Reply To: Science and Astronomy in the Torah

ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE

WE CANNOT KNOW ABSOLUTELY WHICH CELESTIAL OBJECT IS MOVING AND WHICH ONE IS STANDING STILL.

WE CAN CHOOSE ANY SUN OR PLANET AS OUR REFERENCE POINT, AND THEN CALCULATE MOVEMENT OF OTHER BODIES IN RELATION TO THAT BODY.

Here is a collection of quotes by men who have understood the nature of motion.

The cosmologies of Copernicus [Heliocentrism] & Ptolemy [Geocentrism] are kinematically equivalent; both of them are descriptions of the same facts, and Ptolemy’s epicycles of the planets are the kinematic equivalents of the circular orbits of Copernicus.

Reichenbach, Hans- Philosophy of Space and Time- p210-211

The commonly held view is that Copernicus’s heliocentric model vanquished the competition, especially the geocentric view of Ptolemy, because it yielded better predictions of the positions of the celestial bodies. In actual fact, the predictions of the Copernican model were a little worse than those obtained via the complicated series of epicycles… the real selling point of the Copernican model was that it was much simpler than the competition yet still gave a reasonably good account of the observational evidence.

Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.

Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973, p78

The Copernican conception is indeed simpler, but this does not make it any “truer” since this simplicity is descriptive … One description may be simplest for some phenomena while a different description may be simplest for others; but no simplest description is distinguished from other descriptions with regard to truth. The concept of truth does not apply here, since we are dealing with definitions.

Reichenbach, Hans- Philosophy of Space and Time- p219

And hence this affirmation: “the earth turns round” has no meaning, since it cannot be verified by experiment; … such an experiment … cannot even be conceived of without contradiction …

Henri Poincare- Science and Hypothesis- p117

… it is meaningless to talk of absolute motion.

Even the Copernican world-view appears to be shaken by this consideration. It makes no sense accordingly, to speak of a difference in truth between Copernicus and Ptolemy: both conceptions are equally permissible descriptions.

What has been considered as the greatest discovery of [western] wisdom, as opposed to that of antiquity, is questioned as to its truth-value … the doctrine of relativity does not assert that Ptolemy’s view is correct, it rather contests the absolute meaning of either view.

Reichenbach, Hans- From Copernicus to Einstein, p 75,82

There is one more implication that modern science has perceived in the work of Copernicus. The same observational data that Ptolemy organized in his geocentric theory of deferent and epicycle can also be organized under the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. Despite the belief of the latter that the new theory was true, the modern view is that either theory will do and that there is no need to adopt the heliocentric hypothesis except to gain mathematical simplicity. Reality seems far less knowable than Copernicus believed, and today scientific theories are regarded as human inventions.

Morris Kline- Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p85

… the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system was abandoned in favor of the Copernican not because it failed to “agree” with all the facts, for it explained as much as the Copernican did, but because the latter, as Copernicus himself said, was “simpler,” more elegant mathematically, and a more harmonious addition to the body of science than the former.

… there was no intellectual inconvenience at one time in regarding the earth as the fixed center of the universe, nor was there any particular reason, socially or otherwise, why it should not have been accepted, nor was it inconsistent with the existent body of knowledge.

Randall, J. H.- Philosophy: An Introduction- p135, 139

Two thousand years ago the earth turned; then it remained immobile until recently, when it has again begun to turn. [!!!]

Nicholas Malebranche (1638-1715)- The Search After Truth- p371

All the known celestial movements can be explained on a geocentric theory, if it is sufficiently complex.

Lacey, A.R., Dictionary of Philosophy- p359

… in fact simplicity of the mathematical theory was the only argument Copernicus & Kepler could advance in favor of their heliocentric theory as opposed to the older Ptolemaic theory.

Is the path of the earth around the sun an ellipse? No. Only if the earth & sun are regarded as points and only if all other bodies in the universe are ignored. Do the four seasons on earth repeat themselves year after year? Hardly. Only in their grossest aspects, which are about all men can perceive anyway, do they repeat.

Morris Kline- Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty- p 344, 350

He [Copernicus] was able, in fact, to cite as a distinct advantage only the greater simplicity of his system. … Here lies one of the reasons which led scientists to accept the Copernican system, even though it must be conceded that, from the modern standpoint, practically identical results could be obtained by means of a somewhat revised Ptolemaic system.

Hans Reichenbach- From Copernicus to Einstein- p18

WE CANNOT PROVE IF THE EARTH IS MOVING THROUGH SPACE OR IF IT IS ROTATING ON ITS AXIS.

Absolute space, that is to say, THE MARK TO WHICH IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REFER THE EARTH TO KNOW WHETHER IT REALLY MOVES, HAS NO OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE … THE TWO PROPOSITIONS:

“the earth turns around” and “it’s more convenient to suppose the earth turns around” have the same meaning; there is nothing more in the one than in the other.

Henri Poincare, Science & Hypothesis; p116-117.

It may be convenient for certain purposes to regard the earth as the centre; but nothing can oblige us to do so. No part of the universe- Earth, Sun, or anything else- has any unique right to be called the ‘centre.’ Observed motions are all relative, and it is a matter of decision what point in the universe is to be selected as the central origin of reference.

So the view that the earth is moving is just as admissible as the view that it is at rest.

Toulmin, S. & Goodfield, J.-1961- The Fabric of the Heavens- p169

From the point of view of modern science… there is no absolute frame of reference, only frames which are more or less convenient to use for the purpose at hand. A geocentric frame is useful for everyday activities … while a heliocentric frame is [useful] for solar-system mechanics …

Wikipedia- Geocentric Model

Motion is change in position; it is clear, however, that it cannot be observed unless it is a change in position relative to a certain body and not relative to an ideal space point. Is it meaningful, under these circumstances, to speak of absolute motion or of motion relative to space, if motion relative to other bodies only can be observed?

According to this principle there exists only a motion of bodies relative to other bodies, and it is impossible to distinguish one of these bodies as being at rest, because rest means nothing but rest relative to another body, i.e.

rest is itself a relative concept.

Hans Reichenbach- Philosophy of Space and Time- p210