[Avodah] Geocentrism

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:28:50PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: Yes, Chazal were wrong. They held:
: 1)  The earth was flat and approximately 15,000 miles long.

I meant, they weren't wrong on geocentrism.

But you're giving the views of Chazal before Rebbe. The amoraim of EY
agreed the tannaim were wrong. I don't know about Amoraei Bavel, since
the dome sky thing is Persian and because I'm too "frum" to know where
various amoraim lived. It would take more research than I took the time
for, so far.

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

Actually, this is a pretty clever explanation of something that they
couldn't understand without knowing more about the atmosphere and about
refraction. It explains why the sun appears to slow down and flatten
at sunset -- it's heading across the thickness of the raqia!

In any case, it allowed them to match observation, the then-current
science, and halakhah.

: We now know:
: 2)      There is no "rakia"

I dunno about that. Just that whatever HQBH was talking about, it wasn't
the shell the Persians wrote about, nor the spheres the Greeks believe in.

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

Again, this part is where we disagree. This is by far the simplest way of
describing the universe. But the universe revolving around a stationary
universe does produce a description that fits the self-same laws of physics.

That's why I googled for a third party, one without a religious message,
who wrote the same thing.

: And since we are posting links here, here is one that might be enlightening:
: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/

Who doesn't discuss relativity, and argues against the position that
geocentrism is the sole accurate description, not that one can describe
the exact same universe using two different languages.

WRT RMMS's claim, it's a strawman.

What recommends heliocentrism (plus the sun's, galaxy's, etc... motions)
is the elegence of the model and its ability to more easily get more correct
answers. Not right vs wrong.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
micha at aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507