top of page

Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids, 2nd Ed.

In stock
Product Details

Have you ever heard something similar to these words?

“Geocentrism, you say? Poppycock! Everyone knows
the Earth revolves around the sun! There have been
all kinds of experiments that prove it so! Even the
Catholic Church admitted,
finally, that Galileo was
right in the pope’s 1992
speech! Newton showed us
that the smaller body, the
Earth, must revolve around
the larger body, the sun,
even as Galileo saw moons
circling Jupiter. There is no question the Earth must
revolve around the sun. Ask any scientist today and
he’ll tell you the Earth revolves around the sun.
You’d have to be a real quack to doubt it. You aren’t
a quack, are you?”
But if everyone can be so sure the
Earth revolves around the sun, why
do the following famous scientists
state or suggest otherwise?
Physicist, Albert Einstein: “…to the
question whether or not the motion
of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial
experiments. We have already remarked that all attempts
of this nature led to a negative result.”
Lincoln Barnett (foreword by Albert Einstein): “We can’t
feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment
ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Stephen Hawking: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican
system? Although it is not uncommon for people
to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not
true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe,
for our observations of the heavens can be explained
by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
Astronomer, Fred Hoyle: “…we can take either the Earth
or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center
of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical
problem of describing the planetary motions. It is
also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics,
although recognition of this freedom of choice had to
await the present century.”
Physicist, Hans Reichenbach: “It makes no sense, accordingly,
to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus
and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions.
What has been considered as the greatest discovery
of occidental wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity,
is questioned as to its truth value.”
Physicist, Dennis Sciama: “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
believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the
same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an
empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical as
sumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.”
Physicist, I Bernard Cohen: “There is no planetary observation
by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is
moving in an orbit around the sun. Thus all Galileo’s discoveries
with the telescope can be accommodated to the
system invented by Tycho Brahe just before Galileo began
his observations of the heavens. In this Tychonic system,
the planets…move in orbits around the sun, while the sun
moves in an orbit around the Earth in a year. Furthermore,
the daily rotation of the heavens is communicated to the
sun and planets, so that the Earth itself neither rotates nor
revolves in an orbit.”
Physicist, Arthur Lynch: “Descartes is, however, doubly interesting
to us in the discussion of Relativity, for at one
time when the Inquisition was becoming uneasy about his
scientific researches, he gave them a reply that satisfied
them, or perhaps he merely gained time, which was long,
while they were trying to understand its meaning. He declared
that the sun went around the Earth, and that when
he said that the Earth revolved round the sun that was
merely another manner of expressing the same occurrence.
I met with this saying first from Henri Poincaré, and I
thought then that it was a witty, epigrammatic way of
compelling thought to the question; but on reflection I saw
that it was a statement of actual fact. The movements of
the two bodies are relative one to the other; it is a matter of
choice as to which we take as our place of observation.”
Physicist, Henrick Lorentz: “Briefly, everything occurs as if
the Earth were at rest…”
Phys. Wolfgang Pauli: “The failure of the many attempts to
measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”10
Physicist, Henri Poincaré: “We do not have and cannot
have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried
along in a uniform motion of translation.”
Phys. Ernst Mach: “Obviously it matters little if we think
of the Earth as turning about on its axis, or if we view it at
rest while the fixed stars revolve around it. Geometrically
these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the
Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another.”12
Phys. Julian B. Barbour: “Thus, even now, three and a half
centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it
is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the
earth moves, and, if so, in what particular sense.”
Physicist, Henri Poincaré: “A great deal of research has
been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s
movement. The results were always negative.”
Physicist, Albert Einstein: “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 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.”
Physicist, Isaac Newton: “In order for the Earth to be at
rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and
Comets, there is required both universal gravity and an
other force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according
to the quantity of matter in each of them and is
equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which
the Earth tends to the Sun….Since this force is equal and
opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly
remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at
rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth
at rest, as in the Tychonic system.”
Science historian, Martin Gardner: “The ancient argument
over whether the Earth rotates or the heavens revolve
around it (as Aristotle taught) is seen to be no more than
an argument over the simplest choice of a frame of reference.
Obviously, the most convenient choice is the universe.
Nothing except inconvenience prevents us from choosing
the Earth as a fixed frame of reference.”
Philosopher, Bertrand Russell: “But in the modern theory
the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is
merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there
is no difference between the two statements: ‘the earth rotates
once a day’ and ‘the heavens revolve about the Earth
once a day.’”
Astronomer, J. L. E. Dryer: “…the Earth-centered system…
is in reality absolutely identical with the system of
Copernicus and all computation of the places of the planets
are the same for the two systems.”
Physicist, Lawrence Krauss: “But when you look at CMB
map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in
fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth
around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt
us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe.
There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure
with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of
the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we
are truly the center of the universe.”
Physicist, Richard Feynman: “I suspect that the assumption
of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born
of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas.…It would
be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary
planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy,
that our place in the universe is extraordinary…To avoid
embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity.”
Physicist P. C. W. Davies: “It has always been realised,
however, that a redshift of light can have another causegravity.
When light climbs away from a massive gravitating
object it loses energy, a depletion which shows up as a
loss of frequency (colour shift). This explanation for the galactic
redshift has always been ruled out because it is
asymmetric: light falling towards a mass acquires a
blueshift. As we see only redshifts whichever direction we
look in the sky, the only way in which this could be consistent
with a gravitational explanation is if the Earth is
situated at the centre of an inhomogeneous Universe.”
Science Writer, Kitty Ferguson: “It is possible to describe
the entire universe using any chosen point as the unmoving
center—the Earth will do very well—and no one can
prove that choice is wrong….no one can prove that the
Earth moves.”
Astronomer, Phil Plait: “I have two things to say that
might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of
reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less
Physicist, Timothy Clifton: “To entertain the notion that
we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is,
for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what
some small groups of physicists have recently been considering.”

Physicist, Max Born: “Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s
point of view of a ‘motionless Earth.’ This would mean that
we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the Earth in
which all stars are performing a rotational motion with the
same angular velocity around the Earth’s axis…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. Thus from Einstein’s point of
view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What
point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency.
Save this product for later
bottom of page