VOLUME 17 NUMBER 120

THE
BIBLICAL
ASTRONOMER
__________________________

SPRING 2007

Messier 13, the globular cluster in Hercules.

(Courtesy: Kitt Peak National Observatory)
 RENEWED ITEMS
(Continued from the back cover)
The following two items have not been available for some time and
are now available again.
Vital Questions by Philip Stott. (Second edition) Tackles just how
flimsy the evidence is for such well-established ideas as the Big Bang,
Relativity, and evolution. 155 pages. $20
Where in the Universe Are We? by Philip Stott. DVD video. We sold
this same video in VHS format some years back, but now reissued in
DVD format. $25
Problems in Astronomy by Philip Stott. VHS video $15

Foreign orders, please read pricing policies

on the back cover of this issue.

Subscriptions to the Biblical Astronomer are $15 per year ($25 outside
the USA). Membership is $20 per year, ($30 outside the USA). Mem-
bers are allowed a 15% discount on all materials published by the Bib-
lical Astronomer. Offerings to make possible additional publishing and
research projects are gratefully accepted. Foreign orders please send
either cash or cheques drawn on a United States bank. Credit cards are
acceptable only on the Internet through PayPal’s secure payment ser-
vice. The product list, including items not listed in this issue, is at
http://www.geocentricity.com/geoshop/index.html.

Editor: Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.

4527 Wetzel Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44109
U.S.A.

E-mail address: [email protected]

http://www.geocentricity.com/
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Front Cover: The globular cluster, M13, was once considered to con-
sist of old, first- or second-generation stars, much older than those mak-
ing up the disk of the Milky Way. But like all good evolutionary theo-
ries, they eventually run into trouble with the facts. See this issue’s
“Panorama” for more on the controversy.
 THE
BIBLICAL ASTRONOMER

Volume 17, Number 120

SPRING 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Editorial 35

Physicists on Geocentricity
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. 36

Panorama 53

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 35

EDITORIAL
The Third International Conference on Absolutes is taking shape.
The main theme is cosmology, the structure of the universe. There will
be at least one paper on the Ptolemaic cosmology, in particular, the
epicycle myths. Another paper will look at geocentricity as a necessary
doctrine in Scripture. A third paper will examine different cosmology
models. Another presentation will examine the latest models for time
and how those ideas relate to Scripture. There will be papers on geo-
centricity, and we hope to have a report on the delay in reporting the
results of Gravity Probe B which looked for geocentric phenomena
such as the Lense-Thirring effect and found an unexpected effect a tril-
lion times larger.
At the conference a geocentric orrery will clearly illustrate the
phenomena often claimed to prove the heliocentric model working in a
mechanical geocentric model, thus proving the claim that the heliocen-
tric model is proven a lie. These effects include parallax, seasons, the
rotation of the earth seen from the moon, and retrograde motion of the
outer planets. We expect to have a paper on Joshua’s Long Day and
Hezekiah’s Sign. Accounts of these phenomena are found around the
world. Understandably, uniformitarian evolutionists are petrified of
them, but amazingly, even Creationists are frightened to tell the stories
known around the world.
The cost of mailing future issues of the Biblical Astronomer has
increased by roughly fifty percent. A 32-page issue will now cost fifty
cents more to send in the USA than previously. There are three options
open. The first is to increase the subscription price by $5 per year—
bear in mind that the B.A. has more postal expenses than just the mail-
ing of the quarterly. The second option is to keep the rate the same but
reduce the number of pages to 28 per issue. The last option is to return
to Walter van der Kamp’s original way of paying for issues, which was
to rely on donations and mail an issue only when enough money was
donated to cover its costs. That meant that sometimes there were only
one or two issues per year. There was one period when the postal
workers struck in Canada and it was almost two years between two
particular issues. There is, of course, a fourth option, to cease publica-
tion, but there are still hundreds of people who are interested in the
publication; so that is not an option, leastwise, not yet. For this issue
we have chosen the second option. We do need whatever financial help
you can give, especially a regular, periodic support.
We hope to see you at the conference.
36 Physicists On Geocentricity

PHYSICISTS COMMENT
1
ON GEOCENTRICITY
Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.

Introduction

In the eyes of many, geocentrists are a strange bunch. To hear

tell, we are a throwback to the dark ages, troglodytes ignorant of sci-
ence, uneducated in scientific knowledge and a national disgrace. An
article in the 22 April 1990 issue of The Sunday Times of London, Eng-
land, headlined: “One in three children thinks the sun goes around
earth.” The text informs us that:

One in three secondary school children thinks the sun

revolves around the earth and that sound travels faster than
light. Nearly as many think radioactive milk is safe when
boiled and do not know that oxygen comes from plants.
The gaps in British children’s scientific knowledge
have been exposed by a survey of 3,600 pupils in 12
schools. Some of their teachers who sat the test did no bet-
ter. …
The results, however, did not surprise Patrick Moore,
presenter of the BBC’s The Sky at Night programme and a
man who has tried to popularise science. “Children are in-
terested in science, but they are not being taught properly,”
he said.

And there we have it: geocentrists are every bit as ignorant as someone
who thinks that sound travels faster than light.
But are we really all that ignorant? It was Carl Popper who once
wrote to the effect that sometimes it is in the best interest of science for
introductory texts to lie. Is geocentricity such a suppressed truth? In
this paper we shall examine the unsolicited statements from a represen-
tative sample of physicists, mostly American, who wrote in response to
being sent a sample copy of a secular geocentrist newspaper, now long
defunct, called the Braheian Debater. It was published in 1975 and
1976 by DOTGU (Defenders of the Geocentric Universe). The organi-
zation was actually a late extension of the late 1960s, early 1970s

1
This article is an expanded and updated version of one originally printed in The Bulletin
of the Tychonian Society, no. 54, p. 24, Fall 1990.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 37

counter-culture which was itself an extension of the hippie movement

of 1965. Remember that these letters are more than thirty years old and
that the addresses are, too. The principals may no longer be at the insti-
tutions listed. Nevertheless, these letters show that, although secular
scientists may not accept geocentricity as true, they nevertheless recog-
nize that there is no proof against it and that any claims to such proof is
spurious. After them, we shall reprint part of a letter from a first-hand
observer of creationists’ reactions to geocentricity and then we shall
present the official stand of the Creation Research Society and the Insti-
tute for Creation Research on geocentricity.
It’s a Fact!
I have had your newspaper on my desk for weeks, hoping to find
time to write you. You say in your headline (Fall), “Six Physicists Say
it is Possible” that the earth stands still. I don’t know who your physi-
cists are, but the situation is much simpler than they seem to think. It is
not just possible, it is a fact.
It is also a fact that earth does not stand still. The fact that makes
facts of those two apparently conflicting statements is that, as Einstein
said, there are no milestones in the Universe, and thus no absolute stan-
dard of rest or motion that makes such categorical statements mutually
exclusive.
Whether one says the earth stands still depends on the use to
which the statement is put. To a navigator, the sun and stars rise and
set, and it would merely be a bother to him to consider himself on a
rolling earth. To you, there are philosophical reasons that make you
wish to take this point of view. Very well, take it. It is not in conflict
with anything we know, and is unlikely ever to be.
Of course, there is a reason why physicists and astronomers take
the other view. It is this. These people wish, unlike yourselves, to un-
derstand the Universe by mathematical laws. The laws are different
depending on whether you take the earth as a standard of rest or
whether you consider it in motion. It is not a question of right or
wrong, they are just different; and those used by astronomers and
physicists are very much shorter and easier to deal with than those you
would have to use if you were interested in doing mathematical astron-
omy, which I gather you are not.2
You cannot blame people for using compact, neat and accurate
mathematical formulizations when they are available; and of course it
is hard not to have the opinion that the Universe is better understood in
this way. But you don’t have to. If it is important to you to consider

2
The last two sentences in this paragraph are assumptions on the part of the writer of this
letter. The laws are the same; it is only the frame of reference that is different. —Ed.
38 Physicists On Geocentricity

the earth to be at rest, then the laws of nature can be formulated in an

appropriate way.
The kind of thing that’s involved is this: you have probably seen
in museums of elsewhere a long pendulum set swinging at the begin-
ning of the day, whose direction of swing continually changes as the
day goes on. This is usually, and simply, explained as an effect of the
earth’s rotation. [The pendulum is called a Foucault Pendulum. –Ed.]
You don’t have to explain it that way. The laws of nature that you
would use if you were interested in doing mathematical physics while
assuming the earth to be at rest would contain a velocity-dependent
force that would act upon the pendulum in such a way as to produce the
observed rotation. The whole question is one of philosophic view
point, or attitude towards the world. It is not a question of fact, as the
word fact is ordinarily understood.
You will do fine, and perhaps even educate some of the confused
people whose letters you publish, if you make this clear enough, often
enough.
Peace,
David Park
Professor of Physics
Thompsonville Physical Laboratory
Williams College
Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267
Geosynchronous Satellites

To call…a geosynchronous body a satellite, is simply to use “sat-

ellite” to connote dependency, as in “Hungary is a Russian satellite.”
But in this sense a “geosynchronous satellite” is a satellite also of all
other bodies in the universe, insofar as they all have a gravitational
effect on the body. The expression, “geosynchronous orbit,” would
thus make sense only if it is understood to be a misnomer for gravita-
tional equilibration.
The difficulty of placing a body in “geosynchronous orbit” is
merely that of finding the area of relative gravitational equilibration
between earth and the other bodies of the universe. Since synchronous
is a symmetrical, transitive and reflexive relation, a “geosynchronous”
body is synchronous with all and only “geosynchronous” bodies. [Sic]
And since the other stellar bodies, of which a “geosynchronous” body
is also a satellite are not themselves “geosynchronous,” the area of rela-
tive gravitational equilibration wanders away from the position occu-
pied by a “geosynchronous” body. Being no longer gravitationally
equilibrated, the body loses its “geosynchronicity;” and the nongeocen-
trist says, “Aha! Orbital decay!”
Anonymous
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 39

Concerning the “Killer Question” in the winter 1976 issue: In the

usual Newtonian treatment of rotating reference systems, one must in-
troduce “fictitious forces,” such as the centrifugal (not to be confused
with centripetal) force and the Coriolis force, in addition to “real”
forces such as gravitation. In the case of the geosynchronous satellite
orbit as viewed from a reference frame rotating with the earth, the cen-
trifugal and gravitational forces just cancel one another, so the satellite
is unaccelerated in that frame and can remain motionless. (Note that
this balance of centrifugal and gravitational forces is valid only here —
it is not the correct way of explaining orbital motion in general.)
Again, this only shows that it is possible to use a co-ordinate system in
which the earth does not rotate, not that this is in some sense the correct
or only system.
George L. Murphy —Physics
University of Western Australia
Nedlands, Western Australia
Miscellaneous Excerpts

Since I cannot disprove your theory without further study, I would

like to consider it as one possibility for the present.
Lawrence Lynn
Assistant Professor of Physical Science
Meramec Community College
Missouri

…you indeed are right and also that those opposing … are right.
John Broderick
Assistant Professor of Physics
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

I think that your theory has some merit—this comment is made as a

philosopher with some insight into the scientific method.
Greg Kohlbach
Graduate Student in Philosophy
University of North Carolina

They’re going to realize they can’t prove you wrong.

Joe Kelleher
Teaching Fellow, Philosophy
University of Utah
40 Physicists On Geocentricity

Make Mach Your Main Man

From this time henceforth, let the name of your newspaper be

“The Machian Debater.” Make Mach your main man!
A twentieth century answer to the question, “Could the earth stand
still?” was given in The Science of Mechanics, by Ernst Mach in 1912.
(Heard of airplanes going “Mach 2”? Same gentleman.) Here’s the
story. Some Astronomy texts discuss several “proofs” that Earth spins.
A few are: (1) The Earth is bulged at its equator, squashed at the poles.
This proves that the earth turns. (2) A pendulum swinging at the North
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 41

Pole slowly changes its direction of swing, making one complete rota-
tion of its swings once each 24 hours. Standard interpretation: the
Earth is turning under the pendulum.
Mach took another look. All objects have inertia, the property of
matter that makes it sluggish, hard to put in motion, hard to stop. What
causes this inertia? Mach figured that it was the cumulative effect of
all of those stars way out there. The stars in the Universe are very far
away but there are very many of them. Therefore Mach proposed
Mach’s Principle: An object has inertia due to the presence of stars. An
object is hard put to stop (hard to accelerate) because you are trying to
change its motion with respect to the stars.
The outcome of this giant leap of imagination is thrilling. Sup-
pose you assume that the Earth is at rest. Then the stars must be whirl-
ing around us once each 24 hours. But what then of the proofs that the
Earth turns? The effects in those proofs are due to the whirling stars!
The stars would cause an outward pull on the Earth’s equator (above
which the whirling is fastest.) The pendulum would be whirling around
with the whirling stars (roughly like a leaf in a whirlpool.) Every sin-
gle observation that has been advanced to “prove” that the Earth spins
can also be explained by a fixed Earth and whirling stars.
In the middle of 1913, a young man named Albert Einstein wrote
to Mach expressing his appreciation for Mach’s ideas. Einstein is the
fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The
basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his
equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and
the stars are at rest--the equations explain all observations. But if the
Earth is at rest and the stars whirl--the equations still explain all obser-
vations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all
motion is relative. You can’t say positively that any thing is at rest.
Take your choice--the equations of General Relativity come out the
same. Einstein put Mach’s idea into mathematical form and what
emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind.

Yours in Mach-ination,
Charles Long, Ph.D.
N. Hennepin State Community College
Minnesota
42 Physicists On Geocentricity

On a Rotating Universe3

Cosmological models for a universe with expansion and rotation

are considered. In particular, we analyze some effects of the universal
rotation on the observational cosmology.
Since the first studies of Lanczos (1924), Gamow (1946) and
Gödel (1949), a great number of rotating cosmological models have
been considered in the literature. Nevertheless, the full understanding
of observational manifestations of cosmic rotation is still far from
reach. (P. 121)
There is a general belief that rotation of the universe is always a
source of many undesirable consequences… The aim of this paper is
twofold: to show that [these consequences] are not inevitable (and in

3
Obukhov, Yu. N., 1992. “Rotation in Cosmology,” General Relativity and Gravitation,
24(2):121-128. Page numbers of the references are listed after the respective quotes.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 43

fact, are not caused by rotation), and to find true effects of cosmic rota-
tion. (Pp 121-122.)
We have shown…quite plausible rotating cosmological models
which in many important respects are similar to the standard cosmolo-
gies. As we see, pure rotation can be, in principle, large, contrary to the
wide-spread prejudice that large vorticity confronts many crucial ob-
servations. (P. 123.)

What of Christian Scientists?

It is clear from the above quotes that in the mid-1970s there was
no great opposition to geocentricity from secular scientists. Even as an
atheist I had similar views to those expressed above. Back then, most
physicists found the idea plausible and somewhat entertaining, though
none would necessarily believe it as the true state of affairs. When it
came to Christian scientists, however, the reaction is more akin to the
newspaper article referred to at the start of this paper. One person who
was a member of the inner group of creationists and will remain
anonymous, wrote the following words on March 28, 1980:

I can sympathize with creationists who consider this issue

too hot to handle. We have had too long and hard a climb uphill
to get creationism to where it is today. All the world would have
to do is tie together creationism and geocentricity, and we could
lose it all overnight. I respect them for this “hands off” approach,
officially. What I cannot understand, however, is why so few of
us are willing to entertain the matter unofficially. As a committed
creationist, I can actually live with either a helio or geocentric
model. My delight in the matter is in thinking about how the evo-
lutionists would pop a cork if the geocentric model were ob-
jectively and astronomically verified. Can you just imagine what
this would do to uniformitarian theories of solar origins? It would
drive them absolutely bananas! And furthermore, it would also be
a big shot in the arm toward a consistently literal hermeneutic and
taking the Bible seriously in matters of science. One thing the
liberals consistently appeal to in their defense of non-literal inter-
pretation is phenomenological language; how I’d love to be in on
the action to rip the rug right out from underneath them.
What I cannot understand, however, is why so few of us are
willing to entertain the matter unofficially” is rather an under-
statement. Actually, most have been given some bad advice. I
44 Physicists On Geocentricity

agree with the author of the statement insofar as damage to crea-

tionism is concerned. But truth is truth, and to emphasize part of
it while implicitly denying another part cannot be pleasing unto
God. Is his hand straitened? I must proclaim the whole truth in-
sofar as I know it, and I know that the word of God is truth.

There was a brief time when top ranking creationists were consid-
ering geocentricity. That time was back in 1978 when they relied heav-
ily on the advice of two men on this matter: Harold Slusher (then with
the Institute for Creation Research at San Diego) and George Mulfin-
ger, who was science chairman at Bob Jones University. Both men had
only M.S. degrees, both were too busy with creationist arguments to
devote the required time to study the geocentric papers and references
sent them. They took it on faith that the elementary textbooks from
which they daily taught told them the truth. That this is so is clear from
a brief exchange of letters I had with Mulfinger in which he concludes
that he may take a look at the copies of references I sent him, time
permitting. The references sent answered all his questions, bar none.
From the following letter it is clear that he dismissed the references
without reading them. The references sent said the same thing as the
secular scientists quoted above, except that they did so in a more tech-
nical manner.

Mulfinger’s Letter to the Creation Research Society

The following letter was dated December 26, 1978 and was ad-
dressed to the late Professor Harold Armstrong of Queens University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Professor Armstrong was sympathetic to
geocentricity and, at that time, was the editor of the Creation Research
Society Quarterly, the most prestigious and scholarly of creationist
publications. Copies of the letter were sent to the board of directors of
the Creation Research Society as well as to Dr. Duane Gish, Dr. George
Howe, and Dr. John Whitcomb.

Greetings from the Southland! I trust that at this time you

are getting some much-needed rest from the rigors of academic
life.
The purpose of this letter is to convey my views on the ques-
tion of geocentrism. I have felt a growing concern for what might
happen to the Society if we go too far in countenancing the
Tychonian view, and several other members have expressed a
similar concern to me. However, the displeasure of our members
and the reaction of outsiders, although important, is to me but a
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 45

secondary consideration. My primary motivation is a desire to do

justice to the truth of the matter. The truth of the heliocentric
view is solidly founded on the mathematics of Kepler and New-
ton. As you know, their calculations are based on many observa-
tions. Moreover, their equations have been verified by an addi-
tional three centuries of rigorous testing. Any major defects
should certainly have become apparent by now; yet today’s space
program continues to testify to the essential correctness of the sys-
tem of celestial mechanics they established. Now there is no con-
sistent way to accept both the Keplerian-Newtonian framework
and the Tychonian view. As I am sure you are aware, one of the
major outcomes of classical celestial mechanics is that the most
massive body in a system will tend to dominate that system gravi-
tationally. The Tychonian view pictures the sun as revolving
around the earth, but the other planets as revolving about the sun.
Ridiculous! If the earth is massive enough to dominate the sun
gravitationally, it will dominate the other planets as well. If it is
not, then it will be dominated by the sun, and will orbit the sun as
the other planets do. The Tychonian view requires, in effect, that
there be two “most massive” bodies in the same system.
My initial interest in this question started back in the Sixties
when I struck up a correspondence with Walter van der Kamp. I
had felt that something could perhaps be accomplished in his be-
half by gradually and methodically calling certain truths to his at-
tention. However, after years of painful frustration, I saw that it
was leading nowhere, and reluctantly gave it up as a lost cause. I
did come to appreciate Mr. van der Kamp as a fellow Christian
and to recognize his unusual ability as a writer. But as an as-
tronomer and physicist he is woefully lacking. Also, though he is
somewhat of a philosopher, I would seriously question his exper-
tise as a logician. In science we need to be extremely careful how
much we attempt to deduce from negative results. Yet van der
Kamp seeks to build an entire universe on the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment coupled with a reinterpretation of
what Airy didn’t find.
This letter is being written as a communication from one
board member to another, with copies being sent to some other in-
terested board members. I see no point in soliciting a response
from the other side, as I have already corresponded extensively
with van der Kamp, Hanson and Bouw, and I am quite familiar
with their “answers.” I also discussed the question at some length
with Hanson when he visited the campus here three or four years
ago. I have found all three of these men to be very friendly, but
46 Physicists On Geocentricity

completely unreasonable. They refuse to accept clear, logical

demonstrations the like of which they would never think to ques-
tion in other areas of science. There is no doubt in my mind as to
their sincerity, but they consistently fail to answer my arguments,
and they seem unprepared and unwilling to face the implications
of that failure. Prior to Hanson’s visit I sent him a list of five evi-
dences of the earth’s revolution. These were: Bradley’s experi-
ment, the parallax of stars, the annual loops of Pluto, the intensifi-
cation of meteors after midnight, and the annual Doppler shifts of
stars. After he had had some weeks to ponder these, I asked him
how he proposed to deal with them. He replied that potentially he
could answer all but one of them--parallax of stars. When pressed
further, however, it became clear that he was unable, in actuality,
to deal with any of them satisfactorily.
More recently I corresponded with Bouw. In this series of
letters we concentrated more on the question of the earth’s rota-
tion. As you are probably aware, these men refuse even to accept
the fact that the earth spins on its axis. They would prefer to have
us believe in a universe that rotates around the earth each day! As
evidences of the earth’s rotation I presented the following: the ob-
late shape of the earth, wind patterns (both general and localized),
the force on projectiles and spacecraft, the force on falling bodies,
the Foucault pendulum, and direct observations from the moon.
He attempted to explain most of these as the result of a diurnally
rotating gravitational field generated by the spinning universe.4 I
countered this by bringing up the question of synchronous satel-
lites. If the earth is indeed stationary and nonrotating as they
claim, then the synchronous satellites are also motionless, and we
have the very serious problem of what keeps them from falling to
the ground! Bouw claims that the rotating field of the universe
would hold them in place. But he also claims that the same rotat-
ing field would impart a sideways (west to east) force on missiles,
falling bodies, etc. How could the same field hold one object in
place while imparting a sideways force to another?5

4
That is, using Mach’s Principle, as explained by Long above. The reader will note in
what Mulfinger says later in the same paragraph that Mulfinger does not understand
Mach’s Principle. Because it is commonly assumed that the universe can be ignored in
heliocentric physics, Mulfinger forgets to consider it when its presence cannot be ig-
nored. —Ed.
5
This is a serious blunder on Mulfinger’s part. He fails to see that the geostationary
satellite keeps the same distance from the axis of rotation of the universe (of the earth in
the heliocentric view) whereas the Coriolis force, Mulfinger’s “sideways force,” exists
only if the distance to the axis of rotation changes. This was freshman-level college
physics back then, and Mulfinger, who taught physics at BJU, fails to see it. —Ed.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 47

In conclusion, I would like to protest the inclusion in the

CRSQ of any further papers giving support to the Tychonian per-
spective. I believe we have gone too far already. However, I will
accept a large portion of the responsibility for this. As you know,
I included one of van der Kamp’s booklets in my “Symposium of
Creationist Astronomy.” This seemed innocuous at the time, but
in retrospect I am convinced it was a mistake. We should be con-
sistent. We accept and use the tried and tested laws of physics in
other areas; we should accept and use them in this area as well.
(Underscores in original.)

Who, Then, Is right?

The question facing the reader is this: is Mulfinger correct in his

claim that heliocentrism is a proven fact, or are the secular scientists
and Tychonians correct in their claim that heliocentrism is not a proven
fact? Harold Armstrong knew physics well enough not to believe
Mulfinger’s arguments and continued as best he could to counter Mul-
finger’s directive not to publish any more articles supporting geocen-
tricity. His continued support became one of the factors leading to his
ouster from the editorship of the Creation Research Society Quarterly
circa 1985. Despite that, Armstrong continued to support the Tycho-
nian cause until his death.
Harold Armstrong knew all the arguments, even as the physicists
quoted above. Armstrong’s university (Queen’s University, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada) never reprimanded him for his geocentric leanings.
Mulfinger, on the other hand, was denied a Ph.D. from Syracuse Uni-
versity on the grounds that he was not Ph.D. material. In such cases, an
M.S. is granted as a consolation prize. Although Mulfinger maintained
that the denial was because of his creationist activities, one wonders at
the truth of that on two grounds: first, from personal experience I know
that creationists encountered almost no opposition in the physical sci-
ences until about 1980 at which point the opposition came from evolu-
tionary biology, not from physics or astronomy; and second, one would
have to doubt the reasoning ability of any man who believes that walk-
ing around an object won’t show all sides of the object while having the
object turn while one stands still, will (the reference to “direct observa-
tions from the moon” in the second-to-last paragraph of his letter).
Donald de Young, of Grace Seminary, made the same blunder in 1988
in an article which appeared in the Australian creationist journal, Ex
Nihilo.6 Furthermore, is it not significant that the first two astronomy

6
Bouw, G. D., 1990. “A Response to De Young’s Ex Nihilo Article,” Bulletin of the
Tychonian Society, no. 53, p. 35.
48 Physicists On Geocentricity

Ph.D.s to become creationists both support the Tychonian cause while

later ones, having seen the hysterical reaction of most of the creationist
community, simply avoid making an issue of it?

The Status of Science Today

It is clear from the above that prior to 1980 there was no signifi-
cant opposition among secular scientists against the geocentric para-
digm. At that time, opposition arose almost exclusively from Chris-
tians in academic positions. The testimony of the non-Christian physi-
cists is clear. There is neither proof for heliocentrism nor for geocen-
tricity; nor is there proof against either. The introductory textbooks lie
when they claim such proof. And when creationists succumb to that
simplistic lie, they demonstrate to the world’s physicists that the latter
are justified in dismissing creationists as inferior scientists, let alone
whether they can be counted as scientists at all.
Today the scientific climate is radically different. Much of this is
in reaction to the successes and threats of the creationist movements led
by the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Soci-
ety which were popularized by the late Walter Lang’s Bible-Science
Association. By 1976 the American Humanist Association was so up-
set by the creationists’ success that it devoted an entire issue of The
Humanist to the creation-evolution debate. (Humanism is a godless
religion originating within the political arm of the Roman Catholic
Church during the Middle Ages.)
In the magazine, several authors suggested two strategies to com-
bat creationism. Both involved ridiculing creationists by charging them
with hypocrisy for not believing two “scriptural” models. The first
strategy was to demand that creationists must believe in a flat earth
because the Bible teaches a flat earth. The second was similar, viz. to
demand that creationists must also accept the geocentric universe be-
cause the Bible presents an immovable earth. The latter could also
exploit the popular myth that Galileo was tortured and imprisoned for
his stance for the Copernican universe.
Both strategies are ethically flawed. The first strategy is an out-
right lie, for it is easy to show that the Holy Bible does not teach a flat
earth.7 The second strategy is not a lie but relies on the blind accep-
tance of a globally accepted myth that geocentricity has been scientifi-
cally disproved. In the second strategy, the creationists are guilty as
charged, though they deny it. Lest the humanist think he has the upper
hand, his own hypocrisy is exposed first by his blatant denial of all the
7
Bouw, G. D., 1988. “The Round-earth Bible,” Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, no.
46, p. 35.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 49

evidence against evolution to the point of insisting that no contrary

evidence be allowed by law, and second, by his turning a blind eye to
the fact that the entire modern evolutionist movement is founded on a
lie.8 Phyllis Schlafly put this distinctly one time with these words:

A Chinese scholar observed, “In China we can criticize

Darwin, but not the government. In America you can criticize the
government, but not Darwin.”
Censorship of criticism always invites fraud. Evolution has
suffered more embarrassments than any other “scientific” theory.
The Piltdown man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades,
even featured in the John Scopes Monkey trial textbook. Only
five years ago a dinosaur-bird fossil hoax was presented as true on
the glossy pages of National Geographic. If Darwinists want to
teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from black bears
swimming with their mouths open, we should be entitled to criti-
cize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books criti-
cal of evolution, even when written by college professors.

