I think that it is safe to say that the number of modern geocentrists who came to that view first by examining the scientific evidence is vanishingly small; I wonder whether even one such individual exists. Geocentrists do not normally start with scientific evidence. Rather, they first become convinced on theological grounds—either because they believe the Bible or the teaching of the Church, or both support geocentrism. Only then do they circle back to look at the scientific evidence, now through that a priori lens of faith. Here’s geocentrists Rick DeLano:
I know that the universe is geocentric.
This I know not because of science, but because of theology.
You do not consider theology to be superior to science, and I do.
When they do forge into the scientific arena one is struck by their tendency to make relatively elementary blunders (see e.g. here and here). We will see more examples in this latest piece by Dr. Alec MacAndrew. At the very least this calls into question their alleged scientific prowess and certainly renders questionable their competence to challenge the fundamentals of physics and astrophysics.
Another common characteristic of the new geocentrists’ scientific argument is their assumption that casting aspersions on or poking holes in their opponents’ views somehow counts toward establishing their own as true. But this simply does not follow. Strict geocentrism has to be able to stand, scientifically, on its own two feet. And the fact is that it cannot do so.
This is seen most clearly when time and again the geocentrists appeal to the theory of general relativity and cite statements made by scientists from within the context of general relativity in order to bolster their case for geocentrism. In fact, for many casual readers, this may seem to be the most compelling part of their case. The reader is left to wonder, “Really, even these modern scientists admit that geocentrism is possible?”
The new geocentrists want to argue that within GR various phenomena can be arbitrarily attributed to, say, the earth spinning on its axis versus the universe spinning around the earth and that, within that theoretical framework, it is not possible to say absolutely which objects are moving and which are standing still. This is true enough, as far as it goes. But it does nothing at all to establish the earth as somehow special and privileged. Quite the contrary – within the context of GR, the very same thing could be said about the moon, or Mars, or any other body in the universe.
This is because, as Dr. MacAndrew will show, GR by definition rules out a strict geocentrism with a motionless earth at the center of the universe. When GR holds all reference frames as equivalent it’s the same as saying that none of them are special. But the latter view is precisely what the geocentrists themselves deny; they insist that there is one, absolutely special and privileged reference frame. Therefore, they can no longer appeal to GR to support their claims.
The Great Inconsistency, as Dr. MacAndrew dubs it, is that the new geocentrists appeal to GR to give the appearance that their view has some scientific credibility, while at the same time explicitly and vehemently rejecting GR as utterly false. Once we step outside of the theoretical framework of GR, as the new geocentrists must do to uphold one absolute, privileged reference frame, this equivalence falls to the ground. And within the framework of both Newtonian and special relativity frameworks, it is possible to distinguish absolutely between reference frames by the different forces that arise in them.
The presentation below is rather technical. Many readers may not be able to follow the intricacies of the subject. And that’s okay—not everybody has the scientific and mathematical background to digest such discussions. But it’s an important point to keep in mind. If the technical details of this discussion go over your head then it’s important to take a step back and ask yourself: Does the background, expertise, and judgment of the geocentrists fill you with the sort of confidence and trust that would lead you to reject virtually all of the scientific community on matters of science and believe them instead?
And with that, please enjoy:
