The information contained on this page is for the purpose of explaining the leaflet entitled ‘Where are we in the Universe’   It is intended that the information here will allow you  to both understand that leaflet and how to use it. Click here to download a pdf copy of the leaflet which you can print.

A second expanded leaflet with comments is now available also printable

The Beliefs of well known Scientists  and their knowledge of the consequences of their teaching

“...the common component of all major scientific revolutions ..revolutions that smash [the] pedestals…of our cosmic arrogance…[has been] the cosmological shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric universe, “when [humanity] realized that our earth was not the center of the universe, but only a speck in a world-system of a magnitude hardly conceivable.” Revolutions are consummated when people grasp the meaning of this reconstruction for the demotion of human status in the cosmos.”

Stephen Jay Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, New York: Harmony Books, 1996, p.325

Pretty straightforward…  once you appreciate that geocentric means the earth is in the centre of the universe and not moving and that heliocentric means the sun is in the centre and the earth goes round it, along with the other planets in our solar system.  But the effect is dramatic.  It causes a revolution in science, historically true, and in our understanding of ourselves: we are no longer special!  Not a special creation. No special Creator either! Notice the use of the word ‘revolution’  When he uses that he means it.  And you know this is the case, everything is changing in our society. Wicked is the new good!  Atheist in concept but is it  true?

[“We have moved] from the revolutionary claim of Nicolaus Copernicus that the Earth orbits the sun to the equally revolutionary proposal of Albert Einstein that space and time are curved and warped by mass and energy. It is a compelling story because both Copernicus and Einstein have brought about profound changes in what we see as our position in the order of things. Gone is our privileged place at the center of the universe, gone are eternity and certainty, and gone are absolute space and time…”

On the Shoulders of Giants, ed., Stephen Hawking,Phila., PA, Running Press Book Publishers, 2002, p. Ix.

Now we see a little more of the effects of the same kind of thinking about our place in the universe. What began with the earth moving has caused a revolution, but not only in science. Along with our special place going, so has eternity and certainty. These are foundational concepts of Christianity.  Now we have the postmodern effect of everything equal and no absolutes well underway! Notice the language of religion because he is establishing the basis for a pagan religion as the valid interpretation of what he considers is the physical reality.

“This is what the painter, the poet, the speculative philosopher, and the natural scientists do, each in his own fashion. Each makes the cosmos and its construction the pivot of his emotional life, in order to find in this way peace and security which he can not find in the narrow whirlpool of personal experience.”

Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Dell, Pinebrook, NJ, 1954; Wings, reprint edition, 1988

How about this for a straightforward statement of intention.  Einstein is going to do just what makes him feel good.  The guy was clever enough to do just that.  A number of times Einstein tells us that his imagination is more important to him than his knowledge. He openly states that theory leads to facts and not the other way round.  If you thought scientists were always pursuing truth, think again.  Why is this man put on a pedestal?  It looks like a clear fulfilment of the promise/lie in the garden that you shall be as god knowing good and evil. Should we be surprised if there are moral consequences of such a cavalier approach to reality.

But what about the earth moving?  There is no proof that the earth is moving!  Read what Einstein had to admit as a result of his General Relativity theory

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,” or “the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]”

The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1938, 1966, p. 212.

Brilliant!  Something you have never heard of before.  What was Einstein really saying here?  He doesn’t know!  He believes that the earth moves but there has never been any proof!  So his theory of relativity neatly sidesteps the issue by saying it could be either.  That is very clever but is it true?   Remember the quote at the beginning about shaping the universe to what makes you feel comfortable.   He firmly believes of course that the earth is moving round the sun and all the other movements which modern cosmology would confer on the earth and that is the position from which he and followers of these ideas then do their very good science.  They just do it on an unproven foundation.  I prefer the unremitting attitude of scripture which refers to the non movement of the earth and its special place in God’s creation.  See this link for Bible verses ,which the church has given up on for many years, that speak of the earth’s fixity and the movement of the sun.

“Let K [the universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian Coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the universe], and let K? [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K [the universe].

Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K'coordinate system [the Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe].

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K'[the Earth] had to be considered as “absolute,” and that K'[the Earth] could not then be treated as the “resting” frame of K [the universe].

Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K'[the Earth], whereby K'[the Earth] is treated as being at rest.

If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…”

Hans Thirring, “Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918, translated: “On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation.”