Thus the strategies have their flaws. One is a lie, and the other reveals
the hypocrisy of both sides of the creation/evolution debate.
The strategies have been used from time to time and it is revealing
to see how and when they have been used. The flat earth strategy is by
far the more commonly used of the two. In 1984 the National Science
Foundation (NSF) put an ancient flat earth map on their back cover of a
glossy booklet designed to fool the reader into believing that the evi-
dence against a special creation is as strong as the evidence against the
flat earth. The magazine was full of religious bias and strong on gloss,
but it was crucially short on logic and totally devoid of proof. The geo-
centric strategy has been used a few times but never in its effective
form. Instead of pointing out the hypocrisy of creationists in taking the
Bible literally in Genesis 1 but not in Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Isaiah 38, the
Galileo strategy is used which has some emotional appeal but totally
contradicts the historical record. Since neither strategy has been shown
to be effective against anyone but atheists, neither strategy is used in
formal publications where readers are more likely to check the material
presented. Charlatans like Ed Babinski, who prefer web sites over pub-
lications, delight in the two Humanist proposals since they appeal to
emotionally driven people, not to the rational. Emotionally driven peo-
ple and their money are easily separated. At the root of the strategies
we find the love of money (I Timothy 6:10). The humanists’ strategies
expose today’s science as a political tool, having no use for truth.
8
Bouw, G. D., 1998. “A Brief Introduction to the History of Evolution,” B. A., 8(85):9.
50 Physicists On Geocentricity

Geocentricity Today

As the creation/evolution debate heats up, is opposition to geocen-

tricity also heating up?
Not much has changed insofar as the geocentric front is con-
cerned. The opposition of physicists and astronomers has settled at its
worst point insofar as physics is concerned. Physicists know it, though
few admit it, but the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) was invented
to explain away certain embarrassing experimental results that ap-
peared to prove the geocentric universe. GTR does so by introducing
an elliptical coordinate transformation on moving coordinate systems
which makes every point in the universe look as if it is in the center of
the universe. Thus the worst they can say is that geocentrists misrepre-
sent Relativity when they use it to claim that the geocentric model is a
viable model of reality. Of course, according to the GTR, it is. Mod-
ern physicists will allow that geocentricity is one possible model, but
that it in no way is the correct one. That is, of course, a matter of opin-
ion. Modern astronomers and physicists do not believe that there is a
third heaven beyond the firmament. Without the third heaven, they are
correct about the nature of GTR, but given a third heaven beyond the
edge of the firmament, the abode of the God of creation and the Author
of the Scripture, the geocentric model is more than likely. The former
is what the writers of the letters to The Brahenian Debater believed.
So, in effect, nothing has changed since 1975 insofar as their position
on the geocentric universe is concerned.
The observant reader may remark that there is a difference in the
attitude on geocentricity as exhibited by the writers of the letters to The
Brahenian Debater versus the claim expressed above that geocentricity
is wrong in claiming to be “the” model and using GTR to support that
claim. That is true, and it is not hard to understand.
The Defenders of the Geocentric Universe (DOTGU), who pub-
lished The Brahenian Debater, were hippies and freaks. They advo-
cated the notion that the universe is a giant vortex and had a view of
nature that is close to Zen Buddhism. That atheistic religion has a cer-
tain appeal to today’s secular scientists. On the other hand, geocentric-
ity is, by definition, a scriptural discipline, willing to accept the results
of the sciences as long as those results and theories do no violence to
Scripture. In effect, the claims and theories of geocentricity are subject
to the teachings of Scripture.9

9
Geocentrism is not the same as geocentricity. Geocentrism is a pagan concept and is
subject to the rules of philosophy, scholastic opinions, and the traditions of men. In other
words, geocentrism is the humanist version of geocentricity. That is what it was before
the days of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. True, these men had contemporaries who
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 51

And that brings us to modern Christianity and its reaction to geo-

centricity. There the situation has changed. Christian resistance to a
scripturally compatible model of creation has increased. We wrote
earlier of the opposition of George Mulfinger to geocentricity. Mulfin-
ger wrote that circa 1980. By 1985 Bernard (Bernie) Northrup, a
Wickliffe translator, after a superficial examination of geocentricity and
emotionally upset by this author’s persistence in his faith in the A.V.,
declared geocentricity a heresy. People like Robert Kofahl, chemist,
and the late Henry Morris, would get visibly upset if asked about geo-
centricity after their speeches. By 1992 an old Bible-Science group in
Anaheim, California, declared geocentricity an “end-time heresy.” Any
person who professed geocentricity was ousted from the group. Like-
wise, the longtime head of the Flat Earth Society, the late Charles John-
son, excommunicated any member of the Society who would join The
Tychonian Society, the premier geocentric organization in the Ameri-
cas, if not the world.10 It was clear that geocentrists were the least of
all those who professed faith in the inerrancy and preservation of the
scriptures.
As a rule, among Christians as well as non-Christians, the deeper
a man’s understanding of relativity, mechanics, celestial dynamics, and
cosmology, the less critical that man is of geocentricity. The less a man
understands about the physical sciences, the more critical he will be.
Thus Dr. Russell Humphreys, an astrophysicist who believes that the
center of the universe is located at the center of the Milky Way, is care-
ful in his criticism of geocentricity while Dr. Danny Faulkner, an as-
tronomer, insists that Galileo’s telescope disproved the geocentric uni-
verse once and for all. His crowning proof that geocentricity is wrong
is that geocentricity is associated with “King James only” types, though
he knows that only holds for a few geocentrists. Both men reject geo-
centricity but Humphreys has used relativity in his research, Faulkner
has written about relativity but generally writes about planetary and
stellar astronomy for which one normally does not need relativity.

were willing to adjust their cosmology to conform to the Holy Bible, but most were as the
forenamed, willing rather to conform the Bible to the opinions and incomplete theories of
that day’s modern science. Modern geocentricity was born with Tycho Brahe’s model of
the universe. Prior to Tycho man was unable to discern between geocentricity and geo-
centrism because experiments and observations were not accurate enough to tell them
apart.
10
The Tychonian Society was renamed The Association for Biblical Astronomy in 1991
when its scope was broadened and its focus changed from philosophy and history to
science with a biblical emphasis.
52 Physicists On Geocentricity

