Earth at the Center of the Universe

[mord]

Rest assured JDL4ever, that greater scientists then yourself have discussed this issue with the Rebbe and have been satisfied with the answers. One of them is Professor Herman Branover (google him) , who is a Lubavitcher Chassid and scientist. Perhaps we could set up a meeting between you and him and he could explain this better than I.

Yes Herman Branover is an expert in something like water physics he is from Russia

[Lubab]

Also for the record. I stand by my statement that the Rebbe was one of the greatest physisits of his time regardless of what degree he had (though a friend of mine once mentioned he had a PHD in physics-but I have no proof).

I have no real proof for what I'm saying, especially because I'm in no position to judge who is and isn't a great physicists.

But I said it because we have a tradition in Lubavitch that the Rebbe has mentioned a few times that in order to be a Rebbe of Lubavitch you must be a master of ALL wisdoms. The Rebbe said this was true of his father-in-law and the Rebbe before him and since this Rebbe was the next Rebbe I assume it was true of him too. So I don't doubt he was the probably the greatest physics guy around, though I have no way of convincing someone of this who is not a Lubavitcher and who takes each word of his Rebbe so seriously.

Interesting anecdote: Someone once asked, "The Rebbes must be masters of all wisdoms, but the previous Rebbe didn't know how to drive?" And the Rebbe responded that driving was not a wisdom, it was just a skill i.e. you just need to train yourself in certain habits, but there's no real wisdom there that needs to be learned.

[Mifletzet]

From http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article.asp?print=true&aid=73253&iid=

The Wager

In the summer of 1975, an encounter took place between Rabbi F.R., a Lubavitcher chassid, and Mr. A.P., a "modernized" American Jew. Rabbi R. was seeking to influence Mr. P. toward a greater commitment to Torah observance, which the latter dismissed as "archaic" and dismally outdated. In the course of the conversation, Mr. P. said, "Are you telling me that every law and practice mentioned in the Torah, written thousands of years ago, must be accepted at face value today?" "Certainly,” replied Rabbi R. "The Torah is eternal, and is equally pertinent to every day and age." "The Torah states that the sun revolves around the earth," countered Mr. P. "Do you believe that as well?" "Yes, I do," replied Rabbi R. "Well, you might believe that," said Mr. P., "but no rational, self-respecting inhabitant of the 20th century does. I’m sure your rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson, doesn’t!" "I’m sure he does," said the rabbi. "I’m willing to wager anything that he does not," said Mr. P. "In fact, I’ll say this: If the Rebbe states that he believes that the sun revolves around the earth, I will become a Torah-observant Jew and convince everyone I know to do the same!" "Would you put that in writing?" challenged Rabbi R. "No problem," said Mr. P.

Soon after, Rabbi R. received the following letter:

Dear Rabbi R____

As per our conversation of today... I did say to you, and am submitting the same in writing by means of this letter, that if the Rebbe would make a public statement to the effect that... since the Talmud states that the sun revolves around the earth, it is therefore his firm belief that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth, that I will:

(a) personally observe the laws of taharat hamishpachah, tefillin and Shabbat; and

(b) influence my friends and colleagues to do the same.

It is, however, more than obvious to me that the Rebbe will not, in any way, make such a ridiculous statement, because

(a) he does not wish to be labeled as a fool,

(b) he himself is not as foolish as some of his ardent but hypnotized followers.

I predict, with no hesitation, that I will not hear any more about this matter from you or from the Rebbe...

I must tell you that I feel a deep personal hurt when people such as you make such asinine, ridiculous statements and then hide your abysmal ignorance behind the facade of "Torah." Don’t you realize you can still be believers and not live 500 years behind the times?

Mr. P. received not one but two separate letters in reply from the Rebbe, plus a third, cover letter, which read as follows:

Greetings and blessings!

Your letter, addressed to Rabbi F____ R____, reached me ... In view of its content, I naturally take this first opportunity of replying to it.

Not knowing whether you are more interested in the practical implication, or/and in the scientific aspect, I am writing two separate replies, enclosed herewith, which you can read in the order you prefer.

With esteem and blessing,

M. Schneerson

P.S. It is surely unnecessary to add-though I am adding it for the record-that I take for granted that you will keep your commitments with regard to the practical aspects of your letter.

One letter read:

... In reply to your question relating to the matter of the motion of the sun and the earth, whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth around the sun,

It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science.

In view of the above, I have no objection, of course, if you wish to make this view known to whomever you choose...

The other letter read:

... This is in reply to your inquiry on the question of the rotation of the sun and the earth in relation to each other, namely, whether the sun revolves around the earth, or the earth around the sun, and which view is to be accepted, etc.

I presume you have in mind the scientific view, i.e., what science has to say on this question, and I will address myself to this aspect.

It is well known that this was a controversial issue in ancient and medieval science. However, since about half a century ago, with the introduction of the theory of relativity, the latter has been universally accepted as the basis of modern science...

One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity. Thus, if there are phenomena that cannot be adequately explained on the basis of one of these views, such difficulties have their counterpart also if the opposite view is accepted.

Secondly, the scientific conclusion that both views have equal validity is the result not of any inadequacy of available scientific data, or of technological development (measuring instruments, etc.), in which case it could be expected that further scientific or technological advancement might clear up the matter eventually and decide in favor of one or the other view. On the contrary, the conclusion of contemporary science is that regardless of any future scientific advancement, the question as to which is our planetary center, the sun or the earth, must forever remain unresolved, since both views will always have the same scientific validity, as stated.

Thirdly, it follows that anyone declaring that a person who chooses to accept one of these systems in preference to the other is a fool, while one who accepts the other is a wise man-such a judgment shows that the person making it is ignorant of the conclusions of modern science, or that he has not advanced beyond the science of Ptolemy and Copernicus...

A further point might be added, though perhaps not pertinent to our discussion. It is that every person, including modern scientists, actually has three options to choose from in this matter: (a) that A revolves around B, (b) that B revolves around A, (c) that A and B revolve around each other. But such a choice cannot be dictated by science; it would be one’s personal choice and belief.

What has been said above is-to repeat-the deduction of the theory of relativity, as it is expounded in various scientific texts, and it can be checked with any scientist who is thoroughly familiar with the said theory. Of course, on the elementary and high-school level, science in general, and the so-called Solar System in particular, is taught from relatively simple textbooks, and the change in the scientific attitude towards the subject under discussion is not emphasized. But, as stated, it would be quite simple to verify it with any scientist who knows this particular field...

[jdl4ever]

I'm just going to conclude that I believe in scientific facts based on evidence, as well as any other rational person.  Even if the biggest physicist in the world proposed a theory that went directly against thousands of scientific facts and observation he would be laughed at unless he brought a massive amount of mathematical and scientific real world data to support his position.  Einstein's theory of relativity was not just his opinion like most people think.  He brought mathematical proof that his theory was correct and then it became a theory since in Mathematical terms it was correct but its predictions were not proven in the real world.  Several years later, the scientific community obtained real world proof that his predictions were correct and the theory was proven.  The same thing happened with the old argument if the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the sun.  The later argument has been proven and the case was settled. 

The Rebbe's belief that the sun goes around the earth is simply an opinion with no evidence presented on his part.  (If any of you laymen think he offered any proof or evidence at all in his one sentence then I suggest you go look at a real scientific published paper on http://www.pubmed.org and see for yourself what "evidence" means, you will be surprised.) Torah and the sciences are not based upon opinions, they are based upon evidence.  The Talmud is not satisfied with opinions of the Rabbis of the Mishna, they must find biblical support for their views and then the Talmud tries to decide if an opinion can be disproven and over another one based on Biblical logical rules of derivation.  For over 200 years, there has been more mathematical and scientific proof proposing that the earth goes around the sun then there is proof that the Rebbe even existed.  If he wanted people to take him seriously then he should not say proposterous things without factual proof. 

[Lubab]

I'm just going to conclude that I believe in scientific facts based on evidence, as well as any other rational person.  Even if the biggest physicist in the world proposed a theory that went directly against thousands of scientific facts and observation he would be laughed at unless he brought a massive amount of mathematical and scientific real world data to support his position.  Einstein's theory of relativity was not just his opinion like most people think.  He brought mathematical proof that his theory was correct and then it became a theory since in Mathematical terms it was correct but its predictions were not proven in the real world.  Several years later, the scientific community obtained real world proof that his predictions were correct and the theory was proven.  The same thing happened with the old argument if the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth goes around the sun.  The later argument has been proven and the case was settled. 

The Rebbe's belief that the sun goes around the earth is simply an opinion with no evidence presented on his part.  (If any of you laymen think he offered any proof or evidence at all in his one sentence then I suggest you go look at a real scientific published paper on http://www.pubmed.org and see for yourself what "evidence" means, you will be surprised.) Torah and the sciences are not based upon opinions, they are based upon evidence.  The Talmud is not satisfied with opinions of the Rabbis of the Mishna, they must find biblical support for their views and then the Talmud tries to decide if an opinion can be disproven and over another one based on Biblical logical rules of derivation.  For over 200 years, there has been more mathematical and scientific proof proposing that the earth goes around the sun then there is proof that the Rebbe even existed.  If he wanted people to take him seriously then he should not say proposterous things without factual proof. 

JDL4ever. You completely missed the point of the letter. That letter wasn't about presenting scientific data. The Rebbe was bringing across one simple point that must be understood before you can begin to understand that data.

