibility of a claim that

they contradicted religious teachings of the Church; and the natural

hostility of the establishment (Church) scholars to any new theory

which threatened their accepted scientific views (which were mostly

based on ancient Greek philosophy). However, not only did the priests

have a double reason to fight certain new ideas, they also had the

power to suppress these ideas through the might of the Church! This

inevitably led to conflict between the Church and those who championed

any new ideas which were potentially controversial.

The Church's Objections to Copernican Theory : Background

The Church was opposed to Copernicus's ideas on two levels:

theologically, because they seemed to contradict a literal

interpretation of Scripture, and intellectually, because they

contradicted Aristotle's theories. However, theologians claimed that

the only source of Truth was the Bible. Thus they claimed that the

Bible contained/espoused/predicted Aristotle's cosmology. [5] As a

result, any attack on Aristotelian cosmology was considered an assault

against the Bible. Thus, the intellectual and theological objections

to Copernicus' ideas were often one and the same.

For example, the following verses:

[Note 4B] ‑òôÄ çâéÑ èâÅÖ íâóòå öáöé òôÄ çâéÑ èâÅ åÉÅâÖ íâóòÑ öÄ Ñ ôíâÖ

(Ü;Ä öâôÄòÅ) íâóòå åíé­

‑óÉã ÑàÖêÑ çâÅÇáã ÑâÅôâÖ ïòÄÑ ÇÖá-åí ÅôâÑ ;ïòÄÑ öÖÉëÖé çöÖêâÅÑ ÄÖåÑ

(Åã-Äã ;é Ñâíôâ) öÅôå åÑÄã çáöéâÖ çâéô­

‑(Ñ;Ä öåÑó) çô ÄÖÑ áòÖÜ ìÄÖô ÖéÖóé-åÄÖ ôéôÑ ÄÅÖ ôéôÑ áòÜÖ­‑­‑­

The very idea that the Earth could be moving and spinning was

considered by many to be absurd, since it was felt that this could not

possibly go unnoticed by its inhabitants. In fact, at the rotational

speed predicted by the Copernican theory, approximately 1000 miles per

hour, it was thought that the Earth would break into pieces which would

go flying off into the void! And who could believe that the Earth was

hurtling through space at over 65,000 miles per hour! Yet, as

Copernicus pointed out, if the Earth did not move at these speeds, then

the spheres must be moving at even greater speeds, since they would

have to traverse the entire circumference of the heavens in only 24

hours! Nevertheless, before Galileo and Newton explained the idea of

inertia, it was virtually impossible for mot people to believe that the

Earth could move at such fantastic speeds without man noticing it. In

addition, there were scriptural passages which seemed to imply that the

Earth was indeed stationary:

‑(Ñ ;Éó çâåâÑö) ÉíÖ çåÖí àÖéö åÅ ÑâêÖãé åí ïòÄ Éëâ­ ([G-d] has

established the Earth on its foundations so that it should not ever collapse

[Psalms 104]).

‑(Ñ:Ä öåÑó) çô ÄÖÑ áòÖÜ ìÄÖô ÖéÖóé åÄÖ ôéôÑ ÄÅÖ ôéôÑ áòÜÖ­ The sun rises

and the sun goes down and hastens to its place where it rises again

[Ecclesiastes 1:5]).

……..

Copernicus was not seriously hounded by the Church for his

statements to the effect that the earth rotated about the sun. Of

course helio (sun)-centrism seemed to contradict some biblical passages

and contradicted Aristotle as well. However, Copernicus himself was

deeply religious and believed in the Bible. He merely interpreted the

controversial biblical passages as being allegorical, and thus claimed

that his theory did not conflict with them. Further, one could even

claim (as did an unsigned introduction to Copernicus's work) that the

Copernican system was not a model of physical reality, but was rather a

computational device -- and thus both Aristotle and the Bible could

remain correct.

Copernicus had offered no proof that the earth actually moved.

What he did show was that calculationally a helio-centric system

offered a far simpler explanation than did a geocentric system.

That is, Copernicus's system could be considered as simply stating that

the motions of the planets were simpler when considered as motions

about the sun, but that this was simply a calculational device: in

actuality everything did revolve about the Earth. Indeed, Copernicus

was not very heretical. He maintained the Aristotelian ideas of

spheres, of a finite universe ending at the sphere of stars and of the

part of G-d in making the whole system work!

Contrast between Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo

Copernicus was not greatly persecuted for his theories (mostly)

because they could be seen as merely computational, and because he did

not speculate on matters merely purely theological as did Bruno. Bruno

was killed because of his theology, not because of his cosmology per

se. Galileo, however, mixed the two by presenting Copernicus's theory

as actual fact rather than as a computational system and as proof that

the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system was wrong -- thus "proving" that the

Church was wrong! As we have seen, Aristotle believed the heavenly

bodies to be perfect spheres, i.e. without any defect or blemish

whatsoever, and to be permanent and unchanging. However, through his

powerful telescope, Galileo showed that the moon's surface was

extremely ragged -- with large craggy mountains and huge gaping

craters. This totally conflicted with the picture of the moon as a

"perfect" sphere! [10] In fact Galileo's opponents were reduced to

postulating an invisible layer of glassy material which filled up and

therefore smoothed over the moon's irregular surface.

[10] Although the ancient Greek Anaxagoras had stated that the

markings on the moon were mountains and valleys, this was not accepted

in his time. (Dreyer, p.29)

----------------------

In addition, Galileo observed "sunspots" or dark patches which

appear and disappear on the face of the sun, a blatant "imperfection"

of a supposedly perfect body, and an example of change on a supposedly

unchanging entity. He also observed Venus under sufficient

magnification to observe that it only seemed to be always totally

spherical because it was so small as seen from the Earth, but that in

actuality it had phases as does the moon. This proved that it shone by

reflected sunlight and not by its own light. As we saw, all bodies but

the moon were believed to shine on their own, [11] and this was then

another blow to Aristotle's theories. More importantly, he observed

that Venus passed through a "full" stage, rather than only "crescent"

stages. This proved that Venus was sometimes "behind" the sun (looking

from Earth) which is impossible in the Ptolemaic system. Thus not only

did Galileo discredit Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, but he

provided what he considered to be proof that Copernicus's system was a

model of physical reality, and not merely a computational device.*

[11] This was known to Metodoros of Chios (see Dreyer, p. 29).

*Actually although this was a disproof of the Ptolemaic system, it was

not a proof of the Copernican system. Indeed, Tycho Brahe constructed

a theory which had the planets revolving about the sun, which revolved

about the Earth. This then satisfied the biblical passages regarding

the motion of the sun, the stationary nature of the Earth and was also

consistent with all the observations! See Owen Gingerich, "The Galileo

Affair", Scientific American, August 1982.

----------------------

Galileo thus went far beyond Copernicus himself, whose book contained

the famous disclaimer in the introduction (that it could be considered

merely as math). Indeed Copernicus died just as the book was first

printed, and so the assumption that the disclaimer represented

Copernicus's own idea went unchallenged. Thus Copernicus's work was

not seen as heretical. It was therefore only when Galileo claimed that

he had proved the physicality of Copernicus's system that Copernicus's

work began to be considered heretical. It was then expurgated, and Galileo

was forbidden to teach that the Earth actually did move. [12]

[12] The Church did not wish to be accused of blindness, or be caught

by scientific proof. Thus they asked the Jesuits to examine whether or

not they felt that Galileo had indeed proven that the Earth moved. The

Jesuits decided that these "proofs" were insufficient. Thus the

geocentric view remained the official Church position and Galileo's

teaching that the Earth moves was considered heresy.

--------------

Thus Copernicus was saved by his devoutness, his interpretation of the

relevant biblical passages as being allegorical, and the disclaimer to

the effect that those to whom this was unacceptable could consider his

theory only a mathematical fiction. Strangely enough, though, to many

religious Christians, the Copernican theory was welcome. The medieval

Christians had accorded the central position in the universe to the

devil and his helpers who inhabited the "center of the universe", which

happened to be the center of the Earth as well. Thus, the Copernican

displacement of the Earth from the center of the universe where the

devil dwelt towards the "heavens" where G-d dwelled exalted man's

position in the scheme of things rather than doing the reverse.

In addition, some of the ancient Greeks (e.g. Philo and Aristarchus)

believed that the Earth was too lowly to occupy what they considered to

be the "exalted" position of the center of the universe. They

therefore postulated that the Earth moved about a "central fire". Thus

the actual positioning of the Earth at the very center was considered

inappropriate by some Greeks because it was too holy and by some

Christians because it was too unholy.

Indeed, it was not so much the problem of the centrality of the Earth

which troubled many of the Church theologians, rather they were

troubled by the overthrow of the old ideas.

In fact, the idea of the loss of man's preeminence due to the removal

of the Earth from its position at the center of the universe is more of

a "modern" idea, and did not trouble the Church at that time. (See the

section "Conflict and Thesis" in this article.)

Another more contemporary problem which did not trouble people at that

time is that of the uniqueness of man in a universe possibly inhabited

by beings on other planets. Strangely enough, Christian theologians

were troubled about the possibility of the existence of (human) beings,

on Earth itself, on the "other side of the world", i.e. at the

"antipodes". That is, if the Earth were spherical, as was accepted,

then it was deemed impossible for normal human beings to inhabit the

"other side" of the world because they would fall off! Any such human

beings could not be descendents of Adam (and therefore did not

participate in what the Christians termed his "Fall") and could not

have been visited by their god, who was human and also would have

fallen off. It was thus considered heresy to postulate that humans

lived at the antipodes. (See Dreyer, p. 225.)

The Main Issues and their Relevance

Thus, we see that the essential conflict between the Church and the

astronomers rested on these issues:

1) The Bible seems to imply that the older cosmological views

are correct.

2) The new theories contradicted Aristotle`s theories of the

spheres, etc.

3) It was ridiculous to imagine the Earth moving and spinning.

4) An infinite universe with many populated planets destroyed

man's uniqueness.

We can divide these issues into two types: those irrelevant to our way

of thinking, and those still relevant today. Those issues which are

still relevant today (1 and 4) are dealt with in Part Three. Ironically,

these issues were the ones considered relatively minor to the Church.

Indeed the greatest resistance of the Church was to the overthrow of

Aristotle's ideas of the universe being composed of perfect

spherical shapes moving in circles -- which certainly are not viewed

today as "religious" ideas. In fact, one now realizes that such

arguments are totally invalid (they seem absurdly ridiculous today),

and to claim that they follow from religion is to distort religion.

We can now see in what sense the Church-astronomy conflict was really

between theologians and astronomy rather than between religion and

astronomy. In fact, with the exception of Bruno, who was a philosopher

and not an astronomer, the very same astronomers who developed the

supposedly heretical theories of the structure of the universe were

deeply religious believers in the Bible!* They saw absolutely no

conflict between their discoveries and their religion -- including the

wording of the Bible, [13] which they interpreted allegorically where

it contradicted observation.

[13] Some even derived Copernican cosmology from the Bible, e.g.

Galileo (p. 124 of his Hoykaas) and JJ Zimmerman (1690).

*Bruno was a philosopher, not an astronomer. He made no scientific

contributions, even though his speculations enriched astronomy.

----------------+

About Copernicus Luther commented: "The fool would overturn all

of astronomy. But in the Holy Scriptures we read that Joshua ordered

the Sun to stand still, not the Earth."

Copernicus replied: "To attack me by twisting a passage from

Scripture is the resort of one who claims judgment upon things he

does not understand. Mathematics is written only for mathematicians.

The statement that Joshua made the Sun stand still, and not the

Earth, must not be taken as a revelation concerning Nature. The Bible

contains no astronomy, not even the names of the planets. Of course

Holy Writ cannot err, but some interpreters of it can. For example, it

would be blasphemy to take literally the passages concerning G-d's

wrath, hatred, and repentence; this everyone admits. Similarly, those

Scriptural passages that do not agree with the findings of science are

not to be taken literally. For the laws of nature operate with

absolute inevitability, and these laws are the creation of G-d."

Though Galileo's findings were condemned by the Church as

contradicting Scripture, he himself believed in the Bible and simply

understood the relevant passages as being allegorically written in the

terms common to those who lived at the time the Bible was given to man.

Galileo once exclaimed: "I know now what the silver girdle around

the celestial sphere is; I am filled with amazement and offer unending

thanks to G-d that it has pleased Him to reveal through me such great

wonders, unknown to all the centuries before our time."

Kepler was motivated to look for simple laws of planetary motion

because he believed that the cosmos, as the work of a masterful

Creator, was based on elegant yet simple patterns. He was deeply

convinced that the spirit of G-d revealed itself most purely in

geometry. After discovering his famous laws of planetary motion, he

was overwhelmed. "Dear L-rd," he prayed, "Who has guided us to the

light of Thy glory by the light of nature, thanks be to Thee. Behold,

I have completed the work to which Thou hast called me. And I rejoice

in Thy Creation whose wonders Thous hast given me to reveal unto men.

Amen." (from Thiel pp. 145, 123 and 125)

Indeed, they even saw themselves as messengers of G-d, bringing to man

greater knowledge of G-d's glory and an appreciation of His handiworks!

They were pained by the resistance of the Church to their ideas not

because this opposition caused them trouble but because they considered

themselves as devout Christians. Thus, even to the "heretics"

themselves, their theories were totally in line with biblical religion

and contained no heresy at all. Indeed, one can more easily apply the

charge heresy to those who accepted Aristotle as infallible and

interpreted Scripture in his terms! Thus, when the theories of Aristotle

were deprived of their canonical status, the entire conflict

disappeared. Clearly, then, the conflict was resolved without

"twisting" religion -- on the contrary, science helped cleanse

religion of extraneous, erroneous teachings.

[13?] Some even derived Copernican cosmology from the Bible, e.g.

Galileo (p. 124 of his Hoykaas) and JJ Zimmerman (1690).

……

Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed that he is not at the

center of the universe after all. With all the arguments and

explanations he can accept this intellectually, but not emotionally.

Man still seems to feel something to the effect that: "Well, if we

really are important to G-d, and G-d knew that we'd naively think we are

at the center of the universe, couldn't He in His Wisdom somehow arrange

it so that..."

Geocentrism IS valid

Well, strange as it may seem after this whole discussion of the

overthrow of geocentrism, we now make the claim that the earth is in

fact at the center of the universe in an entirely physical sense!

However, we can immediately raise an objection to this outrageous claim,

even without relying on physics. The positioning of the Earth at the center of the universe would be such an extreme

statistical improbability that it would "show G-d's hand"!

[Insert reference to Free Will from p.31,32]

Surprisingly enough, G-d in His wisdom has indeed created the universe

in such a way that although the Earth is at the center of the universe,

there is no statistical improbability in this fact! This is so because,

as we shall soon show, every point in the univese is the center of the

universe! Thus, although the Earth does not occupy a physically unique

position in the universe, it would be entirely consistent with the laws

of physics to say that the sun revolves about the Earth, and that the

Earth is the center of the entire universe.

How could this be?

To understand this, we must know something about General Relativity,

cosmology and the philosophy of physics.

What does Center mean?

Before we go further, however, we must clarify what "center of the

universe" means! To do this, we must also clarify what we mean by

saying that something is "at the center". There are actually different

types of "centers", as follows:

The Center of Rotation

The piece of wood stick in the diagram has a nail driven through it

(into the bottom board) which serves as a pivot. The stick rotates, as

shown, around the pivot. Thus the nail can be termed the "rotational

center" of the stick (or of the stick-board-nail system), even though it

is certainly not the physical center.

{Fig. 4}

Analogously, the universe may rotate about some object which is not

located at its center. Thus, the Earth might be the rotational center

of the unvierse without being its spatial center.

The Center of Expansion

Imagine that you are surrounded by four people. Each of the four then

walks away from you, each in a different direction (i.e N,S,E,W).

{Fig. 5}

Thus when you look N, S, E or W, you will see people moving away from

you. In contrast to this, if any of the other look, they will see a

quite different pattern. They only see people when they look behind

them, and thus the pattern they see can not be symmetric. This

difference is of course due to the fact that you, and only you, are the

center of this dispersion. If we call this an "expanding" pattern, then

we can say that you are the "center of expansion".

