<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:967205372;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1381134850 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText>Yes, Chazal were wrong. They held:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>1) The earth was flat and approximately 15,000 miles long.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>3) At night, the sun goes through the dome, where it cannot be seen. The moon is brought inside and the stars follow.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>4) The sun goes around the earth (well, over the upper flat part). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>We now know:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span>The earth is a sphere (more or less)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span>There is no “rakia”<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span><![endif]><span dir=LTR></span>The earth is not stationary, and the disappearing sun is from the spinning of the Earth. The same with the moon.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.25in'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And there are those who are trying really, really, hard to keep #4 alive. It’s all that they have left.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Furthermore, while Chazal held that the planet was at rest, we know that is not true.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>And since we are posting links here, here is one that might be enlightening:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/13/geocentrism-was-galileo-wrong/</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>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.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>All the best,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Eliyahu Grossman<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org] <br>Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:48 PM<br>To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group<br>Cc: eliyahu@kosherjudaism.com<br>Subject: Geocentrism</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I recently wrote on the thread "Traditional Methodologies"<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 06:41:38PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>:: You even had the Lubavitcher Rebbe who preferred to deny provable cosmology<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>:: and accepted the geocentric model of the Universe as Chazal did (I do not<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>:: know if the Lubavitcher Rebbe held that the world was flat or if the sun<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>:: went around a "rakia" dome as Chazal did). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: RMMS noted that under general relativity, the universe could be analyzed<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: from a geocentric frame of reference. And therefore geocentrism vs<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: heliocentrism. (And vs the sun also revolving around the center of<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: the galaxy which is revolving around the center of a galaxy cluster,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: which is...)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>... are not mutually exclusive, just different ways of describing the same thing. (Never finished that thought!)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: However, General Relativity is based on the identity between acceleration<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: and gravity. So the effects we see because the earth spins would in this<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: frame of reference would be the product of a universal gravitational<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>: field centered in the middle of the earth...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>IOW, geocentrism is just as true in principle, but a way of looking at reality that makes computing anything much harder.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Well, I found someone who did a better job explaining it, the author of Discovery Magazine's "Bad Astronomy" column <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously</span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>[snip]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>But RMMS was only defending what he calls lower-case-g geocentrism.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>That Chazal were not wrong, not that they were more right than today's scientific theory.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Tir'u baTov!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>-Micha<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>