GeoCentrism & eGoCentrism,
Existentialist despair & human significance.
Also:
* The alleged conflict of Bible and science;
* Misunderstandings of the intent of my article by religious & atheist fundamentalists.
Also:
* The alleged conflict of Bible and science;
* Misunderstandings of the intent of my article by religious & atheist fundamentalists.
You can watch the brief related video (13.8 minutes).
This webpage article is referenced on Wikipedia's entry for "'Geocentric Model', or 'Modern Geocentrism'" .
Human Significance and Existential Despair, Egocentrism and Geocentrism;
Fundamentalism and Skepticalism
[A condensed version of a long article of mine in Bohr HaTorah many years ago.]
See also discussion below re: geostationary satellites.
Historical Overview of the Issue
It used to be believed by most people that the universe is small – composed basically of the Earth, the sun and a few smaller and larger lights (planets and stars), with the Earth at the center of this universe (the ‘geocentric’ hypothesis). One of the most obvious things to be seen is that the sun rises and sets every day, and so it was believed that sun (and the stars and planets) rotate about the Earth, and that the most important things in the physical universe are human beings. Some people familiar with the Bible also believed that it taught all or most of this as religious truth.
Some even believed the Earth to be flat, and some of these believed the Bible taught this as well, but even in ancient times many understood that the Earth is spherical and that the Bible does not teach that it is flat. [There is however still a ‘flat-Earth society’ and they even have a web page.]
Later on it became the belief that the universe was a little larger than it had been thought to be, and that is was the sun which is at the center rather than the Earth, and everything rotated about the sun rather than about the Earth. Some people took this to mean that humans are less significant than they had considered themselves to be, and some assumed that all this disproved the divine origin of the Bible.
A Summary of the Conclusions of the Article
In actuality, of course the size of the universe, the placement of the Earth within it, and what rotates about what all have nothing to do with human significance. And the Torah certainly did not link the significance of humanity to the placement of the Earth. And in any case the Torah does not teach that the Earth is at the center or that the sun goes about the Earth – and even the scientists who discovered that the old ideas of science were wrong believed in the Bible and did not think that it taught these incorrect ideas. The location of the Earth and the question of what rotates about what is a purely-scientific issue.
The article shows some obvious things and some less obvious. We’ll show why we feel that the significance of humanity is not tied to our physical size compared to the universe, why we feel that none of this is a Biblical issue, and we’ll bring quotes from some of the great scientists who put together the modern conception of the universe to show that they also didn’t think so.
Although that really ties up the matter, we’ll continue to make some other interesting points. For example, it certainly is the case that from the Torah perspective humans are very significant and that their significance is not tied to their relative size compared to the rest of the universe, however Maimonides taught that humans are NOT the most significant intelligent entities in the universe. This is not to say that Judaism accept that indeed humans are insignificant, just that both statements – that humans are insignificant or that they are necessarily the most significant – may be untrue according to Judaism.
Also, the statement that some fact of astronomy proves that humans are insignificant is an untrue statement since science does not deal with the significance of humanity, which is a matter either for sociology, evolutionary psycho-biology, or metaphysics.
In addition, interestingly enough it turns out that based on ideas in Einstein’s general relativity one can argue that there is a ‘geocentric’ view which is not scientifically wrong, just that it is not a scientific view but rather a metaphysical one - just as the statement “God exists” is not scientifically correct or incorrect, it is simply a metaphysical statement, so too the statement ‘the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun rotates about it’ is not necessarily scientifically wrong, it is simply a metaphysical statement. This is not to say that Judaism teaches geocentrism, but rather that if someone were to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe then this belief is not false according to science, it is simply not relevant to science since it is metaphysics. What IS false is that geocentrism is a valid scientific interpretation of the universe.
What is, and what is thought to be
The Torah neither teaches geocentrism, nor hinges the significance of human life on this or that cosmological theory, but people somehow think that the Torah teaches this or that the two are inextricably linked. Therefore, though the overthrow of geocentrism is of no intrinsic relevance to the Jewish religion, since it is thought to be by many, de facto it is of relevance.
Two Types of Geocentrism
There are at least two important relative motions of the Earth and Sun, one composing the 24-hour daily cycle, and the other composing the 365-day annual cycle. Here we will deal first with geocentrism in the context of the 24-hour daily cycle.
Unambiguous Visual Geocentrism
The nail holding the hands of a clock is unambiguously at the center of a standard clock, and the hands rotate about it. When water drains from a tub into a small hole and a vortex is formed, the vortex is centered on the hole. These are two examples of visually established unambiguous centers.
If one had an unbiased view of the Earth and sun, e.g. a view from space, what would one see – the Earth going about the sun or the sun going about the Earth? In ancient times perhaps it was assumed by simpler people that the view from outside the Earth would show unambiguously that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun went about it, just as unambiguously as the nail is the center of the clock and the hands go about it. We could term this “unambiguous visual geocentrism”.
Of course just as when one stands on the Earth and looks at the sun overhead (this is ‘the Earth’s rest frame) one sees that the sun rotates about the Earth making one complete revolution every 24 hours, if one were on the other hand to stand on the sun (this is ‘the Sun’s rest frame) and look at the Earth, one would see the Earth spin on its axis once every 24 hours [1].Therefore there would be no way to settle the matter simply by a visual inspection of the Earth-sun system, and in visual terms it would simply be a matter of perspective (a matter of which frame you chose).
However, in ancient times and until relatively modern times the universe was considered to consist of just the Earth, sun, a few planets and some few thousand stars arranged in a sphere around the Earth. It was believed by most people that someone who could leave the Earth and gain the perspective of an outsider would see unambiguously that this was the case, and that the Earth was the center of the entire physical universe.
If the Earth is the fixed center of the universe (a frame at absolute rest) then the Earth’s perspective can be said to be absolute and therefore the ‘correct’ one, whereas if the sun is the fixed center then the view as seen from the sun is the ‘correct’ one. Since in ancient times it was believed that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe (and this fact could be established visually in an unambiguous way by an observer outside the Earth), the issue was settled.
Later when the sun was believed to be the center and the Earth to rotate about it, it was still believed that the universe was small and unambiguously centered on the sun, and so the matter was simply settled in the opposite way, and geocentrism gave way to helio(sun)centrism. Already at that time some people, thinking that the Bible taught a geocentric view, believed the Bible to be overthrown, but of course this was not so and even the scientists who overthrew the geocentric view accepted the truth of the Bible and did not think heliocentrism posed any challenge to it.
Nowadays we know that the universe is huge, not only compared to the Earth, and not only totally dwarfing our solar system with the sun and all its planets, but even making our entire galaxy seem tiny in comparison; indeed it may well be that the universe is infinite, and therefore has no unique center. Another possibility – raised by Riemann 150 years ago and later by Einstein – is that the universe is ‘closed’ and so it has no end, but also no unique center (see discussion later on). Either way neither the Earth nor its sun is at the center of the universe.
We know from photos taken by satellites and spacecraft and by infrared and microwave detectors that
the universe is definitely not visually unambiguously geocentric, so this form of geocentrism has definitely been disproved.
Geocentrism in General Relativity
It is interesting that some form of geocentrism is reinstated in the relative sense. That is, when standing on any given entity (choosing the frame of the Earth, sun, a planet or a star etc) one sees motion of the other entities about it, and there is no unique center to compete, as there would be in a small universe with a visually unambiguous center.
Since this is solely a matter of perspective, the question of ‘which rotates about which’ points to a more fundamental question: whether or not there really is some absolute sense in which one or the other perspective is the correct one (as discussed further below).
However if as indeed modern physics tells us, there is no absolute frame, no one frame which is at rest in an absolute sense, and in any case there is no evidence that the Earth or the sun is ‘fixed’, and none that either is ‘the center’ of the universe, then both statements – that the Earth is the center and the sun rotates about it and the reverse statement that the sun is the center and the Earth rotates about it, are equally false, and it is all simply a matter of perspective. Thus not only visually unambiguous geocentrism is false but also any unambiguous geocentrism or heliocentrism is also incorrect scientifically, but a ‘relative geocentrism’ or heliocentrism or any other point or object centrism is scientifically valid as a perspective, a choice of frame.
Einstein’s general relativity formulates its equations in accordance with this, that is, in a way which is independent of the frame chosen [2]. The true physics is in the phenomenon not the perspective, there is a relative rotation and that is real, but the question of which revolves about which is not physics; it is simply a matter of perspective (choice of reference frame).
Note: Of course one might assume that there IS an absolute rest frame, and perhaps the Earth is the arbiter of that frame since we don’t feel it to move, or if not, perhaps the sun, but neither is correct, as discussed further below.
[There is of course another relative rotation, the yearly cycle: i.e. a more perspicacious observer standing on the Earth would notice that the rotation of the sun about the Earth is in a plane, and that the angle of the plane changes in a cycle completed every 365 days. Any even non-perspicacious observer on the sun would see that the Earth rotates about the sun once every 365 of its days. Which perspective is correct? The answer is again as above; see more discussion below.]
1) There is no scientific meaning to the question "which REALLY rotates about which" since there is no measurable 'objective' etc means to make such a determination.
It is important to note that this does NOT mean that therefore the question is open from the scientific viewpoint; from the scientific viewpoint it is a scientifically MEANINGLESS question.
2) From the scientific point of view there is relative rotation etc between the two and that is all that can meaningfully be said. It is important to note that a theory which makes a determination as to which 'really' moves about which is NOT a more complete scientific theory, it is a MEANINGLESS theory from the scientific viewpoint.
3) Science does not claim to have exclusive TRUTH, it deals only with issues capable of resolution via 'objective/scientific' etc means, and so science does not 'disallow' one from talking about religious or metaphysical truths, and so for example science/scientists don't think science 'disallows' speaking about "which one 'really' rotates about which" as long as one is not claiming to be speaking from a scientific viewpoint, but is rather aware that they are presenting metaphysical etc beliefs.
3)All the following statements are FALSE (not only from the scientific viewpoint):
"science teaches that the earth rotates about the sun",
"science teaches (or the theory of relativity shows) that the sun rotates about the earth"
"science cannot determine which one is really - in the scientific sense - rotating about which"
"science has proven that the earth does NOT rotate about the sun"
"science has proven that the sun does NOT rotate about the earth"
Even the following statement is false: "it is equally true scientifically to say that the earth rotates about the sun as to say that the sun rotates about the earth". What is true is that THEY ARE IN RELATIVE ROTATION: and THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO be said from the scientific viewpoint.
Einstein’s General Relativity and Geo or Helio Centrism
According to present day scientific assumption/theory/model there is no particular location in the universe which is special, no place or object which is stationary in the absolute sense; therefore the only type of motion which can be meaningfully discussed is the relative motion between (somewhat nearby)objects.
According to the modern scientific view the Aristotelian system is INCORRECT (it attributed intelligence to the planets etc to explain their motion), the Heliocentric and geocentric models are WRONG if they are meant to imply that there is a unique center to the universe and/or that there is some part of the universe which is uniquely at rest (the sun, or the earth, or anything else) so that other things orbit them while they are stationary.
What one sees from a satellite is different from what one sees from earth or from the sun, or from a merry-go-round while you are standing on your head and doing somersaults: the pattern that is seen is different, but they all are due to relative motion. Some reference frames, for example one located on the sun, are more useful in that they produce simpler patterns for the relative motions. But the sun is NOT STATIONARY in an absolute sense and so it is only one of an infinite amount of valid reference frames from which to describe the RELATIVE MOTION of the earth and sun.
It is incorrect to say that "science disproved the geocentric model in favor of the heliocentric" or even that "science proved that the geocentric model is incorrect";
Science does not offer any scientific objection to someone claiming some religious truth that in some sense the earth is the "center" of the universe.
As the eminent Astronomer and General Relativist Sir Arthur Eddington said:
"...on the most modern scientific theory there is no absolute distinction between the heavens
revolving around the earth and the earth revolving under the heavens; both parties are (relatively) right."
As the eminent mathematician and philosopher Whitehead wrote [3], Geocentrism and heliocentrism seem contradictory but relativity shows both are true; if occurrence of both are true, this means that neither are ‘unambiguously’ correct, they are simply valid perspectives.
Or as the eminent mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, a colleague of Whitehead, wrote: "whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made"
Max Born, one of the founders of quantum physics writes [4]: "...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth...<!--[endif]--> [5] from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also wrote [6]: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system (AR: reference frame) could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate system"
Of course, a description of the universe in terms of a non-geocentric system is simpler.
However as the well-known philosopher of science Hans Reichenbach wrote [7]:
"...the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any 'truer', since this simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions; this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a 'truer' picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g. the definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be carried though only within certain limits. One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions.
[1] Of course the sun spins as well, but we ignore this here.
[2] …and independent of the coordinate system chosen [actually the coordinate system includes the frame].
[3] “Science and the modern World” Alfred North Whitehead 1925 Mentor edition p182b-183 top
[4] "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345
[5] One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
[6] Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)
[7] H. Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time,
Very brief overview
(perfect for very busy people, and those with ADHD)There's no question of course that in ordinary parlance "the Earth spins, and it orbits the sun". There are two major questions we'll deal with here:
1) Does the language of the Torah imply differently? Or does it intend for us to believe differently?
2) If the Torah did imply 'geocentrism', does it imply that the Torah is flawed?
3) Does physics accept this as a purely-objective statement?
Answers :
1) Not necessarily; no.
2) No.
3) Not exactly.
That all, folks! 😄
Note: If you have a long attention span and a deep interest in Newtonian gravity and general relativity, I highly recommend watching my lectures on these topics (there's also explanatory material accompanying the lectures).
A) Overview
B) Linguistic and scientific issues, and relevant quotes
I: What type of "center" does "geocentrism" refer to?
II: Geocentrism in classical Newtonian theory and in General Relativity
III: Summary of the above in terms of what was disproved by science: true & false statements regarding geocentrism.
IV: Some relevant quotes (from Eddington, Whitehead, Russell, Hans Reichenbach, Max Born, and Einstein).
C) Religious, philosophical and polemical issues
V: Religion, the Bible, and geocentrism
VI: The connection to Existentialist despair and the significance of Humanity
VII: Misunderstandings by fundamentalists and atheists
Appendices: Some technical points:
1. The microwave background radiation and broken symmetry
2. Geo-stationary satellites
Links to specific sections:
In the past the accepted wisdom among most was that the Earth is at the physical center of the universe - a belief today referred to as geocentrism ('GeoCentrIsm’ = Earth + Center + ism).Relatedly, some religious people and philosophers believed humans to be 'central' to the purpose of the universe.
[Discussions about the structure of the physical universe and the relation to religious views are not new. The Talmud records discussions almost 2,000 years ago between the sages and contemporary scientists related to the issue of the motion of the stars. 900 years ago the great religious sage, Talmudic expert and philosopher Maimonides accords the view of the scientists greater credence, scorns the view that considers humans as the most important beings in the universe, and clearly stated that in general biblical passages which implied counter-scientific views were meant idiomatically or even allegorically (with the exception of the issue of an eternal universe vs a created one; see my video lectures).]
500 years ago, the Copernican discoveries overthrew geocentrism and gave rise not just to discussions involving Earth's position in the universe but also regarding humanity's significance. In more modern times the scientific understanding of the physical universe has been used by some philosophers to buttress their existentialist despair.
Our discussion here of human significance will utilize a scientific discussion of the issue of geocentrism as a springboard and backdrop. The topic of geocentrism also provides entry into discussions about what types of statements are or are not 'scientific', as preparation for the analysis of what science may or may not have to say about human significance.
The issues relate to: science, religion & human psychology"
i. Does the universe have a center? Is Earth at that center? If Earth is not at the center, what is?
ii. Is it false to say that the sun goes around the Earth?
iii. Does religion – particularly the bible – teach that the sun goes around the earth, and does science contradict the religious or biblical view?
iv. In what way would it be significant that Earth is or is not the center?
i. The universe has no 'center' in any scientifically-meaningful sense;
ii. Modern physical theory including Einstein's general relativity theory shows that neither the Earth nor the sun nor any other body can be said to be unequivocally stationary or moving, only that there is relative motion between them. It is legitimate as a perspective to see one as stationary and the other as orbiting it; however, that the Earth orbits the (stationary) sun or the sun orbits the (stationary) Earth though equally legitimate as perspectives are equally illegitimate when taken as statements purporting to possess scientific significance.
iii. Although some religious people feel that their religion requires them to believe in geocentrism, the great majority of Jewish bible-believing sages do not feel the bible teaches geocentrism, and indeed do not believe in geocentrism.
iv. If Earth were at the center of a universe, psychologically this would likely boost our sense that we are cosmically significant. However the reverse is not true. That is, since philosophically significance is not necessarily tied to being at 'the center' in a geographical sense, our not being at the center need not give rise to a psychological feeling of our insignificance. And in any case, any psychological feelings arising as a result of scientific conclusions are not themselves ‘scientific’.
Why geocentrism was very reasonable in the past, and what changed : One must keep in mind that prior to the better understanding of inertia and dynamics we have inherited from Galileo, Newton and others, motion was expected to produce effects (now we know that it is only change of motion which produces effects). From the lack of any feeling of motion experienced as one stands still on the Earth’s surface, it was quite reasonable to conclude that the Earth is stationary.
It used to be believed by most people that the universe is composed basically of the Earth, the sun and moon plus a few smaller and larger relatively nearby lights (planets and stars). From the observation that the sun rises and sets (as do the various lights at night), combined with the obvious stationarity of the Earth, it was concluded that the sun (and the stars and planets) rotate about the Earth[2], a hypothesis now known as ‘geocentrism’.
The implication of all this however was that the Earth is the center of the universe, and it is this which is often meant by ‘geocentrism’.
To those who felt that humanity lives at the center of the universe, and on the object about which the sun rotates daily, it seemeds reasonable to conclude that humans are the most important entities in the physical universe.
Some believers in the Bible felt that the Bible teaches the unique significance of humanity and it taught geocentrism as religious truth via usage of terms such as ‘the sun rises’[3].
Many years later with more sophisticated understandings of inertia and dynamics it was possible to consider the Earth as non-stationary despite the lack of any sense of motion. And so a new conception became feasible - the sun at the universal-center rather than the Earth, with the Earth spinning to produce day and night (rather than day/night being a result of the sun’s daily motion about the Earth), and with the Earth orbiting in an annual cycle. Thus was overthrown the conception of geocentrism - but in favor of helio(sun)-centrism.
In line with the above-mentioned ramifications of geocentrism, some saw its overthrow as implying also the overthrow of the significance of humanity, and to the extent that it was believed that geocentrism is taught by the Bible, its divine origin was now to be considered disproven.
This was the onset of several centuries of scientific advance being utilized by some to present science and religion as conflicting.
One should note that further development led to the understanding of the universe as so vast, with the sun so generic, that the sun too was not considered to be in a special location, and so in today’s conception the notion of helio-centrism would be considered not scientifically much different than that of geocentrism. It is ironic that the post-Copernican idea of the sun as the unequivocal center of the universe – which was seen as a disproof of geocentrism and by some as a reason for discrediting biblical belief – was itself discredited.
From web: Stanford Encyclopedia re the Copernican revolution: extract, juxtaposed out of context: The significant point was not the replacement of the earth by the sun as the center of all motion in the universe, but the recognition of both the earth and the sun as merely possible points of view from which the motions of the celestial bodies may be described. This implied that the basic task of Ptolemaic astronomy — to represent the planetary motions by combinations of circular motions — could take any point to be fixed, and that, as Copernicus suggested in the opening arguments of “On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres,” the choice of any particular point required some justification on other than astronomical grounds….neither Copernicus' nor Ptolemy's view can be true — though one may be judged simpler than the other — because both are merely possible hypothetical interpretations of the same relative motions. This principle clearly defines (what we would call) a set of reference frames, differing in their arbitrary choices of a resting point or origin, but agreeing on the relative positions of bodies at any moment and their changing relative distances through time.
Occam’s razor & minimalism: From relativity theory and quantum theory physicists have learned that a non-minimalistic interpretation of experimental data can lead one to incorrect conclusions, and so it is useful to apply ‘Occam’s razor’. We’ll now apply this to our context.
Given a brief video of the motion of the sun and the planets as seen from the Earth (to obtain some ‘initial conditions’), together with several numbers - the mass of the sun and Earth and planets and the distances between them - Newton’s equations can predict the future motions. With a good computer one could create an extension of the video into the far future. An additional computer program could then also create a video of what would be seen from any other location in the universe, whether from the sun or from one of the planets in the video, or from the moon or from some distant point in the universe.
From the physics perspective this means that one has a complete model. Adding in the statement ‘the Earth goes around the sun rather than vice versa’ is unnecessary in correctly predicting the future motion and is therefore not part of the scientific description. Indeed this statement is does not portray a scientifically valid ‘fact’, it is merely a statement about what the motion looks like from the sun, and perhaps a statement of the perspective from which one can provide the simplest description of the collective motion. So one could add to the data the statement ‘from the human perspective, the simplest way to visualize the relative motion, and the way to most concisely convey the relevant information to someone who wishes to make predictions, would be to view (and calculate) everything from the sun’s rest frame’.
To be ‘scientific’, a statement or hypothesis or law needs to make predictions which are not made by other models, and these need to be verified experimentally (‘verified’ of course in this context means using ‘accepted scientific criteria’, though of course ‘accepted’ is admittedly subjective, so all science is in the end ‘subjective’ in this sense).
Unnecessary but non-disprovable statements: Proposition: all mass is consciously aware and intelligent and has free will and always decides to follow Newton’s law F = ma because they so desire.
This proposition adds nothing, we don’t need it to make predictions. Nor is it verifiable on its own. Of course we also cannot disprove it. So it is simply irrelevant to science. Scientists prefer the minimal set of assumptions necessary for making verifiable predictions, and the application to our issue is that since a claim that the Earth is in a special location, the universal center or etc, is irrelevant to scientific discourse, it is not considered ‘scientific’.
The fact that a hypothesis cannot be disproven does not make it inherently interesting. What IS interesting is Einstein’s general relativity theory, which shows how statements which one might have thought are disprovable scientifically are in fact not disprovable. But utilizing this understanding to create an arbitrary hypothesis from amongst the infinitely many non-disprovable statements is not a scientifically interesting project.
Perhaps however it might interest people who believe in a model which was previously considered to be disproven by science, to learn that it is no longer so considered. However, they would not be correct in claiming therefore that science supports their hypothesis.
Conclusion: There are various categories of statements: one which
· arises from purely scientific considerations;
· arises from other considerations but is supported by some scientific evidence;
· is disproved by science;
· is neither proven nor disproved, it is simply not relevant to science: geocentrism is an example.
The significance or insignificance of humanity: Since ‘significance’ is a feeling in the mind of a sentient being, if there is no sentience capable of experiencing the feeling of significance then there is indeed no significance to anything in the universe. Nor is anything insignificant. Indeed in this scenario the concept of significance has no meaning, it would never arise, no entity would say ‘significance is meaningless’ because they would not even understand the concept – indeed no ‘concepts’ would exist, nor any ‘understanding’.