Now we increase the amount of surrounding people to 12. We place them

on a circle about you so that each is the same distance from you, and

then ensure that each one is separated from the other by a given

distance. They then begin to walk away from you (radially), each with

the same speed. Thus, whereever you look, you will see someone moving

away from you, and all have the same speed, and the pattern is very

symmeteric, with you at the center.

{Fig. 6}

Of course any of the others would see a totally different picture. They

would see people only in the directions "behind" them and they would see

everyone moving with different speeds. In fact, each one could probably

look back at any time and figure out that it is you who are standing

still and you who is the center of the pattern, and that everyone else

(including themselves) is moving away from you with a constant speed.

Thus, whenever something is the "symmetrical center" of a symmetrical

grouping of moving objects, one knows that it is in fact the "expansion

center" or center of expansion.

Expansion and Rotation

Now imagine that all these people are walking on a large piece of metal

plate which is rotating about a pivot. (Thus even the center person is

rotating). Or, imagine that the plate is not rotating, but rather while

these people are walking, they are all also rotating about the pivot,

i.e. the "center" person is not standing still -- he is also rotating

about the pivot.

{Fig. 7} {Fig. 8}

In this case we can say that there is a symmetrical expansion pattern

which is rotating. However, the center of rotation (the pivot point) is

not the same as the center of expansion.

The Geometrical Center

We now introduce one more slight complication. Assume we have a

universe, which even when empty still exists. That is, the "space" of

the universe is not a collection of "empty spaces between things", but

is rather one big empty space. This space also possesses a center, the

geometrical center of the universe.

{Fig. 9}

If the universe is finite but unbounded, i.e. it is closed,

(e.g. spherical, in analogy to travel on the Earth's surface one can

continue going forever in any direction but one finds that however one

travels, one always returns to familiar places after a while), then any

point is as much a geometric center as any other. If the

universe is infinite (and unbounded), i.e. it is open, e.g.

plane, flat, then from any point the distance to the end of the

universe is infinite in all directions, so one could say that at

each point the universe is a circle of radius infinity which has that

point at its center, or that no point is the center. If the

universe is finite and bounded, [i.e. it has an "end"] then there is a

unique point which is the geometric center.

Center of Matter

In this empty universe, we now place matter. If the amount of matter is

finite and the universe is either finite and bounded or inifinite and

unbounded, then this matter has a center of gravity, and the area of

space it occupies has a center -- the "center of matter-space". If the

universe is finite but unbounded, it may or may not be possible to

define such a center.

Center of Symmetry

As far as is known today the universe is composed of galaxies which are

composed of stars, some or all of which have satellites. These galaxies

are grouped in clusters, and the clusters are grouped in super-clusters,

and the super-clusters... What is the center of this pattern? Is this

pattern symmetric about this center? That is, even though it may have a

center, it may or may not be a center of symmetry.

{Fig. 10}

The "Center" of the Universe

In this space we now put our rotating, expanding, (symmetrical) system

of objects (people, stars, dust particles, whatever). What is the

center of this universe?

Since the only things in the universe are these objects, the center of

these objects, i.e. the center of matter-space, can perhaps be

considered the center of the universe. Or perhaps the true center is

that of expansion or of rotation? Or perhaps it is the geometrical

center of the total space (if it is definable) which is really the

center?

Thus there are now five types of centers (the geometrical center of the

universe, the center of matter-space, the center of symmetry, the center

of expansion and the center of rotation) and they need not all coincide!

Geocentricity: Earth at which Center?

We do not yet know conclusively whether or not the universe is finite or

inifinite -- but certainly it would seem that it must be unbounded. In

either case, the geometric center could not be defined uniquely --

however we will examine whether or not it has any meaning per-se.

It does seem that Earth cannot be the center of symmetry of the universe

since it is located at the edge of its galaxy. However it is not at all

clear that the universe does have a general spatially symmetric

distribution of matter, so that the universe might well have no such

symmetry for Earth to be the center of.

Since it is not known whether or not the universe is finite, and whether

or not matter fills all the available space, the question of whether or

not there exists a center of matter-space is also moot.

In any case, we shall discuss the possibility of a rotation center and

an expansion center. In addition we shall investigate the possibility

of whether or not one can define at all a geometric center.

We will now examine the meaning of the geocentricity of our universe in

the light of the preceeding discussion. That is, we will examine modern

cosmology to find out where, in our universe, might be the three types

of center that we discussed. We will deal with each type of center

separately, and discuss the validity of geocentrism with respect to each

meaning of "center". Our first discussion will deal with the concept of

the geocentricity and the geometric center of the universe.

Geocentricity and the Geometric Center of the Universe

Introduction

In ancient times it was believed that the universe was composed of two

types of entities: space and matter.

Space was the framework in which matter moved. Space was "absolute" in

the sense that it was an actual entity, not simply the lack of matter.

As an entity in its own right, it had an orientation, a center, edges.

Thus any planet in the universe could be described according to where it

was relative to the center of space, how quickly it was moving relative

to space (which was stationary), what angle it made relative to the "up

and down" directions of space.

Thus even if the universe had only one body in it, it would make sense

to talk of its motions, etc. -- there was no need of other bodies to

provide a reference relative to which its motion could be defined.

Space itself, absolute space, provided the reference. Motion meant

motion with respect to absolute space.

In fact, if there were nothing at all in the universe, it was believed

that "space" still had some meaning, and that this space would have a

geometric center.[28] Earth was believed to be located in the geometric

center of space. However, when the concept of absolute space began to

be discredited, and space ceased to be thought of as an entity in

itself, speaking of a center of the universe began to seem ridiculous.

Thus, the universe could not possibly have the earth at its center,

since it had no center at all!

With the advent of modern cosmological models and the general theory of

relativity it was shown that space (time) is a "thing" in the sense that

it can be bent and twisted !

However the controversy over whether or not absolute space exists, and

thus whether or not a geometric center exists, is not quite over. We

now deal with this question in detail.

The Geometric Center of the Universe: Absolute Space

Until a few centuries ago it was believed that space was absolute. That

is, space had meaning even if it was totally empty. "Space" was thus

not merely the empty areas between pieces of matter, rather it was a

"thing-in-itself".

Thus space could be considered to have a real, geometric center.

However for an entity to be a "thing" rather than a concept, it must

have physical properties. Thus, for space to be considered as a "thing

in itself" it had to have physical properties even when empty of all

matter (energy). We now briefly discuss (some of) these supposed

properties.

The Properties of Absolute Space: The "Ether Properties"

Foremost among the properties of space was that there was some

"material" substance to it which enabled one to speak of speed relative

to space, rotation relative to it, position and direction relative to

it. This "materiality" was later given the name "ether". For brevity,

we will here refer to these properties of absolute space as their "ether

properties".

In addition, matter was believed to prefer a state of rest so that all

moving bodies eventually come to a stop. Also, resting bodies needed a

push to get them to move, but they also came to a stop if the push was

discontinued. This property of matter, its "desire to remain at rest",

was considered to be a result of some spiritual-like properties of space

and matter that caused them to be "perfect", and thus to prefer

"stability", "rest" and the like. We refer to this supposed

property of absolute space as its "perfection properties".

Since the sun and planets rotated continuously about the earth, they

were considered to have a continuous push on them given by G-d or

angels, etc, In fact, a circle was also believed to possess the

attribute of "perfection" and the "perfection" of "heavenly" bodies was

reflected in their "perfectly circular orbit".

The Reasons for Belief in Absolute Space

These two types of properties, the "ether properties" and the

"perfection properties" were introduced in ancient times as a result of

religious/metaphysical beliefs -- not as a result of experimental

observation.

In modern times, when explanations of the workings of nature began to be

based on observation rather than on purely speculative philosophical

"wishful thinking", these properties came under attack. According to

the principles of the scientific method, if a concept is not necessary

to the explanation of natural phenomena, and its ramifications are also

not observed in nature, then it is assumed to be a non-valid concept.

In our case, if the concept of absolute space could be shown not to be

necessary to the explanation of phenomena, and if no manifestation of

absolute properties of space were observed, then it could be assumed that

there was no such "thing" as absolute space.

We now examine the concepts related to the existence of an absolute

space in the light of modern physics.

The "Ether Properties" of Absolute Space

Earth revolves about the sun. The sun rotates about the center of the

galaxy, the galaxy is receding from the other galaxies... Everything

seems to be in motion. Is anything standing still?! Of course, we feel

ourselves to be standing still, but someone on the moon sees us as

moving, and someone on Mars sees both of us moving and someone on

Venus... Thus we must rephrase our question to be: Is there anything

in the entire universe that everyone everywhere must agree is not

moving? A little thought will show that this would seem impossible. Of

course everyone everywhere can agree to consider one particular

something as standing absolutely still even though this means that they

must agree that they themselves are moving -- all except the one who it

was agreed is standing still. However, they could all just as well

agree to consider some other one thing as being still. Which thing it

is which all agree is still, is totally arbitrary. They all choose some

particular thing, and then by definition it is a thing which all agree

is standing still. Since each person can claim that his planet, rocket

or space-suit is stationary then there i s obviously no thing which all

must agree is stationary.

Thus all motion is relative. That is, since each can say he is

stationary (and there exists no unique stationary point in the universe

to contradict this), a statement about being in motion is meaningful only

if one specifies in relation to what one is in motion. Thus it would

seem that the concept of an absolute space which possessed "ether

properties" was quite unnecessary and probably invalid.

The Perfection Property of Absolute Space

Changing one's speed or direction of motion, or both, is called "acceleration".

We have seen that acceleration brings along with it pushes and pulls,

i.e. "forces" -- a force pushing back when one accelerates forward, a

force sideways when (accelereating by) moving in a circle. What is the

cause of this accelerator force?

The answer is that it is not really a force, rather it is inertia

manifestating itself as a "force". Newton's law of inertia states that:

objects at rest remain at rest (unless pushed or pulled) and objects in

(unaccelerated) motion remain in (unaccelerated) motion (unless pushed

or pulled). [39]

This of course is in opposition to the "perfection principle" which

demands that all objects tend to a state of rest. [40] Thus, both the

ether principle and the perfection principle have been discredited.

Since these were the properties which gave to space its

"thing-in-itself" quality, does the invalidation of these properties

imply that space is not a "thing"? In other words, have we disproved

the existence of "absolute space"?

[39] When one does push an object, it resists the motion. This

resistence to motion is what is called inertia and it is this resistence

which we feel as a "force".

[40] Of course, in most cases observed by people, moving objects always

do come to rest unless constantly pushed. However, this is simply due

to: friction forces between the moving object and the surface it is

moving on, or the medium it is moving through; collision with another

object (which also stops or does not begin to move, due to friction).

Negation of Absolute Space

Although the perfection principle has been discredited, one could say

that a new one has been substituted for it, the laws of "inertia", and

that there was therefore no damage done to the belief in absolute space.

That is, empty space possesses a property; it induced inertia in matter

(when matter was placed in it). Thus, having a property, it is a

"thing". Thus, since space is a "thing", it is "absolute".

However, this is not necessarily the case, for Mach (a philospher

scientist whose work greatly influenced Einstein) claimed that inertia

was not a property of the universe, but was rather a property of matter

itself. That is inertia is a property of matter which causes it to

interact with other matter (in space). Thus again space was left with

no properties of its own, and could not be considered "absolute".

In order to understand this issue and to see whether or not one can

indeed attribute inertia solely to matter, and not to space, one must

understand inertia better. For example, although we now know the

properties of inertia, we still do not know its origin -- i.e. what

causes and object to have inertia.

Inertia

To help in partially answering this, we proceed as follows:

imagine the universe to be totally empty except for one "planet".

This planet is accelerating. Now, how do we know that it is

accelerating? As we saw before, motion is meaningful only if it is

motion with respect to something. Since the rest of the

universe is empty, there does not exist anything else relative to which

the planet is moving! There is thus no way one can give any meaning

to the statement that the planet is moving. Or is there perhaps? Did

we not say that any accelerated body feels a force? Of course

usually the force could be attributed to a source of

gravitation, and thus that the acceleration could not be

unambiguously detected. (This follows from the principle of

equivalence of the theory of relativity which will be dealt with in more

detail in the section on "The Rotation Center".)

[42] Motion is undefined because it cannot be observed. It cannot be

observed because "motion" of the sole body in the universe causes no

(observable) effects. It causes no effects, because the effects of

motion are due to inertia, but because the universe is empty there is no

inertia: viewed the other way: empty universe means no inertia means

no effects of motion means motion is unobservable and thus "motion" is a

meaningless term in this context.

Now, however, if the universe is empty, the planet cannot attribute the

force to gravity caused by some other object -- it must admit that it is

experiencing a force because it is accelerating! So there is meaning to

acceleration in an empty universe. [41] However, it seems almost

impossible that in an empty featureless universe one can notice any type

of motion. It is quite illogical. Yet, the presence of the

acceleration force, the inertia, seems to say otherwise. Thus, it would

seem that the presence of the acceleration force, i.e. inertia, points

to the existence of absolute space!

[41] It is really an "almost" empty universe because it's empty except

for the planet itself.

The resolution? We follow our logic and postulate that not only is

there is no inertia in an empty universe, but a planet in an otherwise

empty universe also has no inertia. Thus there is no meaning to the

statement that it is moving. [42]

Of course we cannot merely create convenient postulates arbitrarily.

They must be consistent with the rest of physics. Thus we must ask how

could it be that there is no inertia in an "almost empty" universe? Our

question based on the observation that in the universe (as we see it)

there is inertia -- it would therefore seem that one could extrapolate

to the case of an almost empty universe and deduce that it would also

manifest inertia. However this may well be an invalid deduction. That

is, we reason as follows:

If the universe was not empty, why would there be inertia to a planet?

The answer: every piece of matter in the universe creates a "field" and

it is the cumulative field which is the source of inertia of every piece

of matter which encounters the field. Since this inertia field

permeates the entire universe, all matter in the universe has inertia.

However if there is only one object in the universe, it has no inertia

because there are no other objects in the universe to give it inertia.

[Note 30] Thus there are no inertial effects of accelerated motion for

such an orphan planet. We must therefore conclude that there is is no

way of detecting any motion in a universe with only one object. Indeed,

in such circumstances, motion is actually undefined. [42]

We can now see the significance of this to our question of the existence

of absolute space. Since there is no way to detect any motion, even

accelerated motion, in an "otherwise empty" universe, then the "ether

properties" of space cannot be observed. Since they are unnecessary

concepts to physics, they are invalid scientifically, and space cannot

be said to be absolute in that sense. In addition, since inertia is a

property of matter, and not of space itself, as it interacts with other

matter in space, (there is no "inertia" in an empty universe), the empty

universe does not possess any "perfection property". Thus it would seem

that empty space possesses no physically relevant properties, and thus

cannot be said to exist!

However this was not the last word.

The Geometrical Center of the Universe: Absolute Space

Until a few centuries ago it was believed that space was absolute. In

1949 and 1969 solutions of Einstein's equations were found which seemed

to imply that absolute space did exist. This solution corresponded to a

rotating universe empty of all matter-energy! Now, as we have seen,

rotation, as all motion should have no meaning even in an almost empty

universe. Yet here the universe was totally empty, and yet the whole

universe was rotating! Very strange!

Further research showed that perhaps there was indeed some energy in

this universe and therefore it was not really empty. [38]

[38] See Houl and Dehnen

According to the principle laid down by Ernst Mach, inertia could exist

only when matter-energy existed, and empty universes could not rotate

since they had no body relative to which they rotated. The controversy

over the possible existence of absolute space is thus actually a

controversy over the validity of Mach's principle.

This controversy has still not been resolved.

An extract from a recent symposium discussing the validity of Mach's

principles given in Appendices 3 and 4.

Is the Earth at the Geometrical Center of the Universe?

Until the existence or non-existence of absolute space has been

established (and thus also the existence or non-existence of a unique

geometrical center) it is not possible to anticipate the possible

questions and solutions this decision will generate.

Whether or not there exists a geometrical center: if there does,

whether or not the earth can be considered to be located at that center;

whether that will prove relevant to this discussion; these are all moot

points right now. We thus put aside the geometric center and consider

geocentrism only in relation to the expansion and rotation centers of

the universe.

[Note 30] The more mass in the universe, the more inertia. Of course,

each body interacts with the inertia field so actually our planet in an

otherwise empty universe does have inertia; even a single particle may

have inertia in an otherwise empty universe since it can self interact.