Conclusion

We have documented the arguments by physicists for and against

geocentricity. We found that secular physicists are more open to the
geocentric model of the universe and will even defend it if it is pre-
sented in a secular or Zen way. If framed in a Christian perspective,
opposition is greater but still limited. Insofar as the Christian world is
concerned, opposition to geocentricity is stronger and usually more
vehement for any given level of education. Again, opposition is more
careful on the more talented physicists and astronomers than among the
less talented.
One may ask why the nature of the opposition to geocentricity is
so. On the secular side, the fact that Zen Buddhist models are more
readily acceptable, even though obviously contrary to evidence, than
are Christian models probably stems from the episteme of modern sci-
ence.
For the last 170 years the episteme—the driving presuppositions
and foundations that decide what is true and what is false—has been
directed to eliminating God from his creation. Buddhism has no god
or gods and so is a religion to be preferred by atheists and agnostics
even if its science borders on nonsense. Christianity, with its reason-
able God (Isaiah 1:18), is to be rejected at all cost.
When it comes to creationists, they all were trained under the
same episteme. The implementation of that episteme is subtle. There
is usually no direct confrontation with Christianity, at least, there was
little in the past here in America, so most students are not aware of it.
The history of science is thus presented that the Christian is made to
feel shame. The case of Galileo is a prime example of this. The
Catholic Church set him up for life, giving him a pension and a villa.
Galileo paid back the church by insulting the Pope. Even at that, he
was reprimanded and released to his villa and pension. He was not
tortured, not humiliated. But one has to read dry biographies to learn
that. One rarely hears it in a classroom. So when a scientist becomes
a creationist the hostility begins and the brush and pot of tar are
brought out. For most that is enough. In such circumstances it is easi-
est to accept the acceptable version of reality and not investigate any
deeper. But a Christian has a conscience so that when confronted with
geocentricity his conscience is pricked and he reacts, either emotion-
ally or intellectually, against the man and the idea that held the pricker.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 53

PANORAMA
Small Bodies In the Kuiper Belt: Not Enough Comets?

We see too many comets if the solar system is 5 billion years old.
In the 1950s, Dutch astronomer, Jan Oort, proposed that long-period
comets (those that approach the sun once in every 200 years or longer)
originated from a leftover cloud of gas, dust, and ice on the outer
fringes of the solar system. The region is called the Oort cloud.
Evidence for the Oort cloud has yet to materialize, but a smaller
source of icy bodies has been detected. Called the Kuiper Belt, after
another Dutch astronomer, Gerard Kuiper, these bodies lie beyond the
orbit of Neptune, and most beyond Pluto’s orbit. Since 1992, astrono-
mers have discovered nearly 1,000 icy objects beyond Pluto. These
range from 20 miles or more in diameter. However, the Kuiper Belt
only gives short-period comets, ones with periods under 200 years.
Now x-ray astronomers observing Scorpius X-1, the first and
strongest x-ray source found in Scorpius, report finding much smaller
bodies. Using NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer satellite over the
course of the last seven years, a team led by Hsiang-Kuang Chang of
the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan searched for drops in the
brightness of Scorpius X-1. (Scorpius X-1 is the brightest x-ray source
in the sky and is located near where the galactic center and the Kuiper
Belt cross.) Each drop in brightness lasted a few thousandths of a sec-
ond.
The team found 58 short-lived dips, presumed to be caused by icy
bodies 10 to 100 yards (meters) in diameter. Reporting in the August
10 issue of Nature, the researchers estimated that the number of small,
icy objects in the Kuiper Belt could reach a quadrillion, which is a
thousand trillion of 1015. That is from a thousand to a million times the
number of potential comets assumed by computer simulations of solar-
system formation. The simulations assume that the small bodies will
coalesce by collisions with one another. Collisions between small and
large bodies produce dust which should either be pushed out of the so-
lar system by sunlight (radiation pressure) or, for larger dust particles,
spiral into the sun. In effect, the problem now is that there may be too
many bodies in the Kuiper Belt to support evolution.
Refinements in detection equipment and techniques could theo-
retically give the distances to the objects.
54 Panorama

Archaeological Frustrations for Evolutionists1

Were our first ancestors civilized or uncivilized? Did they wan-

der constantly, hunt and fish for a living? Could they write? Modern
science once thought our first ancestors were the most ignorant barbari-
ans. However, the recent findings of archaeologists have altered this
concept. Dr. W. W. Dawson, Canadian scientist, has this to say in his
book, The Bible Confirmed by Science.

Neither in Egypt nor in Babylon has any beginning of civilization

been found. As far back as archaeology can take us, man is al-
ready civilized, building cities and temples, carving hard stone
into artistic forms, and even employing a system of picture writ-
ing. Of Egypt it may be said, the older the country the more per-
fect it is found to be. The fact is a very remarkable one, in view
of modern theories of development, and of the evolution of civili-
zation out of barbarism. Such theories are not borne out by the
discoveries of archaeology. Instead of the progress we should ex-
pect, we find retrogression and decay. Where we look for the
rude beginnings of art, we find an advanced society and artistic
perfection.

Is it possible that the Bible view is right after all, and that civi-
lized man has been civilized from the outset? [This is exactly what we
would expect if there was a global flood and man resettled the earth
with his antediluvian technology and knowledge intact, particularly
with a longer lifespan than today’s man. —Ed.]

Globular Clusters: Not Older than the Milky Way?

For most of the twentieth century, astronomers taught that the

globular clusters—clusters of stars that appear as densely-packed
spheres of stars—consist of old Population II stars while the disk of the
Milky Way consists of young Population I stars. The stars in globular
clusters were assumed to be older than the stars in the disk because they
are low in elements heavier than helium. These are generally called
metal deficient. It was presumed that the globulars are older than the
disk and thus are richer in the hydrogen and helium produced by the
supposed big bang, while the stars in the disk formed later, after ex-
ploding stars had enriched space with elements heavier than helium.

1
Comparet, Inez. Reported in the February 2007 issue of “Hite’s Home Mission Out-
reach,” 816 E. Birch St., Palmyra, PA 17078.
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 55

Also, the globulars seemed devoid of the dust produced by smoking

and exploding stars.
About three years ago, Hubble discovered that globulars consisted
of a mixed population of stars. Instead of consisting entirely of “old,”
reddish stars, the globulars also had “young” blue stars. These young
upstarts were called “blue stragglers.” They even have planets. Theo-
ries abound as to how these stragglers arose, in an environment which
evolutionists thought could not harbor them. No theory is without its
problems, though. These days, anything mysterious or newly observed
in a galaxy or its halo is blamed on a collision with another galaxy. So,
too with the blue stars in globular clusters, galaxy and star collisions
are invoked to explain their existence.

