Geocentrism – the belief that the Earth is set at the centre of the Solar System and the centre of the Universe – is the most shunned and derided of all possible beliefs. However, over a number of years it is what I have come to view as the truth. The science behind it is not easy. As one Creation Scientist, John Hartnett, put it, “Cosmology is not just bad science; most of it is not science at all!” He didn’t say that because he is a Geocentrist. He isn’t. Even among Creationists Geocentrism is spurned. If you believe it, you are on the fringe of a minority of a minority: the Ultimate Conspiracy Theorist. If, for you, the truth really matters, you now have the opportunity to find some. Read this lengthy article (twenty minute read) and follow it up with some of your own research. Otherwise, now is the time for you to get back to the Telly.
Science and Me
My relationship with science has been a tortuous one. As a kid I used to wonder what flames were made of, without ever imagining I would one day know. This was when, in Primary School, my class was placed in groups according to the quality and quantity of our work. I was in the Idler’s Group. As a teen, I used to wonder if time was a man-made construct or had a physical existence, but others thought I was potty to have thoughts like that. I wondered how evolution worked, since it was based on Survival of the Fittest, and, it seemed to me, the intermediates would be totally unfit. However, top scientists said it happened, so clearly I was a bit thick in not being able to get it. I also later struggled with Relativity. It seemed to me to be so bizarre and counter-intuitive that the people who understood it must have had brain-power way in excess of mine.
I failed the Eleven-plus exam, that used to decide if you were headed for Grammar School and University, or not. Quite serendipitously I wound up in Grammar School anyway, and suddenly decided that education mattered. I worked hard, and after three years was sent away to a special boarding school having developed OCD. That school was supposed to know how to cure it, but in those days it wasn’t even called OCD, and absolutely nobody had a clue, least of all that particular school. Its academics were useless, with very few leaving with any exams. I was one of a handful who achieved University Matriculation, but only by doing A-level exams in Arts, because the science teachers were both incompetent (There were only two.)
After school I journeyed overland to India, through Afghanistan, etc. Following that I went to Teacher Training College, where I was put on a Primary course and left after a year, totally bored. Later, as a mature student, I got on to a Science-based teaching degree. With Arts A-levels! There was a fair bit of Geology and Geomorphology, which was new to me, but not to my fellow 18-year-old students, who mostly had A-level Geography, so already knew it. I struggled with Chemistry, and completely fouled up a simple practical with electricity. I was decidedly anxious when the time came for the First Year exam results. Everyone got four grades, A to F, and a minimum of three C’s and a D were required to continue to Year Two. I had my wife go to the College in the holiday to find my results posted on the board. She returned telling me I had two A’s and two B’s. After an argument, I drove there myself to see what I’d really got. I wasn’t surprised to see that only two out of four hundred students had such grades. One was a girl who already, by common consensus, had won the Swot of the Year Award. I was amazed that I was the other.
Fast-forward to me at forty, following a chequered career mainly outside of teaching and a lot of time spent on Green Politics. A bizarre family experience at that time showed me that God existed. That was really hard, since I was an atheist. My brain went into overdrive for months, trying to work it out, or, more honestly, trying to explain what I’d experienced without needing to invoke God. Eventually I accepted His existence. A further seven years on I attended a scientific lecture on evolution and Creation. As a firm Darwinian, I was outraged by what the lecturer said. But I had to admit that her evidence and arguments needed to be properly refuted; they were too strong to simply be brushed aside. After another six months of thinking and research (without the benefit of the internet) I concluded that Darwin was duff, though I still struggled with the concept of a Young Earth.
