If, as relativity claims, we can with equal justification choose any reference frame and call that one “at rest,” with the result that no reference frame is privileged and really “at rest,” then why cannot the Christian say that, since God created man, man is therefore special in the universe; and that therefore, man is justified in claiming that Earth’s frame is truly “at rest,” and the rest of the universe is in motion relative to Earth. In other words, the ancient view that the sun revolves around the Earth, indeed that the entire universe revolves around the Earth, is the correct view. If any reference frame we choose can be regarded as “at rest,” why not choose Earth’s frame? Perhaps God truly did create Earth “at rest,” and Earth is the only body in the universe “at rest.”
Most physicists would say that there are certain astronomical observations that can only be explained if the Earth is revolving around the sun. These observations are what led Copernicus to his sun-centered model of the solar system. But if this is true, and certain observations can only be explained in terms of a sun-centered model, does this not violate Einstein’s assertion that any reference frame can with equal justification be regarded as “at rest?” For does not Copernicus show us that Einstein is incorrect? If scientists wish to uphold Einstein, then there must be some way to explain astronomical observations such that Earth can be regarded as “at rest.” And if so, then the Christian, with his belief in God, is perfectly within his right to assert that the universe is centered on the Earth, and no scientist can legitimately refute the Christian.
For the moment, putting aside the theological/scientific dispute to which my previous assertion gives rise, let’s suppose that the Earth truly is the absolute rest frame, and that the universe revolves around the Earth. What might we expect to be the observational and experimental results of such a situation? What new conclusions might we be led to, what new discoveries might be made? In other words, has no one thought to reconsider the view that the universe revolves around the Earth? It was supposedly definitively refuted by Copernicus. But what if that refutation was itself a mistake? Why not go back and look at the implications of an Earth-centered universe, in light of the centuries of scientific knowledge that have accumulated since such a view was abandoned? Are there any scientists willing to put aside their scientific prejudices and cogitate upon the matter? For if relativity is correct, as they assert, then it must be possible to view Earth as the “rest” frame. Why not go one step further, and pretend that it is the one true rest frame, and all other frames cannot validly be regarded as at rest.
The first thing such a geocentric view explains is the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. One might even say that Michelson-Morley is proof of the geocentric view. One wonders if this has ever been considered.
The immediate, ready response of the relativist is probably, “Earth is rotating about its own axis, and it’s rotating around the sun. Rotation is acceleration, and accelerating frames are not inertial frames. Therefore Earth is not an inertial reference frame. Einstein’s assertion that all reference frames can with equal justification be regarded as at rest only applies to inertial frames. Thus Earth cannot with equal justification be regarded as at rest. Therefore your argument is invalid.”
But this response presupposes the conclusion. It presupposes that the Earth is rotating about the sun. If we claim the Earth is at rest, then the above response of the relativist is invalid at the outset. Earth is only rotating if you assume it is actually in motion. In the geocentric view, we’re saying Earth is not in motion. We deny any motion in the Earth. The sun and the universe are rotating around the Earth, in such a way that to an Earth-bound observer, it appears the Earth is the one moving. But that’s just an illusion. The Earth is at rest. The Earth is the only true inertial frame, and the entire universe is accelerating around the Earth.
Next the relativist will probably accuse me of being a Christian and dragging God into the argument. This alone, from the viewpoint of the relativist, is enough to discredit my little theory. No further investigation is therefore needed.
But I’m not trying to drag God into this. I’m merely trying to go against currently accepted wisdom and see where it leads. Accepted wisdom says the Earth rotates around the sun. I’m saying maybe it’s time to reconsider the reverse. Accepted wisdom says there is no absolute frame of reference. I’m saying maybe it’s time to consider that there is. Forget dragging God into the argument. Maybe there’s a different reason why Earth is the center of the universe. Why should Science refuse to “go there” just because the territory smacks of God? Who is the fanatic here, holding fast to accepted dogma? The religious person, or the scientist? When you’re stuck in a rut, thinking beyond dogma, beyond accepted wisdom, is the only way to advance from the rut. And it seems to me that Science is currently stuck in a rut. Why then do so many scientists turn up their noses at thinking in directions that depart too radically from their accepted notions? Are scientists so attached to the ideas keeping them in a rut, that they’re unwilling to cast a mere exploratory thought along radical paths? Are they just unwilling, or have they been so thoroughly indoctrinated that they’re completely incapable of such thought?
Clarification: I’m not even saying that everything in the universe is revolving around the Earth. I’m not saying Mercury, Venus, et al, must revolve around the Earth. I’m saying that overall, the entire universe revolves around Earth, it’s all centered on Earth. Locally, there may be objects that don’t revolve around Earth. They may revolve around other bodies, which revolve around other bodies, etc. which themselves revolve about the Earth. The whole universe, overall, revolves around the Earth. The Earth is at absolute rest. No rotation, no motion through space—nothing. Our task is then to figure out why this is so, and what conclusions we might draw from the situation. Maybe if certain theories were reworked slightly, they would support geocentrism, and would be the stronger for it.
If scientists rule out geocentrism as definitely impossible, then scientists must also concede the following: while we cannot by any experiment determine an absolute rest frame, we can determine frames that definitely cannot be at rest. Thus, there must be at least two categories of reference frames: those that could be at absolute rest but cannot be proven by experiment to be at absolute rest, and those that definitely are not at absolute rest. So we cannot prove by experiment that any frame is at absolute rest, but we can prove that some frames are definitely not at absolute rest. Thus if two frames are in relative motion, it is not equally valid to say that either frame is in motion or at rest with respect to the other, since there will be some frames that can be proven to not be at rest. Thus, again, we come across another error in Einstein’s theory.
So relativists must either accept geocentrism as a valid possibility, or reject it and thus deal a blow to relativity.