He explained how relativity is at play when it comes to planetary motion. This is an important fact. It means that data can and must be able to be used to prove either way. The results of all the data will depends on which focul point you choose to adopt and this is an undeniable and readily observable fact (see the bucket analogy above). If you dont' understand this point, all the data in the world is worthless because you wont' know how to interpret it.  Depsite my tireless efforts to help, as I read your last post I see this point was completely lost on you. Until you accept the relativism at play in planetary motion, further talk is useless.

My advice?

Speak to a real expert in physics about this as the Rebbe recommends. Show him/her the letter and this thread. You have admitted already that you are not an expert in physics. I have offered to set you up a meeting with one and you have not gotten back to me on this.


P.S. Any "science" that makes a claim against the Torah is junk science. Chaim ben Pesach.  How true this is here.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Interesting thread, gentlemen.
I'd like to add my input.

Quoting from Rebbe Schneerson's letter to 'Mr. P':
"One of the conclusions of the theory of relativity is that when there are two systems, or planets, in motion relative to each other-such as the sun and the earth in our case-either view, namely the sun rotating around the earth, or the earth rotating around the sun, has equal validity."

Technically, this might be true. From our place on Earth and our perspective of events from our point in and time and space then the Sun as well as all heavenly bodies do in fact appear to revolve around the Earth.
But does this appearance based on relativity accurately represent the greater truth or reality ?
Notice that the esteemed Rebbe's quote specifically deals with-and is applicable to- a two object system.
But is the Solar System or the Universe a two object system ?
Of course not !

To accurately settle the argument of whether it is the Sun revolving around the Earth or vice versa (or both), one would have to observe these bodies from another standpoint. Because relativity mandates that observations made from a singular point of a two object system are subjectively true from that individual measuring point--it becomes necessary to observe the two bodies in question from separate/different vantage points in order to make a determination as to what the greater truth is.

The real question is: What would a being on another heavenly body- or any location not on the Earth or Sun- witness were he to observe the motion of the Earth and Sun relative to each other ?
I think he would see the Earth revolving around the Sun.
I'm not expert enough to be able to prove this, but i strongly suspect such proofs exist.    

[Lubab]

The real question is: What would a being on another heavenly body- or any location not on the Earth or Sun- witness were he to observe the motion of the Earth and Sun relative to each other ?
I think he would see the Earth revolving around the Sun.
I'm not expert enough to be able to prove this, but i strongly suspect such proofs exist.   

If he's in the physical world you'll still run into the same relativity problems. You'll never be able to prove that he's still and everything else is moving. That will always be just one of sevearal possibilities. There is an absolute truth here, but I believe that comes from the Torah, sceince cannot provide a definitive answer no matter how many scientists claim they can. The absolute truth of the Torah says the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem and particularly the "Even Hashesiaya" is the center of the universe.

[jdl4ever]

Relativity is merely an relative observation and has nothing to do with this argument other than to bury the truth.  It just says that from this standpoint it appears that the sun is moving.  So what?  Big deal.  We know that already.  But we don't care about what it looks like, we want to know if it is indeed moving around us or are we moving around it.  Mathematical and scientific data prove things like this even if they involve relativity.  Mathematical data on the motion of the planets observed through telescopes prove that there orbit is around the sun.  Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with this other than to confuse lay people who for some reason think that scientific and mathematical proof doesn't apply for relativity.  This is absurd.  Just because it appears that water is boiling when you bubble Co2 gas through it does not mean that a scientists can't take the temperature of the water and prove that it is not boiling.  Lubov is saying that the scientist can't prove the water is not boiling by taking it's temperature bec. it involves relativity.  That is completely wrong.  And if that doesn't satisfy you then observe the earth and the sun from an objective vantage point from appolo 11 or something which went in the middle of space.

[Lubab]

Relativity is merely an relative observation and has nothing to do with this argument other than to bury the truth.  It just says that from this standpoint it appears that the sun is moving.  So what?  Big deal.  We know that already.  But we don't care about what it looks like, we want to know if it is indeed moving around us or are we moving around it.  Mathematical and scientific data prove things like this even if they involve relativity.  Mathematical data on the motion of the planets observed through telescopes prove that there orbit is around the sun.  Relativity has absolutely nothing to do with this other than to confuse lay people who for some reason think that scientific and mathematical proof doesn't apply for relativity.  This is absurd.  Just because it appears that water is boiling when you bubble Co2 gas through it does not mean that a scientists can't take the temperature of the water and prove that it is not boiling.  Lubov is saying that the scientist can't prove the water is not boiling by taking it's temperature bec. it involves relativity.  That is completely wrong.  And if that doesn't satisfy you then observe the earth and the sun from an objective vantage point from appolo 11 or something which went in the middle of space.

1. First of all what makes you think appollo 11 in the "middle" of space is an objective spot from which to measure. You will still be able to do the measurements and find all the scientific data using different focul points and you will have differnet conclusions.