Science was no longer just an interest. It was absolutely vital. It was like food. It is, in fact, the only purely human, practical endeavour that can reveal truth. Very few people can even define science. Most confuse it with technology or magic. Or both! The correct definition is “a means of acquiring knowledge through repeatable experiments.” Going back in time, philosophy was the normal means to increase knowledge and understanding. Hence, when people started looking specifically at nature to learn stuff, it was called “Natural Philosophy” before it got called Science. And Metaphysics, which was wide-ranging thought and research, continued, while the research that limited itself to nature was called simply “Physics.” (And Alchemy became Chemistry.) I’m saying this to make the point that science is not some little limited area of knowledge – it’s fundamental to the acquisition of knowledge and hence to philosophy. It is presented today as an isolated area of study that has no relevance to philosophy or metaphysics or religion. In fact, it is promoted as something that by its mere existence disproves God. This view is seriously mendacious. (Polite way of saying “Stinking Lie.”)
Science goes beyond repeatable experiments. There’s forensic science, which deals with past events, whether criminal or the Origin of the Universe, or anything in between. There’s logic. There’s also maths. They all have their place, but none has the certainty of repeatable experiments, otherwise known as “The Scientific Method.” Forensic science can be truly revealing in the right hands. But in the wrong ones it rapidly and easily becomes a construct of smoke and mirrors to deceive. Researcher Beware!
Back to my own journey. Part of my chequered career was seven years suffering with ME/Chronic Fatigue and unable to work. It was finally cured accidentally by my doing a forty day hunger strike, which is another story. I was left wondering what job I might do after so long out of the world of work, but a job popped up in an independent Christian School. (I would now say Churchgoer’s School.) Given my circumstances, I grabbed it. I was to be the only Science Teacher. It turned out to be unpleasant, but productive. Unpleasant, because I had contact time, that is, I was actually teaching, for every single period. No time for preparation. And I was my own Lab Technician. And I had to learn very quickly the basics of all three sciences to put pupils through GCSE. My degree was in a redundant subject called Rural Science, which today might be called Ecology and Agriculture. Science is a vast field, and most scientists can only ever know a tiny part. The more specialised they are, the less they tend to know of the Big Picture. I was handed the task of knowing all three sciences, and came to see how they fitted together as one coherent whole. That was the productive part. I was able to get a Grade C or better for all my pupils, but the one who benefited most was me.
I only taught at that school for three years. It was twice the work on half the pay, and I certainly was not a part of the In-Crowd there. It seems I think too much to be part of the In-Crowd anywhere! The following years were filled with Supply Teaching, together with boning up on Darwinism and millions-of-years versus Creation and a Young Earth. I gave lectures at times, but normally finding an audience was hard. In time I set up this website, but then left it as a fossil on the web since it made little difference to anybody. I began thinking more about Geocentrism, something that had nagged at me for years.
Science and Geocentrism
I have to introduce a little science here, but be assured that I will keep it as simple as possible. One of my fundamental beliefs now is that if it isn’t reasonably understandable it probably isn’t true. If you are reading this within a few years of it being written in 2021, you should be able to check everything on the web. If too far into the future, I suspect web censorship will be complete. In that case of course, you won’t even be able to read this. However, web censorship operates in different ways. Often today the truth is allowed to exist on the internet, but hidden by the way Google’s search algorithms work.
So, some basic science. First, waves. Physics deals with waves of all sorts. Sound waves, light waves, radio waves, waves on the sea, whatever. The interesting thing here is that all waves behave in the same way. I won’t bother with the details. The key thing is, I repeat, all waves behave in the same way. They are often described as a vibration in the medium they pass through. In the case of sound waves, that medium is the air. In the case of sea waves, the medium is water. Hence the natural conclusion that light waves and radio waves must be a vibration in a medium of some sort. That medium, which is otherwise undetectable, is known to science as the aether or ether. The evidence for it is that light, etc, must have a medium to travel in. I’ve always considered that very strong evidence. Yet modern science, the science of Einstein, Relativity Theory, denies its existence.
Second, we need to understand motion. We all imagine that we do. If we walk, we probably move at about 3 mph. On the Motorway, we may move at 70 mph. What is there to understand about that? What’s to understand is the unspoken point of reference, which is the road. You move at 3 mph or 70 mph with respect to the road. But we are told the Earth is spinning, and also travelling around the Sun at a vast speed. What is your actual speed? And what should be the reference point for that speed?