A purely-physical cosmos without sentience cannot contain ‘meaning’ or ‘meaninglessness’, nor can it contain ‘significance’ or ‘insignificance’. No physical model can produce the conclusion that this or that is meaningless or insignificant (or meaningful or significant). Humans (or other sentient beings) are necessary to exist in order to give rise to ‘concepts’, and ‘meaning’, and it is in the minds of these beings where the sense of significance and insignificance arise. It would be ironic indeed to then state that scientific conclusions indicate that these very entities are themselves somehow ‘insignificant’ and/or that their lives are ‘meaningless’.
What is true instead is the psychological-sociological statement that a ‘feeling of the insignificance of humanity’ occasionally arises in some minds as a result of the understandings their minds have reached about the external physical universe.
Why this occurs is matter not for physics directly. In some perspectives an answer would be sought in evolutionary socio-neurobiology, and in other perspectives it would be sought in religion. Yet others might not feel the need to know why a sense of meaninglessness arises, but rather will feel a need to compose some poetry.
When someone feels their ‘cosmic insignificance’ it is only their minds that has concluded this; it is not a judgment ‘of the universe’, and indeed the notion that ‘the universe considers humanity to be insignificant’ has no place in science. In some sense the wise and compassionate response to someone who express the notion that ‘humanity is insignificant in the face of the vastness of the universe’ is perhaps not the explanation above, but rather a hug.
………
Considerations of Galilean inertia lead one to understand even in Newtonian dynamics that one cannot define a ‘location in space’ unambiguously (see explanation below). Thus the very notion of an ‘absolute space’ is invalid and so the notion that the universe possesses an actual physical center is archaic.
Also, since both rockets can validly consider themselves as stationary despite the relative speed between them, the notion that a body is ‘stationary’ in an absolute sense is not scientifically meaningful. Thus, stating that the Earth is at ‘the center of the universe’ no longer has meaning from the scientific point of view, nor does the statement that the Earth is ‘stationary’ and other bodies orbit it.
Explanation: As we know from our experience in jet planes moving at high uniform speed, rockets in empty space proceeding at constant speed do not experience effects of motion. Consider two spacecraft moving in opposite directions, passing each other; both sets of passengers state that they are stationary (their engines are off and they experience no motion) and that the other spacecraft is the one moving. In each vehicle there is a child with its nose pressed to a window. The two windows pass each other. As they are right opposite one another, both sets of passengers point to the point in empty space right between the two childrens’ noses. Both sets of passengers keep their fingers pointing to it as the two vehicles separate at high speed. Both sets of passengers state that they are stationary (their engines are off and they experience no motion), and yet both rockets move farther and farther apart. For each set of passengers the point is still there right outside the window, as it was before, whereas the other craft has moved away from that point. Each set of passengers insists that they are still pointing to the same point. Which is correct? The answer is that there is no way to define ‘a point of space’ unambiguously.
Two Types of Geocentrism: There are at least two important relative motions of the Earth and Sun, one composing the 24-hour daily cycle, and the other composing the 365-day annual cycle.
Regarding the yearly cycle: a more perspicacious observer standing on the Earth would notice that the rotation of the sun about the Earth is in a plane, and that the angle of the plane changes in a cycle completed every 365 days. Any even non-perspicacious observer on the sun would see that the Earth rotates about the sun once every 365 of its days. Which perspective is correct?
Unambiguous Visual GeoCentrism: Consider the nail holding the hands of a standard clock, with the hands rotating about it. Of course when seen from the hands, the nail is the one moving. However the hand is accelerating (changing direction of motion) and so will experience inertial forces, which will convince it that it is not stationary. And in any case it is clear that the apparatus was crafted by someone, and we can take that person’s rest frame as authoritative, in which case it is clear that it is the nail which is indeed stationary, not the hands. Similarly, when water drains from a tub into a small hole and a vortex is formed, the vortex is centered on the hole. We can accept examples such as these as being ‘visually-established unambiguous centers’. However this determination is possible only because we have an accepted ‘absolute’ frame from which to judge matters, namely the rest frame of a person standing still on the surface of the Earth (relative to whom the clock’s hands and the center of the water-drain vortex are stationary.
To make such a determination about the sun-Earth relative emotion, one would need an unbiased view of the Earth and sun, an absolute space which is the arbiter of ‘stationary’. If we would consider a view from space to be in that category - what would one see – the Earth going about the sun or the sun going about the Earth? Or neither or both? In ancient times what did people think would be the view from outside the Earth – presumably that it would show unambiguously that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun went about it, just as unambiguously as the nail is the center of the clock and the hands go about it. We could term this “unambiguous visual geocentrism”.
Geocentrism in the context of the 24-hour daily cycle: Of course just as when one stands on the Earth and looks at the sun overhead (this is ‘the Earth’s rest frame’) one sees that the sun rotates about the Earth making one complete revolution every 24 hours, if one were on the other hand to stand on the sun (this is ‘the Sun’s rest frame’) and look at the Earth, one would see the Earth spin on its axis once every 24 hours[4]. Therefore there would be no way to settle the matter simply by a visual inspection of the Earth-sun system, and in visual terms it would simply be a matter of perspective (a matter of which frame you chose). How does one choose the appropriate point from which to see the absolute situation?
Geocentrism in the context of the annual cycle: In ancient times and until relatively modern times the universe was considered to consist of just the Earth, sun, a few planets and some few thousand stars arranged in a sphere around the Earth. It was believed by most people that someone who could leave the Earth and gain the perspective of an outsider would see unambiguously that this was the case, and that the Earth was the center of the entire physical universe.
If the Earth is the fixed center of the universe (a frame at absolute rest) then the Earth’s perspective can be said to be absolute and therefore the ‘correct’ one, whereas if the sun is the fixed center then the view as seen from the sun is the ‘correct’ one. Since in ancient times it was believed that the Earth was the fixed center of the universe (and this fact could be established visually in an unambiguous way by an observer outside the Earth), the issue was settled.
Later when the sun was believed to be the center and the Earth to rotate about it, it was still believed that the universe was small and unambiguously centered on the sun, and so the matter was simply settled in the opposite way, and geocentrism gave way to helio(sun)centrism.
Nowadays of course we know from photos taken by satellites and spacecraft and by infrared and microwave detectors that the universe is definitely not visually unambiguously geocentric, so this form of geocentrism has definitely been disproved. Also, we know that the universe not only dwarfs our solar system, but even our entire galaxy; indeed it may well be that the universe is infinite, and therefore has no unique center. Another possibility – raised by Riemann 150 years ago and later by Einstein – is that the universe is ‘closed’ and so it has no end, but also no unique center. Either way there is no ‘center’ to the universe and so neither the Earth nor its sun can be said to be “at the center of the universe”.
(some of this will need to be MESHED into other sections)
No one frame is more ‘correct’ than any other, and therefore in physics there is no real discussion even of whether or not geocentrism is valid. And if one were to decide that one wishes to declare some one place in the universe as center even if this is not a scientific determination, one might as well have a theory of moon-centrism, or of venus-centrism, and alpha-centauri-centrism, and this or that particle of dust-centrism, as many centers as there are points of space or particles in the universe, all could equally-well compete for the title of THE center.
Of course one might assume that there IS an absolute rest frame, and perhaps the Earth is the arbiter of that frame since we don’t feel it to move, or if not, perhaps the sun, but neither is correct in the scientific sense
In fact, in modern cosmology the exact opposite of geocentrism is assumed: the assumption is made that the Earth is not in any special location - this is called 'the Copernican principle'. One then further concludes – based on this assumption -that when looking out at the universe on the large scale, what one sees from Earth is in principle the same (in an overall, average sense) as what one would see from any other point in the universe.
Scientifically, geocentrism is not discussed, but a related matter is, and from that discussion one can see what the attitude of general relativity would be to geocentrism.
Newton proposed his 'bucket' experiment which is so incredibly simple – it just involves swinging an object on a string around one's head yet illustrates a conundrum involving fundamental aspects of the universe, space and time (those interested in this issue can web-search 'Newton’s bucket', and 'Mach’s principle'). The basic issue is whether there is equal validity to considering the object rotating and the rest of the universe (the stars in the background) at rest (in which case there are inertial forces which will become evident by the shape of the surface of the water in the bucket), and the reverse, that the bucket is stationary and the rest of the universe, all the stars, are rotating (so that there are no inertial forces and the surface of the water in the bucket is flat). Those who would claim that physics indicates that both are equally valid, would see geocentrism, helio-centrism, and any other-centrism as all equally valid.
When standing on any given entity (choosing the frame of the Earth, sun, a planet or a star etc) one sees motion of the other entities about it; there is no unique center to compare things to, as there would be in a small universe with a visually unambiguous center. Since this is solely a matter of perspective, the question of ‘which rotates about which’ points to a more fundamental question: whether or not there really is some absolute sense in which one or the other perspective is the correct one (as discussed further below).
When scientists reached a deeper understanding of the effects of acceleration, including rotation, and of which statements can be made regarding absolute or relative motion, they ceased to impute absoluteness or objectiveness to unequivocal statements about which celestial object is stationary and which rotates about which; no specific body could be said to be unambiguously or objectively at the center of some moving system.
Modern physics teaches that there is no absolute frame, no one frame which is at rest in an absolute sense, and in any case there is no evidence that the Earth or the sun is ‘fixed’, and none that either is ‘the center’ of the universe. As a result both statements – that the Earth is the center and the sun rotates about it and the reverse statement that the sun is the center and the Earth rotates about it - are equally false, and it is all simply a matter of perspective. Thus not only visually unambiguous geocentrism false, so too is any unambiguous geocentrism or heliocentrism;
It is clear to us that describing a given phenomenon (for example watching a bird’s flight from a distance) using an (x,y,z) coordinate system or using a polar coordinate system (r, theta, phi) does not change the phenomenon being described, it only changes the description. In relativity theory, the coordinates are space and time, united into spacetime, and so a coordinate transformation is a transformation in a combination of space and time, which is a transformation to a moving frame, perhaps even accelerating; if we believe that coordinate transformations cannot change the physics of what is being described, it must be true according to relativity theory that the physics will be the same in an accelerated frame. And therefore even though inertial effects arise in accelerated frames, the relativity of motion is maintained. (Advanced: Because inertial effects simulate the effect of a uniform gravitational field, gravity enters into this theory. However gravity is non-uniform and this cannot be modeled by a global spacetime coordinate transformation, which is why it is necessary to introduce different coordinate transformations in each region, which then introduces the same mathematics as that which describes curved surfaces, so that one says that in the presence of matter-energy spacetime is ‘curved’.)
Einstein’s general relativity provides a good understanding of all of the above, and formulates its equations to be independent of the frame chosen[5]. The true physics is in the phenomenon not the perspective, there is a relative rotation and that is real, but the question of which revolves about which is not physics, it is simply a matter of perspective (choice of reference frame).
Summary:
1) There is no scientific meaning to the question "which REALLY rotates about which" since there is no measurable 'objective' etc means to make such a determination.
It is important to note that this does NOT mean that therefore the question is open from the scientific viewpoint; from the scientific viewpoint it is a scientifically MEANINGLESS question.
2) From the scientific point of view there is relative rotation etc between the two and that is all that can meaningfully be said. It is important to note that a theory which makes a determination as to which 'really' moves about which is NOT a more complete scientific theory, it is a MEANINGLESS theory from the scientific viewpoint.
3) Science does not claim to have exclusive TRUTH, it deals only with issues capable of resolution via 'objective/scientific' etc means, and so science does not 'disallow' one from talking about religious or metaphysical truths, and so for example science/scientists don't think science 'disallows' speaking about "which one 'really' rotates about which" as long as one is not claiming to be speaking from a scientific viewpoint, but is rather aware that they are presenting metaphysical etc beliefs.
4) All the following statements are FALSE (not only from the scientific viewpoint):
· "science teaches that the earth rotates about the sun",
· "science teaches (or the theory of relativity shows) that the sun rotates about the earth”
· "science cannot determine which one is really - in the scientific sense - rotating about which"
· "science has proven that the earth does NOT rotate about the sun"
· "science has proven that the sun does NOT rotate about the earth"
Even the following statement is false: "it is equally true scientifically to say that the earth rotates about the sun as to say that the sun rotates about the earth". A true statment is: “they are in relative rotation, and that is all there is to say from the scientific viewpoint”.
Einstein’s General Relativity and Geo- or Helio- Centrism: According to present day scientific assumption/theory/model there is no particular location in the universe which is special, no place or object which is stationary in the absolute sense; therefore the only type of motion which can be meaningfully discussed is the relative motion between (somewhat nearby)objects.
According to the modern scientific view the Aristotelian system is INCORRECT (it attributed intelligence to the planets etc to explain their motion), the Heliocentric and geocentric models are WRONG if they are meant to imply that there is a unique center to the universe and/or that there is some part of the universe which is uniquely at rest (the sun, or the earth, or anything else) so that other things orbit them while they are stationary.
What one sees from a satellite is different from what one sees from earth or from the sun, or from a merry-go-round while you are standing on your head and doing somersaults: the pattern that is seen is different, but they all are due to relative motion. Some reference frames, for example one located on the sun, are more useful in that they produce simpler patterns for the relative motions. But the sun is NOT STATIONARY in an absolute sense and so it is only one of an infinite amount of valid reference frames from which to describe the RELATIVE MOTION of the earth and sun.
ASIDE: Worlds Within Worlds, and Gravity on the Brane: If we cut a sentence into pieces, the pieces are not sentences, they are words. Cut a word into pieces, the pieces are not words but letters. Using only twenty-six letters in different combinations we can write the millions of words in different European languages. Analogously, if we cut a chair in small pieces, each piece is not a chair, it is wood. If we cut the wood into microscopic pieces, we might get combinations of molecules we call wood, but cut that and instead of molecules of wood each piece is an atom (or a combination of atoms of various substances). There are about 100 atoms, and combining them in various ways makes up the millions of different things we know of, whether wood, stone, iron, molecules of DNA, air or the hydrogen which makes up the sun etc. The ancient Greeks discussed the concept of 'atoms', that everything we know of is composed of tiny substances which are not like the thing, but are its elementary constituents. At some point, science's conception of the large-scale universe was of the solar system, composed of the sun at center and planets orbiting it, and the conception of the universe at the smallest scale was of atoms with nucleus at the center and electrons orbiting it. The fanciful speculation was then raised that perhaps this structure obtained at other levels higher and lower – that the solar system was an atom of a higher-level universe and the atoms of our universe were solar systems of tinier universes. Today we have other speculations deriving from the conception of gravity, to the effect that our entire 3-d universe is only a 'sheet' or '(mem)brane' in a higher-dimensional universe. In such a universe, defining the 'center' is a totally different task.
what is wrong, what is not wrong (some of this material will need to be meshed into the above sections)
There is one sense in which geocentrism was perhaps disproved. When people asserted that the Earth is the center of the universe, they presumably assumed that if one were able to go out into space and look, one would in fact see that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun and stars go round it ('visually unambiguous geocentrism'). Certainly in the old conception of the 'small universe' this would be evident. And if the Earth was not at the geographical center, it would be the 'center of attention' or the 'central element' in that the sun would seem to be serving its needs by orbiting it, and the stars rotating about it in a circle.
However by the time of Copernicus it was realized that visually unambiguous geocentrism' is false; were one to stand on the sun and look at the Earth one would feel the sun is stationary and that the Earth goes around it, whereas as we well know, standing on the Earth one feels the Earth to be stationary and the sun goes around IT; and so on for other bodies, so the Earth is certainly not an unambiguous center.
Furthermore, later discoveries showed that the solar-centered theory is also incorrect in that the universe is much larger than just the solar system and so the sun is not at all the center of the universe - it isn't even at the center of our galaxy. And the universe is certainly not 'small' - in all directions there are billions of galaxies composed of billions of stars, and there is no particularly visually unambiguous special placement of the Earth. In space, standing on some nearby or very distant star for example, relative to which both the sun and the Earth are moving, perhaps accelerating, there would be relative motion between the sun and the Earth without any ‘visual non-ambiguity’ about which was moving about which (see technical section for explanation).
Also, scientific belief holds that:
· there is no scientifically definable unique center to the universe;
· one can choose any point in the universe as center with equal legitimacy or illegitimacy.
As a result it isn't true that the geocentric view is invalid, it is simply no more or less valid scientifically than any other. However, any claim that in fact the Earth is at the center of the universe though not disprovable is also not provable, and so it is not a scientific claim but rather a metaphysical one. In the scientific context it is not truly a ‘model’ but rather a perspective.
After the development of general relativity (GR) one would not say that geocentrism is false, merely that it is as valid a perspective as any other; it would be incorrect to state that scientifically the sun goes around the Earth, but true to say that scientifically the frame in which one considers the sun to be going around the Earth is as valid as the one in which the Earth goes around the sun. However as a metaphysical statement one could state that the sun goes around the Earth rather than v.v., but that this is not scientifically demonstrable, within the confines of scientific observation/verification there is no difference between any of these perspectives and so the statement has no scientific meaning.
Scientifically Non-Meaningful Statements: The equations of orbits also do not lead to either unambiguous geocentrism or to unambiguous heliocentrism, they lead to totally ambiguous 'relativism', ie that only the relative motion is absolute, all else ('geocentrism' or 'heliocentrism') is a matter of perspective. However, although 'visually unambiguous geocentrism' is false, the statement "the sun orbits the Earth" is not incorrect, it is simply a statement of how things look from the Earth and physics after GR accepts such a statement as no less valid than the one formulated according to how things would look from the sun, ie "the Earth goes around the sun".
The existence of God is neither experimentally verifiable nor falsifiable and so within the context of science the statement that God exists is neither true nor false, it simply has no scientific meaning. The same is true of both unambiguous geocentrism and unambiguous heliocentrism.
The Orbit of the Planets and of Earth about the Sun: Taking records over a period of a few hours at night, one sees the lights in the sky move across the sky, and so one comes to the conclusion that there is a relative motion between them and Earth.
A careful observer will notice larger clearer lights and smaller more shimmering ones. Taking records over a period of a few hours at night, one sees the motion of the smaller lights move uniformly, whereas the larger lights move about in very different patterns. One comes to the conclusion that they are different entities and located at different places. These are the planets (clearer, larger) and stars (shimmering/'twinkling', smaller). There is a relative motion of the stars, planets and Earth can be ascribed either to the motion of the planets and stars about the Earth, or to some other motion. As recognized by Copernicus, the simplest pattern is formed when one assumes that the planets including the Earth move about the sun, while the stars are stationary, far away from the sun, planets and Earth.
It was then claimed that the sun was the unambiguous center of the universe rather than the Earth, and the proponents of geocentrism were discredited, but only in order to put forward the new idea of helio(sun)centrism.
Of course from the modern perspective, the ‘disproof’ of geocentrism is itself ‘disproved’; both geo-centrism and helio-centrism are equally incorrect as cosmology, but equally valid as perspectives.
“Center” Issues and their Resolution: The issue of which is the center, the earth or the sun, or any other point in the universe, actually involves several issues: which is at the center of the universe, which is at the center of revolution ie which revolves about which, and which is more central ie more important. In addition there was the issue of whether or not the Earth moves at all, irrespective of whether or not it is at the center.
Nowadays we know of two separate motions of the Earth, the spin or rotation about the axis which produces night/day variation, and the orbit about the sun, which has virtually nothing to do with the seasons - the seasons are due the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of orbit.] It seems that geocentrists believed the Earth to be not only at the center of the universe and at the center of rotation of the sun, but also that it is stationary. [And perhaps they would not have said that the Earth's axis is tilted but rather that there is a tilt to the plane of the sun's orbit about the Earth.]
Basically today we'd say that the first issue is meaningless from the scientific point of view since there is no such thing as the center of the universe, the second issue is meaningless since there's a relative orbiting/revolution of the sun and Earth (they revolve about each other) and there's no justification to claiming that one is unambiguously at the center of the orbit while the other revolves about it, and the third issue is moot for the same reason as the second - there's a relative spin between the sun and the Earth, and there's no justification to claiming that one is unambiguously moving and the other is at rest. Also, the second and third issues are fully settled visually and calculationally, since it is clear that it is far simpler to visualize the earth-sun motion, and to calculate it, if one considers the sun as stationary and the Earth orbiting it while spinning on its axis.
……………….
As the eminent Astronomer and General Relativist Sir Arthur Eddington said: "...on the most modern scientific theory there is no absolute distinction between the heavens revolving around the earth and the earth revolving under the heavens; both parties are (relatively) right."
The great mathematician and philosopher Whitehead wrote[7]: "Geocentrism and heliocentrism seem contradictory but relativity shows both are true; of course if both are true, this means that neither are ‘unambiguously’ correct, they are simply valid perspectives."
As the brilliant mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell, a colleague of Whitehead, wrote: "whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors held, the observed phenomena will be the same; a metaphysical assumption has to be made"
Max Born, one of the founders of quantum physics writes[8]: "...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth..[9]. from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also says: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system (AR: reference frame) could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." .[10] [11]
Of course, a description of the universe in terms of a non-geocentric system is simpler. However as the well-known philosopher of science Hans Reichenbach wrote[12]:
"...the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any 'truer', since this simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions; this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a 'truer' picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g. the definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be carried though only within certain limits. One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions.”
The Church and the Copernican Model: The Church claimed that the Bible taught that the Ptolemaic geocentric system was correct, ie that the Earth is at the center of the universe, and that the sun and planets go around it. Those who followed Copernicus of course claimed that this picture was untrue and that the true model is the helio-centric (solar-centered) picture of the universe, ie the sun is at the center of the universe and the Earth goes around it, and therefore if the Church was correct that the Bible taught geocentrism, then the Bible's teaching is false, and therefore the Bible does not originate with God. However even the scientists who overthrew the geocentric view accepted the truth of the Bible and did not think heliocentrism posed any challenge to it.
The Biblical (Torah) phrase 'the sun rises'
The Torah uses the phrase 'the sun rises' in various contexts while making a point, e.g. as if one were to say 'pay your night workers right after they finished work, not days later, so pay might-laborers when the sun rises', however it does not state as a teaching "the sun rises rather than the Earth moving". So clearly the issue is not whether or not it is the earth or the sun which moves but rather when to pay one's worker and it is unimportant which moves around which, that is not the focus of the Torah’s teaching on the matter. And when it says something like "you will be rewarded/punished as surely as the sun rises" this has nothing to do with which one moves but rather it is an expression of inevitability, ie one should be as sure of the reward/punishment as one is of the sun appearing after a certain amount of night.
In any case, even those who believe in the divine origin of every word of the Torah do not believe the phrases such as “and God saw”, imply that God has eyes or that the phrase ‘God stretched out His hand’ or ‘God went down …to see’ implies God has hands or goes from place to place, or needs to in order to see better. The sages taught that ‘the Torah speaks in the language of humans’, and there are many cases of this in the Torah and certainly ‘the sun rises’ can be taken as one of them and so there is no religious need to claim that the Torah mandates a belief in geocentrism.
Jewish understanding of the Torah, based on teachings handed down orally from Moses to the sages of his time and from then on down the ages clearly indicate the one should not necessarily interpret every phrase literally (indeed the great sage Maimonides considered such interpretations of certain passages to be heretical and idolatrous). Rather than religious people having to defend themselves by trying to prove that the phrase "sun rise" in the Torah does not mean that God requires people to believe in geocentrism, on the contrary, it would be incumbent on a critic to prove that - according to Jewish conception - when the words 'as the sun rises' were placed in the Torah they were meant by God to be literal and religiously-binding teachings about the motions of bodies in the heavens.