However we do not here consider this very involved and as yet unsolved

physics dilemma.

We now examine the concept of the center of expansion of the universe.

The Expanding Universe

The universe is expanding.

This extraordinary phenomenon was deduced from the observations of

astronomers and is verified by Einstein's general relativistic theory of

gravitation. When one says that the universe is expanding, what is

meant is that the actual "fabric" of the universe, i.e. space-time, is

expanding.

How can space, let alone space-time expand?

Just as an aid in imagining this, let us visualize a balloon with dots

painted on it so that all dots are equally distant from all their closest

neighbors. [*]

{Fig. 15}

[*] The distance between any two neighboring dots is the same regardless

of which two dots one measures between.

Now the balloon is blown up more. As it is inflated the dots move

further apart.

{Fig. 16}

Now if a flea were to stand on a dot and watch the neighboring dots, he

would see them all moving away from him as the balloon expands. In

fact, whichever dot is chosen as the viewing point, the viewer will see

all the other dots moving away from him. Thus, if each dot had an

observer on it, each would see everyone else moving away; since each

one sees all the dots receding equally quickly away from his viewing

point, each would assume that he is at the center of the pattern. Thus,

all assume this, and all are correct! Every point is the center of

expansion!

{Fig. 17}

Back to Space-Time Expansion

Now if space-time is expanding in a manner analogous to the balloon,

etc. [*] at all points in the universe the expansion [*] seems to be

centered right there!

{Fig. 18}

Thus, any observer in the universe, on considering the expansion of the

universe, could legitimately conclude that the "center of the expansion"

of the (3-D) universe is precisely his location -- i.e He is the center

of the universe!

Therefore, we on earth (observing the expansion of the universe) can say

that Earth is the center of the (3-D) universe!

Thus the pendulum has swung back, and as far as the expansion cent modern science has

er is concerned modern science has reinstated the validity of the geocentric view, albeit in a very

sophisticated sense.

[*] See Appendix 4 for analogies in three dimensions.

[*] Now, of course when one pictures a balloon, cake, etc. expanding,

one thinks of it as taking up more and more of the empty space around

it. However, here we wish to talk about the expansion of space

(space-time) itself! Thus, when space-time expands, it does not expand

within something, taking up more room -- rather it is space itself and

as it expands it is creating new space (as needed).

We have seen that the Earth can be considered as a center of expansion owith the concept of the rotational center of the universe,

f the universe. Even more important however is the question of the rota

tional center of the universe, since the reassignment of this from the Eican revolution" (which started the whole seeming conflict

arth to the sun was the essence of the "Copernican Revolution" which sta

rted the whole seeming conflict between religion and science in modern t

imes.

The Rotational Center of the Universe: Uniform Motion versus

Accelerated Motion

Probably everyone who reads this has at some time travelled through the

air at speeds of several hundred miles an hour. Those who have had

smooth flights know that it is possible to gently sip a drink without

spilling a drop, that a walk in the aisles needs no special skills -- in

fact, during the greater part of the flight it is almost impossible to

detect any effect of the motion (without peeking out the window!).

Similarly, during a smooth car ride, riding (even at high speed), can be

indistinguishable from the wait at a traffic light. It is only while

the car is speeding up or slowing down, or turning towards the left or

right, that some effect is noticeable. Similarly, in a plane, there is

an effect only when the plane takes off, lands or banks.

{Fig. 11}

If a car speeds up, we are pressed back in our seat. If it slows down,

we are pushed from the back of the seat. If it turns right, we slide to

the left; if it turns to the left, we slide to the right. (If the

plane, or an elevator, rises suddenly, we are pressed to the floor; if

it descends suddenly, we are left somewhat suspended off the floor.)

Thus it is only change of speed and change of direction which lead to

noticeable effect. Motion with both constant speed and constant

direction is indistinguishable from staying at rest. Motion with

constant speed but a change of direction, or constant direction but

changing speed, does lead to noticeable effect.

In order to have a concise terminology we introduce the term

"acceleration". Acceleration means a change in the state of motion --

either in the direction of the motion [30] or in the speed of the motion

[31], or in both simultaneously. Non-acceleration motion means motion

with both a constant direction and a constant speed.

[30] Only motion in a straight line does not involve change direction,

e.g. motion in a circle involves a constant change of direction.

[31] Both speeding up and slowing down are changes in the speed of

motion. ------------

{Fig. 12}

Now that we have this terminology, we can summarize all of the above in

a statement which is part of and follows from the very fundamental

principle of physics known as the principle of relativity: "There is no

way for anyone who is moving without acceleration to determine whether

or not he is actually moving, unless he peeks "outside".The principle of

relativity contains more than the statement given here.

Relativity of Uniform Motion

Now, suppose a physicist is in unaccelerated motion, and believes

himself in fact not to be in motion at all. [32] He performs some

physics experiments. Of course, since there is no way for him to

determine that he is in motion, the results of the experiment must be

indistinguishable from the results he would obtain were he in fact to be

stationary. He then "peeks" and sees the landscape flashing by him. To

him, it seems as though he is standing still, and all the world is

rushing by. (This is a very common illusion on trains.) Outside stand

another physicist who performs the identical experiment. He of course

obtains results consistent with his being at rest, but these results are

then the same as those of the physicist on the speeding train, Now, the

physicist on the train feels himself to be at rest. [33] In addition,

his experiment verifies that he is at rest, for his results are

identical to those of an experiment in a resting train.

[32] For example, he gets on a train 15 minutes early and falls asleep.

He wakes up 1/2 hour later while the train is in smooth, uniform motion

at 80 miles per hour. However, he believes himself to have slept only 5

minutes, so that he believes that the train has not yet left the

station.

[33] Since the train is moving without acceleration, he is neither

pressed against his seat, nor pushed from it, nor slipped to the side.

---------

He can explain the fact that the world is flashing by exactly so: he

claims that the train is standing still, and the world is flashing by!

Of course the physicist on the ground claims exactly the opposite.

Although it would seem that the latter is correct, in fact the principle

of relativity states that both viewpoints are equally valid

scientifically! If a person is moving away from another without

acceleration, he may claim that he is actually remaining at rest, and

both claim that it is the other who is moving, yet both points of view

are equally valid!

Of course, if one of them was pushed back in his seat or slid over, we

could point him out and say: "Obviously, you are the one who is moving,

and it is the other who is at rest. However, if both move without

acceleration, neither is pushed or slid, and both can claim to be at

rest. Tentative Conclusion

Uniform motion is relative. Accelerated motion is not relative because

of the accompanying effects. And now... We can even extend this

principle. Even with accelerated motion the principle of realtivity is

valid! How is this possible?

Relativity of "Circular" Acceleration

Anyone who has ridden a merry-go-round (carousel) knows that there is a

force pulling away from the center during the ride. [34] This is

actually due to the accelerated motion -- even if it is revolving with

constant (angular) speed, he is constantly changing direction -- and is

the same as the force causing people (in turning cars) to slide over in

their seat when the car they are in is turning in a curve.

{Fig. 12} {Fig. 13}

However the person on the carousel need not admit he is in acceleration

(changing direction) even though the world is spinning around him is

being pushed to the outside. He can claim that the entire universe is

indeed spinning around him and that the force pushing him to the side is

due to the gravitational force of the spinning universe! The general

theory of relativity says that this may be/is a valid viewpoint!

A number of problems seem to arise; they are presented and answered in

the following.

Imagine someone spinning on his heels (one revolution per second) under

starry skies. According to the interpretation of relativity we have

discussed, one could consider that the person is stationary and the

entire universe is spinning about him. This however gives rise to a

number of questions:

{Fig. 14}

1) Since the universe rotates once a second (and the circumferential

distance travelled by each star is fantastically huge so that) the speed

of each star must exceed (by far) the speed of light -- which is

forbidden by relativity theory itself.

2) As soon as the person begins to spin, one can say that the universe

is spinning instead. However, if the universe begins rotating

immediately, then the effect of his motion must have travelled to the

stars instantaneously, i.e. faster than light [35] -- this is

impossible according to relativity theory.

[35] And if he sees the stars rotating immediately then the light from

the newly rotating stars has instantaneously reached him.

--------------

3) The universe rotates only because the person moved his feet. Yet how

could he have enough energy to cause the entire universe to move?

4) Is it not true that the "centrifugal force" caused by the motion of

the stars is a "fictitious" force? Thus, does this not prove that one

cannot really consider the universe to be in motion?

Answers

1) Relativity theory forbids the transfer of matter-energy or of

information at speeds faster than that of light. However, for there to

be a true violation of this law, the matter-energy must move faster than

light in a "local" frame. [36] In our case, it is only in the frame of

the spinning person that the stars are moving faster than light.

[36] In our case a "local" frame of a star would be a frame of reference

affixed to a nearby star. ---------------

2) On consideration, one can see that no information can be transmitted

via this method -- i.e. someone residing on the far stars cannot

instantaneously receive any messages from the spinning person and vice

versa. [Even if the spinner starts and stops his motion in a sort of

Morse code, this will not transfer any information [37] since the star

resident does not feel any rotation -- he only knows of the spinner when

he finally sees him spinning many years later (when the light reaches

him). Similarly, no information is transmitted by the spinner's seeing

the stars begin to rotate instantaneously.

[37] Compare to EPR paradox and Bell's Theorem, etc. See B.

d'Espagnat. ------------- Let us look at the spinner before he begins

his motion. He is at rest relative to the universe. Imagine that the

entire universe is rotating with him, but that since everything is

rotating in the same way, it is not noticeable. Then the person moves

his feet to spin. By doing so, he is introducing a relative rotation

between himself and the rest of the universe. Since the rotation was

unnoticeable previously, one can choose the direction of that rotation

arbitrarily (in each reference frame). One can then say that the person

is now rotating against the previous motion of the universe --

as-a-whole. Thus when he says that the universe is now rotating, he has

not contributed the necessary energy to accomplish this! Rather, the

universe was rotating before he moved -- he simply notices it now

because of his motion.

4) Physically, the centrifugal (and Coriolis) force can be measured just

as can any "real" force. It is only "fictitious" if we do not consider

the universe to be rotating!! (i.e. If we do consider the universe to

be rotating, we need not answer this question since it doesn't even

arise -- [the question is valid only if one assumes that the universe

does not move, thus it can certainly not be a proof against the motion

of the universe.])

A different approach in answering these questions is presented in

Appendix (2).

Geocentricity as a Result of Relativity

We return to our original problem, that of the geocentricity of the

universe.

From the General Theory of Relativity we can see that physically one can

say that the earth is at rest, and the sun -- and in fact the entire

universe -- is revolving about it! The centrifugal force which has been

measured and attributed to our circular motion about the sun, can in

fact be attributed to the gravitational effect of the rotation of the

universe about us!

Thus the Earth can claim to be the center of rotation of the universe!

Of course, any point in the universe can claim to be the center of

rotation of the universe. But now geocentricity is seen to be just as

valid as the Copernican system!

The theory of relativity does not say that the conception of Ptolmy is

correct; rather it contests the absolute significance of either theory.

(Reichenbach p. 217)

However the importance of the Copernican revolution was that it denied

any validity to the geocentric views of the prevalent cosmology at that

time, i.e. the Ptolemaic system, and claimed truth for itself only,

thus...

The relativity theory of dynamics is not a purely academic matter, for

it upsets the Copernican world view. It is meaningless to speak of a

difference in truth claims of the theories of Copernicus and Ptolemy;

the two conceptions are equivalent descriptions. What had been

considered the greatest discovery of western science compared to

antiquity, is now denied its claim to truth. (Reichenbach p.217)

Expansion Center of the Universe

……

PART FIVE

We have seen that geocentrism is so scientifically valid as

non-geocentrism. However, besides being a curious example of

relativity, what is the significance of the historical flip-flop?

The significance is fivefold; to man, to religion, to the Torah, to

man's understanding of himself, and to the "conflict" between science

and religion.

The Significance to Religion

One of the greatest intellectual achievements in science was the

Copernican cosmology and its concomitant destruction of the ancient

geocentric view of the universe. Due to the reactionary nature of the

church, this led to a (necessary) conflict between religion and

science. Religion finally conceded the fight. Then came perhaps the

greatest intellectual scientific achievenment of all time, General

Relativity, and gave geocentrism a new lease on life -- and biblical

geocentric terminology a new validity.

It is certainly ironic that two of the greatst scientific achievements

should "cancel each other out" as far as the conflict with religon is

concerned, especially since both were made by deeply religious men.

There are probably greater surprises in store for us all, and both

scientists and theologians are probably well advised to treat the Torah

with more care.

The Significance to Man

Although we showed that man's significance in no way depends on the

physical location in the universe of his home planet, man still longs

for the feeling of comfort and importance he had when he thought

himself to be at the center of it all. And now, indeed, man is back at

the center. Intellectually he knows it is not really the center; but

then intellectually he can prove that being at the center is

unimportant. Emotionally, however, he can feel himself to be at the

center, albeit "center***' in a novel sense, and that is what is really

important.

The Irony of History

The Significance to Science, to Religion and to the Two Together

History has repeated itself, but in reverse, and with great irony.

Copernicus believed he had laid geocentrism to rest, but through fear

of the church, he conceded that heliocentrism might be merely a

calculationally simplifying methmetical device, rather than a picture

of physical reality. Then, Galileo provided what was seemed to be

incontrovertible proof that it was indeed a physical, rather than

methematical, model. He, too, however, had to recant. Thus,

theologians imposed on science restrictions they had no right to apply,

and made scientific statements claiming to be theology, but being

really misguided science.

Later, with Newton's theory of gravitation and Foucatt's pendulum, etc.

Herschel's observations, etc. the physical evidence overwhelmingly

supported the non-geocentrists. These in turn began imposing on

religion theological conclusions claiming to be based on science (no

G-d, man no special etc.), but which were in rality simply the

"theological" speculations of atheists. Thus the overbearing church in

its zealousness to protect religion infringed on territory outside its

purview. Ironically, this not only gave birth to a damaging conflict

with science, but taught science to retaliate in kind.

Then, to complete the irony, the next advances in science turned the

tables on the anti-geocentrists, and once again it had to be admitted

that as a physical theory, geocentrism was just as valid as the

non-geocentrism of Copernicus. We have seen how the geocentrists were

defeated by "the Copernicans", and then how history turned the tables

on the Copernicans by reinstating geocentrism. We have seen religion

fighting science, and science fighting back. What can we learn from

all this?

The Attitude of Judaism to Science

The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ma'mada in his Mishneh

Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d is to be

fulfilled via study of G-d's actions/creations. What is the connection

between such study and the love and fear of G-d?

The Rambam explains that a deep examination of nature reveals the

infinitely deep and precious Wisdom of G-d, and leads to an

overwhelming feeling of praise to G-d and love for Him, and then to an

even more ecstatic desire to know G-d. One who deeply studies nature

is not only intellectually aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d, he

feels it. He is not only intellectually aware that an infinite gap

separates his understanding from the Perfect Understanding of G-d, he

experiences its consequences. He begins [*] not "to be afraid of" but

"to fear"! to be in complete awe of G-d. Thus, study of natureleads

to an appreciation both of the Infinite Wisdom of G-d, and of the

infinite difference between man and G-d -- and this leads to the

love/fear of G-d spoken of in the Torah.

Thus, science is far from anathema to Judaism. On the contrary, it can

serve as the catalyst to a profounder observance of a fundamental Torah

precept, and to a deeper understanding/experience of the Jewish Way.

What of Torah and Science Conflict?

Torah is truth. Science deals only with what can be proven. Thus, it

is impossible for Torah and science to conflict! Indeed, this was

verbalized by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi [*]:

"Heaven forbid that [one should think that it is

possible that] there is anything in the Torah which contradicts that

which is manifest or proved." [*] from the [.........]

Indeed, Torah and falsity are total opposites. The Torah tells us not

only not to lie, but not to indulge in falsity. Indeed, we are told to

to withdraw from, to distance ourselves from any falsity (óÖáòö òÅÉéòóô ­

-- not only lies).

Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can

studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can

understand Psalms 119:104 as telling us:‑âöåÄô èã åí èêÖÅöÄ äâÉÖóîé"

"òóô áòÄ åã­ ("I contemplate on your actions [pikudim = nature],/

Therefore do I hate all false ways.")

That is, it is precisely through an understanding of nature that the

Jewish Way is vindicated.

Yet, one sees that science and Torah have seemed to conflict on a

number of issues. In the light of what we have just said this should

have been impossible. The answer is as follows: Many people have both

religious and scientific views. The problems arise when the two are

confused. Not that they don't mix -- rather, the problem is when one

believes in something because of a religious conviction, but presents

the belief as science, or if one believes in something because of

intellectual argument, and presents it as authoritative religion.

Unfortunately, this has occurred numerous times, and the fault lies

both with scientists and with theologians -- not with science and

Torah, which are blameless in themselves.

A Case in Point

This can be seen in our case here: the Greeks who did not believe in

the Torah arrived at a picture of the world through intellectual

reasoning. Clearly, they did not derive these ideas from the Torah!

However, the church which did accept the Bible, accepted these

teachings as truth, and not only read them into the Bible. They then

declared that these ideas were religious, biblical ideas, i.e ideas

derived from or taught by the Bible rather than ideas in accordance

with the Bible's terminology). They thus passed science off as theology.

Similarly, the scientists who spoke of an infinite universe etc. went

far beyond science and probability when they reasoned that because of

this man has no purpose, etc. This was merely a projection of their

atheismonto science. That is, if it is provable that the universe is

infinite, then a statement to that effect is scientifically valid.

However, the deduction from that fact of the conclusion that "therefore

man is purposeless" is not not science and not valid -- rather it is

atheistic theology! Thus, they presented a "theological view" as

science.

Assumptions

Often the basis for conflict is a distortion derived from an incorect

assumption. Indeed, the assumptions implicit in seemingly innocuous

statements sometimes remain hidden for millenia. Science itself has

shown us this in the last few fundred years. Aristotle proved that his

theory was correct. Indeed it remained unchallenged for almost 2000

years. Yet, it was proven incorrect. Euclid assumed the universe is

flat, something that was so "obvious" that he didn't even realize it

wasan assumption. In fact, his geometry was accepted as totally true

for 2000 years until Einstein showed the universe is not flat, and

invalidated Euclid's geometry as an exact physical model. Some

scientists a hundred years ago felt that it was proved that the

universe is deterministic and thus proved that free will could not

exist. Then Heisenberg etc. and quantum mechanics proved that the

universe is not (absolutely) deterministic [see discussion in my other

article in this issue]. Copernicus and Galileo etc. proved that the

universe is not geocentric, and again Einstein's theories show us that

it is at least, as much as it is not! [For a similar discussion

regarding evolution, see my other article in this issue.]

Similarly, for religion, the temptation is alwasy great to find all

ones attitudes and beliefs in all fields mirrored in the Torah -- and

it they are not so clearly mirrored there, onecan always twist or adopt

some passage of the many thousands available. The very fact that two

very different religions claim that their beliefs are proved by the

words of the Torah/Bible shows how exactly people can accept

distortions etc. of the Torah as its actual interpretation. Jewish

theologians are not always free of blame, either.

Science as an Aid to Torah

Indeed, not only does science no contradict the Torah, it can help us

in understanding the Torah. For example, it is clear that the

ancient/medieval cosmological beliefs [see Rambam note] are erroneous.

Yet, many Jews believed that they understood the passages in the Torah

referring to cosmological ideas. Obviously, however, many of them

could not quite have understood them as well as we can, since we know

they are allegorical. Indeed, to us they are even more precious since

we know they cannot be mere descriptions of mundane reality, but that

they are probably deep secrets written in "code"!

Thus, Torah can provide guidelines for science, and science can

provide precision to religion. Indeed, science, as seen by the Rambam,

is not external to religion, but is and integral, even vital element of

it. Certainly, though, when Torah and science seem to conflict, this

should lead one to an examination of the underlying assumptions on both

sides of that particular issue, rather than to conflict. Viewed thus,

they have great potential for mutual enrichment, rather than for

reciprocal vilification.

The Moral of the Story... the Significance for Man's Understanding of

Himself

At the end of Part Three we spoke of the emotional disappointment of

man when he learned that he was not at the center of the universe. We

even spoke of his distinct "feeling" that G-d in His Wisdom would

figure out a way to somehow allow man this vanity of his, of

considering himself to be at the center of the universe. We then found

thatindeed a relativity theory had reinstated his central position...

at least "relatively speaking". What can be learned from this? Was

G-d rally pandering to our vanity?! Surely there is a moral here somewhere.

Indeed there is:

The development of the theories concerning man's physical position in

theuniverse provides a beautiful and exalted allegory for the role of

manin the cosmos.

The Parallels

Parallels can be drawn between man's political, cosmological and

religious ideas of his role.

Politics and Man's Role

At first man was totally self-centered. Then, to build society, man

agreed to worship a king. The epitome of social position was to be

royalty -- the king had authority over all his land, and was

responsible to no one. He hunted for sport and killed commoners when

displeased. He was the law. Society was stratified. Nevertheless,

even the lowest of the low ruled over the animals and insect. It was

the king's right to kill man when he wished to. It was the commoner's

right to kill insects when he wished to. Then came Democracy and

Communism: the idea that all are equally important and the idea that

all are equally unimportant.

Cosmology and Man`s Role

At first man was considered the only important element of the universe,

and the Earth the real center of all. Then, the sun was agreed to be

the center of the universe and man agreed to accept second place.

The fall of geocentrism precipitated an almost gleeful refrain frommany

scientists to the effect that man was no longer supreme, nor even

significant. Man was transformed into an insignificant organic speck

on an insignificant piece of rock floating in infinite space.

Everything was equal -- that is, equally insignificant. The purpose of

everything was the same -- non-existant.

The Torah View of Man's Role versus that of Other Creations

The Torah forbids cruelty to animals, yet allows them to be eaten; war

is permitted when necessary, but burning fruit trees inwar is

forbidden; animals can be used as beasts of burden, but must be fed

before one eats one'sown food; they can be used to thresh, but may not

be muzzled to prevent them from eating what they thresh. The "duty" of

the sun is to provide warmth for man etc. -- however, man is forbidden

to destroy anything wantonly. [*]

What is implicit in the Torah is the teaching that all is the work of

the Creator, and all is important. Indeed, all are central.

Nevertheless, each has a unique purpose and a proper role. Fruit trees

have rights: the right not to be burned as vengeance during war, the

right to contribute its fruit toward the nutrition of man and animal,

and its wood to man and bearer. Man has many rights and duties; but

they do not include being killed for (serving as) food for raw material

by man or beast. Man and tree are both important, butthey are

different in their needs and in their purpose. To confuse the

"equality" of man and tree with the "identity" of their purpose is

corrupt and evil.

The Synthesis

With the advent of relativisitic geocentrism, the Torah view onman`s

role found expression in nature. Man was not given back the pagan

throne of exclusive and unchecked sovereignty but was rather a unique

element in a universe composed of unique entities. Man was again

central but so was everything else. Just as man was the center, so was

a tree or insect, and so was anything else -- but just as a sun and a

planet serve different purposes,and their interchange would lead to

disaster, so too do men and treehave differing purposes whose

interchange leads to evil.

Thus man has a Purpose differing from that of a tree, a planet or an

animal -- different people have different purposes. Still, everything

has Purpose. Yet, though all are unique and though all are different,

non may wantonly destroy or subjugate another. This is Torah Democracy.

[*] Even if he could destroy the sun without harmful effect, he would

not be permitted to do so without strongly valid reason.

…….

PART FIVE

We have seen that geocentrism is so scientifically valid as

non-geocentrism. However, besides being a curious example of

relativity, what is the significance of the historical flip-flop?

The significance is fivefold; to man, to religion, to the Torah, to

man's understanding of himself, and to the "conflict" between science

and religion.

The Significance to Religion

One of the greatest intellectual achievements in science was the

Copernican cosmology and its concomitant destruction of the ancient

geocentric view of the universe. Due to the reactionary nature of the

church, this led to a (necessary) conflict between religion and

science. Religion finally conceded the fight. Then came perhaps the

greatest intellectual scientific achievenment of all time, General

Relativity, and gave geocentrism a new lease on life -- and biblical

geocentric terminology a new validity.

It is certainly ironic that two of the greatst scientific achievements

should "cancel each other out" as far as the conflict with religon is

concerned, especially since both were made by deeply religious men.

There are probably greater surprises in store for us all, and both

scientists and theologians are probably well advised to treat the Torah

with more care.

The Significance to Man

Although we showed that man's significance in no way depends on the

physical location in the universe of his home planet, man still longs

for the feeling of comfort and importance he had when he thought

himself to be at the center of it all. And now, indeed, man is back at

the center. Intellectually he knows it is not really the center; but

then intellectually he can prove that being at the center is

unimportant. Emotionally, however, he can feel himself to be at the

center, albeit "center***' in a novel sense, and that is what is really

important.

The Irony of History

The Significance to Science, to Religion and to the Two Together

History has repeated itself, but in reverse, and with great irony.

Copernicus believed he had laid geocentrism to rest, but through fear

of the church, he conceded that heliocentrism might be merely a

calculationally simplifying methmetical device, rather than a picture

of physical reality. Then, Galileo provided what was seemed to be

incontrovertible proof that it was indeed a physical, rather than

methematical, model. He, too, however, had to recant. Thus,

theologians imposed on science restrictions they had no right to apply,

and made scientific statements claiming to be theology, but being

really misguided science.

Later, with Newton's theory of gravitation and Foucatt's pendulum, etc.

Herschel's observations, etc. the physical evidence overwhelmingly

supported the non-geocentrists. These in turn began imposing on

religion theological conclusions claiming to be based on science (no

G-d, man no special etc.), but which were in rality simply the

"theological" speculations of atheists. Thus the overbearing church in

its zealousness to protect religion infringed on territory outside its

purview. Ironically, this not only gave birth to a damaging conflict

with science, but taught science to retaliate in kind.

Then, to complete the irony, the next advances in science turned the

tables on the anti-geocentrists, and once again it had to be admitted

that as a physical theory, geocentrism was just as valid as the

non-geocentrism of Copernicus. We have seen how the geocentrists were

defeated by "the Copernicans", and then how history turned the tables

on the Copernicans by reinstating geocentrism. We have seen religion

fighting science, and science fighting back. What can we learn from

all this?

The Attitude of Judaism to Science

The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ma'mada in his Mishneh

Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d is to be

fulfilled via study of G-d's actions/creations. What is the connection

between such study and the love and fear of G-d?

The Rambam explains that a deep examination of nature reveals the

infinitely deep and precious Wisdom of G-d, and leads to an

overwhelming feeling of praise to G-d and love for Him, and then to an

even more ecstatic desire to know G-d. One who deeply studies nature

is not only intellectually aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d, he

feels it. He is not only intellectually aware that an infinite gap

separates his understanding from the Perfect Understanding of G-d, he

experiences its consequences. He begins [*] not "to be afraid of" but

"to fear"! to be in complete awe of G-d. Thus, study of natureleads

to an appreciation both of the Infinite Wisdom of G-d, and of the

infinite difference between man and G-d -- and this leads to the

love/fear of G-d spoken of in the Torah.

Thus, science is far from anathema to Judaism. On the contrary, it can

serve as the catalyst to a profounder observance of a fundamental Torah

precept, and to a deeper understanding/experience of the Jewish Way.

What of Torah and Science Conflict?

Torah is truth. Science deals only with what can be proven. Thus, it

is impossible for Torah and science to conflict! Indeed, this was

verbalized by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi [*]:

"Heaven forbid that [one should think that it is

possible that] there is anything in the Torah which contradicts that

which is manifest or proved." [*] from the [.........]

Indeed, Torah and falsity are total opposites. The Torah tells us not

only not to lie, but not to indulge in falsity. Indeed, we are told to

to withdraw from, to distance ourselves from any falsity (óÖáòö òÅÉéòóô ­

-- not only lies).

Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can

studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can

understand Psalms 119:104 as telling us:‑âöåÄô èã åí èêÖÅöÄ äâÉÖóîé"

"òóô áòÄ åã­ ("I contemplate on your actions [pikudim = nature],/

Therefore do I hate all false ways.")

That is, it is precisely through an understanding of nature that the

Jewish Way is vindicated.

Yet, one sees that science and Torah have seemed to conflict on a

number of issues. In the light of what we have just said this should

have been impossible. The answer is as follows: Many people have both

religious and scientific views. The problems arise when the two are

confused. Not that they don't mix -- rather, the problem is when one

believes in something because of a religious conviction, but presents

the belief as science, or if one believes in something because of

intellectual argument, and presents it as authoritative religion.

Unfortunately, this has occurred numerous times, and the fault lies

both with scientists and with theologians -- not with science and

Torah, which are blameless in themselves.

A Case in Point

This can be seen in our case here: the Greeks who did not believe in

the Torah arrived at a picture of the world through intellectual

reasoning. Clearly, they did not derive these ideas from the Torah!

However, the church which did accept the Bible, accepted these

teachings as truth, and not only read them into the Bible. They then

declared that these ideas were religious, biblical ideas, i.e ideas

derived from or taught by the Bible rather than ideas in accordance

with the Bible's terminology). They thus passed science off as theology.

Similarly, the scientists who spoke of an infinite universe etc. went

far beyond science and probability when they reasoned that because of

this man has no purpose, etc. This was merely a projection of their

atheismonto science. That is, if it is provable that the universe is

infinite, then a statement to that effect is scientifically valid.

However, the deduction from that fact of the conclusion that "therefore

man is purposeless" is not not science and not valid -- rather it is

atheistic theology! Thus, they presented a "theological view" as

science.

Assumptions

Often the basis for conflict is a distortion derived from an incorect

assumption. Indeed, the assumptions implicit in seemingly innocuous

statements sometimes remain hidden for millenia. Science itself has

shown us this in the last few fundred years. Aristotle proved that his

theory was correct. Indeed it remained unchallenged for almost 2000

years. Yet, it was proven incorrect. Euclid assumed the universe is

flat, something that was so "obvious" that he didn't even realize it

wasan assumption. In fact, his geometry was accepted as totally true

for 2000 years until Einstein showed the universe is not flat, and

invalidated Euclid's geometry as an exact physical model. Some

scientists a hundred years ago felt that it was proved that the

universe is deterministic and thus proved that free will could not

exist. Then Heisenberg etc. and quantum mechanics proved that the

universe is not (absolutely) deterministic [see discussion in my other

article in this issue]. Copernicus and Galileo etc. proved that the

universe is not geocentric, and again Einstein's theories show us that

it is at least, as much as it is not! [For a similar discussion

regarding evolution, see my other article in this issue.]

Similarly, for religion, the temptation is alwasy great to find all

ones attitudes and beliefs in all fields mirrored in the Torah -- and

it they are not so clearly mirrored there, onecan always twist or adopt

some passage of the many thousands available. The very fact that two

very different religions claim that their beliefs are proved by the

words of the Torah/Bible shows how exactly people can accept

distortions etc. of the Torah as its actual interpretation. Jewish

theologians are not always free of blame, either.

Science as an Aid to Torah

Indeed, not only does science no contradict the Torah, it can help us

in understanding the Torah. For example, it is clear that the

ancient/medieval cosmological beliefs [see Rambam note] are erroneous.

Yet, many Jews believed that they understood the passages in the Torah

referring to cosmological ideas. Obviously, however, many of them

could not quite have understood them as well as we can, since we know

they are allegorical. Indeed, to us they are even more precious since

we know they cannot be mere descriptions of mundane reality, but that

they are probably deep secrets written in "code"!

Thus, Torah can provide guidelines for science, and science can

provide precision to religion. Indeed, science, as seen by the Rambam,

is not external to religion, but is and integral, even vital element of

it. Certainly, though, when Torah and science seem to conflict, this

should lead one to an examination of the underlying assumptions on both

sides of that particular issue, rather than to conflict. Viewed thus,

they have great potential for mutual enrichment, rather than for

reciprocal vilification.

The Moral of the Story... the Significance for Man's Understanding of

Himself

At the end of Part Three we spoke of the emotional disappointment of

man when he learned that he was not at the center of the universe. We

even spoke of his distinct "feeling" that G-d in His Wisdom would

figure out a way to somehow allow man this vanity of his, of

considering himself to be at the center of the universe. We then found

thatindeed a relativity theory had reinstated his central position...

at least "relatively speaking". What can be learned from this? Was

G-d rally pandering to our vanity?! Surely there is a moral here somewhere.

