|
This issue marks the first issue that the old Bulletin of the Tychonian
Society will appear under its new name, Biblical Astronomer. The name
was selected from among several submitted by readers and article contributors
alike. Among the choices were Geocentricity Magazine, Dissident
Physics, Mach's Principle, and several others equally good. It was a
hard choice to make, but Biblical Astronomer was the one that kept surfacing.
Some readers may object to the title as it is not specifically
geocentric. That is true, but the main thrust will continue to be the
promotion of geocentricity as the Biblical cosmology and the concomitant
implications for the inerrancy, authority, and preservation of the
Bible. Likewise, one is not to construe from the word “Biblical” that this
magazine is restricted to Christian contributors only. By using the term
”Biblical” we only mean that we shall refuse to publish articles which are
critical of the the Bible. In fifteen years of research into geocentricity
and geocentrism, and in researching almost three millennia of geocentric
literature; we have yet to find any criticism leveled against the Bible to be
valid. Thus we do not consider such a refusal to be unscientific, unfair,
or unrealistic
As for the “Astronomer” part of the new title, astronomy is by far the
science most weakly represented among Christians and Creationists.
Astronomy is a very broad science, encompassing the entire universe at
the macroscopic end down to sub-atomic quantum mechanics on the
microscopic end. Astronomy ranges through many areas of philosophy
and theology. In its influence in theology, astronomy is unique among
the physical sciences. For example, the Jesuit priest Jastrow, wrote a
best-selling book entitled God and the Astronomers; but what biologist
could conceive or hope to survive the ridicule of a comparable book entitled
God and the Biologists? Of all the sciences, Astronomy is still the
most “godly,” though it is a far, far cry from being “Godly.”
A case in point: biologists laugh at and ridicule their eminent counterparts
who two hundred years ago believed that since maggots are observed
to arise from dead meat, that life spontaneously arises from dead
things once alive. But, though they laugh, they swallow uncritically the
”primordial soup” hypothesis for the origin of life: that life spontaneously
arose from a deadly mixture of chemicals made of things which never
were alive and in which no presently-living organism could long survive.
Few astronomers, on the other hand, will laugh about the geocentric
beliefs of the ancients; for most will recognize that the theory of relativity
they embrace belies any ridicule of the former. (Yet more may laugh at
the belief, common two centuries ago, that the sun and moon are inhabited
without realizing and that the Nebular hypothesis for the origin of
the solar system was first “revealed” to the occult mystic, Immanuel
Swedenborg, by the “inhabitants of the moon.”)
Goals and Standards
With the new title there is implicit a new focus. Prior to this time the
Bulletin of the Tychonian Society was devoted to geocentric astronomy
and associated topics. The emphasis was on a Tychonic model where the
planets are centered on the sun and the sun carries them with it around the
earth once a year. Added to this was the daily spin of the heaven. The
title Biblical Astronomer, implies a broader scope. Though geocentricity
will still be our main focus, in the light of that title we are open to a broad
range of topics.
Suitable scientific topics for the Biblical Astronomer include: Mach's
principle, models of the firmament, Dirac's large number cosmology,
quantum mechanics as it relates to the creation of the universe and its
structure, inflationary-universe models, the First and Second Laws of
Thermodynamics, æther theories of various kinds, absolute space and
time, and problems in rapid stellar formation and aging, among other
topics.
Articles on the history of astronomy as pertains especially to the
Copernican Revolution, Newton and the Newtonians, geocentrism versus
geocentricity, the impact of the Copernican Revolution on politics, higher
and lower criticism of the Bible, Bishop Berkeley's concepts of relativity;
these are all valid candidates for publication; and we request articles from
our readers around the world.
Articles which focus on astronomy in the Bible are also fair game.
This includes all forms of geocentricity-in-the-Bible articles as well as
topics such as the Star of Bethlehem, the calendar of the Bible,
chronologies which can be calibrated to historical astronomical events,
continental drift and Peleg's day, gospel-in-the-stars and concomitant
constellation studies including a restoration of the constellations based on
pre-Arabic star names, meteor showers and the Bible, Joshua's long day
in history and other cultures, Hezekiah's sign, tides and ocean currents,
and many more.