Scientists don’t talk about a reference point; their phrase is “Inertial Frame of Reference,” but the meaning is the same. All scientists acknowledge that all motion is relative. This is far more obvious in space than here on the surface of the Earth. We can say that the Earth orbits the Sun, but we can just as easily say that the Sun orbits the Earth. It is merely a matter of what you take to be your reference point. Yet science, we are told, has proved that the Earth is not the centre of anything. Where is the proof?
Studying this in the past, I had two main sources to look at. One was the web in general, which always favours Einstein’s Relativity theory. According to Einstein it is light which is the most basic constant in the Universe. Light always travels at the Speed of Light, denoted in science by the letter “c”. Therefore, the theory says, if you switch on a torch, light will travel from it at the speed c. If you are in a spacecraft travelling at almost the speed of light and you shine your light forwards, it will travel at c, not c plus the speed of the spacecraft. If you shine it backwards, it will again travel at c, not c minus the speed of the spacecraft. Does that make sense? Hardly. It that because you’re stupid? Or because the theory is stupid? It’s a big question.
My other sources were the Creation Science organisations like Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International (CMI/creation.com.) They seemed to oppose Geocentrism, or to even just avoid mentioning it. They both provide reams of sound information on Darwinism, etc, so early on this suggested to me that Geocentrism was indeed garbage. However, I came to distrust them. In trying to bring understanding of Creation to people, I have tried to set up local groups. Ken Ham seemed the obvious person to help, but he was absolutely opposed. A bit of maths here quickly proves the absurdity of his opposition. The UK has some 30,000 paid church leaders. They give sermons or talks to their congregations probably twice a week. That’s 30,000 people times 52 weeks times 2 talks per week, or about 3,000,000 talks every year. This is primarily to expound the Gospel; the Gospel which fascinated and impressed the Athenians two thousand years ago, primarily with its sheer simplicity. Ken Ham firmly believes that what the churches do is a necessity, yet thinks that if he visits the UK once in three years to lecture, and a handful of his acolytes give a few talks in between, that is enough for people to fully understand the evidence for and against Darwin! Ken Ham, it seems, just wants to be a big fish in a small pool. If that be his motivation, then his motivation is not the truth. The same logic seems to apply to all the other large Creation organisations.
My gut feeling from all this was that the Earth was central. Firstly, Darwinism is totally accepted by Government, education, the media and the general population in spite of its fatal flaws, meaning mass misunderstanding is a reality. Second, Relativity has more than a whiff of nonsense about it. Third, all motion is relative, leaving little scope for proof of the standard view. And finally, given the existence of a caring Creator God, it seemed all but certain that we were in the centre of things, not wandering in some random corner of the Universe. But how to prove it?
About three years ago I decided to set up a website and trawl through the science to find the proof. I was confident enough to add my researches bit by bit to a live site, so that others might then follow. After some time, I gave up. Cosmology really is a nightmare, and regardless of whether the Earth was spinning or not, my head certainly was. Never mind. Much of what I do fails. No problem.
In March of 2020 the World suddenly changed. Whatever struggles I may have had with Geocentrism, it was blindingly obvious to me that the alleged science which determined the response to Covid was utter garbage. Most people today still completely fail to see this, but by the end of April 2020 I had set up two websites detailing the errors. I was struggling to find others who knew, and eventually got a heads-up on a New York Epidemiologist who did an interview on YouTube (soon taken down, of course.) In trying to contact him, I ended up talking to the journalist who had interviewed him, and was invited to join an email group of folk I can best describe as “thinkers.” They tended to be Professors, Journalists, Authors and the like. It was a great place to debate, and receive information from a wide range of other sources. With around thirty emails a day pouring into my inbox, it also became a bit addictive.
The bump in the road came when someone in the group posted videos of burning snowballs. By this point in my life I was becoming extremely irritated with people who didn’t know basic science, and seeing this posted in a select group of intelligent, educated, thinking people was almost more than I could bear. When, after I explained what was happening in the videos, someone else in the group posted another of the same experiment, it really was more than I could bear. I ceased reading their emails, and started rethinking. (Not that I ever really stop thinking, if I’m honest.)