Indeed there is:

The development of the theories concerning man's physical position in

theuniverse provides a beautiful and exalted allegory for the role of

manin the cosmos.

The Parallels

Parallels can be drawn between man's political, cosmological and

religious ideas of his role.

Politics and Man's Role

At first man was totally self-centered. Then, to build society, man

agreed to worship a king. The epitome of social position was to be

royalty -- the king had authority over all his land, and was

responsible to no one. He hunted for sport and killed commoners when

displeased. He was the law. Society was stratified. Nevertheless,

even the lowest of the low ruled over the animals and insect. It was

the king's right to kill man when he wished to. It was the commoner's

right to kill insects when he wished to. Then came Democracy and

Communism: the idea that all are equally important and the idea that

all are equally unimportant.

Cosmology and Man`s Role

At first man was considered the only important element of the universe,

and the Earth the real center of all. Then, the sun was agreed to be

the center of the universe and man agreed to accept second place.

The fall of geocentrism precipitated an almost gleeful refrain frommany

scientists to the effect that man was no longer supreme, nor even

significant. Man was transformed into an insignificant organic speck

on an insignificant piece of rock floating in infinite space.

Everything was equal -- that is, equally insignificant. The purpose of

everything was the same -- non-existant.

The Torah View of Man's Role versus that of Other Creations

The Torah forbids cruelty to animals, yet allows them to be eaten; war

is permitted when necessary, but burning fruit trees inwar is

forbidden; animals can be used as beasts of burden, but must be fed

before one eats one'sown food; they can be used to thresh, but may not

be muzzled to prevent them from eating what they thresh. The "duty" of

the sun is to provide warmth for man etc. -- however, man is forbidden

to destroy anything wantonly. [*]

What is implicit in the Torah is the teaching that all is the work of

the Creator, and all is important. Indeed, all are central.

Nevertheless, each has a unique purpose and a proper role. Fruit trees

have rights: the right not to be burned as vengeance during war, the

right to contribute its fruit toward the nutrition of man and animal,

and its wood to man and bearer. Man has many rights and duties; but

they do not include being killed for (serving as) food for raw material

by man or beast. Man and tree are both important, butthey are

different in their needs and in their purpose. To confuse the

"equality" of man and tree with the "identity" of their purpose is

corrupt and evil.

The Synthesis

With the advent of relativisitic geocentrism, the Torah view onman`s

role found expression in nature. Man was not given back the pagan

throne of exclusive and unchecked sovereignty but was rather a unique

element in a universe composed of unique entities. Man was again

central but so was everything else. Just as man was the center, so was

a tree or insect, and so was anything else -- but just as a sun and a

planet serve different purposes,and their interchange would lead to

disaster, so too do men and treehave differing purposes whose

interchange leads to evil.

Thus man has a Purpose differing from that of a tree, a planet or an

animal -- different people have different purposes. Still, everything

has Purpose. Yet, though all are unique and though all are different,

non may wantonly destroy or subjugate another. This is Torah Democracy.

[*] Even if he could destroy the sun without harmful effect, he would

not be permitted to do so without strongly valid reason.

…..

Nevertheless, Copernicus was not seriously hounded by the

Church for his statements to the effect that the earth rotated

about the sun. Of course helio (sun)-centrism seemed to contradict some

biblical passages and contradicted Aristotle as well. However,

Copernicus himself was deeply religious and believed in the Bible. He

merely interpreted the controversial biblical passages as being

allegorical, and thus claimed that his theory did not conflict with

them.

Indeed, Copernicus had offered no proof that the earth

actually moved. What he did show was that calculationally a

helio-centric system offered a far simpler explanation than did a

geocentric system. That is, the motions of the planets were simpler

when considered as motions about the sun. That is,one could even claim

(as did an unsigned introduction to Copernicus's work) that the

Copernican system was not a model of physical reality, but was rather a

computational device and that in actuality everything did revolve

around the Earth. Indeed, Copernicus was not very heretical. He

maintained the Aristotelian ideas of spheres, of a finite universe

ending at the sphere of stars and of the part of G-d in making the

whole system work!

Contrast between Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo

Copernicus was not greatly persecuted for his theories (mostly)

because they could be seen as merely computational, and because he did

not speculate on matters merely purely theological as did Bruno. Bruno

was executed because of his theology, not because of his cosmology per

se. Galileo, however, mixed the two by presenting Copernicus's theory

as actual fact rather than as a computational system, and as proof that

the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system was wrong -- thus "proving" that the

Church was wrong! As we have seen, Aristotle believed the heavenly

bodies to be perfect spheres, i.e. without any defect or blemish

whatsoever, and to be permanent and unchanging. However, through his

powerful telescope, Galileo showed that the moon's surface was

extremely ragged -- with large craggy mountains and huge gaping

craters. This totally conflicted with the picture of the moon as a

"perfect" sphere! [10] In fact Galileo's opponents were reduced to

postulating an invisible layer of glassy material which filled up and

therefore smoothed over the moon's irregular surface.

[10] Although the ancient Greek Anaxagoras had stated that the

markings on the moon were mountains and valleys, this was not accepted

in his time. (Dreyer, p.29)

----------------------

In addition, Galileo observed "sunspots" or dark patches which

appear and disappear on the face of the sun, a blatant "imperfection"

of a supposedly perfect body, and an example of change on a supposedly

unchanging entity. He also observed Venus under sufficient

magnification to observe that it only seemed to be always totally

spherical because it was so small as seen from the Earth, but that in

actuality it had phases as does the moon. This proved that it shone by

reflected sunlight and not by its own light. [11] As we saw, all bodies but

the moon were believed to shine on their own, and this was then

another blow to Aristotle's theories. More importantly, he observed

that Venus passed through a "full" stage, rather than only "crescent"

stages. This proved that Venus was sometimes "behind" the sun (looking

from Earth) which is impossible in the Ptolemaic system. Thus not only

did Galileo discredit Aristotelian-Ptolemaic cosmology, but he

provided what he considered to be proof that Copernicus's system was a

model of physical reality, and not merely a computational device.*

[11] This was known to Metodoros of Chios (see Dreyer, p. 29).

*Actually although this was a disproof of the Ptolemaic system, it was

not a proof of the Copernican system. Indeed, Tycho Brahe constructed

a theory which had the planets revolving about the sun, which revolved

about the Earth. This then satisfied the biblical passages regarding

the motion of the sun, the stationary nature of the Earth and was also

consistent with all the observations! See Owen Gingerich, "The Galileo

Affair", Scientific American, August 1982.

----------------------

Galileo thus went far beyond Copernicus himself, whose book contained

the famous disclaimer in the introduction (that it could be considered

merely as math). Indeed Copernicus died just as the book was first

printed, and so the assumption that the disclaimer represented

Copernicus's own idea went unchallenged. Thus Copernicus's work was

not seen as heretical. It was therefore only when Galileo claimed that

he had proved the physicality of Copernicus's system that Copernicus's

work began to be considered heretical. It was then expurgated, and Galileo

was forbidden to teach that the Earth actually did move. [12]

[12] The Church did not wish to be accused of blindness, or be

caught by scientific proof. Thus they asked the Jesuits to examine

whether or not they felt that Galileo had indeed proven that the Earth

moved. The Jesuits decided that these "proofs" were insufficient.

Thus the geocentric view remained the official Church position and

Galileo's teaching that the Earth moves was considered heresy.

--------------

Strangely enough, though, to many religious Christians, the

Copernican theory was welcome. The medieval Christians had

accorded the central position in the universe to the devil and his

helpers who inhabited the "center of the universe", which happened to

be the center of the Earth as well. Thus, the Copernican displacement

of the Earth from the center of the universe where the devil dwelt

towards the "heavens" where G-d dwelled exalted man's position in the

scheme of things rather than doing the reverse.

In addition, some of the ancient Greeks (e.g. Philolaus and Aristarchus)

believed that the Earth was too lowly to occupy what they considered to

be the "exalted" position of the center of the universe. They

therefore postulated that the Earth moved about a "central fire". Thus

the actual positioning of the Earth at the very center was considered

inappropriate by some Greeks because it was too holy and by some

Christians because it was too unholy.

In fact, the idea of the loss of man's preeminence due to the removal

of the Earth from its position at the center of the universe is more of

a "modern" idea, and did not trouble the Church at that time. (See the

section "Conflict and Thesis" in this article.)

Indeed, it was not so much the problem of the centrality of the Earth

which troubled many of the Church theologians, rather they were

troubled by the overthrow of the old ideas. The very fact that the

Church requested that the Jesuits decide the matter [7] shows that the

possibility of the correctness of the Copernican system. Thus it could

not be intrinsically heretical! Their opposition was then neither due

to scientific motivation nor to real fundamental theological issues.

Another more contemporary issue which did not trouble people at that

time is that of the possible non-uniqueness of man in a universe possibly inhabited

by beings on other planets. Strangely enough, Christian theologians

were troubled instead about the possibility of the existence of (human) beings,

on Earth itself, on the "other side of the world", i.e. at the

"antipodes". That is, if the Earth were spherical, as was accepted,

then it was deemed impossible for normal human beings to inhabit the

"other side" of the world because they would fall off! Any such human

beings could not be descendents of Adam (and therefore did not

participate in what the Christians termed his "Fall") and could not

have been visited by their god, who was human and also would have

fallen off. It was thus considered heresy to postulate that humans

lived at the antipodes. (See Dreyer, p. 225.)

The Main Issues and their Relevance

Thus, we see that the essential conflict between the Church and the

astronomers rested on these issues:

1) The Bible seems to imply that the older cosmological views

are correct.

2) The new theories contradicted Aristotle`s theories of the

spheres, etc.

3) It was ridiculous to imagine the Earth moving and spinning.

4) An infinite universe with many populated planets destroyed

man's uniqueness and centrality.

We can divide these issues into two types: those irrelevant to

our way of thinking, and those still relevant today. Those issues which

are still relevant today (1 and 4) are dealt with in Part Three.

Ironically, though problem 4 is today the most revelant, this issue was

considered relatively minor to the Church. Indeed some of the greatest

resistance of the Church was to the overthrow of Aristotle's ideas of

the universe being composed of perfect spherical shapes moving in

circles -- which certainly are not viewed today as "religious" ideas.

In fact, one now realizes that such arguments are totally invalid (they

seem absurdly ridiculous today), and to claim that they follow from

religion is to distort religion.

We can now begin to see in what sense the Church-astronomy conflict was really

between theologians and astronomy rather than between religion and

astronomy. In fact, the very same astronomers who developed the

supposedly heretical theories of the structure of the universe were

deeply religious believers in the Bible!* They saw absolutely no

conflict between their discoveries and their religion -- including the

wording of the Bible, [13] which they interpreted allegorically where

it contradicted observation.

[13] Some even derived Copernican cosmology from the Bible, e.g.

Galileo (p. 124 of his Hoykaas) and JJ Zimmerman (1690).

About Copernicus Luther commented: "The fool would overturn all

of astronomy. But in the Holy Scriptures we read that Joshua ordered

the Sun to stand still, not the Earth."

Copernicus replied: "To attack me by twisting a passage from

Scripture is the resort of one who claims judgment upon things he

does not understand. Mathematics is written only for mathematicians.

The statement that Joshua made the Sun stand still, and not the

Earth, must not be taken as a revelation concerning Nature. The Bible

contains no astronomy, not even the names of the planets. Of course

Holy Writ cannot err, but some interpreters of it can. For example, it

would be blasphemy to take literally the passages concerning G-d's

wrath, hatred, and repentence; this everyone admits. Similarly, those

Scriptural passages that do not agree with the findings of science are

not to be taken literally. For the laws of nature operate with

absolute inevitability, and these laws are the creation of G-d."

Though Galileo's findings were condemned by the Church as

contradicting Scripture, he himself believed in the Bible and simply

understood the relevant passages as being allegorically written in the

terms common to those who lived at the time the Bible was given to man.

Galileo once exclaimed: "I know now what the silver girdle around

the celestial sphere is; I am filled with amazement and offer unending

thanks to G-d that it has pleased Him to reveal through me such great

wonders, unknown to all the centuries before our time."

Kepler was motivated to look for simple laws of planetary motion

because he believed that the cosmos, as the work of a masterful

Creator, was based on elegant yet simple patterns. He was deeply

convinced that the spirit of G-d revealed itself most purely in

geometry. After discovering his famous laws of planetary motion, he

was overwhelmed. "Dear L-rd," he prayed, "Who has guided us to the

light of Thy glory by the light of nature, thanks be to Thee. Behold,

I have completed the work to which Thou hast called me. And I rejoice

in Thy Creation whose wonders Thou hast given me to reveal unto men.

Amen." (from Thiel pp. 145, 123 and 125)

Indeed, they even saw themselves as messengers of G-d, bringing to man

greater knowledge of G-d's glory and an appreciation of His handiworks!

They were pained by the resistance of the Church to their ideas not

because this opposition caused them personal trouble but because they considered

themselves as devout Christians. Thus, even to the "heretics"

themselves, their theories were totally in line with biblical religion

and contained no heresy at all. Indeed, one can more easily apply the

charge heresy to those who accepted Aristotle as infallible and

interpreted Scripture in his terms! When the theories of Aristotle

were deprived of their canonical status, the entire conflict

disappeared. Clearly, then, the conflict was resolved without

"twisting" religion -- on the contrary, science helped cleanse

religion of extraneous, erroneous teachings.

[13?] Some even derived Copernican cosmology from the Bible, e.g.

Galileo (p. 124 of his Hoykaas) and JJ Zimmerman (1690).

This controversy about the geocentrism or non-geocentrism of the

universe characterized and symbolized the conflict between Church and

science which was to continue until our own time. Indeed, this

controversy became, in the eyes of the public, not only a death

struggle between Christianity and science, but between biblical

religion on the one hand and science on the other. Judaism is of

course a "biblical religion".

Thus, to many people, since Judaism is a "biblical religion" ,

Judaism and science seem to be diametrically opposed to one another.

They point to the triumph of Copernicus over Aristotle as a triumph of

science over Torah. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the

fallacy of this viewpoint. However, because this view is so prevalent,

and so deeply rooted, it is not enough to merely show why it is

incorrect; it is also important to demonstrate clearly why it was that

this incorrect viewpoint emerged. Only thus will it become

convincingly clear that the alleged Torah-science conflict is a figment

of uninformed mass opinion.

It is true that a number of statements in the Talmud imply a geocentric

view of the universe, and that certain biblical passages can be

interpreted in such a way that they conflict with the teachings of

modern science. However, we show that a Torah-science conflict around

this issue does not in actuality exist by demonstrating the following

to be true:

1) As a result of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity it can be

shown that the geocentric picture of the universe is no less correct

than the non-geocentric one.

2) The conflict with science stemming from the interpretations of the

"cosmologically relevant" biblical passages was only a Christian

conflict, since these interpretations were dogma to the Church, but not

to Judaism. In Judaism, not only is there no true "dogma" in the

Christian sense, but also in many instances a purely literal

interpretation of a Torah passage is considered heretical. Thus, not

only is there not necessarily any a-priori obligation in Judaism to

officially dogmatically interpret cosmological passages in an

anti-scientific literal fashion, but Jewish thought never did so.

We also show that the popular misconception that there exists a general

conflict between science and Torah derives from fall-out from the

extended, bitter conflict of the Church and the astronomers, rather

than from any real intrinsic Torah-science conflict. Due to the fact

that many Jews were heavily influenced by Christian society and secular

culture, many Jews (following the non-Jews) simply assumed that what was

true for Christianity was also true for the Judaism they were quite

ignorant about.

Thus Judaism does not demand a belief in geocentrism.

….

GEOCENTRISM

by Dr. Avi Rabinowitz

------------------------------

Avi Rabinowitz was born in Baltimore in 1955 and raised in

Montreal, Canada. He studied at Merkaz Ha'Torah Yeshiva where his

father, Rabbi Mordecai Rabinowitz, a musmach of the Mir Yeshiva of

Europe and Shanghai, was a Rosh Yeshiva and Principle. His paternal

grandfather was known as the Zabliner Rav. His maternal grandfather

was Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim in Baltimore, Maryland for

50 years until he settled with his wife in Eretz Yisrael.