Those who believed the universe to be earth-centered of course were not likely to have done so due to an understanding of General Relativity. Nor does it mean that those who believe in the divine origin of every word of the Torah should necessarily interpret every phrase literally when it speaks of cosmology (see discussions of allegories in the Torah) – when the words 'as the sun rises' were placed in the Torah it is not at all obvious that they were meant to be literal teachings about the motions of bodies in the heavens. Therefore, those who disbelieve in the Torah cannot legitimately claim that the geocentric-seeming terminology employed in it is necessarily an indication of its non-divine origin.
Does the Bible require belief in geocentrism? The great majority of Orthodox Jewish Rabbinic authorities and their followers, who believe that the Torah (which Christians call "the old testament") as given by word-for-word dictation to Moses, do NOT believe that the Torah presents geocentrism as a doctrine, and do NOT believe the earth to be the center of the universe. This is not a 'modern' rethinking of old positions, nor is it the view only of heretics or the less-religious: Copernican theory and geocentrism was never a contentious issue in Judaism, and even the most fervent, devout, saintly and scholarly among Orthodox do not believe geocentrism is Biblically-mandated, and do not believe in geocentrism.
Even among the most Orthodox Jews only a small minority (among the group known as Chabad Lubavitch) believe in geocentrism, and believe the Torah teaches it. Similarly, many Christians feel that belief in the Bible as divinely- revealed word of God requires belief in geocentrism, but many devout Christians do not believe this. So it would be incorrect to say in a blanket statement that those who believe in the Bible or in the Bible as divinely-revealed word of God believe in geocentrism, though it would be true to say that some do. An impartial observer could not justifiably claim that the Bible teaches geocentrism, rather the claim could only be made that some religious people believe it does.
Science and Religion: It is incorrect to say that "science disproved the geocentric model in favor of the heliocentric" or even that "science proved that the geocentric model is incorrect". Furthermore, science does not offer any scientific objection to someone claiming some religious truth that in some sense the earth is the "center" of the universe, just as science does not have objections to other religious claims such as the existence of God, or of revelation or miracles. What is objected to by science would be a claim that there is scientific content in these claims, ie that they can be proven by objective human measurement or experiment. As long as it is a metaphysical claim, there is no connection to science and therefore no objection from science.
Similarly, if what is being claimed is only the validity of a perspective, even one from which to perform a measurement, then science has no objection.
There is no scientific experiment which proves God exists or does not exist. Therefore the statement “God exists” is not scientifically correct or incorrect, it is simply a metaphysical statement, which science does not deal with since the terms cannot be defined in a way which gives them scientific meaning. Similarly the statement ‘the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun rotates about it’ is not necessarily scientifically wrong, it is simply a metaphysical statement; ‘geocentric’ belief is not 'scientific' in that it has no scientific meaning, and so 'geocentrism' is not 'scientifically wrong', it is simply a metaphysical or religious belief. What IS false is that geocentrism is a valid scientific interpretation of the universe.
The earliest conception of the universe may well have been that of a flat Earth at the bottom of the universe, the sun at the center to give it light and warmth, and the stars at the edges. Certainly the conception was mostly of a stationary Earth and an orbiting sun. This is reflected in the phrase "sun rise" and "sun set" meaning the sun moves around the Earth to make day/night cycles. The wording of the Torah reflects this language use.
In phrases such as 'the central point', the word 'central' means something like 'the most important'. To a large degree the reason that people believed the Earth is at the center of the universe was because they believed that it was most important, so the issue of significance is tied up with the issue of location. Earth was considered to be most important because humans lived on it, and humans were considered to be the most important entities in the physical universe. Thus the issue of geocentrism was closely tied to the issue of the 'centrality' of humanity in the universe. It was therefore almost inevitable that when geocentrism was dethroned, so too would be the notion of the significance of humanity.
The connection between the two aspects of 'centrality' went two ways. To many people the implication of this belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe was that human are the most important component of the universe. Conversely to many it was probably obvious or important that Earth is at the center of the universe due to the belief that humans are the most important part of the universe.
Of course when picturing the 'small universe' one could imagine the Earth being at the bottom with the sun in the middle to better serve the earth, and the stars on top, also to serve the Earth. It certainly would not necessarily be the case that a created universe, in which humanity is the most significant, and in which the sun and stars orbit the earth would necessarily have the earth at the center, so 'geocentrism' really does not mean the belief that the earth is at the exact center of some limited-size universe but rather that the sun unequivocally goes around the earth, instead of the opposite. And that the earth is somehow 'central' to the (purpose of the) universe.
However from a philosophical or religious point of view there is certainly not necessarily a connection between all these different concepts. Being at the center it is not an indication of centrality to purpose. A large hall created for people to walk in can have a ceiling at the top with various designs, and chandeliers hanging down to the center. Though the chandeliers are at the center and people walk on the bottom, on the floor, clearly the room was designed for the needs of people, not for the lights. Similarly it can certainly be that a Creator who considers the Earth as most important, would created the sun at the center of the 'small' universe, with the stars on top, in order for both to best serve the Earth at the bottom of the universe.
A location at 'the center of space' is neither a requirement of being the most important or 'central' aspect of the universe, nor is it always a sufficient indication of centrality of importance (it is neither necessary nor sufficient). Nevertheless, somehow the two concepts became intertwined: Human significance became tied to the idea of the 'central' position of the Earth.
EgoCentrism and GeoCentrism: Although the fact that the Earth orbits the sun does not by itself imply that it is less significant than it, but when one considers the Earth as just one of many planets orbiting the sun, then it seems as though the Earth is no more significant than the other planets. So it is perhaps the existence of other planets which makes the Earth seem less significant, not the issue of which orbits which.
But of course if the other planets do not have life then the one with life is most significant from the human perspective. And if planets form in a way which leads inevitably to many - e.g. condensation from a large 'cloud' of matter orbiting the sun - then the existence of the others is not an indication of Earth's insignificance; on the contrary, it can be believed that all the others were created as part of a pre-planetary 'matter cloud' so that the Earth be able to emerge from it.
Some believe that the physical smallness of the solar system relative to the universe renders humanity insignificant, and totally refutes the validity of the humanity-centered Bible, and many assert an existential meaningless instead. This is of course a very logically-flawed argument, since one has nothing to do with the other. Instead of this issue of the significance or insignificance of humanity and its relation to the location of the Earth being seen as a philosophical or scientific issue, it is a statement of human psychology: many people believed the universe was small and the Earth was at the center, they believed their significance derived from the physical centrality of the Earth and from the fact that Earth is a major component of the universe. When they become aware that this is not so, and experienced a psychological shock and became convinced that they are not in fact significant cosmically.
In some sense existential despair is a form of EgoCentrism as great as that underlying GeoCentrism – both are projections onto the universe of one’s psychological reaction to the universe.
In actuality, of course the size of the universe, the placement of the Earth within it, and what rotates about what all have nothing to do with human significance. And the Torah (what Christians call 'The Old Testament") certainly did not link the significance of humanity to the placement of the Earth. And in any case the Torah does not teach that the Earth is at the center or that the sun goes about the Earth – and even the scientists who discovered that the old ideas of science were wrong believed in the Bible and did not think that it taught these incorrect ideas. The location of the Earth and the question of what rotates about what is a purely-scientific issue.
Although that really ties up the matter, we’ll continue to make some other interesting points. For example, it certainly is the case that from the Torah perspective humans are very significant and that their significance is not tied to their relative size compared to the rest of the universe, however Maimonides taught that humans are NOT the most significant intelligent entities in the universe. This is not to say that Judaism accept that indeed humans are insignificant, just that both statements – that humans are insignificant or that they are necessarily the most significant – may be untrue according to Judaism.
Also, the statement that some fact of astronomy proves that humans are insignificant is an untrue statement since science does not deal with the significance of humanity, which is a matter either for sociology, evolutionary psycho-biology, or metaphysics.
There is no scientific conflict with a claim that it has been divinely revealed that Earth is in some sense the center of the universe, since such a claim can neither be verified nor disproved, however there is a conflict with any claim that this 'geocentrism' has scientific rather than metaphysical meaning, in other words that it is in some sense rationally verifiable, which seems to be what modern geocentrists do indeed claim. A possibly more relevant religious issue today is whether the dethroning of humanity's home from a position at the geographical center of the universe necessitates or implies humanity's concomitant 'insignificance', and the 'invalidity' of the Bible; certainly nothing in scientific theory would support such a contention, nor do most believers in the divine origin of the text of the Bible feel that human significance or the validity of the Bible are linked in any way to the validity of geocentrism, and so most do not feel any need to support modern geocentrism.
Is Human Life Significant?
What is ‘significance’? When we see a colored object, though the light waves coming from it have a certain frequency of course the 'color' is a sensation our minds create when our brain has the light waves as input. The color is not a property of the object, it is a property of our mind's reaction to the object. When we say a food is delicious, we mean not there is 'deliciousness' in the food, but rather our mind gives us the sensation of 'delicious' when our brain feeds us the sensory input from our taste-buds.
Similarly, “significance” is a conception of the human mind, not a property of an entity. The feeling that something is significant is just that, a feeling. That which is considered significant is not in itself significant since the significance does not reside in the entity or event, but rather the feeling of significance is an aspect of the mind which feels the sense of significance: ‘significant’ describes not the referent but the reaction of a mind to it; ‘significance’ is a feeling we have in relation to something, not a property of that something (object or event etc).
Endowing Something With Significance
Similarly, nothing can be ‘given significance’, e.g. ‘a death’ cannot be endowed with significance by some action of the survivors; the significance is not ‘in’ the event of the dying of the person, rather it is resident in the mind of the one feeling the significance, just that as a turn of phrase we can say for short that the object/event has significance.
[The same for ‘meaning’ and for ‘beauty’.]
To give significance to one’s life, or endow it with meaning, is the same as to see it as beautiful, i.e. it is to have the feeling of significance/meaning/beauty associated with the thought of one’s life. The significance/meaning/beauty are not properties of the life lived but are words describing the feelings of the mind contemplating that life.
It is ironic when a human mind considers certain entities, concepts or patterns (beauty etc) to be significant but excludes from that category humans – in whose mind that significance resides.
Love and Significance (the significant other)
‘Human life is significant/insignificant’ is a statement of the feeling of a mind in reaction to something, it cannot be an ‘objective’ statement about the things/entities/people themselves outside the mind that feels this.
To say that e.g. ‘love gives significance to human life’ means that some person/people feel a sense of the significance of their/another’s/human life when they are in love or feel love etc, and the memory or after-effect of this feeling gives rise later to the feeling which is expressed by the statement ‘love gives significance to human life’.
Human Significance and the Size of the Universe
As some would put it, a Human is a being evolved from slime crawling on the face of a speck of dirt in a galaxy which is itself an insignificant speck in the universe.
In actuality however, whatever the size of the universe etc, life is neither significant nor insignificant; rather the contemplation of the size of the universe can give rise to feelings in some people of the significance/insignificance of life.
Should the size of the universe etc give rise to the feeling of human insignificance? Is it irrational to feel otherwise? If we knew how brains are formed we would see that it is logical that these particular brains should develop in such a way that there arises in them these feelings (the insignificance of humanity) as a result of these stimuli. But this of course does not mean that indeed humanity is insignificant.
Feelings do not need to be in synch with what is rational or true intrinsically - whatever people feel, they feel. Perhaps if we knew all there was to know about human brains etc, we could predict what a ‘rational’ mind would feel upon being presented with the understanding of the size of the universe, and then expect that predicted feeling as the only ‘rational’ feeling. As it stands, since some people feel one way and others another, there does not seem to be anything intrinsic in the wiring of the human brain which establishes the necessity of all human brains reacting in one particular way.
And in any case, the resulting feeling is just a feeling, not a statement about factual reality; and when it comes to mental states such as that of feeling the significance or insignificance of something, rather than factual statements about size and mass etc, there is no relevance to asking whether or not it is ‘true’ – it is a true feeling, and that is all there is to it.
Human Significance, the Anthropic Principle & Cosmology: There is an anecdote about husbands discussing who in the household makes the important decisions, and they agree that they do, for example what foreign policy the country ought to have, and they leave the small decisions to their wives for example to which school to send their children (generally only women consider this to be funny, men – like those in the anecdote - consider this simply a description of the reality).
What are the important or significant things? ‘Importance’ or ‘significance’ are human concepts, referring to the feeling in a human mind that something is important or significant. If we want a theory of the universe, do we seek a theory of the most significant things, ie those which humans feel are most significant, like the meaning in life, or its purpose, or all about love? Of course physics doesn’t deal with any of this, it deals with the truly important things, like how old the universe is, what it is mostly made of and how it evolved to this point.
Until quite recently, science could not determine the probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, since it was not known what are the necessary conditions for life to arise. And even if it was known, there was no way to determine how many venues conducive to the emergence of life there are in the universe. The assumption is that that life emerges on planets rather than in stars, and more specifically it probably arises on planets with water. However it was not even known whether or not there are planets elsewhere (other than around our local star, “the sun”). In the past few years many planets have been discovered quite nearby. Since our neighborhood is not seen to be different than more distant regions, in our galaxy and in other galaxies, the assumption is now made that planets are very plentiful. Since water has been found (very recently) elsewhere in our solar system, it seems safe to assume that there are many planets with water, and so the likelihood of life elsewhere has been dramatically increased.
If nevertheless it is found that in the entire universe only Earth bears life, this would grant Earth a great significance in the eyes of many. If on the other hand there is life elsewhere, perhaps we will have access to other perspectives from which to discuss issues of ‘significance’, and specifically of the significance of life, and perhaps also of human life.
A brain loop: What’s more fundamental – sociology, psychology or physics? According to reductionism all sociology is neurophysiology which ultimately is physics. However there’s something of a loop. A ‘particle’ – for example the electron - is essentially a concept, which combines in it all the theoretical understandings associated with correlations between certain measurements and equations, and all this is in the human brain. Maybe physics will give us keys to understanding the physical universe which will then help us understand (e.g. via neuro-physiology and evolutionary biology) something about the human brain and its concepts, which will help us understand why we feel that this or that is significant, and help us understand why we think in terms of causality at all, and why we come up with models like ‘an electron’. Electrons and other particles are concepts, but they are the building blocks of the brains in which the concepts reside.
The seeming irrelevance of brains: When coming up with a theory of cosmology physics ignores even the existence of the Earth and all it contains, including the existence of brains and their concepts, and of ‘life’ altogether. Even individual star systems are ignored - the cosmology of general relativity considers the universe essentially as just a gas of particles. It is quite amazing that by employing these models one can make predictions that are later verified! Somehow there is a disconnect between levels in the sense that whatever we don’t know about the brain and its thoughts doesn’t seem to interfere with learning about the big bang (but of course again the big bang theory is an invention of the human brain).
The fact that human brains may feel psychologically that the existence of humans is astonishing and requires explanation doesn’t mean that - from the scientific perspective (of perhaps even the same brains) - it requires one. In any universe capable of producing brains there may arise brains which wonder why the universe is as it is. In another sense however, brains have been seen by some to be relevant to cosmology via the anthropic principle, which has been applied to cosmology to address – if not ‘answer’ – the question ‘why is the universe as it is?’ Clearly humans - with very sophisticated brains - have been produced in this universe, and the production of complex organisms such as cells, and of human brains require certain types of physics, requires particles and atoms and molecules and therefore quantum mechanics and SR, and so on, and therefore we should not be surprised to see about us a universe with particles and quantum mechanics and SR. There may be/have been other universes without these but there would be no brains to observe their existence and so only universes sufficiently sophisticated to produce brains can produce the question “why does the universe exist”.
Basically the anthropic principle diverts cosmological and philosophical questions to the following types of query: can one imagine another type of universe in which we would exist? If so, we can ask why is our universe as it is rather than like that other universe. Of course if the universe was indeed like that, we would be asking the same question. Or is this the only type of universe consistent with the emergence of brains sufficiently-sophisticated to question why the universe is as it is? If human activity – the linked effect of many brains interacting (for example to produce physics) – is the most sophisticated complex manifestation in the universe (as it is as far as is known today), then the specifications of this activity may well be sufficient to design the universe as it is, and it may well be that no other entity or manifestation has this distinction.
EgoCentricity: The ‘centrality’ of humanity: Rather than the sun or Earth being the physical center of the universe, in some conceptions humanity is ‘central to the purpose of the universe’.
Does the universe have to be a very specific type in order for life to have developed, or is our universe not significantly different at the physics level than a universe in which life could not have developed. Would life necessarily develop in any universe which would also produce the elementary particles we know of, and which would produce plastic and wood, or can only a very special type of universe produce life? And would any universe capable of producing ‘life’ be able to produce human-level theoretical constructs, or do humans possess aspects (sophisticated intelligence, conceptual ability etc) which are unique and go beyond the specifications required for everything else.
The seeming irrelevance of mind: Is mind special? Is it ‘other than’ the rest of the physical universe, or is it somehow a complex organization of the same thing as a computer program (or is a computer program a concept which resides in a mind?)? Does the universe have to be a very specific type in order for mind to have developed, or is our universe not significantly different at the physics level than a universe in which life and mind could not have developed – or would they necessarily develop in any universe which would also produce the elementary particles we know of, and would produce plastic and wood, or in any universe producing ‘life’. It may well be that the existence of minds require some very subtle and sophisticated properties in the universe, perhaps already present at the origin, and these might also explain matters of interest to cosmology – in this sense humanity might be ‘central’ to cosmology (as a theory) even though not necessarily ‘central to the universe’ (scientists certainly do not claim that the universe considers humans central to its existence). Or it might be that one could ignore mind in theories of the universe at all levels and it is only incidental in physics and cosmology. We simply do not know yet enough cosmology and enough about the mind in order to make a real judgment; in the meantime however cosmology has ignored mind entirely without this impacting the ability to make correct predictions. However, as far as is known so far, cosmology and speculations about the universe and its purpose and what is central to it exist only in human minds.
See however for example: Mindless Materialism, Cosmology, Free Will and the meaning of life , and Einstein & Morality; Free Will, Quantum Physics & Cosmology .
Fundamentalists: Some religious fundamentalists understood my article (of which this is a less-technical and edited version) as claiming that indeed the sun orbits the Earth in an absolute scientific sense. Actually, as indicated above a claim to this effect can only be meaningful in a metaphysical sense - as a scientific statement it is false. The article though did point out that from the context of the alleged science-religion ‘conflict’ it is interesting that the ‘disproof’ of the Bible as alleged by some due to the overthrowing of geocentrism was itself overthrown since geocentrism cannot in fact be ‘disproven’.
Some have also thought that my article claims Judaism believes the Bible teaches this type of geocentrism, whereas in fact it is my impression that most (Orthodox religious) Jewish sages today and in previous times do not feel the Bible teaches this at all; even at the time of Copernicus there never seemed to be any Jewish problem with Copernican teachings, it was simply seen as a matter for science to determine.
Atheists: On the other side of the fence, in a journal-review (see reference and link below) atheists or those hostile to Biblical religion have misunderstood my article in a way that is somewhat similar to that of the fundamentalists - interpreting it as though I were myself a believer in geocentrism who is claiming that it is a valid scientific model or theory.
Another aspect of my writings was misunderstood - not just in the original article of which this is a revised & condensed version, but also another article, on evolution, the big bang, and the bible. Where the article makes statements such as 'the Creator could have made the Earth in such a way that…" it was misunderstood as claiming that as a scientist I am stating that there necessarily exists a creator. Of course that is not at all what I was stating - instead, I was referring there to a scenario in which it is assumed that there is a creator and investigating some possible conclusions following from that assumption.
Also: When I wrote "The big bang and laws of nature would have had to be designed in a specific manner in order to guarantee that humans would emerge", it was misunderstood by critical atheists as if I am stating as a scientist that there is necessarily a creator, and that the big bang is necessarily designed to produce humans. Of course this is NOT what I was saying; rather, what I meant by the statement above is the following: "if the purpose of creating a big bang was to guarantee the emergence of humans, the big bang and laws of nature would have had to be designed in a very specific manner". Or in a more expanded version: "From the religious perspective which accepts that the universe was created, and that the emergence of humanity is part of the design of the universe, and which also accepts the scientific evidence that the universe emerged from a big bang, the conclusion that is reached is that God designed the big bang to produce humans, rather than the big bang having emerged by chance, and rather than God designing a random big bang and laws of nature which happened to produce humans."
Conclusion: My articles are meant to bring a scientific perspective to religious people, and a religious perspective to scientifically-minded people, and so are couched in the terminologies of both religion and science. Due to the nature of the journal in which it was published, indeed the original article has a somewhat religious slant, but careful readers will see that its intent is the same that of this revised version. In general, I believe that those reading my articles carefully rather than cursorily or with an agenda will not misunderstand them in the ways outlined above. Note: I am grateful for the apology for unintentional distortion of my ideas on "Talk Reason" ; see also note 14.
Writing this summary version of the article was motivated both by the need for a shorter less-technical treatment and by the opportunity it presented for the above disclaimers & clarifications.
…………Two Appendices…………..
Appendix: Technical Point: The Microwave Background Radiation and Broken Symmetry
A pen balanced on its tip will soon fall - and after it stops moving it will point in a specific direction. Is there physical significance to that direction?
As the pen is balanced on its tip, it is subject constantly to the random motions of air molecules bombarding it from all sides. There is constant fluctuation in the amount and strength of bombardment in each direction and at each place on the pen, and very soon there will be slightly more bombardment at one place on one side of the pen then on other sides and at that instant the pen will tip over. Since the direction of the push is random and could easily have been another direction, indeed a bunch of pens stood on their points will fall in different ways and point in different directions, there is no physical significance to the direction that the pen points.
Since the pen initially was symmetric with respect to all directions and now is not, this is called ‘broken symmetry’, with the term applied to situations where the breaking of the symmetry is due to physical causes but the specific way it is broken (e.g. the direction chosen) is random and has no intrinsic physical significance[13].
[Of COURSE it is a physical cause, but it is not inherent in the pen and the direction of fall teaches us nothing about the pen, only about the air movements in the room, and the atomic bombardment of air molecules on the pen, and since on the average a group of such pens fall in all directions, all we learn is that there is no preferred direction and each case's direction is random.]Similarly re the microwave radiation: The big bang initial explosion resulted in radiation which turns out nowadays to be in the microwave range. Since it occurred at the initial instant when the universe was basically a point, and all of space now emerged from that point, it is detected anywhere in the universe, and at any point will be seen to be coming equally from all directions.
Of course if one travels in any direction at some speed there will be a Doppler effect and the radiation will appear differently in different directions, and so one can calibrate one’s instruments anywhere in the universe so that they move in all directions at all speeds until they find that the radiation is arriving in the same amount and same frequency from all directions. The set of all such instruments in the universe then specifies a unique ‘frame’. Is this then an absolute frame, against which all other frames are moving?
The answer is no; this specific frame of the radiation is a random ‘choice’, it is an example of broken symmetry, and the direction has no intrinsic physical significance and it is not meaningful to say that this one frame is at rest and all others are in motion.