Notice the date on this quote.  Just three years after the publication of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity and the consequences are noted already.  The notion of a non moving earth is well understood and it is recognised that relativity does not exclude that possibility. Robert Sungenis would argue that Einstein knew that the experimental results showed the earth wasn’t moving and this was his best attempt at retaining the secular progress of knowledge as against a Biblical understanding.  Einstein had the skill to be able to keep the known constants of physics and rework them to avoid having to overthrow the Copernican picture  of reality and the worldview which developed from that position. “Galileo was Wrong “  Volume 1 The Scientific Evidence.  Robert A Sungenis Phd and Robert J Bennett Phd.  Aug 2007

All of these physicists (and there is not a geocentric Christian in the bunch) conclude that there is no detectable, experimental difference between having the earth spin diurnally on an axis as well as orbiting the sun once a year or having the universe rotate about the earth once a day and possessing a wobble centered on the sun which carries the planets and stars about the earth once a year.

In none of these models would the universe fly apart, nor would a stationary satellite fall to earth. In every one of these models the astronauts on the moon would still see all sides of the earth in the course of 24 hours, the Foucault pendulum would still swing exactly the same way as we see it in museums, and the earth’s equator would still bulge.

Physicists

Birkhoff, G. D., 1944. Boletin de la Sociedad Mathematica Mexicana, 1:1. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proc. of the Phys. Soc., B, 68:672.   

Moon, P. & D. E. Spencer, 1959. Philos. of Sci., 26:125.    

Nightingale, J. D., 1977. Am. Jrnl. of Phys., 45:376.    

Rosser, W. G. V. 1964. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.     

Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321,   

Thirring, H., 1918. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19:23.   

Lense, J., and H. Thirring. 1918. Ibid., p. 156.   

Barbour & Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.

This is the logical conclusion from the statements made earlier.  You need to know that all masses in the universe will revolve around, not the largest body, but the centre of mass. (Newton) The Earth being at or close to the geometric centre of such an enormous mass then the earth is likely to be the centre of mass.  

There is in other words an entirely reasonable case for a geocentric universe as indicated in the Bible.  Scriptural interpretation does not need to be controlled by assuming that it cannot speak with authority on physical matters.

“Where is the wisdom of the wise?  Let God be true and every man a liar!”

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct [for] you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

“Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” W. Wayt Gibbs, Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No. 4, p. 55.

Great to have some honesty!  Amazing that for so many of my years I had not a clue that these trusted and gifted men were shoehorning their own prejudices into the schools, universities and media corporations of this world and passing it off as fact. Are they clever… oh so clever. Will you do something about it? Show the quotes to your child’s schoolteacher, your university lecturer and most brave of all to the spiritual leader of your church.  

If you are serious about breaking the power of what is just an ancient religion dressed in scientific clothes: Do something .  

Download the “Where are we in the Universe” leaflet in PDF form with these quotes and give them to the relevant people.

“..such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.”

The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford,Clarendon Press, 1937 Edwin  Hubble, pp. 50, 51, 58.

This is the famous Edwin Hubble looking out through his telescope in the 1930’s.   Is it possible that in a book entitled the ‘Observational Approach to Cosmology’ he would dare to be so reckless with observations just because he does not like what they say?  It seems so and not the only one.  This is a sad tale often repeated.

The idea of the earth being in the centre of the universe in a special place is ‘intolerable’ because of its implications,most likely, in affirming the Biblical picture of a Designer/Creator.  Notice also that he says that spatial curvature is one way of getting round the problem.  Modern day inflation ie Big Bang’ understood as the expansion of the universe with everything on the surface of a balloon is the idea.  This is what Stephen Hawking points to below in his assumption but look later for the information coming from the COBE, WMAP and PLANCK satellites which prove this approach wrong!  It was always only in their heads. Choose wisely whom you believe!

“...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.

There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”

A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking  p. 42. Bantam Books 1988.  

This is a classic statement by Hawking near the beginning of his best selling and very influential book.  Notice the words used in the first paragraph: evidence, look, observe. Observational, scientific words which actually establish the earth in a special place ….the centre.

Now look at the words with which he negates that reasonable conclusion: “might look, assumption, no scientific evidence, believe, modesty”  These are the words of faith, philosophy and religion. It couldn’t be clearer that he is not doing science anymore.  But these statements are the foundation of the rest of his book.  His faith and philosophy is obviously not favourable to the Biblical picture found in Genesis 1…”he also made the stars”

Astrophysicist Yatendra P. Varshni did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. In 1975 he catalogued 384 quasars between redshift of 0.2 and 3.53 and, amazingly, found that they were formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the Earth. He made the following startling conclusion:… “the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....The cosmological interpretation of the redshift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe.”

The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?” Astrophysics and Space Science , 43: (1), (1976), p. 3.

Now we have the observations here of someone who when he came to interpret what he saw did so straightforwardly and it got him into trouble with the establishment who count these ideas as ‘intolerable’ and ‘unwelcome’.  It is similar to what Hubble saw with the distribution of galaxies.  Other cosmological phenomena say the same thing ….. the earth is in the centre!

The Consequences of the Earth being at the Centre of the Universe

An Audio commentary is available for this leaflet. Click here to listen.