Blue Stragglers in a Globular Cluster. The small rectangle in the picture of

the globular at left is enlarged at right. Blue stragglers are circled in yellow in
this Hubble Telescope picture. (Courtesy NASA.)

In short, the commonly accepted theory for the formation and

evolution of stars in the universe appears to be increasingly falling
short of the observed facts.

Contrails or Chemtrails?

In the past we have covered the global warming scare and at-
tempted to put that fiasco in a proper perspective. Ditto for the coming
ice age debacle of the 1970s and the baseless charges leveled against
DDT. Then, too, there was the ozone scare that weaned us off fluoro-
carbons even though the worst ozone holes in history occurred in the
56 Panorama

late 1940s, before 1954 when the heavy usage of freon started. Too far
from our publication’s scope was the spotted owl scare started by the
Sierra Club’s executive director Michael Fisher to “save” said owl from
the rape of its virgin forests by Pacific Lumber in the northwest. For-
tunately, Mr. Fisher’s lumber recycling company, Western Wood Fab-
ricators, was there to help make up for the resulting virgin timber short-
age. We now know that spotted owls nest not only in virgin forests but
also in K-Mart signs. It should be clear to any thinking individual that
our left-wing powerbrokers feel they have to frighten us to keep us un-
der its thumb. It is clear that fictitious, scary stories of doom can be
quite profitable.
In the 1990s there arose another scare, this time to cripple the air-
line industry. That scare involved the accusation that the airlines (or
the government, or the leftists, or the nationalists, or the army, or the air
force, or Donald Duck were putting chemicals in tanks of airliners and
spraying the land as they went. The contrails we have all known since
birth or, at least, since the Second World War when propeller-driven
bombers would leave such trails, came to be called “chemtrails.”
The anecdotes that were the substance of chemtrail accusations
usually involved a series or network of contrails. People reported they
could taste the chemicals or feel their effects immediately. There were
fuzzy photos posted on the Internet that “showed” deadly chemicals
being loaded on airplanes.
Serious science investigated if there could be something to this.
The prime culprit was aluminum poisoning. However, tests for burning
jet fuel revealed no aluminum. Some of the testing hoped to implicate
the contrails for global warming. However, your editor recalls that the
ice age scare of the 1970s accused contrails of seeding clouds which
reflected more sunlight into space and so cooled the earth’s surface.
Contrails form when water or steam produced by the burning of
kerosene or jet fuel hits the cold air at high altitudes. The steam cools
to ice crystals, which can cause a rainbow effect in the contrail, or cools
to water droplets, which are what clouds are made of.
But was it all imagination? Yes and no. Researchers found that
contrails formed more readily near weather fronts. Such fronts can
cause sudden changes in air pressure, humidity, and dust, all of which
affect health and precipitate joint pains. Cold, damp weather is espe-
cially detrimental to health. For instance, most colds and flu attacks
occur at temperatures between 20 and 55 degrees Fahrenheit. They are
less frequent at temperatures above that and almost unheard of below
that range. That is why, before the coming of the white man, Eskimos
never had colds. So it was neither the contrails nor psychosomatic ef-
fects that caused the symptoms. The passing weather fronts created the
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 57

contrails and were responsible for the symptoms. Still, I am certain

there will be some who will never be convinced.
What of the dark contrails? I recall one day when there were a
great many contrails over Cleveland. Most were a muddy color and
they formed a network grid running north-south and east-west. The
radio mentioned it and some of the talk show hosts speculated that they
might be chemtrails. However, it was unusually hazy that summer day.
It occurred to me that dust in the air absorbed the white light from the
contrails and tinted it a sandy color. This also explains why many of
the chemtrails are associated with desert areas, areas where it makes no
sense to poison people if this were a population control measure. Since
then, I have also observed and photographed shadows of contrails fal-
ling on thin lower-level clouds. The shadows also look grayish and
dirty.
The conclusion is that the chemtrail scare is a myth, most likely
started by environmentalists to frighten people away from the airline
industry. That would explain why, after 911 when the airline industry
was depressed by the restrictions of the Federal government, chemtrails
disappeared from the scare radar.

Contrail shadows falling on low-level haze.

How to Lie with Statistics

“How to Lie with Statistics” was the title of a leading statistics

text in the 1970s. The practice is rampant in politics and pseudo-
sciences such as evolution and environmentalism. Consider this exam-
ple.
58 Panorama

Not too long ago the press trumpeted scientists’ announcement the
completion of the chimpanzee genome, the chimp’s genetic formula.
The completion was heralded as a “really big deal.” After all, it in-
volved decoding some three billion building blocks of chimp DNA.
While it was the chimp’s genome that was deciphered, it was the
human genome that was the subject of the study. This is so, of course,
because the chimp is considered by evolutionists to be man’s “closest
living relative.” Evolutionists hope to find those genetic “changes”
responsible for the emergence of modern man. It is claimed that man
and chimp have 98% of their DNA in common. Thus evolutionists
herald this as proof positive for evolution. They claim this can only be
an indication of evolution and common ancestry.
A difference of two percent does not sound like a lot, it is true, but
two percent of three billion is sixty million. In other words, there are
sixty million differences, sixty million steps that had to have changed
to produce man. That is a great many changes. Even if it took five
million years for man and chimp to evolve from their common ances-
tor, it averages to twelve genetic changes per year; twelve changes that
would have to be common to the entire population of the evolving race.
The two percent claim is, however, a deflated figure. All life on
earth, from bacteria to human, has 75% of its DNA in common. That
75% amounts to the foundation of life. So we are not talking about a
potential difference in three billion building blocks but one quarter of
that or 750,000,000 building blocks. If 60,000,000 of those have
changed, then the fraction that chimp and man have in common is not
98% but only 92%. What evolutionists are doing to boost their statis-
tics is equivalent to claiming the differences in people’s height from
head to toe should be determined by measuring from the chin to the top
of the head.

History Confounds Evolutionary Ages for Supernovae

Increasingly in the last two decades, evolutionists have been vy-

ing for the maximum ages of stars, planets, cosmos, and events. At the
same time, evolutionary theologians have been vying to make the Bible
as young as conceivably possible in order to deprive it of prophecies
fulfilled. On the other hand, evolutionary historians are trying to push
historical events back in time as far as possible. These contrary striv-
ings are predestinated to lead to contradictions.
Supernovae, exploding massive stars, shine as brightly or brighter
than all the stars in a galaxy combined when they explode. If one of
these stars were to explode within 100 light years of earth, it is believed
that virtually all life on earth would be exterminated by the radiation
Biblical Astronomer, number 120 59

produced in the explosion. Fortunately, the Lord created the earth so

that there are no potential supernovae near enough to threaten earth.
However, given their brightness, it is clear that supernovae in the Milky
Way can be seen from earth.
___________________________
Left: Supernova remnant in the Large
Magellanic Cloud. (Courtesy NASA)