One can of course nevertheless use this frame to specify directions, for example to tell civilizations far away what the speed of one’s galaxy is relative to the microwave background radiation. It is also interesting as a cosmic-scale example of the effect of randomness[14].
Appendix: Geo-stationary satellites
Question asked by a reader: “How can one explain geo-stationary satellites from the geocentric view? If the earth is spinning so are the satellites. But if the earth is still, then the satellites aren’t moving either. If so, what keeps them up?”
First of all, in physics 'geocentric' or 'heliocentric' is not of a view of how things are, it is simply a choice of coordinate system, which is always based on some one point as center, and a choice of reference frame which takes one thing or actually one frame as stationary and everything else is measured relative to it (re thing vs. frame: one generally needs objects to specify a frame, and the frame can be chosen so that one specific thing/object is stationary). Thus, the physical results cannot be different in one frame than in another. Geostationarity is not a frame-dependent phenomenon - it cannot be that one frame will see the satellite hovering in one spot but another frame sees it as being in other places as well, which would mean that one frame can obtain satellite photos of places that are inaccessible to other frames!). Thus if the geo-stationarity of the satellite results from equations of the model in one frame, it must result in any frame.
But why it gives the same results is a different matter. Basically, the issue lies in the difference between the statement “the Earth is stationary’ and the statement ‘let’s use a stationary Earth as our reference frame’. The former requires one to posit the existence of an absolute space, and which also requires that the Earth be exempt from the laws of physics which require bodies to move in reaction to forces such as the gravitational force of the sun. Somehow Earth remains stationary where it is despite all the forces which would move it were it to be any other entity in the universe. So the answer to the conundrum of the satellite is basically that whatever keeps the Earth where it is as opposed to everything else in the universe which is moving around it (e.g. the sun) also keeps the satellite hovering above it when it has the specific Earth-matching speed.
From the perspective of general relativity however, there is a possible answer. The Earth certainly bulges away from sphericity, this is an unequivocal physical measure, and it corresponds to a relative rotational speed between the Earth and the rest of the universe. If the Earth is stationary, the rest of the universe rotates and spins etc about it. Newtonian gravity theory does not clearly specify a gravitational or inertial effect that this would have. For example, in Newtonian gravity theory a spinning mass generates the same gravitational effect as does one that does not spin, but Einstein’s theory shows that there is indeed an effect (which for example is very important when dealing with spinning black holes). Also general relativity is better equipped to deal with models of the universe as a whole. General relativity therefore points to the existence of - and can calculate - gravitational effects on the satellite of all the rest of the universe whirling about the Earth at a high speed. Indeed these might just pull the satellite away from the Earth enough to keep it at a certain height.
However the real physics is without coordinates and reference frames and General Relativity is formulated in mathematical symbols/concepts that are coordinate-free and reference-frame independent[15]. Of course in order to make a prediction as to what we would find if we measured such and such or saw such and such phenomenon, one needs to know from what frame and coordinate system the measurement or observation will be made - e.g. if one will be standing on Earth and looking at the sky then the coordinate system and reference frame will be 'geocentric' - and then we can choose that frame and coordinate system in the calculations of the prediction of how things would look from that coordinate system/frame, but the resulting statement or prediction is not a physics theory. It is simply a statement of physics as expressed in a particular choice of coordinates/reference frame.
So physics does not support the statement that the universe is centered on the sun or Earth or other body or point in space or event in spacetime – after all, if the sun is the center or Earth is, or any other thing or point, physics would ask what keeps it at the center, and what made it the center, and what makes the sun go around the Earth rather than vice versa, or if it is a point in space then why is that place special - none of this is explicable or sensible within physics, so this is not a physics view at all, instead it is a choice of coordinate system/reference frame. What physics (Einstein) tells us, and general relativity formulates is that it is not wrong to choose any coordinate system centered on any given point, any reference frame anchored to any object. The physics is consistent in any given choice but the true equations of the theory itself are formulated in a way that is independent of these specific choices.
..
An additional technical point: : General relativity is a local theory, where local is a subtle concept. In this context the local frame of the satellite includes a small region of spacetime close to it and not including the Earth. It is in free fall, as are all orbiting objects (the Earth and the satellite are both in free fall), and does not experience inertial accelerations or forces so there is no need for it to explain anything at all, it is to all intents and purposes t is inertial (ie in Newtonian terms: either stationary or moving with constant speed). That it is in orbit is only known when including the Earth in the picture and then the frame is not local anymore. To really understand this one would need to read a lot more on the subject.
Looked at another way, if one attempted to explain things from a reference frame anchored on the Earth+sattelite one would have to account for the general relativistic effects on the sattelite of all the rest of the universe whirling about the Earth at a high speed, which might just pull it away from the Earth enough to keep it at a certain height. But more correctly, if one tries to includes both the Earth and the satellite in one ‘local reference frame’ since they are not in motion relative to each other and one tries to really take this frame seriously then one is going out of the realm of validity of general relativity and physics and if so then whatever keeps the Earth where it is as opposed to everything else in the universe which is moving around it (eg the sun) also keeps the satellite there.
...
Title: Ego/geo: what science has to say about existentialist despair & human significance
In the past it was common for all - scientists and religious people alike - to think of the Earth as being at the physical center of the universe - a belief today referred to as 'geocentrism')Relatedly, some religious people and philosophers believed humans to be 'central' to the purpose of the universe.
Discussions about the structure of the physical universe and the relation to religious views are not new. The Talmud records discussions almost 2,000 years ago between the sages and contemporary scientists related to the issue of the motion of the stars. 900 years ago the great religious sage, Talmudic expert and philosopher Maimonides accords the view of the scientists greater credence, scorns the view that considers humans as the most important beings in the universe, and clearly stated that in general biblical passages which implied counter-scientific views were meant idiomatically or even allegorically (with the exception of the issue of an eternal universe vs a created one [see my video lecture " big bang " on Youtube]. 500 years ago, the Copernican discoveries overthrew geocentrism and gave rise not just to discussions involving Earth's position in the universe but also regarding humanity's significance. In more modern times the scientific understanding of the physical universe has been used by some philosophers to buttress their existentialist despair.
Our discussion here of human significance will utilize a scientific discussion of the issue of geocentrism as a springboard and backdrop. The topic of geocentrism also provides entry into discussions about what types of statements are or are not 'scientific', as preparation for the analysis of what science may or may not have to say about human significance.
[1] A condensed version of my much longer article in B'Ohr HaTorah many years ago https://borhatorah.wordpress.com/physics/ , reprinted in "Science in the Light of Torah" (Hardcover) 1994. By Herman Branover, Ilana C. Attia. The version here is edited and contains some addition material, but does not have the lengthy explanations of various technical points.
My thanks to Prof. Paul Natterer for his book's referencing the above article as "Informativ und aufschlussreich".
Another reference can be found in "New Heavens and a New Earth: The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought Jeremy Brown 2013 Oxford University Press"
Although the longer article is written for the lay reader, it might nevertheless be considered somewhat technical by readers unused to physics - they may not see the forest for the trees. Also, that longer original article (in B'Ohr HaTorah) is focused to some degree on the history of the ‘science-bible conflict’ and on the issue of the significance of humanity as understood in biblical religion. This condensed version instead presents a statement of the essential scientific, logical and philosophical points without those contexts. (This version can also of course be useful as an introduction to the longer piece).
[2] Why would we think that the Sun and the Earth Go Round Each other? Everyone clearly notices that the sun appears at the horizon on one side of the sky and disappears at the horizon on the other side of the sky. If one assumes it maintains its circular shape as it disappears, then one concludes that it actually goes below the horizon rather than being extinguished. Then the same applies at the appearance of the sun, it does not grow in size as it appears, rather it comes complete from below the horizon. Either the sun then is destroyed or thrown out or used for something else and another is made for the appearance on the other side 12 hours later, or it is the same sun, and so the implication is that it goes below the Earth after disappearing and travels underneath the Earth to the other side to appear from there.
If it shouldn't get too close to the underside of the Earth in order not to burn it, the sun should maintain distance as it travels, but perhaps does move closer and travels along the perhaps flat underside of the Earth.
Then one realizes that the Earth is a sphere, and so the picture is even nicer, the sun orbits the Earth and thus gives light and warmth to all parts of the Earth in succession.
One can also imagine that the Earth maintains North/South position and orbits the sun, so that all parts of the Earth obtain exposure to the sun. Note that this has nothing whatsoever to do with seasonal variations of climate etc, it is a 24-hour cycle, and so it has nothing to do with what we nowadays call the orbit of the Earth which has a 365-day cycle, but rather with the 24-hour cycle of spin or rotation. It would be counterintuitive to postulate the 365-day cycle with circular orbit to explain the 4 seasons since there's no difference between the different positions, and so one might assume instead that the Earth moves closer and further to the sun, thus creating the seasons. However, then one realizes that other parts of the Earth have entirely different seasons, and in fact the Southern Hemisphere has reversed seasons, which makes the closer-further explanation basically impossible.
[3] Some even believed the Earth to be flat, and some of these believed the Bible taught this as well, but even in ancient times many understood that the Earth is spherical and that the Bible does not teach that it is flat. [There is however still a ‘flat-Earth society’, and they even have a web page.]
[4] Of course the sun spins as well, but we ignore this here.
[5] and independent of the coordinate system chosen [actually the coordinate system includes the frame].
[6] These quotes do not explain the physics, they simply refer to the points made above. For more explanation, see the full article, and many other sources on the web.
[7] “Science and the modern World” Alfred North Whitehead 1925 Mentor edition p182b-183 top
[8] "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345
[9] Omitted text: "One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space."
[10] Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)
[11] Mach wrote: (from Web) “the Ptolemaic or Copernican view is our interpretation, but both are equally actual …The motions of the universe are the same whether we adopt the Ptolemaic or the Copernican mode of view. Both are indeed equally correct; only the latter is more simple and more practical. The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable” (emphasis in the original).
[12] H. Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time, p. 217
[13] Quantum physics equations provide predictions of future development in terms of superpositions of many states, but when we measure we find only one individual state from among the combination of many. The superposition can be interpreted as being a probability description of which individual state will appear when measurement is performed. This individual state is considered as having emerged at random from among the many possible individual-state-results which could emerge. Symmetry-breaking is similar.
[14] There are quantum models of the emergence of the universe into existence, which is an even higher-level cosmological effect tied to randomness. Note that there also are somewhat-metaphysical interpretations which see a relevance of mind to this issue, which then increase the possible ‘significance’ of mind, or even places the realm in which ‘significance’ lies – the conceptual al realm – at possible a higher level than that of the physical universe.
[15] A further point: general relativity is a local theory, where local is a subtle concept. In this context the local frame of the satellite includes a small region of spacetime close to it and not including the Earth. It is in free fall, as are all orbiting objects (the Earth and the satellite are both in free fall), and does not experience inertial accelerations or forces so there is no need for it to explain anything at all, it is to all intents and purposes either stationary or moving with constant speed. That it is in orbit is only known when including the Earth in the picture and then the frame is not local anymore. To really understand this one would need to read a lot more on the subject.
1. Mach’s Principle: From Newton’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, edited by Julian Barbour and Herbert Pfister (Birkhauser, Boston, MA, 1995), p. 530; 21 different formulations are listed.
2. Denis. W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe (Anchor Books, New York, NY, 1961).
3. Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics (Open Court Publishing Co.. LaSalle, IL, 1960) 6th ed. Originally Published as Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch darstellt . 9th Edition.
4. Isaac Newton, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1960), pp.10-11.
5. Ref. 3, p. xxviii.
6. Ref. 3, p. 279.
7. Ref. 3, p. 341, emphasis in the original.
8. Max Jammer, Concepts of Space (Harper Torchbooks, New York, NY, 1954), p. 141, quotes the 4th German edition of Ref. 3 wherein Mach states that “… for me, above all, there is only relative motion, and in this respect I cannot make any difference between rotation and translation.” (our translation).
9. John Norton, “Mach’s principle before Einstein,“ in Ref. 1, pp. 9-55, 36.
10. Georges Sagnac, C. R. Acad. Sci. 154, 708-710, 1410-1413 (1913). Albert A. Michelson,
“The effects of the Earth’s rotation on the velocity of light,” Phil. Mag. 8, 716-719 (1904).
11. Robert Wood, Physical Optics (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY, 1967), 3rd ed., p. 29.
12. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Vol. II (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. , Reading, MA, 1964) p. 14-7.
13. With terrestrial pendula one does not consider the rotation of the pendulum bob for the bob partakes of the rotation of the earth.
14. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (Bonanza Books. New York, NY, (1954), p. 286.
15. The first part, up to “actual” is from Ref. 3, p. 279 (immediately preceding Statement 1). The remainder is from Ref. 3, p. 284.
16. Ref. 3, p. 393.
17. Ref. 3, p. 187.
18. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Vintage Books, New York, NY, 1959), p. 187.
19. Robert W. Brehme, Am. J. Phys. 44, 506-514 (1976).
20. Ref. 3, p. 280 (emphasis in the original). See also p. 271.
21. Ref. 3, p. 160.
22. Mario Bunge, Am. J. Phys. 34, 585-596 (1966).
23. Albert Einstein, “Autobiographical notes,” in Albert Einstein Philosopher Scientist, edited by Paul Schilp (Tudor Publishing Co., New York, NY, 1949), p. 21.
24. John Earman, World Enough and Space-Time, Absolute Versus Relational Theories of Space and Time (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989).
25. Ref. 23, p. 69.
26. Ref. 22, p. 589. Bunge lists Duhem, Pearson, Le Roy, Goodman, Reichenbach, and Frank as authorities who agree with Statement 2.
27. Ref. 3, p. 284.
28. Joseph Norwood, Jr., Intermediate Classical Mechanics (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1979), p. 274.
29. Hans Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time (Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1957), p. 254, and From Copernicus to Einstein (Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1980), p.84.
30. Ronald Adler, Maurice Bazin, and Menahem Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 1975), 2nd ed., pp. 437-448.
31. Carl Hoefer, “Einstein’s formulation of Mach’s principle,” in Ref. 1, pp. 67-90, 80.
32. Clifford Will, “Testing Machian effects in laboratory and space experiments,“ in Ref. 1, pp. 365-386.
33. Ref. 24.
Below: file attache dto email from 2015
The published article was a condensed version of the submitted material. Some of the material which did not make it into the article are here, unchanged from the original form
Corrections to the original article: photos of handwritten notes re additions and corrections to be made - check which were incorporated into the BHR printed version.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17SZlXxpPr_l4ZGPZeeoNWQi54TM9nNrN?usp=share_link
Most of the files in this folderwere embedded on this site-page. Exept for two files which had allegory material not in the article, and that allegory material was excerpted to form a GoogleDoc embedded on this page)
photos of pages of the journal: in three sections
https://borhatorah.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/geocentrism-1.pdf
https://borhatorah.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/geocentrism-2.pdf
https://borhatorah.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/geocentrism-3.pdf
The first few pages are embedded below:
The above files are from here : given there as: Geocentrism-1, Geocentrism-2 , Geocentrism-3)
click on the arrow-head to open the window (to read the article as text)
----------------------------------
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
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
……
FINAL (HOPEFULLY) VERSION OF SIG
TO BE MOVED FROM RABINOV.SIG TO RABINOW DISK
Thus we have seen that the "geocentrism" conflict was due to the
reactionary dogmatism of the Christian theologians and that even the
astronomers involved were devout believers in the Divine nature of the
Bible. We have seen also that Judaism does not, and never did, demand
a belief in geocentrism. However, we saw that the relevant biblical
allusions, while not necessarily being meant literally, could indeed be
so understood. Thus, the actual conflict was an artificial one, and
certainly never was relevant to Judaism. Nevertheless, one difficulty
still remains: Even though no contradictions exist between Torah and
astronomy, one of the seeming ramifications of astronomy seems to
contradict one of the essential theses of the Torah -- the significance
of man. We now deal with this "conflict".
There is a very important branch of philosophy which deals with the
philosophy of science. Actually, this discipline is more science than
philosophy. It deals with the underlying assumptions, methodology,
generalizations and so forth which constitute the framework of science,
especially of the most exact science, physics.
There is however an unofficial "branch" of philosophy which hasarisen
alongside it, but which does not possess its validity. This is the
"philosophy of scientists" (not of all scientists, of course).
Generally an "atheistic theology" in disguise, it is based on
unscientific extrapolations and speculations from known facts. One of
the main tenets of this school is its cosmic pessimism, the belief that
man is totally insignificant in the universe. This belief grew out of
the trauma which the Christian West experienced in the aftermath of the
Church-astronomy conflict.
When the cosmology of the Church was discredited, it was felt that not
only was their cosmology incorrect, but that their picture of man as a
cosmically significant being was incorrect as well. In particular, the
Church insisted that the Earth was the unique physical center of the
universe, and man was the spiritual center of the cosmos. Thus, when
the idea was p[roven incorrect, it was not surprising that the other
fell with it. However, this linkage between the two ideas of man's
significance and the locations of his planet was only the work of the
Church. In Judaism there is no connection between them. We are
therefore justified in saying that at most, it was the Church which was
discredited, not man or his significance. Thus, it is quite illogical
to draw the conclusion that because absolute geocentrism is incorrect
man is insignificant. By doing so, one is being neither scientific nor
logical -- rather one is subscribing to the "atheistic theology" of
those who rebelled against the Church.
Certainly there is no reason to involve Judaism in the
dogmaticboomerang of Christian cosmology. Nevertheless, although
Judaism is not involved, the impression has remained that man is
insignicant; and this is now the point which must be refuted within the
context of Judaism.
The universe was created by G-d as a vehicle through which some great
Purpose would be achieved. Each individual element of the universe was
specially designed to further the goal of accomplishing that Purpose.
Indeed,
after each stage in the Creation, G-d inspected His work and proceeded
only when He "saw that it was good". Man, as a free-willed intelligent
being capable of distinguishing between good and evil, has an important
role in achieving the cosmic Purpose. Although he is a "creature of
the dust" and returns to dust, his innate potential to rise above his
animal nature grants him a status far above that of the dust he is
composed of. The psalmist wonders at man's dual nature:
"What is man that Thou shouldst remember him,
Yet Thou hast made him but slightly lower than the angels." (Psalms 8:5-6)
However, man is only one part of the universe; all components in
the cosmos have their purpose, and (in) some sense some of these can be
considered to be even) "higher than man". (In The Guide for
the Perplexed, near the end of chapter 25), Rambam wrote: "Most
of the difficulties which kead to confusion in the search for the
purpose of the universe arises from man's erroneous idea of
himself and his supposing that all of existence is for his sake alone.
An ignorant man believes that all of existence is for his sake... but
if man examines the universe and understands it, he comprehends what a
small part of it he is." Possibly in the above Rambam is referring to
people who misunderstand "For me the world was created" in Sanhedrin 37
A. Going much further, he says: "The truth is that all mankind and
certainly all other species of living things are very low in comparison
with the stars..."
Nevertheless, the individual human being has an intrinsic worth
which is far too great to sacrifice "for the good of the many", a
sacrifice which is glorified in many societies. Indeed Judaism teaches
that each and every human being is given unique capabilities and can
fulfill a unique role in aiding mankind in achieving its spiritual
Purpose. For this reason, the rabbis taught that "He who kills one
person (is considered as if he) kills a whole world" and he who saves
one life is considered as if he saves a whole world (Sanhedrin 37 A).
Each individual is as valuable as all of humanity together!
Thus, in Judaism the importance of man, his significance in the
universe, does not derive from numerical consideration; even in the
modern world of megalopolises containing millions of alienated
insignificant-feeling inhabitants, each individual is nevertheless a
unique and irreplaceable element of the cosmic design.
Indeed, if there exists intelligent species other than man in this or
another universe, one can be sure that they too have a unique role to
play. [1, 2] What of the role of man specifically?
Part of the Purpose of man was revealed by G-d via the Torah.
Among other things, man is commanded to "walk in the ways of G-d" by
emulating G-d's kindness, charity, mercy and justiceas well as His
creative ability. The imitation of all but the last quality seem
obvious goals for man, but the last is somewhat enigmatic; after all
G-d creates ex-nihilo while man can only shape that which is already
created. However, in Genesis G-d commands man to spread his dominion
over the world. Jewish tradition tells us that this means that man is
to use his innate creative abilities to bring order to chaos. This man
accomplishes by determining the laws of nature [3], by building complex
physical artifacts, by transforming raw materials into works of art,
and most importantly by using his physical environment including his
body, to elevate the mundane to the level of the holy. In order to
accomplish his task, man was given the ability and duty to achieve
dominion over the lower living species, and over inanimate matter.
Indeed, even now, with man at the very infancy of scientific endeavor,
we have the capability of destroying entire planets, creating small
suns, producing organic molecules from inorganic molecules (and
defending ourselves from attack from Nature). The powers of
destruction and of life are already ours in a small measure after only
hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. We already begin to master
nature more than it masters us. Thus even in a purely physical sense
we have begun to challenge the power of the universe. In addition, our
intellects are also achieving mastery over nature; science already has
revealed to us many secrets of the universe. Without stirring from our
planet, without much expenditure of muscle power, we have, using our
minds, discovered equations governing the nature of matter, the
expansion of the universe, the collapse of stars into black holes and
so forth. The mightiest secrets of the farthest reaches of the
universe may prove no match for the human brain in the coming millenia.
And not for long will we be constrained to do all this only from a
distance. In only a few decades, man has learned to fly and to reach
the planets. It seems inevitable that just as man has walked on the
moon and sent robots to Mars, man could walk on the planets of many
stars in many galaxies and "extend his dominion" over many worlds. [4]
Thus man's significance is indeed cosmic -- his actions have the
potential to affect, hopefully for the good, the entire universe.
Indeed, it is his duty to do so, in order to liberate the "spark of
holiness" hidden in each part and aspect of Creation.
Let us now contrast this Jewish view of the significance of man with
the view which was common among the general population of the ancient
"Western" world.
From the very first speculations of ancient man about the structure of
the universe, it seems that) it was assumed that the earth was at the
very center of it all. Even when the nature, extent and composition of
the universe was unknown, this positioning of Earth (whatever it was)
at the center of the universe (whatever that was), seemed quite natural
to ancient man.
By looking at the sky, man seemed to be presented with proof that
everything revolved about him. Thus geocentrism resulted from the
naively simple astronomy of ancient peoples, not from a carefully
thought-out philosophy or from a divine revelation.
When religion began to develop, its anthropocentric view of man's
importance in the universe fit in very well with the already accepted
geocentrism of paganism. Indeed the fact that man was at the center of
the universe lent credence to the claim of religion that man was of
great interest to the Creator of the universe! Then, when religion
gathered ground and displaced the earlier paganism, geocentrism and
religion became intertwined ideas. Religion became fact and a full
circle was made when people began to use the religious "fact" of man's
"centrality" to G-d as proof that the universe was geocentric!
However, the pre-religious pagans also viewed man as a significant
being. In general, the significance of man was considered to be a
result of the fact that man was the most successful predator on Earth,
where Earth was the center of the universe. Thus man, as the most
powerful physical being in the most important location in the physical
universe, was seen as possessing an undeniable significance. This
pagan view of man's position was then adopted and adapted by the pagan
converts to Christianity, especially since Christianity considered man
to have a very debased unspiritual nature. Thus the non-spiritual
nature of man in pagan belief was adapted to the debased nature of man
in Christian belief. This contrasts radically with the Jewish view
(presented previously) of man: man is significant because of his moral
qualities, rather than because of his physical qualities. Indeed, his
physical abilities were given to him only in order that he have the
power to transform the universe of chaos into a realm of spirituality.
