On the New Name

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 Matthew 17:20 — …for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Updated on 28 December, 1999 by GDB