Geocentrism.co.uk

This experiment was carried out in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. Michelson is known, among other things, for a remarkably accurate measurement of the speed of light in 1879, winning the Nobel Prize in 1907, and inventing the interferometer. His experiment with Morley was designed to prove the existence of the Ether. Since waves in water need a medium to move in (water) and sound waves do as well (air), it is logical that light also needs a medium to move in. This is particularly so because waves behave in exactly the same fashion. This is true whether they are sound waves, light waves, water waves, radio waves, or any other kind of wave. And light waves move even in a vacuum, so the case for an otherwise undetectable medium that light waves travel through was, and is, very strong.

Simple.wikipedia.org describes the experiment in this way: (They use “aether” rather than Ether.)

The Earth travels very quickly (more than 100,000 km per hour) around the Sun. If aether exists, the Earth moving through it would cause a “wind” in the same way that there seems to be a wind outside a moving car. To a person in the car, the air outside the car would seem like a moving substance. In the same way, aether should seem like a moving substance to things on Earth.

Their experiment was designed to measure the speed and direction of the “aether wind” by measuring the difference between the speed of light travelling in different directions. It measured this difference by shining a beam of light into a mirror that was only partially coated in silver. Part of the beam would be reflected one way, and the rest would go the other. Those two parts would then be reflected back to where they were split apart, and recombined. By looking at interference patterns in the recombined beam of light, any changes in speed because of the aether wind could be seen.

The experiment produced a “null result”. This was a disappointment to Michelson, since he was sure of the existence of the Ether, and even after this experiment he continued to research it. Many other scientists, notably Einstein, took the result as proof that the Ether did not exist. Michelson remained interested in the other possibilities suggested by his result. One was that the Ether near the Earth was dragged along by it. The other was that the Earth was not orbiting the Sun.

The Phlogiston Theory is well past its sell-by date, but has relevance to all of science now. The Phlogiston Theory held sway for about a hundred years, until Lavoisier produced the Oxygen Theory of combustion, which is standard science today. The Phlogiston Theory explained combustion through a substance called Phlogiston that was contained in all combustible materials. Scientists thought that as materials burned the Phlogiston was given off into the air, but with a limited air supply combustion would eventually cease. This was because air had a limited capacity to absorb Phlogiston; when it was completely phlogisticated it would no longer support combustion. When oxygen was first discovered it was called dephlogisticated air because it supported combustion far more effectively. It was assumed that the regular amount of Phlogiston held in the air had been removed, so its absorbent capacity had been increased.

The significant point about this theory is that it was completely off the wall scientifically, yet capable of accurate prediction and proof by experiment. Limited knowledge can produce practical, “provable” science while being totally wrong. The relevance to Cosmology today is that even though a theory can explain observations, it may also be totally wrong. This, of course, could apply to Geocentrism, but equally might apply to Relativity, Big Bang and anything else. But there is a difference between the Phlogiston/Oxygen debate of yesterday and today’s disagreements over Cosmology. With Phlogiston/Oxygen there was simply a desire to increase understanding; there would inevitably be an “Old Guard” defending the established view, but beyond that there were no big agendas. Today there is the problem that accepting Geocentrism is no different to accepting the existence of a Creator. That means there is a huge cultural and philosophical bias towards explanations which point away from God.

We need to be clear that in science, especially at the edge of current knowledge, two or more explanations of a phenomenon may exist. In science today it is invariably a godless explanation that is chosen, and then propagated through the Universities, schools, media, Wikipedia and internet. However, good science has never been about numbers or who can shout loudest. It’s about evidence, and also about fair assessment of that evidence.

Ockham’s Razor has nothing to do with shaving. It is a principle used in problem solving. The first part of the name comes from its attribution to a Monk, William of Ockham, who lived around thirteen hundred. The second part is because the principle involves cutting down possible explanations of something to the one with the least assumptions. In essence it says that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones.

In Science Ockham’s Razor is not an absolute rule in the formulation of explanations. But there is wide acceptance that “simpler” is likely to be “better”, and that non-proven assumptions should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is an essential principle to keep in mind when trying to make sense of the complexities of Cosmology.

It is a widely held belief in the UK that science has proved that God doesn’t exist. This is a total fallacy. Here is the reality:

1 “Evolution disproves God”. This is wrong in two respects. First, a Scientific theory is not evidence. Only evidence is evidence. In any case, evolution is full of fatal flaws (see Link 1 at end of article). Second, even if evolution were true, it is possible that God used it in His Creation. (many Christians believe this, albeit incorrectly). Nothing here disproves God.