After Avi came to Israel to study at Yeshivat Itri, his parents

made aliya and settled in Jerusalem. There he completed a BS in

Electro-Optics at the Jerusalem College of Technology. While

completing a PhD in Theoretical Physics at New York University,

Rabinowitz was a teaching fellow there and also taught physics and

astronomy at the City University of New York, Rutgers and Cooper Union.

Since returning to Jerusalem this year he has been devoting time to

writing on Jewish ideas and Torah-and-science themes. He hopes to

publish these writings, with G-d's help, in book form.

----------------------------------

Until a few hundred years ago, the accepted views on cosmology

were based on those of the ancient Greeks. It was believed that the

Earth was stationary and was located at the center of the universe, and

that the rest of the universe rotated about the Earth: this is termed

the "geocentric" view of cosmology. In addition, the universe was

believed to be finite, and many even believed that the Earth was flat.

{Fig. 1}

Indeed, without the relatively modern methodology of careful scientific

analysis these are the most reasonable conclusions that a casual observer on

Earth would arrive at. Actually, however, none of these conclusions are correct.

Modern scientific cosmology essentially began with Copernicus

(1473-1543). His cosmology, as refined by Kepler and Galileo was

explained by Newton (1642-1747). During this period the Church fought

these new theories (with varying vigor) and even declared them to be

heresies. When these theories eventually triumphed, the Church's view

was of course discredited.

Consequences of the Conflict

As a consequence of the conflict, science and religion were seen

by many as being inimical to each other. Since science was able to

prove its points by experiment and religion was not, science began to

win out and religion to weaken. Indeed, for many people today belief in

science is considered a reason for disbelief in religion. In addition,

since the Church attempted to use the Bible as proof against the new

cosmological theories, when the Church lost the fight, the Bible was

considered to have lost as well. Thus was begun the long process of

the modern scientific "discrediting" of the divine origin of the

Bible which continues yet today.

[*] The various theories concerning the geometrical structure of

the universe conflicted on many issues. However, the first (new)

cosmological idea which had crucial psychological impact was the

contention that the Earth is not the center of the universe. The issue

of geocentrism versus non-geocentrism became a symbol of the entire

conflict, and still today seems to characterize it in the minds of most

people. We continue this usage here, and for ease in referring to the

opposing theories we refer to them in general simply as "geocentrism"

and "non-geocentrism", even where the position of the earth is not the

only issue.

[Note *] All my conclusions are based on accepted ideas. The physics

and the analogies used to illustrate the technical concepts discussed

are in no way my own original work. However, of course the analysis

and conclusions are my own; thus, although I cannot claim that these

conclusions are "accepted ideas of physics", they are nevertheless

solidly based on such accepted ideas, and are therefore scientifically

valid.

***

[4] Although, as stated before, the physics concepts are not

new, they are nevertheless far from widely known even to most

physicists, and the relevant literature is mostly inaccessible to the

non-expert. Thus, a simplified treatment of the relevant material is

given in the body of the article in order that this paper be both

self-contained and comprehensible to non-experts in the field.

*****

This paper intends to analyze possible areas of conflict

existing today between Judaism and cosmology -- and to resolve any

such "conflict". [Historically, there were two separate areas of

conflict between religion and cosmology: 1) the geometrical structure

of the universe (as it is at present) -- e.g. geocentrism versus helio

(solar)-centrism; 2) the origin and development of the universe from

its beginning to its present structure, e.g. Creation versus Big Bang.

In this paper we deal exclusively with the first area of conflict. A

resolution of the second area of conflict is presented in my article

"Let there have been a Big Bang" forthcoming in B'Or Ha'Torah 6.]

In resolving the apparent conflict, we shall deal with the historical

Church-astronomer conflict. Of course since Judaism is not Christianity,

the issues which vexed the Church are not

necessarily relevant to Judaism. Nevertheless some issues involve

both religions; issues relating to the Torah itself (which

forms part of the Christian Scriptures as well) and certain

philosophical ideas of religion which were accepted by both Christian

and Jewish theologians.

However, philosophical concepts change with time, both as a

reflection of the general spirit of each generation and as a

result of the accumulated knowledge bequeathed by previous

generations. Thus, when we speak of the historical conflict

between science and religion, we must realize that not only has

science been changing, but so have religious philosophical ideas. As

a result of the changes on both sides, the areas of conflict have

also changed. Indeed some of the most controversial issues

raised by the Church's conflict with astronomers are quite

irrelevant nowadays both to theologians and to scientists.

Nevertheless, the conflict itself has left a lasting

impression of the "defeat of religion by science".

The only way to counter this "impression" is to analyze the

historical issues, even if they are now irrelevant, and to show clearly

that not only are they indeed irrelevant to religion today, but that

they were irrelevant to religion even then. That is, to show that the

historical conflict was not betweeen religion and cosmology, but

between theologians and cosmology. This would then correct the

impression that religion was defeated by science, then forced to

adapt in order to survive. Instead, it would be seen that science

simply forced some theologians to stop making false statements in the

name of religion. In addition we will see that scientists were also

guilty of making dogmatic statements that later proved to be incorrect.

Indeed, the conflict was really one between the self-proclaimed dogma

of theologians presented as religion and the philosophical speculations

of scientists presented as science. Similarly, the modern "conflict"

between science and religion results from the clash between

pseudo-religion and atheistic theology.

Thus, if one wishes to resolve any apparent conflicts which may exist

today between Judaism and cosmology, one must consider the historical

Church-astronomy conflict as well. We begin with a discussion of Greek

cosmology, which formed the basis for the medieval Church cosmology.

…..

Greek Cosmology: Geometry of the Universe

The first "scientific" model (i.e. based more on observation than

on mythology) of the universe was that of a flat Earth and a

hemispherical sky covering it. The "scientific" idea that geometry and

numbers are clues to understanding natural phenomena originated with

Pythagoras. He considered the sphere to be the most "perfect"

geometrical shape. Further, he assumed that, as the Creator is perfect,

and as geometry and nature are related, G-d would create a

"perfect"(i.e. spherical) Earth. Indeed, Anaximander had deduced, from

observations of the stars, that the Earth is spherical. In addition,

Anaximander had reasoned that if the Earth is spherical, the sky must

also be spherical (rather than hemispherical) in order to cover it.

Since the Earth and sky were both found to have "the most

perfect shape", the Pythagorean idea of the connection between nature

and geometry received strong impetus and was now applied to all

celestial phenomena. The reasoning of the ancient Greeks was

approximately as follows: since G-d is "perfect", one should expect

G-dly activity to manifest itself through "perfect" geometrical

figures. From this, it follows "logically" that the "G-dly"

celestial bodies are perfectly spherical or circular, are embedded

into spherical shells, and that these spheres revolve about the earth

so that the celestial bodies have exactly circular orbits.

Accordingly, Pythagoras extended Anaximander's ideas in order to

account for all celestial motion as "circular" or "spherical" motion.

He introduced the idea of the spheres as carriers of the heavenly

bodies so that the observed motion of the celestial bodies was

"explained" by of the circular motions of the spheres which bore them.

The "sphere" system was improved by Aristotle, "perfected" by

Ptolemy, and remained the accepted system until Copernicus.

{Fig. 2}

The Permanence and Unchanging Nature of the Celestial Bodies

The celestial bodies were considered to be "perfect" in every way:

as such they were "of necessity" unchanging and permanent.

The Luminance of the Celestial Bodies

The moon was of course observed to change shape from circular to

crescent, and this was correctly related to the fact that the moon

shines only due to its reflection of the sun's light. Thus it was

accepted that the moon, although perfectly spherical, appeared in

different shapes depending on its position. However, the other

celestial bodies were considered to be perfectly circular and they were

also believed to shine on their own, as befits "heavenly" bodies.

The Motion of the Celestial Bodies: Proof of their Vitality

Before Galileo discovered the law of inertia, it was not known

that bodies in motion would remain in motion -- and it was thus

of course not realized that this is not evident on Earth only because

the friction with other entities interferes to slow down and stop

any

moving bodies. Thus the fact that the celestial bodies

constantly move without stopping was attributed either to the "fact"

that G-d or the angels was "pushing" them, or to the "fact" that

they were living beings which moved of their own will! In

addition, before Newton's Law of Gravitation, it was not known

that the orbiting of one body about another was due to the same

force of gravity which pulled objects on earth and caused them to

"fall", and that the circular motion of orbiting bodies resulted from

the falling motion itself. Thus, just as the fact that these bodies

were able to maintain continuous motion was attributed to the fact

that they were imbued with life, so too the "fact" that the form of

this motion was that of a perfect circle was attributed to the

desire of these living bodies to please G-d!

The Old Cosmology

In order to understand why the findings of Copernicus et al.

seemed such a threat to religion, one must understand the

mind-set of that time. Generally speaking, all people accepted the

existence of some sort of supernatural power as fact. There was no

knowledge of science, and thus all phenemona were attributed to

directly willed action rather than to the "automatic" interplay of

matter/energy according to certain fixed "natural" laws. Thus, the

structure, properties and motion of the celestial bodies were

considered to result directly from the Will of G-d rather than from

G-d's natural law.

Why did Christian theologians accept Aristotelian cosmology?

The Torah certainly does not present a systematic cosmology nor does it

anywhere state that one must belive in some particular geometry of the

component parts of the universe. What then prompted Christian

theologians to construct a so-called biblical cosmology? That they did

so is especially surprising since the elements of this cosmology are

culled from various brief references scattered throughout the Torah and

most of these references are very marginal to the issue being dealt

with and are only used as "poetic imagery".

The answer is probably as follows;

Many pagan customs had been incorporated into Christianity along with

the pagans themselves, and so had Greek and other pagan philosophies.

Greek logic as formulated by Aristotle reigned in Europe unopposed for

many centuries by the time the Church achieved ascendancy there. When

the cosmological writings of Aristotle and other ancients were made

avaliable to Christian Europe in the twelfth century, they were assumed

to be as true as Aristotle's logic and were quite naturally adopted by

the Church as well. Just as Scripture was adapted to fit the pagan

philosophies regarding matters theological, so too the Greek cosmology

was read into the relevant passages. Thus, parallel to the systematic

cosmology of the ancient Greek philosophers, grew a new "biblical" cosmogony.

The Attribution of Aristotle's Cosmology to the Bible

Indeed, Aristotle himself believed that the "heavenly bodies" were

intelligent living beings! Since Aristotle's "logic" was considered

impeccable and unimpeachable, his theory of cosmology was the

accepted view until the scientific age. Even more so, since the

theologians accepted this theory as well, they endeavored to show

that the Bible predicted it! Thus, this theory became dogma in the

Church. Their purported motivation was to interpret the Bible in the

truest way they knew how. To them, the only valid interpretation of

a biblical passage was the strictly literal one. However, because of

their heavy Aristotelian influence, they endeavored to show that

the literal meaning was in conformity with Aristotelian philosophy.

Specifically, those passages having bearing on the structure of the

universe were interpreted by them in accordance with Aristotelian

cosmology. Among these were passages telling of the separation of the

"heavenly waters", the "spreading of the sky as a curtain" and so on.

The Church came into violent conflict with early Renaissance

astronomers who claimed that these descriptions were incorrect. Due

to this, astronomical theories contradicting Aristotle's theory were

seen as contradictions of the Bible, and therefore as heresy.

The Double Resistance of the Church

In the Middle Ages and indeed until the modern age, the Europe of

Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo was essentially ruled by the Church.

Indeed, the European universities were essentially intellectual

training-centers for priests. Thus, new ideas in the field of science

came up against a twofold obstacle: the possibility of a claim that

they contradicted religious teachings of the Church; and the natural

hostility of the establishment (Church) scholars to any new theory

which threatened their accepted scientific views (which were mostly

based on ancient Greek philosophy). However, not only did the priests

have a double reason to fight certain new ideas, they also had the

power to suppress these ideas through the might of the Church! This

inevitably led to conflict between the Church and those who championed

any new ideas which were potentially controversial. (See med book)

The Church's Objections to Copernican Theory : Background

Essentially, the Church was opposed to Copernicus's ideas

on three levels: 1) theologically, because they seemed

to contradict a literal interpretation of Scripture;

2) intellectually, because they contradicted Aristotle's

theories; and 3) common sensibly, because they seemed patently absurd.

Since theologians claimed that the Bible

contained/espoused/predicted Aristotle's cosmology [5] and that

the only source of truth is the Bible, any attack on Aristotelian

cosmology was considered an assault against the Bible. Thus, the

intellectual and theological objections to Copernicus' ideas were often

one and the same.

*

Theological Objections:

The theological objections were based on biblical verses such as the following:

‑(Åã ;é Ñâíôâ) öÅôå åÑÄã çáöéâÖ çâéô óÉã ÑàÖêÑ­

(G-d) "Who stretches out the heavens as a curtain and spreads them out as a

tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22).

In addition, there were scriptural passages which seemed to

imply that the Earth was indeed stationary:

‑(Ñ ;Éó çâåâÑö) ÉíÖ çåÖí àÖéö åÅ ÑâêÖãé åí ïòÄ Éëâ­ (G-d) "has

established the Earth on its foundations so that it should not ever move (be

removed)", (see note "mistranslation") (Psalms 104:5).

...and that it was the sun that moves:

‑(Ñ:Ä öåÑó) çô ÄÖÑ áòÖÜ ìÄÖô ÖéÖóé åÄÖ ôéôÑ ÄÅÖ ôéôÑ áòÜÖ­ The sun rises

and the sun goes down and hastens to its place where it rises again

[Ecclesiastes 1:5]. (See note "mistranslation".)

The Patent Absurdity:

The very idea that the Earth could be moving and spinning was

considered by many to be absurd, since it was felt that this could not

possibly go unnoticed by its inhabitants. In fact, at the rotational

speed predicted by the Copernican theory, approximately 1000 miles per

hour, it was thought that the Earth would break into pieces which would

go flying off into the void! And who could believe that the Earth was

hurtling through space at over 65,000 miles per hour! Yet, as

Copernicus pointed out, if the Earth did not move at these speeds, then

the spheres must be moving at even greater speeds, since they would

have to traverse the entire circumference of the heavens in only 24

hours! Nevertheless, before Galileo and Newton explained the idea of

inertia, it was virtually impossible for most people to believe that the

Earth could move at such fantastic speeds without man noticing it.

NOTE;MISTRANSLATIONS*****

***

The correct translation of the words ‑àÖéö åÅ­ is "should not collapse"

.Thus this passage does not really imply that the Earth is stationary,

but rather that it would not collapse its foundations! However, the

*********** translation incorporated this mistranslation , and this

contributed to the confusion.

The words ‑ÄÅÖ ... áòÜÖ­ are correctly translated as "shines...and

comes" rather than "rises ....and sets".Indeed , that these words do

not imply actual motion of the sun (but are rather figurative) can be

seen by the fact that these words are applied to Gd as well --

(Å:Çå çâòÅÉ) Öéå òâíôé áòÜÖ ÄÅ âêâëé Ñ­ (And Moshe said) "G-d came from

Sinai and rose up from Se'ir to them" (Deuteronomy 33:2).The words

translated here as "came"

and "rose" are the same words translated in the other passage as "sets"

and "rises" , the literal translation of the word here translated as

"rises" is actually "shines" , and the literal translation of the word here

translated as "sets" is more correctly "comes". The context clearly

indicates that all these are meant figuratively since Gd neither

"rises" nor "sets" nor "shines" nor "comes" etc.Similarly so as regards

the sun.********************

………..

Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed that he is not at the

center of the universe after all. With all the arguments and

explanations he can accept this intellectually, but not emotionally.

Man still seems to feel something to the effect that: "Well, if we

really are important to G-d, and G-d knew that we'd naively think we are

at the center of the universe, couldn't He in His Wisdom somehow arrange

it so that..."

Geocentrism IS valid

Well, strange as it may seem after this whole discussion of the

overthrow of geocentrism, we now make the claim that the earth is in

fact at the center of the universe in an entirely physical sense!

However, we can immediately raise an objection to this outrageous claim,

even without relying on physics. The positioning of the Earth at the center of the universe would be such an extreme

statistical improbability that it would "show G-d's hand"!