The problem of people not knowing science wasn’t new to me. I often compared my own pitiful knowledge of music. I love music, and I know it’s composed of notes and beats, but when it comes to major chords and minor chords, or how or why one rearranges a piece of music for a different instrument, I know as much as my dog. My excuses are:
1 I’m tone deaf.
2 I’m not interested in the detail.
3 It doesn’t matter.
I always figured people could give the same excuses for not knowing science, except for number three. Science does matter. A lot. People should know it. But the burning snowballs episode made me think again about how and why they didn’t. In spite of my own fascination (obsession?) with how things work, I would never have come to where I am today with science but for the events already described, most notably being forced to teach all three main sciences. For others to come to a similar point, they would have to decide to do a triple science GCSE course as adults, and have a decent tutor to help them, and as a result be able to get A grades in each exam without swotting. Clearly, that’s never going to happen. Scientific illiteracy, I realise now (albeit belatedly) is not any individuals’ fault. But it is a fact of life; one brought about by poor teaching in schools, even worse presentations in the media, and the amount of corrupted science presented everywhere. The almost universal acceptance of lockdowns, with all the massive damage they do, shows more clearly than anything else just how scientifically illiterate and gullible people are.
Back to Geocentrism
The glaring demonstration of how easily bad science is promulgated and believed prompted me to look again at Geocentrism. By way of revision I read the Wikipedia article on the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887.) This experiment was performed in order to prove the existence of, and learn more about, the ether. Wikipedia gave lots of explanation of how the result of the experiment leads to Relativity, since evidence of the ether was not found. As I reached the end of the piece, the penny dropped: there was no mention at all of the Sagnac experiment in 1913. Sagnac’s experiment proves the ether. Missing it out is equivalent to writing a long piece on how a computer works, without ever mentioning the CPU. It had taken me a long time to discover Sagnac in my earlier endeavours. Now I know why: it’s airbrushed out of most scientific writing. Even many physicists don’t know of it. And if you do know it and google it, you are almost certain to find a lot of flat earth garbage in the search results. I am now convinced that the main reason the flat earth has been popularised in the last ten years is to put people off the scent of Geocentrism.
I quickly went on to look again at an experiment known as Airy’s Failure (1871.) Again, the experiment is little known, and if you google it you will be again be confronted with plenty of flat earth results. Airy was the Astronomer Royal of his day. His experiment involved a telescope filled with water, which sounds unlikely, and did not prove what he sought to prove, hence its being called a failure. But no repeatable experiment is ever a failure. Regardless of whether it proves what the experimenter hoped or not, it will at least provide another data point. And Airy’s failure does more than that. It provides evidence of a stationary Earth.
Airy’s Failure is perhaps not conclusive. There are certainly many who claim it is not. So I decided to look at the other side of the debate. What is the proof that the Sun is indeed at the centre of the Solar System, a concept known as Heliocentrism? I was amazed and shocked by what I found. The Earth-centred model comes from the Greek, Ptolemy, almost two thousand years ago. The Sun-centred model comes from Copernicus a few hundred years ago. I quickly found sites showing that Copernicus was the preferred option. But they used a lie of omission, as Wikipedia does with Sagnac. As even I have done above, they refer to Ptolemy’s Earth-centred model as THE Earth-centred model, without mentioning Tycho Brahe’s model. In fact, there are THREE models of the Solar System, not two. Tycho Brahe’s, called the Tychonian model, is the one used by modern Geocentrists. And there is plenty of witness to the fact that observationally, from the Earth, one would see no difference between the Tychonian model and the Copernican model. Not least the fact that Tycho’s apprentice, Kepler, could use Tycho’s exceptionally accurate observations in the Copernican model.
That’s probably more than enough detail for now. The big picture, or paradigm, is always needed to glue things together. When your head is filled with one paradigm, it’s very hard to process bits of a different paradigm. You need that big picture in your head first. And the big picture is this. The real constant of the Universe is not the speed of light, but the unseen ether through which it travels. And the ether is also the fundamental reference point for all motion. Your ultimate motion is your motion through the ether, not with respect to the tarmac under your wheels, or the Earth, or the Sun. If the local ether is dragged by the Earth, the Earth is effectively motionless. And if the distant stars orbit with the ether, they are truly motionless. It’s a whole lot simpler than Einstein’s convoluted theorising. And proper science, in line with Ockham’s Razor, always adopts the simplest explanation.
I clearly haven’t explained things in detail here. If I had, you wouldn’t have read this far. What I have given is enough for a road map for your own research, provided the web still allows it. If you still prefer to stick with what the BBC or Fox News tells you, that’s your choice. You probably should have gone back to the Telly after the first paragraph. If you’re up for the research, be patient. The road is full of bumps, potholes and mines. Geocentrism, once proven, is a one-shot proof of God. The Powers that Be were never going to let you see that evidence easily.
Ultimately, your theology will have a big impact on what you believe. A committed atheist cannot accept Geocentrism. If there is no intelligent Creator of the Universe, the probability of the Earth being central is literally trillions to one against. Indeed, modern science itself uses a prior assumption that there is no God, therefore centrality of the Earth is excluded even before any experiments take place. When experiments do, the results are interpreted by default in line with this a priori atheistic assumption. For the genuine Christian, Muslim, or Believing Jew, the Genesis account of Creation makes centrality of the Earth a preferred view; one that would logically be adopted even in the event of contradictory or uncertain evidence. The fact that such a tiny number of “believers” take a Geocentrist view is perhaps an indication of how few people truly and honestly believe there is a God. Or possibly it’s a function of the volume, complexity and consistency of the lies. Then again, I always have a sense that people who describe themselves as Bible-Believers ought actually to be Bible-Believers. Not BBC-Believers.
I am reluctant to suggest specific websites for people to look further into this. People are more convinced by their own original research taking whatever direction they wish. However, there is one website that I failed to find in my earlier endeavours, which reflects and explains the view I arrived at remarkably closely. It has existed for thirteen years. I didn’t find it before partly because of Google’s algorithmic obfuscation, and partly because the authors’ chose a new term to express their belief: Geocentricity rather than Geocentrism. Their desire seemed to be to distinguish modern Tychonic Geocentrism from Ancient Ptolemaic Geocentrism. I understand the motive, but I’m not sure I agree with the response. Anyway, now you know the term, since it’s a .com site, you’ll soon find it. And, finally, note that another postulate you’ll need to be aware of is Mach’s Principle. Along with Airy and Sagnac it is vital in this debate.
APPENDIX – Flat Earth
There is not even a viable map of the alleged flat earth. What is always presented is the graphic on the UN flag dressed up to look like a satellite photograph. The distances between different places do not accord with reality. There is no scale on the map. It would be quite impossible to provide one since so many distances have been either compressed or stretched. It is an absolutely worthless and infantile cartographical fabrication. However, I have personally bumped into three people who passionately believe it. That is an indication of how popular it has become. The passion is interesting since the model has almost no implications. So what, if the Earth is flat? Man has been living on it, doing whatever he’s been doing, regardless of the shape. The one implication, if it were true, would be that we are all being lied to. In fact, we are all being lied to, but that is equally indicated by the lie of evolution, or the lie of millions of years, or the lie of a non-central Earth. However, those three all have specific links to Christian, Muslim or Jewish theology. I think the majority of Flat earthers are those who sense the lies and want a godless philosophical umbrella to park them in. There are, however, also professing Christians who promote flat earth. I put the emphasis on “professing.”
I have had significant conversations with two of the flat-earthers I’ve met. They are the only people I know who were aware of the Airy and Sagnac experiments. As stated above, I am quite certain that the Powers that Be have promoted flat earth in order to make a trap for those on the track of Geocentrism.
It is also clear that in the past people never believed in a flat earth. The curvature has been obvious to sailors for as long as sailors have existed. And the Greek Eratosthenes made a remarkably accurate estimate of the circumference of the Earth from the curvature over two hundred years before Christ.