In addition, the Earth's physical position in the universe was given
no importance since moral action, rather than alleged physical
centrality, is what gives man his significance.
We have contrasted the views of ancient Western man and of Judaism:
What is the view of man's significance in the Western world today and
how does this compare to the view of Judaism?
The contemporary question of the significance of man was essentially
born with the radical idea of Giordano Bruno regarding the infinite
spatial extent of the universe.
The Universe: Infinite or Finite?
Until modern times it was not possible to establish observationally the
awesome size of the universe. Until relatively recently the
determination of the size of the universe was a matter for
philosophical speculation rather than scientific observation.
According to Aristotelian cosmology, the farthest reaches of the
universe were occupied by the sphere of the stars. Outside this last
sphere was nothing -- not even emptiness,[**] for the universe was
"proven to be of finite spatial extent using the following proof.
[**] See JJ Callahan for a discussion re the Newton-Leibnitz debate on
the finitude or infinitude of the universe.
****************
If the universe were infinite in extent, the stars, or at least some of
them, would be infinitely distant from the Earth. In a geocentric
system, rather than the Earth rotating, all the stars must be
considered to complete one revolution every 24 hours. In order for the
infinitely distant stars to traverse the infinite circumference of the
universe in a finite time (24 hours) they must of course travel at an
infinite speed. However, since elsewhere in his philosophy Aristotle
had "disproved" the possibility of infinite speeds, had had thus
"proved" that the universe could not be infinite.
This "disproof" of the infinitude of space was of course based on the
"fact" that the stars rotated about the Earth. Thus, when Copernicus's
theory of the motion of the Earth led to the understanding that there
was no real rotational motion of the stars, Aristotle's "proof" fell apart.
The Idea of Infinite Space
The Copernican system implied that the stars were at rest. However,
Copernicus himself did not take the logical step of using this to
refute Aristotle proof that the universe was finite, which would have
allowed him to postulate an infinite universe. Rather than take this
step, he simply fixed the stars on a stationary sphere without
specifying whether or not it was a finite distance from the Earth.
However, Giordano Bruno did expound the idea of an infinite space
containing an infinite number of stars. He even postulated that each
of these stars possessed planets and that intelligent beings inhabited
them. He cried out to the scientists of the future: "Open wide the
door for us so that we may look out into the immeasurable starry
universe; show us that other worlds like ours occupy the ethereal
realms." More specially, Bruno declared, "in space there are countless
constellations, suns, and planets; we see only the suns because they
give light; the planets remain invisible, for they are small and dark.
There are also numberless earths circling around their suns, no worse
and no less inhabited than this globe of ours. For no reasonable mind
can assume that heavenly bodies which may be far more magnificent than
ours would not bear upon them creatures similar or even superior to
those upon our human Earth."
This was the first time that the uniqueness of man was seriously
challenged. [*]
[*] In order to protect himself from the wrath of the Church, Bruno tried
to justify this revolutionary idea by appealing to the theological
argument that since G-d's powers are unlimited, they must find
expression in an infinite work of creation. Otherwise, G-d's
capacities would be only partially realized. Nevertheless, this
argument did not save him. His views on theology in general were as
heretical as his cosmology (he believed in a sort of pantheistic
nature) and in 1600 he was burned at the stake by the Inquisition in
Rome. To his judges, he said: "I await your sentence with less fear
than you pass it. The time will come when all will see what I see."
(Thiel, p.113; Lerner and Gosselin, and Lovejoy)
The modern Western intellectual, even spiritual, man is faced with
the following problems:
1) One of the natural human reactions to gazing at the starry heavens
is to feel dwarfed by the vast reaches of empty space. Man feels puny
when confronted by such mind-boggling immensity. This feeling has
communicated to Western man a sense that his claims of being of any
significance to the universe are rather ridiculous.
That is, he feels that a creature of such physical insignificance could
not possibly be of any real spiritual significance. This problem is
more one of emotion than one of logic.
2) The universe is extremely vast -- composed of billions of galaxies,
each containing billions of stars. Since our sun is only one star
among very many stars, it was felt that we could not reasonably claim
that we possess cosmic significance.
3) The Earth was found to belong to a possibly non-unique solar system
near the periphery of a posibly non-unique galaxy.
4) When it seemed that the Earth was not the center of the solar
system, and the solar system not the center of the galaxy, and our
galaxy not the center of the groups of galaxies, it was concluded that
the Earth was not the "center of the universe". Then because man had
considered himself physically and spiritually the center of the
universe, the fact that he was shown to be not at the physical center
of the universe led many to the conclusion that he was also not at the
spiritual center of the cosmos, and from there to the conclusion that
he was of no significance. Thus when Copernicus's discoveries
revolutionized astronomy and relegated the Earth to a position
subordinate to the sun, the demise of geocentrism seemed to many to
undermine the claims of religion in general, and of biblical religion
in particular.
4) Just as our sun has a number of planets, each star may well have
planets. Futher, just as our sun has a planet which contains
intelligent beings, perhaps many stars have planets containing
intelligent beings. Since the total number of stars is greater than
ten thousand billion billion, there may well be very many species of
intelligent beings in the universe. If this were so, it might indicate
that man is not at all unique, and thus not special. To some, this
implies that man's actions are not quite as significant to the cosmos
as he had imagined them to be.
We now summarize the main "facts" causing overly-existential Western
man to believe so firmly in his own utter insignificance: man is so
small and weak compared to the rest of the universe; the universe is
so vast that no one would even notice our disappearance. The Earth is
simply a run-of-the-mill planet with nothing special or unique about
it, and so there is nothing special either about its inhabitants. The
universe probably contains so many beings that man is irrelevant.
[Fig "You are here"]
It is quite obvious that from the Jewish perspective, none of these
"facts" are true. Indeed, they indicate a total lack of understanding
of the meaning of "significance".
Clearly, the fact of being large, or strong, or even unique, does not
make something "significant" in the sense of having a "Purpose". In
addition, if something is significant, it need not be unique; adding
more of it does not reduce its intrinsic significance. Cosmic
significance is not a quantity determined on the stock exchange
according to laws of supply and demand; rarity or abundance are
irrelevant quantitative descriptions of this totally qualitative concept.
However, because the Western concept of the significance of man was
based on the inherited pagan ideas of the physical prowess of man and
on his egocentric geocentrism, rather than on his moral qualities, when
man's idea of his strength and spatial location were challenged, so was
his feeling of significance.
As opposed to this emotional, pagan, response of Western man to the
awesome beauty and grandeur of the cosmos stands logic and Jewish
thought: it is in the light of these that we now analyze the question
of man's significance.
Man is Small and Weak compared to the Rest of the Universe
Man is small... In a religious sense, man is cosmically significant
not due to physical size or strength but rather because he possesses a
free will and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
Certainly a farmer gazing at his plowed fields does not feel
insignificant, even though the fields are vastly larger in area than he
himself is.* Certainly a king of millions of subjects does not feel
insignificant when viewing the crowds greeting him. Thus, man's
significance has nothing to do with relative size. Rather, it is a
measure of a man's feeling of power or helplessness. If man has power
over a large empire, he is not intimidated by its size.
Considering man's fantastic ability to scientifically uncover the
secrets of the farthest reaches of the vast universe and to create suns
and destroy planets and so on, there is no physical reason for man to
feel overwhelmed by the size and power of the universe. Intellectually
and physically, man seems to have the potential to totally dominate the
inanimate universe.Men may be physically insignificant to the universe
right now, but indirectly, through his progeny, man is potentially
--subject to the Will of G-d -- of supreme significance to the physical
universe. Intellectually and physically it is the inanimate universe
which should feel insignificant next to man, rather than vice-verse.
"No One would notice our Disappearance"
It is quite clear that one cannot judge relative importance in
spiritual matters using the criterion of physical size alone.
Certainly it is possible to imagine that one human being may be
infinitely more significant spiritually than a large dead planet, a
huge fiery star empty of life, or even an entire uninhabited galaxy.
Thus the fact that the Earth is only a tiny speck in the vastness of
the universe is in itself certainly no reflection on the possible
spiritual significance of man.
Earth is not Unique -- It is not the Unique Center of the Universe as
was once thought
Certainly it is clear that the fact that the Earth might not be the
unique center of the universe has no bearing per se on the spiritual
importance of man and his actions. Man's importance does not derive
from the physical position of his planet in sapce or from its
uniqueness -- rather, his importance derives from the fact that he is a
free-willed intelligent being. Of course it is true that the ancient
and medieval philosophers assumed a naively simple cosmology with Earth
at the center, and that this scientific "fact" was accepted by most
people, including religious leaders. However we have shown that
(present) cosmology is not relevant to Jewish religious belief, and
that human importance is not dependent in any way on the centrality of
the location of his planet.
"The Earth is a Run-of-the-Mill Planet" and also the Universe contains
so Many Other Beings
There is no such thing as a "run-of-the-mill" significant entity. An
entity which possesses significance does not lose any of it simply
because there are many such entities. Remember... "he who saves one
person has saved a world" for each person is unique! A planet full of
unique beings is unique, regardless of how many unique such planets
there are!
Certainly no one would suggest that because there are four billion
people on Earth, each human being is insignificant! Similarly, even if
there were many billions of intelligent species in the universe, this
does not decrease the uniqueness or significance of any of them.*
Each species (if indeed there are many) might well fit into the pattern
in a unique manner, and each species individually is as valuable as the
totality of species. Indeed, each individual being is worth
intrinsically no less than the rest of Creation.
Thus the fact that the universe is exceedingly vast, and may even
contain other intelligent extra-terrestrial life-forms, in no
way indicates that man is cosmically insignicant.
Far from being a blow to religion, the new discoveries of
cosmology, and of science in general, serve rather to aggrandize and
elevate our concept of G-d. Knowledge of the true vastness of our
universe aids in neither the proof nor the disproof of the existence of
G-d -- indeed these are both probably impossible ever to achieve.
Nevertheless, all who truly understand the wonders of nature and
appreciate its beauty are affected alike by a profound sense of awe.
To those who believe in G-d the Creator, this increased understanding
of the vastness of the physical universe contributed as well to an
increased appreciation of the Glory of G-d. G-d is elevated from the
King of a clump of earth to the Master of the infinite reaches of the
universe; from the Creator of beings derived from dirt to the Designer
of a fabulously complex system of bio-chemical-physical organisms
composed of almost magical physical particles...
Truly contemplation of nature in its manifest wondrous beauty can lead
the believer to a deeper sense of love and fear (awe) towards G-d.
----------------------------------------
[1] Rabbi Hisdai Crescas speculated, in the fournttenth century,
on the possibility of the existence of many independent universes; and
Rabbi Yehuda ben Barzilai discussed the possibility of the existence of
intelligent beings on other planets. (See Sefer Yetzira, page 171, on
the question of the "18,000 worlds" mentioned in the Talmud, Avoda Zara
3 B. IS SEFER YETZIRA ON THE BIBLIO LIST AT END?
[2] The question of whether or not there are other intelligent
free-willed species in the universe requires a complete volume of its
own in order to be adequately discussed. Indeed a number of scientific
books on the subject are in print -- but we will merely consider the
aspect of it which directly concerns our discussion of the significance
of man -- and even that only in brief.
[3] See Rambam, Sefer Ha'mada GIVE QUOTE AND REFERENCE
* The area of a man is about 10 square feet; of a large ranch (10
miles by 10 miles) is about 2.5 billion square feet, which is 200
million times larger than the man!
* What the relative significance of humans and alien beings might be
in the intellectual and physical sense is impossible to know and really
quite irrelevant to the problem at hand.
……….
Thus in essence, geocentricity is physically valid! --as valid as the
non-geocentric Copernican cosmology!
Of course, a description of the universe in terms of a non-geocentric
system is simpler. However:
"...the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the
Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is
indeed simpler, but this does not make it any 'truer', since this
simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one
of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the
objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions;
this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a
'truer' picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g. the
definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler
description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore
an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus
possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be
carried though only within certain limits. One description may be
simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be
simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from
other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not
apply here, since we are dealing with definitions. (H. Reichenbach,
The Philosophy of Space and Time, p. 217)
Of course, this does not (necessarily) mean that those who believed the
universe to be earth-centered did so out of an understanding of General
Relativity. Not does it mean that we should interpret the Torah
literally when it speaks of cosmology.
However, it is interesting that statements supporting geocentric
cosmologies in the Torah can be understood literally. Even more
interestingly,the belief that these statements are true did not seem
tenable in the period between Copernicus and Einstein -- a period
during which the truth of biblical statements was in doubt.
Nevertheless, the Torah was vindicated in a very surprising way.
There may well be other difficult periods ahead when truth is
sacrificed to preserve validity -- yet later reinstated with the
emergence of new ideas.
We now have seen how an apparent conflict between Torah and science
been resolved with the passage of time and with the better
understanding it brought. However, is it possible that Torah and
science can have a real conflict which can never be resolved?
The Attitude of Judaism to Science
The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ha'mada in his Mishneh
Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d should 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?
Well, G-d's actions/creations are revealed to us as 'nature'. The
Rambam explains that a deep examination of nature reveals the
infinitely deep and precious Wisdom of G-d. This then leads to an
overwhelming feeling of praise and love for G-d. One who deeply studies
nature is not only aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d intellectually.
He feels it also. 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 to be in complete awe of
G-d, to "fear" G-d, rather than being "afraid of" G-d. Thus, study of
nature leads 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 a the catalyst to a profounder observance of a fundamental
Torah precept and to a deep[er understanding/experience of the Jewish Way.
What if Torah and Science conflict?
Torah is truth and science deals only with what can be proven. Thus, it
is impossible for Torah and science to conflict. Indeed, this was
verbalized by the author of the Kuzari, 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."
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
"Distance yourself from any false thing" (source? x:xx).
Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can
studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can
understand Pslams 119:104 as telling us "I contemplate on your actions
[nature] therefore do I hate every false way."
Thus, any seeming conflict between Torah and science derives either
from an incomplete knowledge of the science involved or from an
incorrect interpretation of the Torah.
At this point, it is instructive to consider to what extent the Torah
can be considered to be allegorical (or non-literal).[*] Some have gone to extremes in
rejecting the literal interpretation of the Torah, and others have
espoused extreme views on literal interpretation. The extreme
"allegorists" reduce the entire Creation account to allegory, and do
the same with many other Torah passages which seem, to them, to
conflict with reality. The extreme literalists on the other hand
accept every word in its absolute literal sense. Surprisingly, and
seemingly paradoxically, the Torah view itself is more consistent with
a combination of these two approaches than with the fundamentalist
literal-only view. Indeed, Judaism demands this middle-of-the road
approach; the fundamentalist view is acceptable only to Karaites.
[*] In the following, when we use the word(s) "literal" or "purely
literal", we mean it in the simple usual sense: i.e. "the ordinary
meaning of a word or phrase" rather than some deeper or more
complicated meaning.
-----------------
This radical-sounding statement is not radical at all, as we shall now
show.
Example #1: The Creation accounts: Their differences
There are essentially three accounts (in Genesis) of the creation of
man. The first is in Chapter 1, and presents the creation of man in
the context of the entire Creation. The second begins early in Chapter
2 and relates only events which occurred to man; namely man's
creation, the garden of Eden, Eve, the snake, the tree of knowledge,
the expulsion from Eden. The third is comprised of the first two
passages of Chapter 3 and merely repeats that G-d created man, as male
and female, and called them "man".
It is clear that the first and second accounts contradict each
other; e.g. in the first account, vegetation and animals are created
before man whereas in the second account this order is reversed. This
difference is made more significant by the implications of the order:
In the first account man is created not only after the animals, but is
given the role of master over them. In the second account, however, not
only are the animals created after man, but the reason for their
creation is simply to provide man with company.
An even more significant difference is the following: In the
first account, man and woman are created together after the
animals, and rule them. On the other hand, in the second account man
is created before the animals, and is then split into male and
female only after the animals are created and prove to be
insufficient 'company' for him. These are very significant and
glaring contradictions!
Since the Torah was written by G-d, and G-d is omniscient, it is
not possible that the Genesis account be logically inconsistent and
contradictory. Since a purely literal understanding of Genesis does
lead to obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly the Genesis
account can not be understood as being meant totally literally.
Example #2
In Genesis we are told that the sun was created on the fourth "day"
and "there was evening and there was morning" on the first and second
days. It is obvious that before the Creation of the sun, "day",
"morning", "evening" and so forth could not possibly be the concepts
we are familiar with, since all these require the existence of the sun to be
meaningful. Thus it is quite clear that the Torah did not mean these
words in the literal sense we use them today.
Example #3
The Torah teaches us in Exodus 21:24 that when a person injures another person, the
rule is "an eye for an eye". This law was never understood as
demanding that one put out the eye of the attacker if he caused the
loss of the victim's eye. Rather it was always understood to mean
that one must provide financial compensation for damage to another's
health, in order to pay doctor bills, to cushion unemployment, to
alleviate suffering. Indeed, semantically speaking the words "an eye
for an eye" cannot by themselves be meaningfully understood; meaning could be
obtained only by adding some words: e.g. "(one must pay with the loss of) an
eye for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else)." Thus it is
clear that "an eye for an eye", if understood purely literally is
semantically menaingless in this context. However, not only do we
interpret these words idiomatically to provide them with semantic
content, we even interpret them allegorically. Certainly the
meaning given above is more
literal an understanding than the accepted one that "(one must give
financial compensation amounting to the worth of) an eye, (in return)
for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else). Thus it is clear
that not only is "an eye for an eye" not meant literally (for it does
not make semantic sense), it is not even understood in the most
natural sense. Rather it is understood not only non-literally but
even somewhat "allegorically".
In what sense is this the "literal" meaning of the biblical passage?
As we saw, the purely literal meaning is too ambiguous to be
meaningful, and is also not even correct semantically. Thus we
cannot truly speak of a "literal" meaning. At the most, we can speak
of the actual meaning of the phrase in the context in which it
appears. We can say that this meaning was well understood at the
time the Torah was given, i.e. that the Hebrew version of the phrase
"an eye instead of an eye" was a well known idiomatic expression (to
the Jews of ancient times) of the idea that monetary value of an eye
(should be the compensation) for (the loss of) an eye."
Thus, it is not allegory, nor figure of speech, nor even "idiom".
Rather it is an unambiguous legal precept understood precisely by
all, albeit expressed in the form of an "idiom". However, it is
clearly indefensible to call this intended meaning the "literal"
meaning; to do so is to misuse the word "literal".
Thus, the Torah possesses clear, unambiguous phraseology in the sense
that the Oral Torah gives the intended meaning for all the written
Torah. However it would be untrue to say that the Torah should be
understood "literally". Indeed, in some cases, e.g. "an eye for an
eye", the literal translation leads to an interpretation at variance
with the intended meaning, and is thus heretical. Those who use only
literal meanings are rejecting the Oral Torah and are Karaites and/or
"apikorsim" (heretics).
Example #4
According to the Rambam, it is "apikorsis" (heresy) to interpret
anthropomorphically the biblical passages referring to G-d's
"physical structure" (his "hand" for instance) or to the fact that man
and G-d have the same "image". That is, a literal understanding of
the Torah is, in many cases "apikorsis". The only sanctioned
meaning, the only valid meanings, are those of the accompanying Oral
Torah, i.e. the "intended meanings" [as opposed to the literal
meanings which occasionally is at variance with it].
Example #5
The Oral Torah tells us that the Sabbath injunction "Thou shalt not go
out of thy tent" means that one is not to walk more than 2,000 amot out
of the city. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally to
mean that one must remain in one's domicile all Shabbat.
Example #6
The Oral Torah gives the intended meaning of the Sabbath law
"Thou shalt not burn fire" as forbidding the lighting or putting out
of a fire. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally as
forbidding the presence of a lit fire on Shabbat. (This is why we eat
"cholent" [from the French chaud-lend, "hot-slow"] a type of food
prepared before the Sabbath and heated slowly during it.
Thus it is quite clear that the Torah cannot be understood as being
meant literally in its entirety -- at least some passages must be
understood non-literally in order that no logical contradictions
arise. Indeed, some passages never were understood as being meant
literally. In fact, Rambam states that is a prophet claims to have
received divine revelation to the effect that such a passage is meant
literally, he must be put to death!
Of course this does not mean that one must then throw out the entire
literal interpretation of the Torah. Rather, one must more carefully
analyze and define what is meant by "literal" and what is meant by
"allegorical", and what is neither "literal" nor "allegorical".
The Oral Torah
The Torah was given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai. Along with the
written Torah was given its interpretation. The many ambiguous phrases
and words [1], the occassional undefined terms [2], the highly
abbreviated references to complex and intricate matters [3] are
impossible to understand without an accompanying explanation. Since
the written Torah itself commands certain actions for which it does
not itself give sufficient information to carry out, the written Torah
itself clearly implies that more elaborate explanation was given along
with the written Torah. This accompanying elaboration of the written
Torah was indeed given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and has been passed
down (orally) from generation to generation. It is thus termed "the Oral
Torah".
------------
[1] "an eye for an eye", etc.
[2] Totafot (t'fillin)
V'zavachta (shchita)
M'lacha (acts forbidden on Shabbat)
[3] laws of Shabat, of nida, etc.
----------------
The Intended Meaning
Thus, just as the blatant contradictions inherent in the written Torah
show us that the Torah itself means for us to interpret it in a non-totally-
literal manner, similarly so the ambiguous and abbreviated style of the
written Torah shows us that an accompanying Oral Torah was given (to
explain the written Torah). And, indeed, this Oral Torah not only
explains the ambiguities and elaborates the obscurities, it also gives
the correct interpretations of the contradictory passages. That is,
the Oral Torah reveals to us the intended meaning, which is not always
the literal one. There is a very important distinction between saying
that the Torah should be interpreted allegorically in some places, and
saying that in some places the intended meaning of the Torah is different than the
literal one. When one speaks of "allegory", the implication is that
any meaning which seems "reasonable" can be accepted; when one speaks
of the intended meaning, one is clearly stating that the only
"reasonable" meaning is the meaning originally given by G-d. Of
course, in many instances the intended meaning is given by the Oral
Torah only in outline form, or as a compilation of "legends". In some
cases, the Oral Torah leaves some latitude to expositors, as long as
their explanations remain within a certain framework. [4]
[4] See the Rambam for example
-------------
The incorrect usage of the word "literal" as applied to the Jewish
masoretic interpretation of the Torah has in fact led some people
astray. Some of the contradictory and non-literal passages mentioned
previously were taken as "proof" that the Torah was not only written
"allegorically" but was also intended to be "applied allegorically".
That is, it was thought that the masoreh taught a strict adherence to
the "literal" interpretation, and when logic compelled a rejection of
this, the masoreh was rejected as well. Instead, just as the Torah was
taken as being "allegorical" (since it could not be literal) the
mitzvot themselves were taken as being "symbols" rather than the
literal Will of G-d. Had the distinction been made clear between the
masoretic "intended meaning", some of this confusion might never have arisen.
