A final note on Geocentrism

A person proposing a novel view of the physical world has two options: (1) to accept the standard physics and explain how his view fits in with it, or (2) propose a new model that overturns accepted scientific theories. It appears that proponents of the geocentric [or geostatic (i.e. "the earth does not move")] model do not accept standard physics, as evidenced by references to the (a)ether both in the book Galileo Was Wrong and in Mr. Wyatt's comments. Therefore, they must be proposing an alternate theory.

Anyone who wants to do this has to meet certain criteria if he wishes to be taken seriously. First, he must understand the currently-accepted theories, both conceptually and mathematically, since modern physics is most precisely expressed in math. Then, he must propose a self-consistent model, which means minimally:

1. the physics must be well-defined and internally consistent throughout (arbitrary behaviors are not allowed, for example), and consistent with any external theories that are included
   
2. similarly the math must be present and consistent
   
3. it must be logically sound (e.g. no contradictory premises)
4. it must be consistent with observations and experimental evidence
   

Until such a model is provided, there can be no rational dialog on the merits of the new theory.

In the book, Galileo Was Wrong, in Chapter 12, there is this definition of "ether" which is part of the proposed geocentric model:

Ether (a) fills all space, (b) is more rigid than steel, (c) is more flexible than any known substance. These three properties allow connection to be made between ether and the Genesis firmament (Gn 1:6-9), which has the following characteristics as noted in the text analysis.

· Ether is the medium for propagating electromagnetic waves.
· Ether is a “less dense” (lacking a definition, an appeal to physical intuition) material form of matter, a fluid of photon quanta.
. . .

Leaving aside the question of exegesis, let's just take a look at properties (b) and (c) of this supposed substance. It is said to be both "more rigid than steel" and "more flexible than any known substance." This is an obvious contradiction. Back when I took my first Logic class in college, one of the things we learned was that anything can be "proved" from contradictory premises, but the argument (though valid) is unsound.

Clearly, then, the geocentric model fails at least the logical soundness test. The evidence also indicates that the physics is poorly defined (see the definition of ether density, above) and the math minimal. And, the comments made in response to our posts indicate an alarming lack of understanding of the standard peer-reviewed and rigorously tested physics. Thus, further dialog at present is fruitless.

Back to Part IV