[Avodah] Geocentrism

[Eliyahu Grossman]

Yes, Chazal were wrong. They held:

 

1)  The earth was flat and approximately 15,000 miles long.

2)  There is a dome (rakia) that is about 9 miles high, which there is 1-2
species of birds that can reach it. This dome is 1000 miles thick.

3) At night, the sun goes through the dome, where it cannot be seen. The
moon is brought inside and the stars follow.

4) The sun goes around the earth (well, over the upper flat part). 

 

We now know:

1)      The earth is a sphere (more or less)

2)      There is no "rakia"

3)      The earth is not stationary, and the disappearing sun is from the
spinning of the Earth. The same with the moon.

 

And there are those who are trying really, really, hard to keep #4 alive.
It's all that they have left.

 

I am certain, that while you can find those who want #4 to be true, and will
use scientific jargon (or rather, misuse it) to make a point, that Galileo
was wrong.

 

You see, he was monitoring Mars. And because of the non-circular orbit that
all planets make, which defines their origin of axis, and because the Church
demanded that the Earth be the center, Galileo noticed that, periodically,
mars went backwards for a while and then moved forward again.

 

This is what the geocentricsts continue to ignore - that so long as you put
the earth at the center, planets go backwards and forward! Yes, it would be
lovely to make #4 be true, and to hang onto that, and so they bring in the
theory of general relativity and misuse it. The theory concerns objects at
rest that have no external means of relating what is going on. For example,
if you are in a car that is not moving, and one moves beside you, it FELLS
LIKE that car is moving to your perception. But once you look at a tree
beyond the car, you have a general frame of reference, and relativism no
longer applies. 

 

Furthermore, while Chazal held that the planet was at rest, we know that is
not true.

 

And since we are posting links here, here is one that might be enlightening:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-w
rong/

 

In short, did Reb Shneerson hold that #1-#4 was right? My guess - no. So
it's time to give up on #4, which, really had nothing to do with science at
all, but is trying to create a proof to fit the answer.

 

All the best,

 

Eliyahu Grossman

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha at aishdas.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:48 PM
To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group
Cc: eliyahu at kosherjudaism.com
Subject: Geocentrism

 

I recently wrote on the thread "Traditional Methodologies"

 

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:

: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:41:38PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:

...

:: You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable
cosmology

:: and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not

:: know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun

:: went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). 

...

: RMMS noted that under general relativity, the universe could be analyzed

: from a geocentric frame of reference. And therefore geocentrism vs

: heliocentrism. (And vs the sun also revolving around the center of

: the galaxy which is revolving around the center of a galaxy cluster,

: which is...)

 

... are not mutually exclusive, just different ways of describing the same
thing. (Never finished that thought!)

 

: However, General Relativity is based on the identity between acceleration

: and gravity. So the effects we see because the earth spins would in this

: frame of reference would be the product of a universal gravitational

: field centered in the middle of the earth...

 

IOW, geocentrism is just as true in principle, but a way of looking at
reality that makes computing anything much harder.

 

Well, I found someone who did a better job explaining it, the author of
Discovery Magazine's "Bad Astronomy" column
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-serio
usly>
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriou
sly

 

[snip]

 

But RMMS was only defending what he calls lower-case-g geocentrism.

That Chazal were not wrong, not that they were more right than today's
scientific theory.

 

Tir'u baTov!

-Micha

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130724/9d375723/attachment-0002.htm>