Let’s start by getting some definitions right, specifically, let’s really pin down where I stand as compared to others that are similar, but not quite.
Geocentrism, for instance, is an attempt to be faithful to Biblical teachings while missing the mark on actually understanding anything. Geocentricity, the belief of the Geocentrism movement, as advocated by the Association for Biblical Astronomy (ABA) is an absolute shambles. On the one hand it is motivated by the good intent of being faithful to the Bible, which teaches a central earth, but it does not allow for a finite cosmos bounded by a crystalline firmament. Sadly, geocentrism didn’t figure out Newton’s Switcheroo, so they are trying to shoehorn geocentricity into the cosmological model of the dominant paradigm of modern science: The sun is vastly more massive than the earth, our sun is one of billions of suns, and the firmament is the empty medium of space in which the stars and planetary bodies move.
As crazy as it sounds, there is also a Flat Earth movement that is very confused by thinking that they believe the Bible and Geocentricity. Flat Earth is just stupid. It’s an example of what happens when people who have no discernment, probably because they are not born again believers, try to handle the teachings of the Bible. They come to the scripture with an agenda and they willfully bend the meanings to fit their desired outcome. Literal and figurative get switched, and you end up with a cosmology that is neither Biblical nor can account for modern scientific observations.
Matty’s Paradigm is neither Geocentrism, Geocentricity nor Flat Earth
The model of creation that I am proposing involves the creation of gravity on the second day. A specific point was chosen upon which God metaphorically set a compass (the drawing instrument, not direction finder) and drew a circle on the mass of water that was present. The central point of the compass, the focus, became the location of gravity, a singularity in current technical jargon. The circle describes the location of the firmament, a sphere of crystal that surrounds the cosmos, which is the location of God’s throne and the sea of glass.
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: (Proverbs 8:27)
This model has profound implications for our understanding of astronomy. It fixes a major flaw in the explanation of Kepler’s 1st Law, which science either avoids with glib dismissals or makes up fictional explanations for. What we have to bear in mind is a promise that God has made to us regarding what we will be able to learn about the universe and the earth:
Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:37)
God does not cast off the seed of Israel, therefore we cannot measure the heavens or know what in in the innermost parts of the earth.
We have to acknowledge that even though it seems as if we know a great deal about the stars, planets, distant suns and galaxies and such, there are no actual measurements of the distance to any of these heavenly bodies. There are no actual measurements of their mass. The reason that we have numbers for these properties is through the use of mathematics, and the math is based on certain assumptions.
- The sun’s mass is given as 1.989 × 10^30 kg. However, nobody has ever weighed it.
- The distance to the sun (AU) is given as 92.96 million mi. But it is not a measurement, it is based upon a calculation.
The calculations are based upon the mathematics of gravity developed by Sir Isaac Newton. The mathematical construct of the universe that is in use today is based on a simple, unproven assumption: The Earth orbits the Sun.
If this is were the case, then the mass of the Sun is calculated using Newton’s Law of Gravity:
It is based on the following assumptions:
- The Earth orbits the Sun
- We know the distance to the Sun (orbital radius)
- We know the mass of the Earth
The Sun ‘s mass is therefore calculated to be enough to cause the orbit of the earth to take 365 days. There is a good explantion of the mathematical process used, here:
The first problem with this system is the main assumption: Earth does not orbit the sun. If we apply the same mathematics to the assumption that the sun orbits the earth, we get mass values for the planetary bodies that are smaller by a factor of 9.87E-12. This is called Matty’s Constant.
Secondly, this now affects our calculation of the distance to the Sun. This distance is calculated by knowing the distance to all of the other planets. This is done using parallax. This presents a problem, because the theory of parallax also depends on the idea that the earth and other planets orbit the Sun. It should be clear that the theoretical basis of the current understanding of the universe is based on assumptions that are unprovable. There are no actual measurements. Fortunately, however, this does not mean that the calculations and relative motions of the Sun, Moon and Stars are of no value. This is because we have Newton’s Inverse Square Law.
The Inverse Square Law is the best recipe for fudge in the universe. What it means is that in the heliocentric system the Sun is going to be 93 million miles away and have a mass of 1.989 × 10^30 Kg, but it can also account for a geocentric system where the Sun is much less massive. The gravitational effect on the Earth is the same, it is all relative.
We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. (Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.)
An Earth centered cosmos is called Geocentric. However, because of the vast amount of baggage attached to the use of the word “Geocentric,” we’re just going to have to refer to our cosmological model as Matty’s Paradigm. The Sun, Moon and stars describe for us the signs and seasons. Stars are not distant suns. We don’t know what they are, and there is only one sun. The Earth does not have a daily rotation. The Sun and stars orbit either the Sun, which orbits the Earth, or they orbit the Earth/Sun system.
Early models of the Heliocentric solar system showed that the planets have elliptical orbits. This was not a feature of the Geocentric model at that time and this contributed to its rejection. Ellipses are orbits that are not circular, but watermelon shaped. Ellipses can be drawn but it requires that there are two foci, whereas a circle has only one focus. However, the Earth has an orbit of the Sun that is an almost perfect circle. The distance to the Sun does not vary. The other planets have elliptical orbits because they are affected by the gravity of both the Earth and the Sun.
One Reply to “Geocentrism, Geocentricity and Flat Earth”
The Arabic numbers made all the difference. It was heard in the streets of Constantinople just before the fall, that the men would rather wear an Islamic turban than a Roman Tiara