The most accurate records of

novae and supernovae are the
“guest star” records of the Chi-
nese. Although the light of the
explosion fades, supernovae do
leave traces of themselves in the
form of debris clouds such as that
of LMC N49 above. Tradition
has it that the time of the explo-
sion can be inferred from the ex-
pansion rate of the debris cloud.
The expansion rate can sometimes be measured against surrounding
stars or from the Doppler shift of the debris in front and behind the
cloud. If the supernova was observed then we can check on that tradi-
tion since we know the actual date of the explosion.
A supernova remnant, RCW 86 in the constellation of Centaurus,
was reported to have exploded 10,000 years ago. Last year (2006) as-
tronomers discovered that the supernova was observed by the Chinese
in A.D. 185, only 1,822 years ago. The age had been overestimated by
a factor of five.
The Chandra X-ray satellite data were consulted and the scientists
now believe that the material ejected 1822 years ago slammed into in-
terstellar gas and dust, was slowed, giving an inflated age. RCW 86
was not the only supernova remnant moved forward in time. In 2001
we reported a similar result for the Veil Nebula in Cygnus.2 Its age was
reduced from tens of thousands of years to about 5,000. Likewise, light
echoes from two supposedly ancient SNRs in the Large Magellanic
Cloud gave ages for the two supernovae of about 400 and 600 years.
Long-time readers of the B.A. may recall a discussion about the expan-
sion of the ring-like light echoes of SN 1987 in the Large Magellanic
Cloud.3 The light echoes give a much more reliable distance and ex-
pansion age. When light passes through dust it dims, but its speed re-

2
Panorama, 2001. “Age of the Veil Nebula,” B.A., 11(96):54.
3
Panorama, 1994. “More Evidence for a Large Universe,” B.A., 4(70):18.
60 Panorama

mains the same so it is not subject to the problems of trying to measure

the expansion rate of the gas.
The slowing effect of interstellar dust and gas on expanding gas
clouds has been known for decades. We have also known that the su-
pernova’s shock front heats up the interstellar gas to glowing as the two
collide. So there was no reason to assume that the expansion rate
would give anything but an absolute maximum age, but because the
ages so determined made the supernovae older than allowed by the
Bible, the dates were uncritically accepted.
One of the unmentioned consequences of the discovery that su-
pernovae ages have to undergo major revisions is that the frequency of
supernovae in the Galaxy will have to increase. Currently it is assumed
that a supernova happens about once a century. Revising the ages
downward will require them to occur more frequently. This promises
to bring the supernova occurrence rate of the Milky Way in line with
that observed with other galaxies.
Theoretical models of novae and supernovae predict that the core
of the exploding star may compress into a neutron star. If the neutron
star is oriented properly to the earth we observe it as a pulsar. In 2001
the Chandra X-ray telescope discovered a pulsar that was pronounced
to be 24,000 years old. Later astronomers noted that it, too, was the
product of a supernova observed by the Chinese in A.D. 386. The
24,000 dropped to 1621 years old. Back in 1980, your editor presented
a similar age mismatch for the Vela pulsar which is apparently men-
tioned on a Sumerian tablet reputed to be 6,000 years old. In a foot-
note, using the slow-down rates for the Crab and PSR 1913+16b pul-
sars, the tablet’s age was reduced to as recent as 3200 years ago.4
All this means that scientists’ insistence that all explanations must
be evolutionary in nature or must mention evolution is now getting in
the way of doing science. We have documented numerous other occur-
rences over the years, but the problem is getting worse with politicians
now endorsing junk science.

4
Bouw, G. D., 1980. “The Star of Bethlehem,” Creation Research Society Quarterly,
17(3):174, footnote 12.
 CREDO
The Biblical Astronomer was founded in 1971 as the Tychonian
Society. It is based on the premise that the only absolutely trustworthy
information about the origin and purpose of all that exists and happens
is given by God, our Creator and Redeemer, in his infallible, preserved
word, the Holy Bible commonly called the King James Bible. All sci-
entific endeavor which does not accept this revelation from on high
without any reservations, literary, philosophical or whatever, we reject
as already condemned in its unfounded first assumptions.
We believe that the creation was completed in six twenty-four
hour days and that the world is not older than about six thousand years.
We maintain that the Bible teaches us of an earth that neither rotates
daily nor revolves yearly about the sun; that it is at rest with respect to
the throne of him who called it into existence; and that hence it is abso-
lutely at rest in the universe.
We affirm that no man is righteous and so all are in need of salva-
tion, which is the free gift of God, given by the grace of God, and not to
be obtained through any merit or works of our own. We affirm that
salvation is available only through faith in the shed blood and finished
work of our risen LORD and saviour, Jesus Christ.
Lastly, the reason why we deem a return to a geocentric astron-
omy a first apologetic necessity is that its rejection at the beginning of
our Modern Age constitutes one very important, if not the most impor-
tant, cause of the historical development of Bible criticism, now result-
ing in an increasingly anti-Christian world in which atheistic existen-
tialism preaches a life that is really meaningless.

If you agree with the above, please consider becoming a mem-

ber. Membership dues are $20 per year. Members receive a 15%
discount on all items offered for sale by the Biblical Astronomer.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according

to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
– Isaiah 8:20
 TITLES AVAILABLE FROM THE B.A.
Orders can be honored only if accompanied by payment in United
States currency either by cheque drawn on a U.S. bank or cash. All
orders add 15% postage. Orders outside North America please add an
additional $5 per item Videotape are NTSC VHS.

BOOKS DVDs AND TAPES

The Bible and Geocentricity, by Prof. James N. Hanson. A collection
of articles, most of which made up the “Bible and Geocentricity” col-
umn in the early 1990s. Prof. Hanson has added numerous illustra-
tions. (145 pages, 5.5x8.5 format.) $8

The Book of Bible Problems. The most difficult “contradictions” in

the Bible are answered without compromise. “A classic,” writes Gail
Riplinger. 266 pages, indexed. $12

The Geocentric Papers, A collection of papers, most of which ap-

peared in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society. A technical supple-
ment to Geocentricity, including articles on geocentricity, creationism,
and the Bible itself. (120 pages, 8.5x11 gluebound.) $15

New-Age Bible Versions, by Gail Riplinger. The critics love to attack

the author, but they never, ever address the real issue, viz. the occult
influence in the modern versions. A real eye-opener. 600+ pages. $15

Geocentricity Videotape. Martin Selbrede gives a first rate presenta-

tion of geocentricity. Good quality tape. $20

Geocentricity: the Scriptural Cosmology narrated by Dr. Bouw ex-

plains the seasons, retrograde motion and other phenomena using the
Norwalt Tychonic Orrery. $15
The Earth: Our Home by Philip Stott. The wise men, philosophers,
and scientists of the world have repeatedly changed their minds about
such things as space and our position in it. This book provides and
historical look at the topic of geocentricity and offers evidence for it.
32 pp. $4.50

For a complete list of items available, visit

http://www.geocentricity.com

(Continued on inside front cover.)