Intended Meaning or Accepted Meaning
Another distinction should be made between the intended
meaning and the meaning attributed by specific people at specific
times. Since the Torah often speaks of matters either
incomprehensible to man (such as references to G-d) and of matters
beyond the scientific knowledge of the average inhabitant of ancient
times (such as the structure and creation of the universe) these
matters were dealt with by the Torah in non-literal form
(anthropomorphisms, colloquial idiom...). Clearly, the more one
understands of the nature of G-d, and of the universe, the more clearly
one will understand the intended meaning. Thus, less sophisticated and
less educated people will understand these non-litereal
passages in different ways than will others. In addition,
people with more advanced scientific knowledge will understand
Torah passages dealing with matters relating to science in a more
sophisticated manner than those who have no scientific knowledge
(unless they have access to a higher understanding -- as do prophets).
For example, the passage in Psalms that "the heavens declare the glory
of G-d". In ancient times the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.)
were believed by philosophers [6] to be intelligent living creatures.
The above quoted passage was thus understood to mean that these
creatures praised G-d in the same sort of way that we do. That is, they
believed that these celestial bodies were fundamentally different than
the earth, which was considered to be totally inanimate.
-----
[6] e.g. Aristotle
-----------
Since they realized that there exists a fundamental difference
between the praise-giving ability of a human being and that of a rock,
For this reason, knowing that the Earth was composed of rock etc and
was thus inanimate, they did not ever imagine that the Earth would give
praise. Thus, the fact that they attributed praise-giving to the
"celestial bodies" was due to their belief that these bodies were not
inanimate like the Earth, but were alive, like people. They did not
mean that the planets etc were alive only in a very subtle way,
undetectable to humans. If this were the case, they could have claimed
that the Earth gave praise as well but that it was not humanly
detectable. However, they did make a distinction between Earth which
did not give praise and the celestial bodies which did because they believed
these bodies to be animate [in a manner that would be detectable to man
if he were to be in the vicinity]. Thus, it is clear that they believed
the celestial bodies to be far more "heavenly", in a humanly-observable
way, than is our Earth.
Now that we have visited the moon, and sent our robots to sample
and photograph Mars, we know that the heavenly bodies are no more or
less "heavenly", in any physically measurable sense, than is our Earth.
Thus, if these heavenly bodies would give praise in some way to G-d, it
would not be in the naively simple manner that was envisioned by the
ordinary people of ancient times, Rather, they could do so only in
the same subtle, humanly-undetectable manner as might our own planet,
Earth. Thus if the ancients had access to our scientific knowledge,
they would admit that their understanding of the passage was inexact.
In this way, increasing scientific knowledge can contribute to a more
exact understanding of the Torah.
This does not mean that one must reject in toto the literal
interpretation and embrace a purely allegorical one. One must simply
realize that the intended meaning is not necessarily identical to the
meaning understood by "the people". This intended meaning may be "literal"
in an allegorical sense or it may be allegorical in a literal sense.
For example: the usual meaning given to the above-quoted passage
today is the following: "The heavens declare (via their beauty,
harmony) the glory of G-d." That is, the aesthetic beauty of the
heavens and the profound elegance of ther underlying physics cry out to
man the glory of their Creator, G-d. This is perhaps the intended
meaning. It is an allegorical interpretation in the sense that the
word "declare" is simply understood in the sense "shows" (to man);
that is, rather than crying out direcctly to G-d, they cause man to
declare the glory of G-d. It is literal in that no word need be
taken out of its actual meaning to arrive at this interpretation.
Clearly, however, it differs fundamentally from the
interpretation given in ancient times. This does not mean that our
interpretation is allegory. Since we did not have to change any words
to reach this interpretation, perhaps this is indeed the intended
meaning, and the ancient interpretation is allegory!
On the other hand, one can say that while science shows us that the
celestial bodies are no different than the Earth in essence, all these
bodies, including the Earth, do in fact give praise to G-d on some
level. [7] This is similar to the "literal" interpretation of the
ancients. However, it is allegorical in the sense that "declare" is
not meant, as it was then, as a type of "declaring" similar to that
which humans make. It would have to be a very subtle,
indetectable-to-humans (as yet) kind of "declaring". Again, since no
words need be changed to achieve this interpretation, it is a "literal"
one. Indeed it may be the intended one. However, it is clearly
different than the meaning understood by the ancients. If this
meaning is the intended one, their meaning was "allegorical".
--------------
[7] quite possibly on a level absolutely indetectable to human consciousness.
------------
Other Examples
In ancient times it was thought by philosophers that G-d placed "the
sky" in front of the sun and moon, and when He wished to reveal the sun
or moon, He pulled away "the sky" to do so. That is, that "sky" was a
physical object resembling a curtain which could be pulled back and
forth to conceal or reveal the celestial bodies.
Indeed certain passages in the Bible were understood in the light
of the "science" current in ancient times as being a reference to this
curtainlike property of the sky. For example, one of the earlier
psalmists praised G-d Who "stretches out the heaven as a curtain":
‑Ñíâòâã çâéô ÑàÖê (Psalm 104.2), and Isaiah (40.22) paraphrases this as
well: ‑ çâéô óÉã ÑàÖêÑ.
With the advent of modern science, it was understood that "the sky" is
not an object, and that the revolution and spinning of the celestial bodies
accounted for the appearances and disappearances of the sun and moon
and so forth. Thus it was felt that these passages were meant totally
allegorically, as being "poetic" descriptions of the heavens.
However, as we have seen, there is no need to assume that the way
that passages were understood in ancient times (by non-prophets, etc)
was the actual intended meaning. The intended meaning may be quite
different, and the ancient interpretation could possibly be considered
as being an "allegorical interpretation". That is, they interpreted
the"curtain in the passage to refer to the property which causes the
cycle of day and night etc. This however may be incorrect. A different
interpretation for this curtain aspect of the sky can be found.
Indeed, one of the most spectacular phenomenon visible in the sky is
the eerily beautiful polar lights. Of these, perhaps the most
impressive is the one pictured below, stretching hundreds of miles in
both directions and shimmering in brilliant hues, suspended many miles
above the ground.
(illustration. Photo of aurora)
This spectacular, awesomely beautiful phenomon is visible
occasionally as far away as ______________________. Certainly here "the
heavens are hung as a curtain." This interpretation is literal, since
no words have their meanings changed, and is allegorical only in the
sense that the "curtain" spoken of is not a "real" curtain in the usual
mundane sense. Quite possibly, this is the intended meaning of these
passages. If so, then the interpretation of the ancients is truly an
allegorical one, and the "literal" meaning given here is the intended
one.
Geocentrism
Similarly so with the passages implying geocentrism and so forth. The
ancients interpreted these passages in the light of the scientific
knowledge current in their times. Thus, theyfelt that those passages
implied that the Earth is the center of the universe. Then, science
seemed to invalidate thisinterpretation and the allegorists were quick
to "allegorize" all the relevant passages. However, as we have seen,
General Relativity assures us that the Earth is the center of the
universe, albeit not the unique center.
Thus we can understand the relevant passages literally; this
interpretation is only allegorical in that "center" is understood as
meaning a center, rather the (unique) center. Thus, the meaning
atributed by the ancients was possibly "allegorical" in that they
interpreted "center" as "the (unique) center" whereas our literal
understanding of it is the actual intended meaning.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Introduction to New Part Two (rabinow.xtn)
insert before "Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed"
Christian theologians in the late Middle Ages spent much time
interpreting the Bible. 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" and "earthly waters", the
"spreading of the sky as a tent (curtain)" and so on. Since these
passages were interpreted absolutely literally, the Church came into
violent conflict with early Renaissance astronomers who claimed that
these descriptions were incorrect.
One of the main conflicts revolved about the questin of the
Earth's position and state of motion in the universe. The clash
between Church and astronomers reached a height with the emergence of
the revolutionary ideas of Copernicus and Galileo. The official Church
doctrine spoke of a stationary Earth at the center of the universe,
while the astronomers' picture was of an Earth spinning and revolving
about a stationary sun, which was the center of the universe. 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.
Thus to many people, Judaism (as a biblical religion) and science seem
to be diammetrically 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.
Hwever, 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 showing the following to be true:
1) As a result of Einstein's General Relativity Theory 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 did Judaism not officially dogmatically interpret
cosmologicalpassages in an anti-scientific literal fashion, but there
is also not necessarily any a-priori obligation in Judaism to do 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 in essence, geocentricity is physically valid! --as valid as the
non-geocentric Copernican cosmology!
Of course, a description of the universe in terms of a non-geocentric
system is simpler. However:
"...the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the
Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is
indeed simpler, but this does not make it any 'truer', since this
simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one
of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the
objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions;
this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a
'truer' picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g. the
definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler
description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore
an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus
possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be
carried though only within certain limits. One description may be
simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be
simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from
other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not
apply here, since we are dealing with definitions. (H. Reichenbach,
The Philosophy of Space and Time, p. 217)
Of course, this does not (necessarily) mean that those who believed the
universe to be earth-centered did so out of an understanding of General
Relativity. Not does it mean that we should interpret the Torah
literally when it speaks of cosmology.
However, it is interesting that statements supporting geocentric
cosmologies in the Torah can be understood literally. Even more
interestingly,the belief that these statements are true did not seem
tenable in the period between Copernicus and Einstein -- a period
during which the truth of biblical statements was in doubt.
Nevertheless, the Torah was vindicated in a very surprising way.
There may well be other difficult periods ahead when truth is
sacrificed to preserve validity -- yet later reinstated with the
emergence of new ideas.
We now have seen how an apparent conflict between Torah and science
been resolved with the passage of time and with the better
understanding it brought. However, is it possible that Torah and
science can have a real conflict which can never be resolved?
The Attitude of Judaism to Science
The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ha'mada in his Mishneh
Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d should 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?
Well, G-d's actions/creations are revealed to us as 'nature'. The
Rambam explains that a deep examination of nature reveals the
infinitely deep and precious Wisdom of G-d. This then leads to an
overwhelming feeling of praise and love for G-d. One who deeply studies
nature is not only aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d intellectually.
He feels it also. 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 to be in complete awe of
G-d, to "fear" G-d, rather than being "afraid of" G-d. Thus, study of
nature leads 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 a the catalyst to a profounder observance of a fundamental
Torah precept and to a deep[er understanding/experience of the Jewish Way.
What if Torah and Science conflict?
Torah is truth and science deals only with what can be proven. Thus, it
is impossible for Torah and science to conflict. Indeed, this was
verbalized by the author of the Kuzari, 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."
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
"Distance yourself from any false thing" (source? x:xx).
Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can
studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can
understand Pslams 119:104 as telling us "I contemplate on your actions
[nature] therefore do I hate every false way."
Thus, any seeming conflict between Torah and science derives either
from an incomplete knowledge of the science involved or from an
incorrect interpretation of the Torah.
At this point, it is instructive to consider to what extent the Torah
can be considered to be allegorical (or non-literal).[*] Some have gone to extremes in
rejecting the literal interpretation of the Torah, and others have
espoused extreme views on literal interpretation. The extreme
"allegorists" reduce the entire Creation account to allegory, and do
the same with many other Torah passages which seem, to them, to
conflict with reality. The extreme literalists on the other hand
accept every word in its absolute literal sense. Surprisingly, and
seemingly paradoxically, the Torah view itself is more consistent with
a combination of these two approaches than with the fundamentalist
literal-only view. Indeed, Judaism demands this middle-of-the road
approach; the fundamentalist view is acceptable only to Karaites.
[*] In the following, when we use the word(s) "literal" or "purely
literal", we mean it in the simple usual sense: i.e. "the ordinary
meaning of a word or phrase" rather than some deeper or more
complicated meaning.
-----------------
This radical-sounding statement is not radical at all, as we shall now
show.
Example #1: The Creation accounts: Their differences
There are essentially three accounts (in Genesis) of the creation of
man. The first is in Chapter 1, and presents the creation of man in
the context of the entire Creation. The second begins early in Chapter
2 and relates only events which occurred to man; namely man's
creation, the garden of Eden, Eve, the snake, the tree of knowledge,
the expulsion from Eden. The third is comprised of the first two
passages of Chapter 3 and merely repeats that G-d created man, as male
and female, and called them "man".
It is clear that the first and second accounts contradict each
other; e.g. in the first account, vegetation and animals are created
before man whereas in the second account this order is reversed. This
difference is made more significant by the implications of the order:
In the first account man is created not only after the animals, but is
given the role of master over them. In the second account, however, not
only are the animals created after man, but the reason for their
creation is simply to provide man with company.
An even more significant difference is the following: In the
first account, man and woman are created together after the
animals, and rule them. On the other hand, in the second account man
is created before the animals, and is then split into male and
female only after the animals are created and prove to be
insufficient 'company' for him. These are very significant and
glaring contradictions!
Since the Torah was written by G-d, and G-d is omniscient, it is
not possible that the Genesis account be logically inconsistent and
contradictory. Since a purely literal understanding of Genesis does
lead to obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly the Genesis
account can not be understood as being meant totally literally.
Example #2
In Genesis we are told that the sun was created on the fourth "day"
and "there was evening and there was morning" on the first and second
days. It is obvious that before the Creation of the sun, "day",
"morning", "evening" and so forth could not possibly be the concepts
we are familiar with, since all these require the existence of the sun to be
meaningful. Thus it is quite clear that the Torah did not mean these
words in the literal sense we use them today.
Example #3
The Torah teaches us in Exodus 21:24 that when a person injures another person, the
rule is "an eye for an eye". This law was never understood as
demanding that one put out the eye of the attacker if he caused the
loss of the victim's eye. Rather it was always understood to mean
that one must provide financial compensation for damage to another's
health, in order to pay doctor bills, to cushion unemployment, to
alleviate suffering. Indeed, semantically speaking the words "an eye
for an eye" cannot by themselves be meaningfully understood; meaning could be
obtained only by adding some words: e.g. "(one must pay with the loss of) an
eye for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else)." Thus it is
clear that "an eye for an eye", if understood purely literally is
semantically menaingless in this context. However, not only do we
interpret these words idiomatically to provide them with semantic
content, we even interpret them allegorically. Certainly the
meaning given above is more
literal an understanding than the accepted one that "(one must give
financial compensation amounting to the worth of) an eye, (in return)
for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else). Thus it is clear
that not only is "an eye for an eye" not meant literally (for it does
not make semantic sense), it is not even understood in the most
natural sense. Rather it is understood not only non-literally but
even somewhat "allegorically".
In what sense is this the "literal" meaning of the biblical passage?
As we saw, the purely literal meaning is too ambiguous to be
meaningful, and is also not even correct semantically. Thus we
cannot truly speak of a "literal" meaning. At the most, we can speak
of the actual meaning of the phrase in the context in which it
appears. We can say that this meaning was well understood at the
time the Torah was given, i.e. that the Hebrew version of the phrase
"an eye instead of an eye" was a well known idiomatic expression (to
the Jews of ancient times) of the idea that monetary value of an eye
(should be the compensation) for (the loss of) an eye."
Thus, it is not allegory, nor figure of speech, nor even "idiom".
Rather it is an unambiguous legal precept understood precisely by
all, albeit expressed in the form of an "idiom". However, it is
clearly indefensible to call this intended meaning the "literal"
meaning; to do so is to misuse the word "literal".
Thus, the Torah possesses clear, unambiguous phraseology in the sense
that the Oral Torah gives the intended meaning for all the written
Torah. However it would be untrue to say that the Torah should be
understood "literally". Indeed, in some cases, e.g. "an eye for an
eye", the literal translation leads to an interpretation at variance
with the intended meaning, and is thus heretical. Those who use only
literal meanings are rejecting the Oral Torah and are Karaites and/or
"apikorsim" (heretics).
Example #4
According to the Rambam, it is "apikorsis" (heresy) to interpret
anthropomorphically the biblical passages referring to G-d's
"physical structure" (his "hand" for instance) or to the fact that man
and G-d have the same "image". That is, a literal understanding of
the Torah is, in many cases "apikorsis". The only sanctioned
meaning, the only valid meanings, are those of the accompanying Oral
Torah, i.e. the "intended meanings" [as opposed to the literal
meanings which occasionally is at variance with it].
Example #5
The Oral Torah tells us that the Sabbath injunction "Thou shalt not go
out of thy tent" means that one is not to walk more than 2,000 amot out
of the city. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally to
mean that one must remain in one's domicile all Shabbat.
Example #6
The Oral Torah gives the intended meaning of the Sabbath law
"Thou shalt not burn fire" as forbidding the lighting or putting out
of a fire. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally as
forbidding the presence of a lit fire on Shabbat. (This is why we eat
"cholent" [from the French chaud-lend, "hot-slow"] a type of food
prepared before the Sabbath and heated slowly during it.
Thus it is quite clear that the Torah cannot be understood as being
meant literally in its entirety -- at least some passages must be
understood non-literally in order that no logical contradictions
arise. Indeed, some passages never were understood as being meant
literally. In fact, Rambam states that is a prophet claims to have
received divine revelation to the effect that such a passage is meant
literally, he must be put to death!
Of course this does not mean that one must then throw out the entire
literal interpretation of the Torah. Rather, one must more carefully
analyze and define what is meant by "literal" and what is meant by
"allegorical", and what is neither "literal" nor "allegorical".
The Oral Torah
The Torah was given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai. Along with the
written Torah was given its interpretation. The many ambiguous phrases
and words [1], the occassional undefined terms [2], the highly
abbreviated references to complex and intricate matters [3] are
impossible to understand without an accompanying explanation. Since
the written Torah itself commands certain actions for which it does
not itself give sufficient information to carry out, the written Torah
itself clearly implies that more elaborate explanation was given along
with the written Torah. This accompanying elaboration of the written
Torah was indeed given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and has been passed
down (orally) from generation to generation. It is thus termed "the Oral
Torah".
------------
[1] "an eye for an eye", etc.
[2] Totafot (t'fillin)
V'zavachta (shchita)
M'lacha (acts forbidden on Shabbat)
[3] laws of Shabat, of nida, etc.
----------------
The Intended Meaning
Thus, just as the blatant contradictions inherent in the written Torah
show us that the Torah itself means for us to interpret it in a non-totally-
literal manner, similarly so the ambiguous and abbreviated style of the
written Torah shows us that an accompanying Oral Torah was given (to
explain the written Torah). And, indeed, this Oral Torah not only
explains the ambiguities and elaborates the obscurities, it also gives
the correct interpretations of the contradictory passages. That is,
the Oral Torah reveals to us the intended meaning, which is not always
the literal one. There is a very important distinction between saying
that the Torah should be interpreted allegorically in some places, and
saying that in some places the intended meaning of the Torah is different than the
literal one. When one speaks of "allegory", the implication is that
any meaning which seems "reasonable" can be accepted; when one speaks
of the intended meaning, one is clearly stating that the only
"reasonable" meaning is the meaning originally given by G-d. Of
course, in many instances the intended meaning is given by the Oral
Torah only in outline form, or as a compilation of "legends". In some
cases, the Oral Torah leaves some latitude to expositors, as long as
their explanations remain within a certain framework. [4]
[4] See the Rambam for example
-------------
The incorrect usage of the word "literal" as applied to the Jewish
masoretic interpretation of the Torah has in fact led some people
astray. Some of the contradictory and non-literal passages mentioned
previously were taken as "proof" that the Torah was not only written
"allegorically" but was also intended to be "applied allegorically".
That is, it was thought that the masoreh taught a strict adherence to
the "literal" interpretation, and when logic compelled a rejection of
this, the masoreh was rejected as well. Instead, just as the Torah was
taken as being "allegorical" (since it could not be literal) the
mitzvot themselves were taken as being "symbols" rather than the
literal Will of G-d. Had the distinction been made clear between the
masoretic "intended meaning", some of this confusion might never have arisen.
Intended Meaning or Accepted Meaning
Another distinction should be made between the intended
meaning and the meaning attributed by specific people at specific
times. Since the Torah often speaks of matters either
incomprehensible to man (such as references to G-d) and of matters
beyond the scientific knowledge of the average inhabitant of ancient
times (such as the structure and creation of the universe) these
matters were dealt with by the Torah in non-literal form
(anthropomorphisms, colloquial idiom...). Clearly, the more one
understands of the nature of G-d, and of the universe, the more clearly
one will understand the intended meaning. Thus, less sophisticated and
less educated people will understand these non-litereal
passages in different ways than will others. In addition,
people with more advanced scientific knowledge will understand
Torah passages dealing with matters relating to science in a more
sophisticated manner than those who have no scientific knowledge
(unless they have access to a higher understanding -- as do prophets).
For example, the passage in Psalms that "the heavens declare the glory
of G-d". In ancient times the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.)
were believed by philosophers [6] to be intelligent living creatures.
The above quoted passage was thus understood to mean that these
creatures praised G-d in the same sort of way that we do. That is, they
believed that these celestial bodies were fundamentally different than
the earth, which was considered to be totally inanimate.
-----
[6] e.g. Aristotle
-----------
Since they realized that there exists a fundamental difference
between the praise-giving ability of a human being and that of a rock,
For this reason, knowing that the Earth was composed of rock etc and
was thus inanimate, they did not ever imagine that the Earth would give
praise. Thus, the fact that they attributed praise-giving to the
"celestial bodies" was due to their belief that these bodies were not
inanimate like the Earth, but were alive, like people. They did not
mean that the planets etc were alive only in a very subtle way,
undetectable to humans. If this were the case, they could have claimed
that the Earth gave praise as well but that it was not humanly
detectable. However, they did make a distinction between Earth which
did not give praise and the celestial bodies which did because they believed
these bodies to be animate [in a manner that would be detectable to man
if he were to be in the vicinity]. Thus, it is clear that they believed
the celestial bodies to be far more "heavenly", in a humanly-observable
way, than is our Earth.
Now that we have visited the moon, and sent our robots to sample
and photograph Mars, we know that the heavenly bodies are no more or
less "heavenly", in any physically measurable sense, than is our Earth.
Thus, if these heavenly bodies would give praise in some way to G-d, it
would not be in the naively simple manner that was envisioned by the
ordinary people of ancient times, Rather, they could do so only in
the same subtle, humanly-undetectable manner as might our own planet,
Earth. Thus if the ancients had access to our scientific knowledge,
they would admit that their understanding of the passage was inexact.
In this way, increasing scientific knowledge can contribute to a more
exact understanding of the Torah.
This does not mean that one must reject in toto the literal
interpretation and embrace a purely allegorical one. One must simply
realize that the intended meaning is not necessarily identical to the
meaning understood by "the people". This intended meaning may be "literal"
in an allegorical sense or it may be allegorical in a literal sense.
For example: the usual meaning given to the above-quoted passage
today is the following: "The heavens declare (via their beauty,
harmony) the glory of G-d." That is, the aesthetic beauty of the
heavens and the profound elegance of ther underlying physics cry out to
man the glory of their Creator, G-d. This is perhaps the intended
meaning. It is an allegorical interpretation in the sense that the
word "declare" is simply understood in the sense "shows" (to man);
that is, rather than crying out directly to G-d, they cause man to
declare the glory of G-d. It is literal in that no word need be
taken out of its actual meaning to arrive at this interpretation.