There are some limits which we will strictly enforce. We will not
publish anything that is at all critical of the Hebrew Masoretic text, the
Greek Textus Receptus, or any Reformation translation based on those
two text types. We will not publish any papers which attempt to redefine
the clear literal meaning of these texts. For example, papers on a water,
vapor, or ice canopy are legitimate, but it violates Genesis 1:17 to insist
on equating such a canopy with the firmament; for there it says that the
sun and stars are in the firmament and, clearly, these were not “in” the
canopy. To redefine the word “in” through some obscure “Hebrew”
reference to mean “shine through,” is the type of thing we will not accept.
God writes what he means and means what he writes, and we are not to
second guess him by reading our own pet theories into the text. In other
words, throughout all of history no one has understood the word “in” in
Genesis 1:17 to mean anything but “in.” To claim to have “now” discovered
the “true, for-many-ages-hidden meaning” of the text is no more
than a thinly-veiled attempt at reading one's own imagination into the
text.
By contrast with the old Bulletin, there will be fewer articles on
creationism except where it touches on astronomy. Articles on things
like the Poynting Robertson effect, age of the solar system, and so on are
appropriate; as are articles on topics a bit closer to home such as the interior
of the earth. Articles on dinosaur extinctions due to asteroid impacts
are of astronomical importance, but dinosaur extinctions due to mammals
would not except insofar as these might have bearing on the impact
model.
All Those Equations!
And so this first issue goes to press. We continue Professor Hanson's
series of articles for the “Bible and Geocentricity” column. This will be a
regular feature continued from the Bulletin. We also have a number of
technical articles in this issue, more than we usually have, and these require
a bit of explanation.
Although most people, Americans at least, are turned off by equations,
one of the key complaints we get against geocentricity is that it has
not been “proven” mathematically. Creationists are especially prone to
dismiss geocentrists as kooks because they believe that physics and
astronomy have mathematically “proven” that the earth both rotates on its
axis and revolves about the sun. We claim otherwise, but then the
response is: “Show me!” If we are to “show them,” we must write the
equations. But for those who for one reason or another would prefer not
to wade through the equations, we shall provide you with a brief, equationless
summary of what the equations say. Actually, most technical articles
can be read without having to know the details about the equations,
but they do make for daunting reading. Remember, though, that mathematics
is a language, pure and simple; and one need not fear it any more
than one should fear an occasional word in French or Latin. Though the
words may not make any sense to those who do not know the language,
the author usually provides a translation. So here are the translations.
Let's Stop Discussing Relativity
And a hearty “Amen!” to that. The errors in relativity are so subtle that
they are missed by those who belong to the “me, too” crowd of scientists.
When relativity was first introduced it was said to be so difficult that only
two or three people in the whole world understood it. What a great
marketing ploy that turned out to be; for if you claimed that it was nonsense
then you obviously were not one of the two or three who understood
it, but if you supported it then, you were deemed to be at least
nearly as smart as those two or three who “understood” it. Talk about
peer group pressure! Sheer hype!
Our old friend from Bulgaria, now from Austria, Stefan Marinov has
contributed a very nice article for this present issue. In it he says that it is
time to stop critiquing relativity, that everyone's mind is made up and
that a revolution in thinking can only come about by educating the new
generation of physicists. He's right. That's exactly how the great scientific
revolutions have come about. None have won their prominence by
brilliant demonstration of their superiority as theory. All have come
about because the “old guard” died off and the “new guard” took over.
The point is that relativity can not deal with the Sagnac effect (an experiment
which shows that the speed of light is not the same in every direction
while relativity claims that it must be the same) and that should be
sufficient to kill it; but scientists have a lot more Kierkegardian faith (a
leap-before-you-look kind of faith) than have I. My faith does not
amount to the size of a grain of mustard seed;1 for if I had, this magazine
would not be needed.