??[Insert reference to Free Will from p.31,32]

Surprisingly enough, G-d in His wisdom has indeed created the universe

in such a way that although the Earth is at the center of the universe,

there is no statistical improbability in this fact! This is so because,

as we shall soon show, every point in the univese is the center of the

universe! Thus, although the Earth does not occupy a physically unique

position in the universe, it would be entirely consistent with the laws

of physics to say that the sun revolves about the Earth, and that the

Earth is the center of the entire universe.

How could this be?

To understand this, we must know something about General

Relativity, cosmology and the philosophy of physics. Before we go

further, however, we must clarify what "center of the universe"

means! To do this, we must also clarify what we mean by saying

that something is "at the center". There are actually different types

of "centers", as follows:

The Center of Rotation

The piece of wood stick in the diagram has a nail driven through it

(into the bottom board) which serves as a pivot. The stick rotates, as

shown, around the pivot. Thus the nail can be termed the "rotational

center" of the stick (or of the stick-board-nail system), even though it

is certainly not the physical center.

{Fig. 4}

Analogously, the universe may rotate about some object which is not

located at its center. Thus, the Earth might be the rotational center

of the unvierse without being its spatial center.

The Center of Expansion

Imagine that you are surrounded by four people. Each of the four then

walks away from you, each in a different direction (i.e N,S,E,W).

{Fig. 5}

Thus when you look N, S, E or W, you will see people moving away from

you. In contrast to this, if any of the other people look, they will see a

quite different pattern. They only see people when they look behind

them, and thus the pattern they see can not be symmetric. This

difference is of course due to the fact that you, and only you, are the

center of this dispersion pattern. If we call this an "expanding" pattern, then

we can say that you are the "center of expansion".

Now we increase the amount of surrounding people to 12. We

place them on a circle about you so that each is the same distance

from you, and then ensure that each one is separated from the

other by a given distance. They then begin to walk away from you

(radially), each with the same speed. Thus, wherever you look, you

will see people moving away from you, with all of them doing so at the

same speed; the pattern is very symmeteric, with you at the center.

{Fig. 6}

Of course any of the others would see a totally different picture. They

would see people only in the directions "behind" them and they would see

everyone moving with different speeds. In fact, each one could probably

look back at any time and figure out that it is you who are standing

still and you who is the center of the pattern, and that everyone else

(including themselves) is moving away from you with a constant speed.

Thus, whenever something is the "symmetrical center" of a symmetrical

grouping of moving objects, one knows that it is in fact the "expansion

center" or center of expansion (or of contraction).

Expansion and Rotation

Now imagine that all these people are walking on a large piece of metal

plate which is rotating about a pivot. (Thus, even the center person is

rotating). Or, imagine that the plate is not rotating, but rather while

these people are walking, they are all also rotating about the pivot,

i.e. the "center" person is not standing still -- he is also rotating

about the pivot.

{Fig. 7} {Fig. 8}

In this case we can say that there is a symmetrical expansion pattern

which is rotating. However, the center of rotation (the pivot point) is

not the same as the center of expansion.

The Geometrical Center

We now introduce one more slight complication. Assume we have a

universe, which even when empty still exists. That is, the "space" of

the universe is not a collection of "empty spaces between things", but

is rather one big empty space. Whether or not this space can possess a

"geometric center" depends on its fundamental nature. A universe can

be finite or infinite, bounded (possessing an end) or unbounded.

{Fig. 9}

If the universe is finite but unbounded, i.e. it is closed,

(e.g. spherical) in analogy to travel on the Earth's surface one can

continue going forever in any direction but one finds that however one

travels, one always returns to familiar places after a while), then any

point is as much a geometric center as any other. If the

universe is infinite (and unbounded), i.e. it is open, e.g.

plane, flat, then from any point the distance to the end of the

universe is infinite in all directions, so that one could either

say that at each point the universe is a circle of radius infinity

which has that point at its center, or one could equally say

that no point is the center. If the universe is finite and bounded,

[i.e. it has an "end"] then there is a unique point which is the

geometric center. However, it is rather impossible for us to imagine

such a starngely truncated universe (See note __ re Leibnitz.) Of

course, nothing physical (that we can now concieve of) can be both

infinite and bounded.

Center of Matter

In this empty universe, we now place matter. If the amount of matter is

finite and the universe is either finite and bounded or infinite and

unbounded, then this matter has a center of gravity, and the area of

space it occupies has a center -- the "center of matter-space". If the

universe is finite but unbounded, it may or may not be possible to

define such a center (uniquely).

Center of Symmetry

As far as is known today the universe is composed of galaxies which are

composed of stars, some or all of which have satellites. These galaxies

are grouped in clusters, and the clusters are grouped in super-clusters,

and the super-clusters...

{Fig. 10}

Is this pattern symmetric?

The "Center" of the Universe

In this space we now put our rotating, expanding, (symmetrical?) system

of objects (people, stars, dust particles, whatever). What is the

center of this universe?

Since the only things in the universe are these objects, the center of

these objects, i.e. the center of matter-space, can perhaps be

considered the center of the universe. Or perhaps the true center is

that of expansion or of rotation? Or perhaps it is the geometrical

center of the total space (if it is definable) which is really the

center? Or perhaps the symmetry center?

[Fig 10]

Thus there are now five types of centers (the geometrical center of the

universe, the center of matter-space, the center of symmetry, the center

of expansion and the center of rotation) and they need not all coincide!

Geocentricity: Earth at which Center?

We do not yet know conclusively whether or not the universe is finite or

inifinite -- but certainly it would seem that it must be unbounded. In

either case, the geometric center could not be defined uniquely --

however we will examine whether or not it has any meaning per-se.

It does seem that Earth cannot be the center of symmetry of the

universe since it is located at the edge of its own galaxy. However it

is not at all clear that the universe does have a general

spatially symmetric distribution of matter, so that the universe might

well have no such symmetry for Earth to be the center of.

Since it is not known whether or not the universe is finite, and whether

or not matter fills all the available space, the question of whether or

not there exists a center of matter-space is also moot.

In any case, we shall discuss the possibility of a rotation center and

an expansion center. In addition we shall investigate the possibility

of whether or not one can define at all a geometric center.

We will now examine the meaning of the geocentricity of our

universe in the light of the preceeding discussion. That is, we will

examine modern cosmology to find out where, in our universe, might be

these three types of center. We will deal separately with each type

of center, discussing the validity of geocentrism with respect to each

type. Our first discussion will deal with the concept of the geometric

center of the universe.

Geocentricity and the Geometric Center of the Universe

Introduction

In ancient times it was believed that the universe was composed of two

types of entities: space and matter.

Space was the framework in which matter moved. Space was "absolute" in

the sense that it was an actual entity, not simply the lack of matter.

As an entity in its own right, it had an orientation, a center, edges.

Thus any planet in the universe could be described according to where it

was relative to the center of space, how quickly it was moving relative

to space (which was stationary), what angle it made relative to the "up

and down" directions of space.

Thus even if the universe had only one body in it, it would make sense

to talk of its motions, etc. -- there was no need of other bodies to

provide a reference relative to which its motion could be defined.

Space itself, absolute space, provided the reference. Motion meant

motion with respect to absolute space.

In fact, if there were nothing at all in the universe, it was believed

that "space" still had some meaning, and that this space would have a

geometric center.[28] Earth was believed to be located in the geometric

center of space. However, when the concept of absolute space began to

be discredited, and space ceased to be thought of as an entity in

itself, speaking of a center of the universe began to seem ridiculous.

Thus, it seemed that the universe could not possibly have the earth at its center,

since it had no center at all!

With the advent of modern cosmological models and the general theory of

relativity it was shown that space (time) is a "thing" in the sense that

it can be bent and twisted !

However the controversy over whether or not absolute space exists, and

thus whether or not a geometric center exists, is not quite over. We

now deal with this question in detail.

The Geometric Center of the Universe: Absolute Space

Until a few centuries ago it was believed that space was absolute. That

is, space had meaning even if it was totally empty. "Space" was thus

not merely the empty areas between pieces of matter, rather it was a

"thing-in-itself".

Thus space could be considered to have a real, geometric center.

However for an entity to be a "thing" rather than a concept, it must

have physical properties. Thus, for space to be considered as a "thing

in itself" it had to have physical properties even when empty of all

matter (energy). We now briefly discuss (some of) these supposed

properties.

The Properties of Absolute Space: The "Ether Properties"

Foremost among the properties of space was that there was some

"material" substance to it which enabled one to speak of speed relative

to space, rotation relative to it, position and direction relative to

it. This "materiality" was later given the name "ether". For brevity,

we will here refer to these properties of absolute space as their "ether

properties".

In addition, matter was believed to prefer a state of rest so that all

moving bodies eventually come to a stop. Also, resting bodies needed a

push to get them to move, but they also came to a stop if the push was

discontinued. This property of matter, its "desire to remain at rest",

was considered to be a result of some spiritual-like properties of space

and matter that caused them to be "perfect", and thus to prefer

"stability", "rest" and the like. We refer to this supposed

property of absolute space as its "perfection properties".

Since the sun and planets rotated continuously about the earth, they

were considered to have a continuous push on them given by G-d or

angels, etc, In fact, a circle was also believed to possess the

attribute of "perfection" and the "perfection" of "heavenly" bodies was

reflected in their "perfectly circular orbit".

The Reasons for Belief in Absolute Space

These two types of properties, the "ether properties" and the

"perfection properties" were introduced in ancient times as a result of

religious/metaphysical beliefs -- not as a result of experimental

observation.

In modern times, when explanations of the workings of nature began to be

based on observation rather than on purely speculative philosophical

"wishful thinking", these properties came under attack. According to

the principles of the scientific method, if a concept is not necessary

to the explanation of natural phenomena, and its ramifications are also

not observed in nature, then it is assumed to be a non-valid concept.

In our case, if the concept of absolute space could be shown not to be

necessary to the explanation of phenomena, and if no manifestation of

absolute properties of space were observed, then it could be assumed that

there was no such "thing" as absolute space.

We now examine the concepts related to the existence of an absolute

space in the light of modern physics.

The "Ether Properties" of Absolute Space

Earth revolves about the sun. The sun rotates about the center of the

galaxy, the galaxy is receding from the other galaxies... Everything

seems to be in motion. Is anything standing still?! Of course, we feel

ourselves to be standing still, but someone on the moon sees us as

moving, and someone on Mars sees both of us moving and someone on

Venus... Thus we must rephrase our question to be: Is there anything

in the entire universe that everyone everywhere must agree is not

moving? A little thought will show that this would seem impossible. Of

course everyone everywhere can agree to consider one particular

something as standing absolutely still even though this means that they

must agree that they themselves are moving -- all except the one who it

was agreed is standing still. However, they could all just as well

agree to consider some other one thing as being still. Which thing it

is which all agree is still, is totally arbitrary. They all choose some

particular thing, and then by definition it is a thing which all agree

is standing still. Since each person can claim that his planet, rocket

or space-suit is stationary then there i s obviously no thing which all

must agree is stationary.

Thus all motion is relative. That is, since each can say he is

stationary (and there exists no unique stationary point in the universe

to contradict this), a statement about being in motion is meaningful only

if one specifies in the particular entity relative to which one is in motion. Thus it would

seem that the concept of an absolute space which possessed "ether

properties" was quite unnecessary and probably invalid.

The Perfection Property of Absolute Space

Changing one's speed or direction of motion, or both, is called

"acceleration". Acceleration brings along with it pushes and pulls,

i.e. "forces" -- a force pushing back when one accelerates forward,

a force sideways when (accelerating by) moving in a circle. This will

be explained in more detail in the section entitle "The Rotation

Center". What is the cause of this accelerator force?

The answer is that it is not really a force, rather it is inertia

manifestating itself as a "force". Newton's law of inertia states that:

objects at rest remain at rest (unless pushed or pulled) and objects in

(unaccelerated) motion remain in (unaccelerated) motion (unless pushed

or pulled). [39]

This of course is in opposition to the "perfection principle" which

demands that all objects tend to a state of rest. [40] Thus, both the

ether principle and the perfection principle have been discredited.

Since these were the properties which gave to space its

"thing-in-itself" quality, does the invalidation of these properties

imply that space is not a "thing"? In other words, have we disproved

the existence of "absolute space"?

[39] When one does push an object, it resists the motion. This

resistence to motion is what is called inertia and it is this resistence

which we feel as a "force".

[40] Of course, in most cases observed by people, moving objects always

do come to rest unless constantly pushed. However, this is simply due

to: friction forces between the moving object and the surface it is

moving on, or the medium it is moving through; collision with another

object (which also stops or does not begin to move, due to friction).

Negation of Absolute Space

Although the perfection principle has been discredited, one could say

that a new one has been substituted for it, the laws of "inertia", and

that there was therefore no damage done to the belief in absolute space.

That is, empty space possesses a property; it induces inertia in matter

(when matter is placed in it). Thus, having a property, it is a

"thing". Thus, since space is a "thing", it is "absolute" and can have

a center.

However, this is not necessarily the case, for Mach (a philospher

scientist whose work greatly influenced Einstein) claimed that inertia

was not a property of the universe, but was rather a property of matter

itself. That is, inertia is a property of matter which causes it to

interact with other matter (in space). Thus again space was left with

no properties of its own, and could not be considered "absolute".

In order to understand this issue and to see whether or not one can

indeed attribute inertia solely to matter, and not to space, one must

understand inertia better. For example, although we now know the

properties of inertia, we still do not know its origin -- i.e. what

causes an object to have inertia.

Inertia

To help in partially answering this, we proceed as follows:

imagine the universe to be totally empty except for one "planet".

This planet is accelerating. Now, how do we know that it is

accelerating? As we saw before, motion is meaningful only if it is

motion with respect to something. Since the rest of the

universe is empty, there does not exist anything else relative to which

the planet is moving! There is thus no way one can give any meaning

to the statement that the planet is moving. Or is there perhaps? Did

we not say that any accelerated body feels a force? Of course

usually the force could be attributed to a source of

gravitation, and thus the acceleration could not be

unambiguously detected. (This follows from the principle of

equivalence of the theory of relativity which will be dealt with in more

detail in the section on "The Rotation Center".)

[42] Motion is undefined because it cannot be observed. It cannot be

observed because "motion" of the sole body in the universe causes no

(observable) effects. It causes no effects, because the effects of

motion are due to inertia, but because the universe is empty there is no

inertia: viewed the other way: empty universe means no inertia means

no effects of motion means motion is unobservable and thus "motion" is a

meaningless term in this context.

Now, however, if the universe is empty, the planet cannot attribute the

force to gravity caused by some other object -- it must admit that it is

experiencing a force because it is accelerating! So there would seem

to be meaning to

acceleration in an empty universe. [41] However, it seems almost

impossible that in an empty featureless universe one can notice any type

of motion. It is quite illogical. Yet, the presence of the

acceleration force, the inertia, seems to say otherwise. Thus, it would

seem that the presence of the acceleration force, i.e. inertia, points

to the existence of absolute space!

[41] It is really an "almost" empty universe because it's empty except

for the planet itself.

The resolution? We follow our logic and postulate that not

only is there is no inertia in an empty universe, but a planet in an

otherwise empty universe also has no inertia. We neglect self

interaction of particles and intra-object interaction of constituent

particles. (See note 30.) Thus there is no meaning to the statement

that it is moving. [42]

Of course we cannot merely create convenient postulates arbitrarily.

They must be consistent with the rest of physics. Thus we must ask how

could it be that there is no inertia in an "almost empty" universe? Our

question is based on the observation that in the universe (as we see it)

there is inertia -- it would therefore seem that one could extrapolate

to the case of an almost empty universe and deduce that it would also

manifest inertia. However this may well be an invalid deduction. That

is, we reason as follows:

If the universe was not empty, why would there be inertia to a planet?

The answer: every piece of matter in the universe creates a "field" and

it is the cumulative field which is the source of inertia of every piece

of matter which encounters the field. Since this inertia field

permeates the entire universe, all matter in the universe has inertia.

However if there is only one object in the universe, it has no inertia

because there are no other objects in the universe to give it inertia.

[Note 30] Thus there are no inertial effects of accelerated motion for

such an orphan planet. We must therefore conclude that there is is no

way of detecting any motion in a universe with only one object. Indeed,

in such circumstances, motion is actually undefined. [42]

We can now see the significance of this to our question of the existence

of absolute space. Since there is no way to detect any motion, even

accelerated motion, in an "otherwise empty" universe, then the "ether

properties" of space cannot be observed. Since they are unnecessary

concepts to physics, they are invalid scientifically, and space cannot

be said to be absolute in that sense. In addition, since inertia is a

property of matter, and not of space itself, as it interacts with other

matter in space, (there is no "inertia" in an empty universe), the empty

universe does not possess any "perfection property". Thus it would seem

that empty space possesses no physically relevant properties, and thus

cannot be said to exist!

However this was not the last word.

The Geometrical Center of the Universe: Absolute Space

Until a few centuries ago it was believed that space was

absolute. In 1949 and 1969 solutions of Einstein's equations were

found which seemed to imply that absolute space did exist. This

solution corresponded to a rotating universe empty of all

matter-energy! Now, as we have seen, rotation, as all motion

should have no meaning even in an almost empty universe. Yet here the

universe was totally empty, and yet the whole universe was rotating!

Very strange!

Further research showed that perhaps there was indeed some energy in

this universe and therefore it was not really empty. [38]

[38] See Houl and Dehnen

According to the principle laid down by Ernst Mach, inertia could exist

only when matter-energy existed, and empty universes could not rotate

since they had no body relative to which they rotated. The controversy

over the possible existence of absolute space is thus actually a

controversy over the validity of Mach's principle.

This controversy has still not been resolved.*

*For a recent symposium discussing the validity of Mach's

principles see... ??

Is the Earth at the Geometrical Center of the Universe?

Until the existence or non-existence of absolute space has been

established (and thus also the existence or non-existence of a unique

geometrical center) it is not possible to anticipate the possible

questions and solutions this decision will generate.

Whether or not there exists the concept of a geometrical center: if there does,

whether or not the earth can be considered to be located at such a center;

whether that will prove relevant to this discussion; these are all moot

points right now. We thus put aside the geometric center and consider

geocentrism only in relation to the expansion and rotation centers of

the universe.

[Note 30] The more mass in the universe, the more inertia. Of course,

each body interacts with the inertia field so actually our planet in an

otherwise empty universe does have inertia; even a single particle may

have inertia in an otherwise empty universe since it can self interact.

However we do not here consider this very involved and as yet unsolved

physics dilemma.

We now examine the concept of the center of expansion of the universe.

The Expanding Universe

The universe is expanding!

This extraordinary phenomenon was deduced from the observations of

astronomers and is verified by Einstein's general relativistic theory of

gravitation. When one says that the universe is expanding, what is

meant is that the actual "fabric" of the universe, i.e. space-time, is

expanding.

How can space, let alone space-time expand?

Just as an aid in imagining this, let us visualize a balloon with dots

painted on it so that all dots are equally distant from all their closest

neighbors. [*]

[Fig 11]

[*] The distance between any two neighboring dots is the same regardless

of which two dots one measures between.

Now the balloon is blown up more. As it is inflated the dots move

further apart.

[Fig 12]

Now if a flea were to stand on a dot and watch the neighboring dots, he

would see them all moving away from him as the balloon expands. In

fact, whichever dot is chosen as the viewing point, the viewer will see

all the other dots moving away from him. Thus, if each dot had an

observer on it, each would see everyone else moving away; since each

one sees all the dots receding equally quickly away from his viewing

point, each would assume that he is at the center of the pattern. Thus,

all assume this, and all are correct! Every point is the center of

expansion!

{Fig. 13}

Back to Space-Time Expansion

Now if space-time is expanding in a manner analogous to the balloon,

etc. [*] at all points in the universe the expansion [*] seems to be

centered right there!

{Fig. 14}

Thus, any observer in the universe, on considering the expansion of the

universe, could legitimately conclude that the "center of the expansion"

of the (3-D) universe is precisely his location -- i.e He is the center

of the universe!

Therefore, we on earth (observing the expansion of the universe) can say

that Earth is the center of the (3-D) universe!

Thus the pendulum has swung back, and as far as the expansion cent modern science has

er is concerned modern science has reinstated the validity of the geocentric view, albeit in a very

sophisticated sense.

[*] See Appendix 4 for analogies in three dimensions.

[*] Now, of course when one pictures a balloon, cake, etc.

expanding, one thinks of it as taking up more and more of the empty

space around it. However, here we wish to talk about the

expansion of space (space-time) itself! Thus, when space-time

expands, it does not expand within something, taking up more room --

rather it is space itself which expands and as it expands it is

creating new space (as needed).

We have seen that the Earth can be considered as a center of

expansion owith the concept of the rotational center of the universe,

f the universe. Even more important however is the question of the

rota tional center of the universe, since the reassignment of this from

the Eican revolution" (which started the whole seeming conflict arth to

the sun was the essence of the "Copernican Revolution" which sta rted

the whole seeming conflict between religion and science in modern t

imes.

The Rotational Center of the Universe: Uniform Motion versus

Accelerated Motion

Probably everyone who reads this has at some time travelled through the

air at speeds of several hundred miles an hour. Those who have had

smooth flights know that it is possible to gently sip a drink without

spilling a drop, that a walk in the aisles needs no special skills -- in

fact, during the greater part of the flight it is almost impossible to

detect any effect of the motion (without peeking out the window!).

Similarly, during a smooth car ride, riding (even at high speed), can be

indistinguishable from the wait at a traffic light. It is only while

the car is speeding up or slowing down, or turning towards the left or

right, that some effect is noticeable. Similarly, in a plane, there is

an effect only when the plane takes off, lands or banks.

[Fig 15 after "we slide to the right" below]

If a car speeds up, we are pressed back in our seat. If it slows down,

we are pushed from the back of the seat. If it turns right, we slide to

the left; if it turns to the left, we slide to the right. (If the

plane, or an elevator, rises suddenly, we are pressed to the floor; if

it descends suddenly, we are left somewhat suspended off the floor.)

Thus it is only change of speed and change of direction which lead to

noticeable effect. Motion with both constant speed and constant

direction is indistinguishable from staying at rest. Motion with

constant speed but a change of direction, or constant direction but

changing speed, does lead to noticeable effect.

In order to have a concise terminology we introduce the term

"acceleration". Acceleration means a change in the state of motion --

either in the direction of the motion [30] or in the speed of the motion

[31], or in both simultaneously. Non-acceleration motion means motion

with both a constant direction and a constant speed.

[30] Only motion in a straight line does not involve a change of direction,

e.g. motion in a circle involves a constant change of direction.

[Fig 16]

[31] Both speeding up and slowing down are changes in the speed of

motion. ------------

Now that we have this terminology, we can summarize all of the above in

a statement which is part of and follows from the very fundamental

principle of physics known as the principle of relativity: "There is no

way for anyone who is moving without acceleration to determine whether

or not he is actually moving, unless he peeks "outside".The principle of

relativity contains more than the statement given here.

Relativity of Uniform Motion

Now, suppose a physicist is in unaccelerated motion, and believes

himself in fact not to be in motion at all. [32] He performs some

physics experiments. Of course, since there is no way for him to

determine that he is in motion, the results of the experiment must be

indistinguishable from the results he would obtain were he in fact to be

stationary. He then "peeks" and sees the landscape flashing by him. To

him, it seems as though he is standing still, and all the world is

rushing by. (This is a very common illusion on trains.) Outside stand

another physicist who performs the identical experiment. He of course

obtains results consistent with his being at rest, but these results are

then the same as those of the physicist on the speeding train, Now, the

physicist on the train feels himself to be at rest. [33] In addition,

his experiment verifies that he is at rest, for his results are

identical to those of an experiment in a resting train.

[32] For example, he gets on a train 15 minutes early and falls asleep.

He wakes up 1/2 hour later while the train is in smooth, uniform motion

at 80 miles per hour. However, he believes himself to have slept only 5

minutes, so that he believes that the train has not yet left the

station.

[33] Since the train is moving without acceleration, he is neither

pressed against his seat, nor pushed from it, nor slipped to the side.

---------

He can explain the fact that the world is flashing by exactly so: he

claims that the train is standing still, and the world is flashing by!

Of course the physicist on the ground claims exactly the opposite.

Although it would seem that the latter is correct, in fact the principle

of relativity states that both viewpoints are equally valid

scientifically! If a person is moving away from another without

acceleration, he may claim that he is actually remaining at rest, and

both claim that it is the other who is moving, yet both points of view

are equally valid!

Of course, if one of them was pushed back in his seat or slid over, we

could point him out and say: "Obviously, you are the one who is moving,

and it is the other who is at rest. However, if both move without

acceleration, neither is pushed or slid, and both can claim to be at

rest. Tentative Conclusion

Uniform motion is relative. Accelerated motion is not relative because

of the accompanying effects. And now... We can even extend this

principle. Even with accelerated motion the principle of realtivity is

valid! How is this possible?

Relativity of "Circular" Acceleration

[Fig 17 after "during the ride" below]

Anyone who has ridden a merry-go-round (carousel) knows that there

is a force pulling away from the center during the ride. [34]

This is actually due to the accelerated motion -- even if it is

revolving with constant (angular) speed, he is constantly changing

direction (see Fig. 16) -- and is the same as the force causing people

(in turning cars) to slide over in their seat when the car they are in

is turning in a curve.

{Fig. 12} {Fig. 13}

However the person on the carousel need not admit he is in acceleration

(changing direction) even though the world is spinning around him is

being pushed to the outside. He can claim that the entire universe is

indeed spinning around him and that the force pushing him to the side is

due to the gravitational force of the spinning universe! The general

theory of relativity says that this may be/is a valid viewpoint!

A number of problems seem to arise; they are presented and answered in

the following.

[Fig 18 after "universe is spinning about him" below]

Imagine someone spinning on his heels (one revolution per second) under

starry skies. According to the interpretation of relativity we have

discussed, one could consider that the person is stationary and the

entire universe is spinning about him. This however gives rise to a

number of questions:

{Fig. 14}

1) Since the universe rotates once a second (and the circumferential

distance travelled by each star is fantastically huge so that) the speed

of each star must exceed (by far) the speed of light -- which is

forbidden by relativity theory itself.

2) As soon as the person begins to spin, one can say that the universe

is spinning instead. However, if the universe begins rotating

immediately, then the effect of his motion must have travelled to the

stars instantaneously, i.e. faster than light [35] -- this is

impossible according to relativity theory.

[35] And if he sees the stars rotating immediately then the light from

the newly rotating stars has instantaneously reached him.

--------------

3) The universe rotates only because the person moved his feet. Yet how

could he have enough energy to cause the entire universe to move?

4) Is it not true that the "centrifugal force" caused by the motion of

the stars is a "fictitious" force? Thus, does this not prove that one

cannot really consider the universe to be in motion?

Answers

1) Relativity theory forbids the transfer of matter-energy or of

information at speeds faster than that of light. However, for there to

be a true violation of this law, the matter-energy must move faster than

light in a "local" frame. [36] In our case, it is only in the frame of

the spinning person that the stars are moving faster than light.

[36] In our case a "local" frame of a star would be a frame of reference

affixed to a nearby star. ---------------

2) On consideration, one can see that no information can be transmitted

via this method -- i.e. someone residing on the far stars cannot

instantaneously receive any messages from the spinning person and vice

versa. [Even if the spinner starts and stops his motion in a sort of

Morse code, this will not transfer any information [37] since the star

resident does not feel any rotation -- he only knows of the spinner when

he finally sees him spinning many years later (when the light reaches

him). Similarly, no information is transmitted by the spinner's seeing

the stars begin to rotate instantaneously.

[37] Compare to EPR paradox and Bell's Theorem, etc. See B.

d'Espagnat. ------------- Let us look at the spinner before he begins

his motion. He is at rest relative to the universe. Imagine that the

entire universe is rotating with him, but that since everything is

rotating in the same way, it is not noticeable. Then the person moves

his feet to spin. By doing so, he is introducing a relative rotation

between himself and the rest of the universe. Since the rotation was

unnoticeable previously, one can choose the direction of that rotation

arbitrarily (in each reference frame). One can then say that the person

is now rotating against the previous motion of the universe --

as-a-whole. Thus when he says that the universe is now rotating, he has

not contributed the necessary energy to accomplish this! Rather, the

universe was rotating before he moved -- he simply notices it now

because of his motion.

4) Physically, the centrifugal (and Coriolis) force can be measured just

as can any "real" force. It is only "fictitious" if we do not consider

the universe to be rotating!! (i.e. If we do consider the universe to

be rotating, we need not answer this question since it doesn't even

arise -- [the question is valid only if one assumes that the universe

does not move, thus it can certainly not be a proof against the motion

of the universe.])

A different approach in answering these questions is presented in

Appendix (2).

Geocentricity as a Result of Relativity

We return to our original problem, that of the geocentricity of the

universe.

From the General Theory of Relativity we can see that physically one can

say that the earth is at rest, and the sun -- and in fact the entire

universe -- is revolving about it! The centrifugal force which has been

measured and attributed to our circular motion about the sun, can in

fact be attributed to the gravitational effect of the rotation of the

universe about us!

Thus the Earth can claim to be the center of rotation of the universe!

Of course, any point in the universe can claim to be the center of

rotation of the universe. However, geocentricity is seen to be just as

valid as the Copernican system!

The theory of relativity does not say that the conception of Ptolemy is

correct; rather it contests the absolute significance of either theory.

(Reichenbach p. 217)

However the importance of the Copernican revolution was that it denied

any validity to the geocentric views of the prevalent cosmology at that

time, i.e. the Ptolemaic system, and claimed truth for itself only,

thus...

The relativity theory of dynamics is not a purely academic matter, for

it upsets the Copernican world view. It is meaningless to speak of a

difference in truth claims of the theories of Copernicus and Ptolemy;

the two conceptions are equivalent descriptions. What had been

considered the greatest discovery of western science compared to

antiquity, is now denied its claim to truth. (Reichenbach p.217)

……

Copernicus was not seriously hounded by the Church for his

statements to the effect that the earth rotated about the sun. Of

course helio (sun)-centrism seemed to contradict some biblical passages

and contradicted Aristotle as well. However, Copernicus himself was

deeply religious and believed in the Bible. He merely interpreted the

controversial biblical passages as being allegorical, and thus claimed

that his theory did not conflict with them. Further, one could even

claim (as did an unsigned introduction to Copernicus's work) that the

Copernican system was not a model of physical reality, but was rather a

computational device -- and thus both Aristotle and the Bible could

remain correct.

Copernicus had offered no proof that the earth actually moved.

What he did show was that calculationally a helio-centric system

offered a far simpler explanation than did a geocentric system.

That is, Copernicus's system could be considered as simply stating that

the motions of the planets were simpler when considered as motions

about the sun, but that this was simply a calculational device: in

actuality everything did revolve about the Earth. Indeed, Copernicus

was not very heretical. He maintained the Aristotelian ideas of

spheres, of a finite universe ending at the sphere of stars and of the

part of G-d in making the whole system work!

Contrast between Copernicus, Bruno and Galileo

Copernicus was not greatly persecuted for his theories (mostly)

because they could be seen as merely computational, and because he did

not speculate on matters merely purely theological as did Bruno. Bruno

was killed because of his theology, not because of his cosmology per

se. Galileo, however, mixed the two by presenting Copernicus's theory

as actual fact rather than as a computational system and as proof that

the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system was wrong -- thus "proving" that the

Church was wrong! As we have seen, Aristotle believed the heavenly

bodies to be perfect spheres, i.e. without any defect or blemish

whatsoever, and to be permanent and unchanging. However, through his

powerful telescope, Galileo showed that the moon's surface was

extremely ragged -- with large craggy mountains and huge gaping

craters. This totally conflicted with the picture of the moon as a

"perfect" sphere! [10] In fact Galileo's opponents were reduced to

postulating an invisible layer of glassy material which filled up and

therefore smoothed over the moon's irregular surface.

[10] Although the ancient Greek Anaxagoras had stated that the

markings on the moon were mountains and valleys, this was not accepted

in his time. (Dreyer, p.29)

----------------------

In addition, Galileo observed "sunspots" or dark patches which

appear and disappear on the face of the sun, a blatant "imperfection"

of a supposedly perfect body, and an example of change on a supposedly

unchanging entity. He also observed Venus under sufficient

magnification to observe that it only seemed to be always totally

spherical because it was so small as seen from the Earth, but that in

actuality it had phases as does the moon. This proved that it shone by

reflected sunlight and not by its own light. As we saw, all bodies but