Clearly, however, it differs fundamentally from the
interpretation given in ancient times. This does not mean that our
interpretation is allegory. Since we did not have to change any words
to reach this interpretation, perhaps this is indeed the intended
meaning, and the ancient interpretation is allegory!
On the other hand, one can say that while science shows us that the
celestial bodies are no different than the Earth in essence, all these
bodies, including the Earth, do in fact give praise to G-d on some
level. [7] This is similar to the "literal" interpretation of the
ancients. However, it is allegorical in the sense that "declare" is
not meant, as it was then, as a type of "declaring" similar to that
which humans make. It would have to be a very subtle,
indetectable-to-humans (as yet) kind of "declaring". Again, since no
words need be changed to achieve this interpretation, it is a "literal"
one. Indeed it may be the intended one. However, it is clearly
different than the meaning understood by the ancients. If this
meaning is the intended one, their meaning was "allegorical".
--------------
[7] quite possibly on a level absolutely indetectable to human consciousness.
------------
Other Examples
In ancient times it was thought by philosophers that G-d placed "the
sky" in front of the sun and moon, and when He wished to reveal the sun
or moon, He pulled away "the sky" to do so. That is, that "sky" was a
physical object resembling a curtain which could be pulled back and
forth to conceal or reveal the celestial bodies.
Indeed certain passages in the Bible were understood in the light
of the "science" current in ancient times as being a reference to this
curtainlike property of the sky. For example, one of the earlier
psalmists praised G-d Who "stretches out the heaven as a curtain":
‑Ñíâòâã çâéô ÑàÖê (Psalm 104.2), and Isaiah (40.22) paraphrases this as
well: ‑ çâéô óÉã ÑàÖêÑ.
With the advent of modern science, it was understood that "the sky" is
not an object, and that the revolution and spinning of the celestial bodies
accounted for the appearances and disappearances of the sun and moon
and so forth. Thus it was felt that these passages were meant totally
allegorically, as being "poetic" descriptions of the heavens.
However, as we have seen, there is no need to assume that the way
that passages were understood in ancient times (by non-prophets, etc)
was the actual intended meaning. The intended meaning may be quite
different, and the ancient interpretation could possibly be considered
as being an "allegorical interpretation". That is, they interpreted
the "curtain" in the passage to refer to the property which causes the
cycle of day and night etc. This however may be incorrect. A different
interpretation for this curtain aspect of the sky can be found.
Indeed, one of the most spectacular phenomenon visible in the sky is
the eerily beautiful polar lights. Of these, perhaps the most
impressive is the one pictured below, stretching hundreds of miles in
both directions and shimmering in brilliant hues, suspended many miles
above the ground.
(illustration. Photo of aurora)
This spectacular, awesomely beautiful phenomon is visible
occasionally as far away as ______________________. Certainly here "the
heavens are hung as a curtain." This interpretation is literal, since
no words have their meanings changed, and is allegorical only in the
sense that the "curtain" spoken of is not a "real" curtain in the usual
mundane sense. Quite possibly, this is the intended meaning of these
passages. If so, then the interpretation of the ancients is truly an
allegorical one, and the "literal" meaning given here is the intended
one.
Geocentrism
Similarly so with the passages implying geocentrism and so forth. The
ancients interpreted these passages in the light of the scientific
knowledge current in their times. Thus, theyfelt that those passages
implied that the Earth is the center of the universe. Then, science
seemed to invalidate thisinterpretation and the allegorists were quick
to "allegorize" all the relevant passages. However, as we have seen,
General Relativity assures us that the Earth is the center of the
universe, albeit not the unique center.
Thus we can understand the relevant passages literally; this
interpretation is only allegorical in that "center" is understood as
meaning a center, rather the (unique) center. Thus, the meaning
atributed by the ancients was possibly "allegorical" in that they
interpreted "center" as "the (unique) center" whereas our literal
understanding of it is the actual intended meaning.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Introduction to New Part Two (rabinow.xtn)
insert before "Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed"
Christian theologians in the late Middle Ages spent much time
interpreting the Bible. 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" and "earthly waters", the
"spreading of the sky as a tent (curtain)" and so on. Since these
passages were interpreted absolutely literally, the Church came into
violent conflict with early Renaissance astronomers who claimed that
these descriptions were incorrect.
One of the main conflicts revolved about the questin of the
Earth's position and state of motion in the universe. The clash
between Church and astronomers reached a height with the emergence of
the revolutionary ideas of Copernicus and Galileo. The official Church
doctrine spoke of a stationary Earth at the center of the universe,
while the astronomers' picture was of an Earth spinning and revolving
about a stationary sun, which was the center of the universe. 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.
Thus to many people, Judaism (as a biblical religion) and science seem
to be diammetrically 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.
Hwever, 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 showing the following to be true:
1) As a result of Einstein's General Relativity Theory 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 did Judaism not officially dogmatically interpret
cosmologicalpassages in an anti-scientific literal fashion, but there
is also not necessarily any a-priori obligation in Judaism to do 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 in essence, geocentricity is physically valid! --as valid as the
non-geocentric Copernican cosmology!
Of course, a description of the universe in terms of a non-geocentric
system is simpler. However:
"...the idea of simplicity cannot be used to decide between the
Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions. The Copernican conception is
indeed simpler, but this does not make it any 'truer', since this
simplicity is descriptive. The simplicity is due to the fact that one
of the conceptions employs more expedient definitions. But the
objective state of affairs is independent of the choice of definitions;
this choice can result in a simpler description, but it cannot yield a
'truer' picture of the world. That these definitions, e.g. the
definition of rest according to Copernicus, lead to a simpler
description, of course expresses a feature of reality and is therefore
an objective statement. The choice of the simplest description is thus
possible only with the advance of knowledge and can in general be
carried though only within certain limits. One description may be
simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be
simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from
other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not
apply here, since we are dealing with definitions. (H. Reichenbach,
The Philosophy of Space and Time, p. 217)
Of course, this does not (necessarily) mean that those who believed the
universe to be earth-centered did so out of an understanding of General
Relativity. Not does it mean that we should interpret the Torah
literally when it speaks of cosmology.
However, it is interesting that statements supporting geocentric
cosmologies in the Torah can be understood literally. Even more
interestingly,the belief that these statements are true did not seem
tenable in the period between Copernicus and Einstein -- a period
during which the truth of biblical statements was in doubt.
Nevertheless, the Torah was vindicated in a very surprising way.
There may well be other difficult periods ahead when truth is
sacrificed to preserve validity -- yet later reinstated with the
emergence of new ideas.
We now have seen how an apparent conflict between Torah and science
been resolved with the passage of time and with the better
understanding it brought. However, is it possible that Torah and
science can have a real conflict which can never be resolved?
The Attitude of Judaism to Science
Science is far from anathema to Judaism. On the contrary.
According to the Rambam it can serve as a the catalyst to a profounder
observance of a fundamental Torah precept and to a deeper
understanding/experience of the Jewish Way. One of the most fundmental
religious requirements is to love G-d, and to fear Him. (Here, "fear"
is meant in the sense of "awe", rather than "being afraid of".)
The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ha'mada in his
Mishneh Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d should
be fulfilled via the study of G-d's actions/creations. These
actions/creations are of course revealed to us as 'nature'. Thus, the
study of nature is a means of achieving 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 which then leads to an
overwhelming feeling of praise and love for G-d. One who deeply
studies nature is not only aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d
intellectually --he feels it also. 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
only to love G-d, but also to be in complete awe of G-d. Indeed, study
of nature can lead to an appreciation both of the Infinite Wisdom of
G-d and of the infinite difference between man and G-d -- and this can,
in turn, lead to the love and fear of G-d spoken of in the Torah.
What if Torah and Science conflict?
Torah is truth and science deals only with what can be proven. Thus, it
is impossible for Torah and science to conflict. Indeed, this was
verbalized by the author of the Kuzari, 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."
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
"Distance yourself from any false thing" (source? x:xx).
Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can
studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can
understand Pslams 119:104 as telling us "I contemplate on your actions
[nature] therefore do I hate every false way."
Thus, any seeming conflict between Torah and science derives either
from an incomplete knowledge of the science involved or from an
incorrect interpretation of the Torah.
At this point, it is instructive to consider to what extent the Torah
can be considered to be allegorical (or non-literal).[*] Some have gone to extremes in
rejecting the literal interpretation of the Torah, and others have
espoused extreme views on literal interpretation. The extreme
"allegorists" reduce the entire Creation account to allegory, and do
the same with many other Torah passages which seem, to them, to
conflict with reality. The extreme literalists on the other hand
accept every word in its absolute literal sense. Surprisingly, and
seemingly paradoxically, the Torah view itself is more consistent with
a combination of these two approaches than with the fundamentalist
literal-only view. Indeed, Judaism demands this middle-of-the road
approach; the fundamentalist view is acceptable only to Karaites.
[*] In the following, when we use the word(s) "literal" or "purely
literal", we mean it in the simple usual sense: i.e. "the ordinary
meaning of a word or phrase" rather than some deeper or more
complicated meaning.
-----------------
This radical-sounding statement is not radical at all, as we shall now
show.
Example #1: The Creation accounts: Their differences
There are essentially three accounts (in Genesis) of the creation of
man. The first is in Chapter 1, and presents the creation of man in
the context of the entire Creation. The second begins early in Chapter
2 and relates only events which occurred to man; namely man's
creation, the garden of Eden, Eve, the snake, the tree of knowledge,
the expulsion from Eden. The third is comprised of the first two
passages of Chapter 3 and merely repeats that G-d created man, as male
and female, and called them "man".
It is clear that the first and second accounts contradict each
other; e.g. in the first account, vegetation and animals are created
before man whereas in the second account this order is reversed. This
difference is made more significant by the implications of the order:
In the first account man is created not only after the animals, but is
given the role of master over them. In the second account, however, not
only are the animals created after man, but the reason for their
creation is simply to provide man with company.
An even more significant difference is the following: In the
first account, man and woman are created together after the
animals, and rule them. On the other hand, in the second account man
is created before the animals, and is then split into male and
female only after the animals are created and prove to be
insufficient 'company' for him. These are very significant and
glaring contradictions!
Since the Torah was written by G-d, and G-d is omniscient, it is
not possible that the Genesis account be logically inconsistent and
contradictory. Since a purely literal understanding of Genesis does
lead to obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly the Genesis
account can not be understood as being meant totally literally.
Example #2
In Genesis we are told that the sun was created on the fourth "day"
and "there was evening and there was morning" on the first and second
days. It is obvious that before the Creation of the sun, "day",
"morning", "evening" and so forth could not possibly be the concepts
we are familiar with, since all these require the existence of the sun to be
meaningful. Thus it is quite clear that the Torah did not mean these
words in the literal sense we use them today.
Example #3
The Torah teaches us in Exodus 21:24 that when a person injures another person, the
rule is "an eye for an eye". This law was never understood as
demanding that one put out the eye of the attacker if he caused the
loss of the victim's eye. Rather it was always understood to mean
that one must provide financial compensation for damage to another's
health, in order to pay doctor bills, to cushion unemployment, to
alleviate suffering. Indeed, semantically speaking the words "an eye
for an eye" cannot by themselves be meaningfully understood; meaning could be
obtained only by adding some words: e.g. "(one must pay with the loss of) an
eye for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else)." Thus it is
clear that "an eye for an eye", if understood purely literally is
semantically menaingless in this context. However, not only do we
interpret these words idiomatically to provide them with semantic
content, we even interpret them allegorically. Certainly the
meaning given above is more
literal an understanding than the accepted one that "(one must give
financial compensation amounting to the worth of) an eye, (in return)
for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else). Thus it is clear
that not only is "an eye for an eye" not meant literally (for it does
not make semantic sense), it is not even understood in the most
natural sense. Rather it is understood not only non-literally but
even somewhat "allegorically".
In what sense is this the "literal" meaning of the biblical passage?
As we saw, the purely literal meaning is too ambiguous to be
meaningful, and is also not even correct semantically. Thus we
cannot truly speak of a "literal" meaning. At the most, we can speak
of the actual meaning of the phrase in the context in which it
appears. We can say that this meaning was well understood at the
time the Torah was given, i.e. that the Hebrew version of the phrase
"an eye instead of an eye" was a well known idiomatic expression (to
the Jews of ancient times) of the idea that monetary value of an eye
(should be the compensation) for (the loss of) an eye."
Thus, it is not allegory, nor figure of speech, nor even "idiom".
Rather it is an unambiguous legal precept understood precisely by
all, albeit expressed in the form of an "idiom". However, it is
clearly indefensible to call this intended meaning the "literal"
meaning; to do so is to misuse the word "literal".
Thus, the Torah possesses clear, unambiguous phraseology in the sense
that the Oral Torah gives the intended meaning for all the written
Torah. However it would be untrue to say that the Torah should be
understood "literally". Indeed, in some cases, e.g. "an eye for an
eye", the literal translation leads to an interpretation at variance
with the intended meaning, and is thus heretical. Those who use only
literal meanings are rejecting the Oral Torah and are Karaites and/or
"apikorsim" (heretics).
Example #4
According to the Rambam, it is "apikorsis" (heresy) to interpret
anthropomorphically the biblical passages referring to G-d's
"physical structure" (his "hand" for instance) or to the fact that man
and G-d have the same "image". That is, a literal understanding of
the Torah is, in many cases "apikorsis". The only sanctioned
meaning, the only valid meanings, are those of the accompanying Oral
Torah, i.e. the "intended meanings" [as opposed to the literal
meanings which occasionally is at variance with it].
Example #5
The Oral Torah tells us that the Sabbath injunction "Thou shalt not go
out of thy tent" means that one is not to walk more than 2,000 amot out
of the city. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally to
mean that one must remain in one's domicile all Shabbat.
Example #6
The Oral Torah gives the intended meaning of the Sabbath law
"Thou shalt not burn fire" as forbidding the lighting or putting out
of a fire. Only the Karaite heretics interpret this literally as
forbidding the presence of a lit fire on Shabbat. (This is why we eat
"cholent" [from the French chaud-lend, "hot-slow"] a type of food
prepared before the Sabbath and heated slowly during it.
Thus it is quite clear that the Torah cannot be understood as being
meant literally in its entirety -- at least some passages must be
understood non-literally in order that no logical contradictions
arise. Indeed, some passages never were understood as being meant
literally. In fact, Rambam states that is a prophet claims to have
received divine revelation to the effect that such a passage is meant
literally, he must be put to death!
Of course this does not mean that one must then throw out the entire
literal interpretation of the Torah. Rather, one must more carefully
analyze and define what is meant by "literal" and what is meant by
"allegorical", and what is neither "literal" nor "allegorical".
The Oral Torah
The Torah was given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai. Along with the
written Torah was given its interpretation. The many ambiguous phrases
and words [1], the occassional undefined terms [2], the highly
abbreviated references to complex and intricate matters [3] are
impossible to understand without an accompanying explanation. Since
the written Torah itself commands certain actions for which it does
not itself give sufficient information to carry out, the written Torah
itself clearly implies that more elaborate explanation was given along
with the written Torah. This accompanying elaboration of the written
Torah was indeed given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and has been passed
down (orally) from generation to generation. It is thus termed "the Oral
Torah".
------------
[1] "an eye for an eye", etc.
[2] Totafot (t'fillin)
V'zavachta (shchita)
M'lacha (acts forbidden on Shabbat)
[3] laws of Shabat, of nida, etc.
----------------
The Intended Meaning
Thus, just as the blatant contradictions inherent in the written Torah
show us that the Torah itself means for us to interpret it in a non-totally-
literal manner, similarly so the ambiguous and abbreviated style of the
written Torah shows us that an accompanying Oral Torah was given (to
explain the written Torah). And, indeed, this Oral Torah not only
explains the ambiguities and elaborates the obscurities, it also gives
the correct interpretations of the contradictory passages. That is,
the Oral Torah reveals to us the intended meaning, which is not always
the literal one. There is a very important distinction between saying
that the Torah should be interpreted allegorically in some places, and
saying that in some places the intended meaning of the Torah is different than the
literal one. When one speaks of "allegory", the implication is that
any meaning which seems "reasonable" can be accepted; when one speaks
of the intended meaning, one is clearly stating that the only
"reasonable" meaning is the meaning originally given by G-d. Of
course, in many instances the intended meaning is given by the Oral
Torah only in outline form, or as a compilation of "legends". In some
cases, the Oral Torah leaves some latitude to expositors, as long as
their explanations remain within a certain framework. [4]
[4] See the Rambam for example
-------------
The incorrect usage of the word "literal" as applied to the Jewish
masoretic interpretation of the Torah has in fact led some people
astray. Some of the contradictory and non-literal passages mentioned
previously were taken as "proof" that the Torah was not only written
"allegorically" but was also intended to be "applied allegorically".
That is, it was thought that the masoreh taught a strict adherence to
the "literal" interpretation, and when logic compelled a rejection of
this, the masoreh was rejected as well. Instead, just as the Torah was
taken as being "allegorical" (since it could not be literal) the
mitzvot themselves were taken as being "symbols" rather than the
literal Will of G-d. Had the distinction been made clear between the
masoretic "intended meaning", some of this confusion might never have arisen.
Intended Meaning or Accepted Meaning
Another distinction should be made between the intended
meaning and the meaning attributed by specific people at specific
times. Since the Torah often speaks of matters either
incomprehensible to man (such as references to G-d) and of matters
beyond the scientific knowledge of the average inhabitant of ancient
times (such as the structure and creation of the universe) these
matters were dealt with by the Torah in non-literal form
(anthropomorphisms, colloquial idiom...). Clearly, the more one
understands of the nature of G-d, and of the universe, the more clearly
one will understand the intended meaning. Thus, less sophisticated and
less educated people will understand these non-litereal
passages in different ways than will others. In addition,
people with more advanced scientific knowledge will understand
Torah passages dealing with matters relating to science in a more
sophisticated manner than those who have no scientific knowledge
(unless they have access to a higher understanding -- as do prophets).
For example, the passage in Psalms that "the heavens declare the glory
of G-d". In ancient times the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.)
were believed by philosophers [6] to be intelligent living creatures.
The above quoted passage was thus understood to mean that these
creatures praised G-d in the same sort of way that we do. That is, they
believed that these celestial bodies were fundamentally different than
the earth, which was considered to be totally inanimate.
-----
[6] e.g. Aristotle
-----------
Since they realized that there exists a fundamental difference
between the praise-giving ability of a human being and that of a rock,
For this reason, knowing that the Earth was composed of rock etc and
was thus inanimate, they did not ever imagine that the Earth would give
praise. Thus, the fact that they attributed praise-giving to the
"celestial bodies" was due to their belief that these bodies were not
inanimate like the Earth, but were alive, like people. They did not
mean that the planets etc were alive only in a very subtle way,
undetectable to humans. If this were the case, they could have claimed
that the Earth gave praise as well but that it was not humanly
detectable. However, they did make a distinction between Earth which
did not give praise and the celestial bodies which did because they believed
these bodies to be animate [in a manner that would be detectable to man
if he were to be in the vicinity]. Thus, it is clear that they believed
the celestial bodies to be far more "heavenly", in a humanly-observable
way, than is our Earth.
Now that we have visited the moon, and sent our robots to sample
and photograph Mars, we know that the heavenly bodies are no more or
less "heavenly", in any physically measurable sense, than is our Earth.
Thus, if these heavenly bodies would give praise in some way to G-d, it
would not be in the naively simple manner that was envisioned by the
ordinary people of ancient times, Rather, they could do so only in
the same subtle, humanly-undetectable manner as might our own planet,
Earth. Thus if the ancients had access to our scientific knowledge,
they would admit that their understanding of the passage was inexact.
In this way, increasing scientific knowledge can contribute to a more
exact understanding of the Torah.
This does not mean that one must reject in toto the literal
interpretation and embrace a purely allegorical one. One must simply
realize that the intended meaning is not necessarily identical to the
meaning understood by "the people". This intended meaning may be "literal"
in an allegorical sense or it may be allegorical in a literal sense.
For example: the usual meaning given to the above-quoted passage
today is the following: "The heavens declare (via their beauty,
harmony) the glory of G-d." That is, the aesthetic beauty of the
heavens and the profound elegance of ther underlying physics cry out to
man the glory of their Creator, G-d. This is perhaps the intended
meaning. It is an allegorical interpretation in the sense that the
word "declare" is simply understood in the sense "shows" (to man);
that is, rather than crying out directly to G-d, they cause man to
declare the glory of G-d. It is literal in that no word need be
taken out of its actual meaning to arrive at this interpretation.
Clearly, however, it differs fundamentally from the
interpretation given in ancient times. This does not mean that our
interpretation is allegory. Since we did not have to change any words
to reach this interpretation, perhaps this is indeed the intended
meaning, and the ancient interpretation is allegory!
On the other hand, one can say that while science shows us that the
celestial bodies are no different than the Earth in essence, all these
bodies, including the Earth, do in fact give praise to G-d on some
level. [7] This is similar to the "literal" interpretation of the
ancients. However, it is allegorical in the sense that "declare" is
not meant, as it was then, as a type of "declaring" similar to that
which humans make. It would have to be a very subtle,
indetectable-to-humans (as yet) kind of "declaring". Again, since no
words need be changed to achieve this interpretation, it is a "literal"
one. Indeed it may be the intended one. However, it is clearly
different than the meaning understood by the ancients. If this
meaning is the intended one, their meaning was "allegorical".
--------------
[7] quite possibly on a level absolutely indetectable to human consciousness.
------------
Other Examples
In ancient times it was thought by philosophers that G-d placed "the
sky" in front of the sun and moon, and when He wished to reveal the sun
or moon, He pulled away "the sky" to do so. That is, that "sky" was a
physical object resembling a curtain which could be pulled back and
forth to conceal or reveal the celestial bodies.
Indeed certain passages in the Bible were understood in the light
of the "science" current in ancient times as being a reference to this
curtainlike property of the sky. For example, one of the earlier
psalmists praised G-d Who "stretches out the heaven as a curtain":
‑Ñíâòâã çâéô ÑàÖê (Psalm 104.2), and Isaiah (40.22) paraphrases this as
well: ‑ çâéô óÉã ÑàÖêÑ.
With the advent of modern science, it was understood that "the sky" is
not an object, and that the revolution and spinning of the celestial bodies
accounted for the appearances and disappearances of the sun and moon
and so forth. Thus it was felt that these passages were meant totally
allegorically, as being "poetic" descriptions of the heavens.
However, as we have seen, there is no need to assume that the way
that passages were understood in ancient times (by non-prophets, etc)
was the actual intended meaning. The intended meaning may be quite
different, and the ancient interpretation could possibly be considered
as being an "allegorical interpretation". That is, they interpreted
the "curtain" in the passage to refer to the property which causes the
cycle of day and night etc. This however may be incorrect. A different
interpretation for this curtain aspect of the sky can be found.
Indeed, one of the most spectacular phenomenon visible in the sky is
the eerily beautiful polar lights. Of these, perhaps the most
impressive is the one pictured below, stretching hundreds of miles in
both directions and shimmering in brilliant hues, suspended many miles
above the ground.
(illustration. Photo of aurora)
This spectacular, awesomely beautiful phenomon is visible
occasionally as far away as ______________________. Certainly here "the
heavens are hung as a curtain." This interpretation is literal, since
no words have their meanings changed, and is allegorical only in the
sense that the "curtain" spoken of is not a "real" curtain in the usual
mundane sense. Quite possibly, this is the intended meaning of these
passages. If so, then the interpretation of the ancients is truly an
allegorical one, and the "literal" meaning given here is the intended
one.
Geocentrism
Similarly so with the passages implying geocentrism and so forth. The
ancients interpreted these passages in the light of the scientific
knowledge current in their times. Thus, theyfelt that those passages
implied that the Earth is the center of the universe. Then, science
seemed to invalidate thisinterpretation and the allegorists were quick
to "allegorize" all the relevant passages. However, as we have seen,
General Relativity assures us that the Earth is the center of the
universe, albeit not the unique center.
Thus we can understand the relevant passages literally; this
interpretation is only allegorical in that "center" is understood as
meaning a center, rather the (unique) center. Thus, the meaning
atributed by the ancients was possibly "allegorical" in that they
interpreted "center" as "the (unique) center" whereas our literal
understanding of it is the actual intended meaning.
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Introduction to New Part Two (rabinow.xtn)
insert before "Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed"
Christian theologians in the late Middle Ages spent much time
interpreting the Bible. 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" and "earthly waters", the
"spreading of the sky as a tent (curtain)" and so on. Since these
passages were interpreted absolutely literally, the Church came into
violent conflict with early Renaissance astronomers who claimed that
these descriptions were incorrect.
One of the main conflicts revolved about the questin of the
Earth's position and state of motion in the universe. The clash
between Church and astronomers reached a height with the emergence of
the revolutionary ideas of Copernicus and Galileo. The official Church
doctrine spoke of a stationary Earth at the center of the universe,
while the astronomers' picture was of an Earth spinning and revolving
about a stationary sun, which was the center of the universe. 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.
Thus to many people, Judaism (as a biblical religion) and science seem
to be diammetrically 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.
Hwever, 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 showing the following to be true:
1) As a result of Einstein's General Relativity Theory 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 did Judaism not officially dogmatically interpret
cosmologicalpassages in an anti-scientific literal fashion, but there
is also not necessarily any a-priori obligation in Judaism to do 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.
……..
2 JOf course, this does not (necessarily) mean that those who believed the universe to be earth-centered did so out of an understanding of General Relativity. Not does it mean that we should interpret the Torah literally when it speaks of cosmology. However, it is interesting that statements supporting geocentric cosmologies in the Torah can be understood literally. Even more interestingly,the belief that these statements are true did not seem tenable in the period between Copernicus and Einstein -- a period during which the truth of biblical statements was in doubt. Nevertheless, the Torah was vindicated in a very surprising way. There may well be other difficult periods ahead when truth is sacrificed to preserve validity -- yet later reinstated with the emergence of new ideas. We now have seen how an apparent conflict between Torah and science been resolved with the passage of time and with the better understanding it brought. However, is it possible that Torah and science can have a real conflict which can never be resolved? The Attitude of Judaism to Science Science is far from anathema to Judaism. On the contrary. j åAccording to the Rambam it can serve as a the catalyst to a profounde
understanding/experience of the Jewish Way. One of the most fundmental
religious requirements is to love G-d, and to fear Him. (Here, "fear"
is meant in the sense of "awe", rather than "being afraid of".) The Rambam (in the second chapter of the Sefer Ha'mada in his
Mishneh Torah) states that the Commandments to love and fear G-d should
be fulfilled via the study of G-d's actions/creations. These
actions/creations are of course revealed to us as 'nature'. Thus, the
study of nature is a means of achieving 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 which then leads to an
overwhelming feeling of praise and love for G-d. One who deeply
studies nature is not only aware of the infinite Wisdom of G-d
intellectually --he feels it also. 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
only to love G-d, but also to be in complete awe of G-d. Indeed, study
of nature can lead to an appreciation both of the Infinite Wisdom of
G-d and of the infinite difference between man and G-d -- and this can,
in turn, lead to the love and fear of G-d spoken of in the Torah. Thus science is far from anathema to Judaism. On the contrary, it
can serve as a catalyst to a profounder observance of a fundamental
Torah precept (as discussed above) and to a deerper understanding of
the Jewish Way. What if Torah and Science conflict? Can this mean to distance ourselves from the Torah itself? Can studying what is manifest or proven contradict Truth? Indeed, one can understand Psalm 119:104 as telling us "I contemplate your laws [nature]º º[‚ˇ
extremes in rejecting the literal interpretation of the Torah, and others
have espoused extreme views on literal interpretation. The extreme "allegorists" reduce the entire Creation account to allegory, and do the same with many other Torah passages which seem, to them, to conflict with reality. The extreme literalists on the other hand accept every word in its absolute literal sense. Surprisingly, and seemingly paradoxically, the Torah view itself is more consistent with a combination of these two approaches than with the fundamentalist literal-only view. Indeed, Judaism demands this middle-of-the road approach; the fundamentalist view is acceptable only to Karaites. [*] In the following, when we use the word(s) "literal" or "purely literal", we mean it in the simple usual sense: i.e. "the ordinary meaning of a word or phrase" rather than some deeper or more complicated meaning.The dictionary definition of `literal` is: explicit or
primary meaning. ----------------- This radical-sounding statement is not radical at all, as we shall now show. Example #1: The Creation accounts: Their differences There are essentially three accounts (in Genesis) of the creation of man. The first is in Chapter 1, and presents the creation of man in the context of the entire Creation. The second begins early in Chapter 2 and relates only events which occurred to man; namely man's creation, the garden of Eden, Eve, the "snake", the Tree of Knowledge, the expulsion from Eden. The third is comprised of the first two passages of Chapter 5 and merely repeats that G-d created man, as male and female, and called them "man" © or "Man". It is clear that the first and second accounts contradict each d
female occurs only after the animals are created and prove to be insufficient 'company' for him. These are very significant and glaring contradictions! Since the Torah was written by G-d, and G-d is omniscient, it is not possible that the Genesis account be logically inconsistent and contradictory. Since a purely literal understanding of Genesis does lead to obvious inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly the Genesis account can not be understood as being meant totally literally. Example #2 In Genesis we are told that although the sun was created only on the fourth
"day", nevertheless "there was evening and there was morning" on the first,
second and third days. It is obvious that the îliteralï meaning of "day",
"morning", and "evening" and so forth, since they are defined in relation
to the sun, require the existence of the sun to be meaningful. Thus it is
quite clear that the Torah did not mean these words in the literal sense in
which they are ordinarily used [‚ˇ
person, the rule is "an eye for an eye". This law was never understood as demanding that one put out the eye of the attacker if he caused the loss of the victim's eye. Rather it was always understood to mean that one must provide financial compensation for damage to another's health, in order to pay doctor bills, to cushion unemployment, to alleviate suffering. Indeed, semantically speaking the words "an eye for an eye" cannot by themselves be meaningfully understood; meaning could
be obtained only by adding some words: e.g. "(one must pay with the loss of)
an eye for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else)." Thus it is clear that "an eye for an eye", if understood purely literally is semantically menaingless in this context. However, not only do we interpret these words idiomatically to provide them with semantic content, we even interpret them allegorically. Certainly the meaning given above is more literal an understanding than the accepted one that "(one must give d) an eye, (in return) for (the damage done to) an eye (of someone else). Thus it is clear that not only is "an eye for an eye" not meant literally (for it does not make semantic sense), it is not even understood in the most natural sense. Rather it is understood not only non-literally but even somewhat "allegorically". In what sense is this the "literal" meaning of the biblical passage? As we saw, the purely literal meaning is too ambiguous to be meaningful, and is also not even correct semantically. Thus we cannot truly speak of a "literal" meaning. At the most, we can speak of the actual meaning of the phrase in the context in which it appears. We can say that this meaning was well understood at the time the Torah was given, i.e. that the Hebrew version of the phrase "an eye instead of an eye" was a well known idiomatic expression (to the Jews of ancient times) of the idea that monetary value of an eye (should be the compensation) for (the loss of) an eye." Thus, it is not allegory, nor figure of speech, nor even "idiom". Rather it is an unambiguous legal precept understood precisely by all, albeit expressed in the form of an "idiom". However, it is clearly indefensible to call this intended meaning the "literal" meaning; to do so is to misuse the word "literal". Thus, the Torah possesses clear, unambiguous phraseology in the sense that the Oral Torah gives the intended meaning for all the written Torah. However it would be untrue to say that the Torah should be understood "literally". Indeed, in some cases, e.g. "an eye for an eye", the literal translation leads to an interpretation at variance with the intended meaning, and is thus heretical. Those who use only literal meanings are rejecting the Oral Torah and are Karaites and/or "apikorsim" (heretics). Example #4 According to the Rambam, it is heresy to interpret anthropomorphically the biblical passages referring to G-d's "physical structure" (his "hand" for instance) or to the fact that man and G-d have the same "image" [Hilkhot teshuva 3:7. Cf Ravad comment on
this loc. cit.]. That is, a literal understanding of the Torah is, in many cases heretical! The only sanctioned meaning, the only valid meanings, are those of the accompanying Oral Torah, i.e. the "intended meanings" [as opposed to the literal meanings which occasionally is at variance with it]. Example #5 The Oral Torah tells us that the Sabbath injunction (16.29) "noone should go out of his place" means that one is not to walk more than
2,000 amot out of the city. Only the Saducee [Tzedukim] and Karaite
heretics interpreted this literally to mean that one must remain in one place all Shabbat. Example #6 j å The Oral Torah gives the intended meaning of the Sabbath law "Thou shalt not burn fire" as forbidding the lighting of a fire. Only
the heretics interpret this literally as forbidding the presence of a lit fire on Shabbat. (NOTE:This is why we
eat "cholent" [the name possibly deriving from the French chaud-lent, "hot-slow"], or
"couscous", a type of food prepared before the Sabbath and left to cook on a fire which burns all
Sabbath long. It is quite clear that the Torah cannot be understood as being meant literally in its entirety -- at least some passages must be understood non-literally in order that no logical contradictions arise. Indeed, some passages never were understood as being meant literally. In fact, Rambam states that if a prophet claims to have received divine revelation to the effect that such a passage is meant literally, he must be put to death! Conclusion Of course this does not mean that one must then throw out the entire literal interpretation of the Torah. Rather, one must more carefully analyze and define what is meant by "literal" and what is meant by "allegorical", and what is neither "literal" nor "allegorical". The Oral Torah The Torah was given by G-d to Moses at Mount Sinai. Along with the written Torah was given its interpretation. The many ambiguous phrases and words [1], the occasional undefined terms [2], the highly abbreviated references to complex and intricate matters [3], and the
oblique references in the Torah to instructions not contained in the Torah
[‚
ˇ
have commanded you." ‚] are impossible to understand without an accompanying explanation. Since the written Torah itself commands certain actions for which it does not itself give sufficient information to carry out, the written Torah itself clearly implies that more elaborate explanation was given along with the written Torah. This accompanying elaboration of the written Torah was indeed given to Moses on Mount Sinai, and has been passed down (orally) from generation to generation. It is thus termed "the Oral Torah". ------------ [1] "an eye for an eye", etc. [2] Totafot (t'fillin) M'lacha (acts forbidden on Shabbat) [3] laws of Shabat, of nida, etc. ---------------- b å The Intended Meaning Thus, just as the blatant contradictions inherent in the written Torah show us that the Torah itself means for us to interpret it in a
non-totally- literal manner, similarly so the ambiguous and abbreviated style of the written Torah shows us that an accompanying Oral Torah was given (to explain the written Torah). And, indeed, this Oral Torah not only explains the ambiguities and elaborates the obscurities, it also gives the correct interpretations of the contradictory passages. That is, the Oral Torah reveals to us the intended meaning, which is not always the literal one. There is a very important distinction between saying that the Torah should be interpreted allegorically in some places, and saying that in some places the intended meaning of the Torah is different
than the literal one. When one speaks of "allegory", the implication is that any meaning which seems "reasonable" can be accepted; when one speaks of the intended meaning, one is clearly stating that the only "reasonable" meaning is the meaning originally given by G-d. Of course, in many instances the intended meaning is given by the Oral Torah only in outline form, or as a compilation of "legends". In some cases, the Oral Torah leaves some latitude to expositors, as long as their explanations remain within a certain framework. [4] [4] See the Rambam for example ------------- The incorrect usage of the word "literal" as applied to the Jewish masoretic [traditional] interpretation of the Torah has in fact led some
people astray. Some of the contradictory and non-literal passages
mentioned previously were taken as "proof" that the Torah was not only
written "allegorically" but was also intended to be "applied
allegorically". That is, it was thought that the masorah taught a strict adherence to the "literal" interpretation, and when logic compelled a rejection of this, the masoreh was rejected as well. As a result, just as the Torah was
taken as being "allegorical" (since it could not be literal) the mitzvot themselves were taken as being "symbols" rather than the literal Will of G-d. Had the distinction been made clear between the concept of "masoretically intended meaning" and that of "allegorical
meaning", some of this confusion might never have arisen. Intended Meaning or Accepted Meaning Another distinction should be made between the intended meaning and the meaning attributed by specific people at specific times. Since the Torah often speaks of matters either incomprehensible to man (such as references to G-d) and of matters beyond the scientific knowledge of the average inhabitant of ancient times (such as the structure and creation of the universe) these matters were dealt with by the Torah in non-literal form (anthropomorphisms, colloquial idiom, and so on.). Clearly, the more
one understands of the nature of G-d, and of the universe, the more clearly j
one will understand the intended meaning. Thus, less sophisticated and less educated people will understand these non-litereal passages in different ways than will others. In addition, people with more advanced scientific knowledge will understand Torah passages dealing with matters relating to science in a more sophisticated manner than those who have no scientific knowledge (unless they have access to a higher understanding -- as do prophets). For example, the passage in Psalms that "the heavens declare the glory of G-d". In ancient times the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars, etc.) were believed by philosophers [6] to be intelligent living creatures. The above quoted passage was thus understood to mean that these creatures praised G-d in the same sort of way that we do. That is, they believed that these celestial bodies were fundamentally different than the earth, which was considered to be totally inanimate. ----- [6] e.g. Aristotle ----------- Knowing that the Earth was composed of rock etc and was thus inanimate, they did not ever imagine that the Earth would give praise. Thus, the fact that they attributed praise-giving to the "celestial bodies" was due to their belief that these bodies were not inanimate like the Earth, but were alive, like people. They did not mean that the planets etc were alive only in a very subtle way, undetectable to humans. If this were the case, they could have claimed that the Earth gave praise as well but that it was not humanly detectable. Instead, the reason that they îdidï make a distinction between
Earth, which did not give praise, and the celestial bodies, which did, was
because they believed these bodies to be animate [in a manner that would be
detectable to man if he were to be in the vicinity]. Thus, it is clear
that they believed the celestial bodies to be far more "heavenly", in a
humanly-observable way, than is our Earth. Rambam ridiculed people who accepted as literal certain passages in the
Torah which he insisted were meant allegorically [see quotes in Section
XXX, and see the references there].Ironically, however, he himself accepted
as literal those passages implying that the planets are alive and
intelligent © "The Heavens proclaim thy praise..." © passages which we now
of course interpret allegoricallly. Indeed Rambam ridiculed the belief that
this passage was meant allegorically! [Guide II:5] Thus, one is perhaps well advised to avoid making categarical
statements about the literal and allegorical nature of specific passages as
long as we have only an incomplete knowledge of the universe's secrets. Now that we have visited the moon, and sent our robots to sample and photograph Mars, we know that the heavenly bodies are no more or less "heavenly", in any physically measurable sense, than is our Earth. Thus, if these heavenly bodies would give praise in some way to G-d, it would not be in the naively simple manner that was envisioned by the ordinary people of ancient times, Rather, they could do so only in the same subtle, humanly-undetectable manner as might our own planet, Earth. Thus if the ancients had access to our scientific knowledge, j åthey would admit that their understanding of the passage was inexact. In this way, increasing scientific knowledge can contribute to a more exact understanding of the Torah. This does not mean that one must reject in toto the literal interpretation and embrace a purely allegorical one. One must simply realize that the intended meaning is not necessarily identical to the meaning understood by "the people". This intended meaning may be "literal"
in an allegorical sense or it may be allegorical in a literal sense. For example: the usual meaning given to the above-quoted passage today is the following: "The heavens declare (via their beauty, harmony) the glory of G-d." That is, the aesthetic beauty of the heavens and the profound elegance of ther underlying physics cry out to man the glory of their Creator, G-d. This is perhaps the intended meaning. It is an allegorical interpretation in the sense that the word "declare" is simply understood in the sense "shows" (to man); that is, rather than crying out directly to G-d, they cause îmanï to declare the glory of G-d. It is literal in that no word need be taken out of its actual meaning to arrive at this interpretation. Clearly, however, it differs fundamentally from the interpretation given in ancient times. This does not mean that our interpretation is allegory. Since we did not have to change any words to reach this interpretation, perhaps this is indeed the intended meaning, and the ancient interpretation is allegory! On the other hand, one can say that while science shows us that the celestial bodies are no different than the Earth in essence, all these bodies, including the Earth, do in fact give praise to G-d on some level. [7] This is similar to the "literal" interpretation of the ancients. However, it is allegorical in the sense that "declare" is not meant, as it was then, as a type of "declaring" similar to that which humans make. It would have to be a very subtle, indetectable-to-humans (as yet) kind of "declaring". Again, since no words need be changed to achieve this interpretation, it is a "literal" one. Indeed it may be the intended one. However, it is clearly different than the meaning understood by the ancients. If this meaning is the intended one, their meaning was "allegorical". -------------- [7] quite possibly on a level absolutely indetectable to human
consciousness. ------------ Other Examples In ancient times it was thought by philosophers that G-d placed "the sky" in front of the sun and moon, and when He wished to reveal the sun or moon, He pulled away "the sky" to do so. That is, that "sky" was
thought to be a physical object resembling a curtain which could be pulled
back and forth to conceal or reveal the celestial bodies. Indeed certain passages in the Bible were understood in the light j åof the "science" current in ancient times as being a reference to this curtainlike property of the sky. For example, one of the earlier psalmists praised G-d Who "stretches out the heavens as a curtain"
[no`teh shamayim ka`yariya"]:í(Psalm 104.2), and Isaiah (40.22) paraphrases
this as well [p"ha'noteh ka'dok shamayim"]. With the advent of modern science, it was understood that "the sky" is
not an object, and that the revolution and spinning of the celestial bodies
accounted for the appearances and disappearances of the sun and moon and so forth. Thus it was felt that these passages were meant totally allegorically, as being "poetic" descriptions of the heavens. However, as we have seen, there is no need to assume that the way that passages were understood in ancient times (by non-prophets, etc) was the actual intended meaning. The intended meaning may be quite different, and the ancient interpretation could possibly be considered as being an "allegorical interpretation". That is, they interpreted the "curtain" in the passage to refer to the property which causes the cycle of day and night etc. This however may be incorrect. A different interpretation for this curtain aspect of the sky can be found. Indeed, one of the most spectacular phenomenon visible in the sky is the eerily beautiful polar lights. Of these, perhaps the most impressive is the one pictured below, stretching hundreds of miles in both directions and shimmering in brilliant hues, suspended many miles above the ground. (illustration. Photo of aurora) According to the Antarctic explorer John Biscoe: "...nearly the whole night, the Aurora Australis showed the most brilliant
appearance, at times rolling itself over our heads in beautiful columns,
then as suddenly forming itself as the unrolled fringe of a
curtain....without exception the grandest phenomenon of nature of its kind
I have ever witnessed." The famous explorers Sir Vivian Fuchs and Air Edmund Hillary related: "...on one occaision we did have one that was more intense than usual, when
it flared into glorious greens and reds near the zenith, and for a period
of half a minute gave a suggestion of a coloured hanging curtain, as
painted by Wilson". According to the explorer/photographer Alfred Saunders: "During one station, when heavy black clouds filled the sky, a small gap
appeared and the light of the moon shone on a small area of white©capped
waves. It was an awesome scene, but when a waving curtain of green light
appeared, then it was fearful indeed." This spectacular, awesomely beautiful phenomon is visible for many hundreds of miles © the Northern Polar Lights can be seen
occasionally as far away as southern Europe and the southern part of the
US. Indeed, several of the ancient Greek and Roman authors refer to it
[source: the Encyclopedia Brittanica 1953, "Aurora Polaris"] The bottom of
the `curtain' is often about sixty miles above the ground, and the
`curtain' can occaisionally extend upwards to a height of five hundred
miles! j å Certainly here "the heavens are hung as a curtain"! This interpretation is literal, since no words have their meanings
changed, and is allegorical only in the sense that the "curtain" spoken of
is not a "real" curtain in the usual mundane sense. Quite possibly, this
is the intended meaning of these passages. If so, then the
interpretation of the ancients is truly an allegorical one, and the
"literal" meaning given here is the intended one. Geocentrism Similarly so with the passages implying geocentrism and so forth. The ancients interpreted these passages in the light of the scientific knowledge current in their times. Thus, they felt that those passages implied that the Earth is the center of the universe. Then, science seemed to invalidate this interpretation and the allegorists were quick to "allegorize" all the relevant passages. However, General Relativity
assures us that the Earth îisï the center of the universe, albeit not the
unique center. Thus we can understand the relevant passages literally; this interpretation is only allegorical in that "center" is understood as meaning îaï center, rather îtheï (unique) center. Thus, the meaning atributed by the ancients was possibly "allegorical" in that they interpreted "center" as "the (unique) center" whereas our literal understanding of it is the actual intended meaning. One can also point to another passage which was formerly considered to
possesss only an allegorical interpretation, but where a literal meaning
became possible due to a scientific advance . In the Genesis creation account it is mentioned that a few days passed
before the sun was created. It would seem however, that since there could
be no `day' or `night' prior to the creation of the sun. However, with the knowledge gained by Copernicus that the Earth rotates
on its axis, we can see that the concept of `day' is composed of two
separate effects: the rotation of the Earth, and the radiated energy of the
sun. However, the time period `one day' is actually totally specified by
the time which it takes for the Earth to complete one revolution about its
axis. This motion is totally due to the Earth, and thus the time period
`day' and `night' can be clearly defined even prior to the creation of the
sun. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to interpret the meaning of 'day`
and `night` allegorically. Since it is quite possible that other passages which seem to us
allegorical will yet be shown to be capable of a literal © or almost
literal © interpretation, whenever a passage in this work is interpreted
allegorically, we shall do so in recognition of the fact that it might
indeed be meant literally. We have seen previously that Rambam considered the creation account to
be meant allegorically: however, in the instant universe scenario, we
attempt to understand the creation account as much as possible within the
framework of a literal interpretation of the `intended meaning' type, and
to welcome whatever parts of the origin theory has validity © as a theory
© into the category of wonders about which it is said : "How great are thy
works, oh Gd, yea Thy Intentions are very deep." ["Mah gadlew
ma`asekha....] .
j
**************************************************************** **************************************************************** Introduction to New Part Two (rabinow.xtn) insert before "Nevertheless, man somehow feels disappointed" Christian theologians in the late Middle Ages spent much time interpreting the Bible. 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 o