2 “The Universe is vast and has existed for billions of years”. Neither of these contentions, correct or otherwise, has any relevance to proof for or against God.

3 “God has never been observed in a scientific experiment”. The relevant maxim here is “lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack”. Simply, just because we cannot observe something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. In science, many things are unseen, but accepted because of evidence of what they do. For example, nobody has ever seen an electron; their existence is inferred from the behaviour of atoms and matter. In any case, if there is an Almighty God, He would presumably choose Himself when, where and how he reveals Himself (see Link 2 at end).

4 “If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?” This is a philosophical/religious question; nothing to do with science (Answer at Link 3 below if you need it).

5 “Science simply doesn’t believe in God”. That’s correct, but the reason is an a priori assumption that God doesn’t exist. An a priori or prior assumption is something you know or assume to be true without any research or experience. (See Wikipedia here.) It is most important to realise that this is a prior assumption of science, with zero evidence.

6 “The idea of God is not rational”. That statement is merely an assertion. It is not evidence.

7 “I don’t believe in God”. People believe or do not believe whatever they want. None of it constitutes scientific evidence.

8 “Scientists don’t believe in God”. This is very far from the truth, and even if it were true it would only be a matter of belief, not evidence. Scientists, like everyone else, have other agendas. Prof Richard Dawkins, for example, has a visceral hatred of the God of the Bible, which he proudly proclaims. That is not science. And Dawkins never produces profound scientific evidence for his assertions.

9 “People in the past thought the Earth was Flat”. This is really an assertion that people in the past were stupid and the idea of God arose from their stupidity. Actually, the Greek Eratosthenes not only knew the Earth was a sphere, but calculated its circumference with remarkable accuracy over two hundred years before Christ. It’s true that people in the past had less knowledge than we have today, but they were no less intelligent. The pyramids were not built by idiots! People in the past achieved remarkable things with limited technology demonstrating just how capable they were. However, appeals to past ignorance can sometimes be valid. For example, Darwin’s theory was based in part on his total ignorance of both the complexity of the living cell and Genetics. Appeals to ignorance must always be justified specifically, as in this case.

This article is not dealing with the evidence that God does exist. It’s purpose is to clear the air of the gross misconception that science somehow proves He doesn’t. If you are still not clear on this, and you imagine that there really is scientific evidence disproving God, please state it below. We will add your statement to this article anonymously, together with a clear explanation of why it is not scientific evidence. Find current responses below the form.

Link 1  Darwinian Evolution is Bunk

Link 2 Understanding God

Link 3 If a good God exists, why do bad things happen?

See also Darwin Exposes Himself and Geology – The Rocks Really do Cry Out

(Before making a submission please be sure that you know the difference between true science, which is based upon repeatable experiments, forensic science, and mathematical/theoretical science. If offering evidence for Darwinian Evolution, be sure you know the difference between Darwin’s Molecules to Man evolution and Variation in a Kind, sometimes respectively referred to as macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Everybody, including school textbooks, loves to offer evidence of the latter as evidence for the former. If you can’t think of a solid piece of evidence for Darwin’s theory to offer here, it’s time to stop believing in it.)

Submission 11/08/18.       Evolution of the Horse.  

There is a huge amount of (dis)information on the internet and elsewhere about the supposed evolution of the horse over 55 million years. Evolutionist (Note, Evolutionist, not Creationist) Boyce Rensberger’s statement hits the nail on the head:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.

(My bolding in the above quote.) As with all gradual, alleged evolution, the essential transitional fossils are missing. The alleged transitional fossils are actually distinct species, which themselves lack evidence of their own evolution. It must be remembered that Darwin’s theory involves inorganic molecules gradually changing into men; fuzzy stories about one four-legged mammal turning into another four-legged mammal are very definitely not profound evidence for the first of these propositions. But such invalid evidence is regularly presented as the best there is. The huge amount of information on the web regarding horse evolution makes it clear that it is of great importance in proving evolution. Normally, nobody would put forward weak or flawed evidence in hopes of winning a debate. Evolutionists do it in this case because there is no better evidence. And if the alleged horse evolution is as good as it gets, evolution has around four less legs to stand on than the horse.

A further point is that many of the alleged evolutionary trees, at least in part, show one kind of horse evolving into another. This is simply Variation within a Kind, not Darwinian “one thing changes into something completely different.”