Rishon Rishon

Geocentrism

I discover a lot of great blogs when they link to me. The Observant Astronomer is one such blog. Its author is, evidently, described by the blog's name. In this post he takes on the notion that, according to the Bible, the Sun revolves around the Earth:

We see the Sun rise and set, and so conclude that it is the Sun that is moving. But, is it reasonable to expect the Torah to say that "the Earth rotated eastward until the Sun was hidden by the body of the Earth" every time it wanted to refer to "sunset"? No one speaks in such a way, not even the modern, educated person, who knows that the Earth rotates daily on its axis. Indeed, chazal [hakhamim zikhram livrakha (חכמים זכרם לברכה) - wise men may their memory be blessed, i.e. the authors of the rabbinic tradition - DB] clearly state that the Torah speaks in the language of man. So why is it seen to be a contradiction that modern science says that it is the Earth that is rotating once daily, and not the heavens?

Whatever the centrism, the concept is that the object in the center is fixed, and the other object moves around it. If both are moving, then neither can be considered fixed. In any case, we must ask, "Fixed with respect to what?" Newtonian dynamics permitted the concept of absolute space and time, so that at least in theory there was a reference with which to fix things, even if the Sun wasn't nailed down to it. Under Einsteinian relativity, there is no absolute reference frame. All motion is relative, and the choice of reference frames, a convention. A reference frame that makes the required equations particularly simple, or their solution straight forward, may be preferred on those grounds, but such a reference frame is not otherwise more or less "correct" than any other. For solar system problems, the center of mass of the whole system is one such frame, but that makes the Earth's motion barycentric rather than heliocentric. All that is left is a dispute about an otherwise arbitrary choice of coordinate system.

The notion that the Tora speaks in "the language of Man" is central to understanding how it is interpreted according to the Jewish tradition. Another example of this principle at work is in describing the attributes of God, e.g. just, merciful, etc. Since God is unknowable, these words are only approximately descriptive - they are metaphors, no less than the obvious ones such as "the hand of God". It also explains why God seems to have emotions: jealousy, anger - clearly inapplicable, but we liken God to Man because Man, at least, we can attempt to know.