Stefan's key point hinges around his first equation. It describes the
behavior of clocks under different gravities. In order to test it, Murray
reported on atomic clocks that had moved north and south on the earth at
sea level (presumably, on the surface of the ocean). For example, a clock
placed on the earth's equator would travel at about 1,000 miles per hour
with respect to the stars as the sky (or if you absolutely and erroneously
must, earth) turns in its daily rotation. On the poles, however, no such
turning motion exists. One would expect that according to relativity, the
”moving” clock on the equator would run more slowly than the
”stationary” clock at the pole. Murray reports that there is no difference,
that both clocks run at the same rate. Hence, Murray concludes,
Marinov's formula describing the clock rates while moving through a
gravitational field is wrong.
”Not so!” says Marinov. Although an object weighs less at the
equator than it does at the poles, both stand on the same earth and experience
its gravity. So let's imagine that we drop a stone from the
equator to the center of the earth. The stone would fall and pick up speed
and would arrive at the center of the earth with a certain speed (or
energy). Likewise, we can imagine doing the same thing at the poles.
There we find that the stone reaches the center of the earth at a different
speed, with a different energy. That is what Marinov shows his formula
predicts: that the stone dropped from the equator will reach the center of
the earth at a higher speed than will the stone dropped from the pole.
In other words, although the force of gravity is less at the equator than
at the poles, the amount of energy that can be extracted from the gravitational
field at the equator is higher than can be obtained at the poles. As
a result, the effects cancel out and the clocks should run at the same
speed, Marinov concludes; which is precisely what is observed.
Eclipse and Pendulum
The paper entitled “Experiments Using the Foucault Pendulum During
the Solar Eclipse of 15 February, 1961” is one of several that were sent us
from behind the iron curtain in recent months. It has long been known
that pendulums behave in unexpected ways during eclipses of the sun
(times when the moon passes directly in front of the sun as seen from
some point on earth). The aforementioned paper serves as a confirmation
of several others; all of which are ignored or have yet to be considered by
most physicists. Still, the evidence mounts. The most likely cause is, as
mentioned in the paper, a shadowing; where the moon shields the pendulum
from the sun's (tidal) gravity and causes the earth's gravity to increase
accordingly. This will cause the pendulum to swing faster.
More Geocentric Scriptures
In his “Bible and Geocentricity” column, Professor Jim Hanson emphasizes
the geocentric nature of the Bible. He points out that when the
Bible uses directional words such as “up” and “down” they are always
with respect to the earth. He also counters the argument given by
heliocentrists that it is the throne of God in heaven that should be stationary,
not the earth his footstool. Hanson's counter-argument is that it is
silly to have a footstool dizzily spinning and winding through space in
front of a fixed throne. Rather, the throne is fixed in the third heaven
(beyond the starry universe) and the earth, the footstool, is fixed with
respect to that throne. He also has some fascinating things to say about
the use of the plumbline in Scripture. A plumbline is a weight suspended
on a string, which a surveyor uses to determine straight up and down.
Given that, the true horizon can be determined even in the hilliest terrain.
Professor Hanson is a full Professor of Computer Science at the
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Conference
The second conference on Geocentricity and Absolute Space is still on
for August 5 through 8, 1991 in Cleveland Ohio. We have plenty of
room for more speakers. We would appreciate having abstracts of papers
by January 31, 1991. We also welcome papers from contributors who for
one reason or another cannot attend but who would like to have a paper
published. All papers are subject to the constraints listed under the above
heading “Goals and Standards”. All papers published in the proceedings
become the property of the Tychonian Society.
Twentieth Anniversary
The year 1991 marks the twentieth anniversary of the Tychonian Society.
In the last twenty years there has been much accomplished in the
geocentric field. In the coming issues this year we shall take a look back
at some of those accomplishments. We are also at work on a set of
reprints of past articles and supplementary material not only in the area of
geocentricity but also in the broader area of Biblical astronomy. A price
list of those presently available is enclosed in this issue. Work is also
slowly proceeding on the revision of With Every Wind of Doctrine, our
book which sold out early this year. The new revision will be very different
from the original, different enough to warrant a new title. It has
been suggested that a second volume, containing technical papers, be
issued separately from the historical and Biblical perspectives. Anyhow,
such is the work in progress. 1 |