2. Sceintific data is very important and no one here is abandoning it. However,  the theory of relativity has imposed certain limitations on what it can be used to prove definitively. Sceintific data CANNOT resolve this issue one way or the other under the priciples of relativity. So if you'd like to join us in the 21st century you can't say one way or the other based on science. Sceintists are bound by logic just as everyone else is and this would not be the first time the scientific community has imposed a particular dogma and been wrong about it.

3. Let's drop the issue of sun and earth because there is too much emotion involved in this one. Let's deal with a more basic situation so this becomes clear.

I ask you: Assuming we all agree that the theory of relativity is correct. When you throw a tennis ball, is it a provable fact that the ball is in motion and you are still, or is it also possible that the ball is the center of the universe and everything is moving around it, making it apppear as if it's motion but it's really still all the while.

Must either of these possibilities be true scientifically speaking or can both be true depending on which focul point you choose to adopt to make the appropriate measurements?

Is it possible to prove through observation and experimentation that one of these possiblities is correct and the other is not?

Don't talk about scientists and data. Use your brain and try to answer this question.

I'm awaiting eagerly your response to this question...

[Joe Schmo]

We know nothing of the Universe.

Is it finite or infinite, expanding or contracting?

Trying to understand the Universe is like trying to use human logic to explain G-d's reasons for doing what He does.

[Lubab]

We know nothing of the Universe.

Is it finite or infinite, expanding or contracting?

Trying to understand the Universe is like trying to use human logic to explain G-d's reasons for doing what He does.

True. Yet scientists make a good living convincing people they do understand it.

[ftf]

From relativity, I can say that when I am riding in a fast open top vehicle I am stationary and everything else is moving, it all depends how one defines the reference frame, once can say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves aroun the earth, either is valid.

[Lubab]

From relativity, I can say that when I am riding in a fast open top vehicle I am stationary and everything else is moving, it all depends how one defines the reference frame, once can say that the earth revolves around the sun or that the sun revolves aroun the earth, either is valid.

Thank you ftf. I'm glad this is making sense at least to someone. Now while both are sceintifically valid. The Torah which deals in abolute truths comes and says that the earth and specifically the temple mount in Jerusalem is the stationary center and everything revolves around it.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Does anyone here actually think the Sun orbits around Mercury ?
Or Venus ?
Or Mars ?
Or is the quantifiable, observable reality that all the planets in the solar system orbit around the Sun ?
We can observe and measure the movements of the planets as they journey around the Sun.
We know with precision exactly how long it takes for each planet to complete an orbit and can quantify how long a year is on each planet.

I'm absolutely convinced the Earth orbits the Sun.

I'm also convinced the Torah is the divine word of Hashem.

Does anyone know what Talmudic passage(s) specify that the Sun orbits the Earth ?

As we all know, the Talmud is an expansion of Biblical text and the commentators often have different opinions and frequently contradict each other.

As great as our Talmudic sages were, we must remember they were human, and the Talmud in and of itself is not divine.

So if anyone can provide the Talmudic text stating the Sun orbits the Earth and what Biblical text this supposition is based on it would be much appreciated.

This is a real good thread because although there is alot of disagreement, there has been no rancor or insults tossed around. Just a bunch of good intelligent folks trying to settle a difference of opinion and learn from each other. JTF forum at it's best.

[jdl4ever]

Actually the Talmud never says the sun goes around the earth, in fact it says the opposite, that the earth goes around the sun since it states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks after arguing that the stars are stationary and we move which means that they don't go around us like the geocentricists suggest..

[Mifletzet]

Actually the Talmud never says the sun goes around the earth, in fact it says the opposite, that the earth goes around the sun since it states that the Rabbis admitted to the Greeks after arguing that the stars are stationary and we move which means that they don't go around us like the geocentricists suggest..

If you are refering to the Talmud Pesachim 94, you are completely in error.

Chazal, like everyone else (apart from Aristarchus and a few Greek heretical philosophers), were exclusively Geocentric until the 17th century.

If there is some heretofore unknown Talmud supporting Heliocentrism, please give us the source and quote us it!

[Lubab]

Does anyone know what Talmudic passage(s) specify that the Sun orbits the Earth ?

As great as our Talmudic sages were, we must remember they were human, and the Talmud in and of itself is not divine.

So if anyone can provide the Talmudic text stating the Sun orbits the Earth and what Biblical text this supposition is based on it would be much appreciated.

See Maimonedes in his Mishne Torah Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 3:4 where he first explains the various orbits of the planets and stars and then says "and they all orbit around earth in circular fashion while earth is suspended in the middle".

For those who don't know, Maimonedes in this book gives the rulings from the Talmud and if there were any disagreements he decided them. He was also a great astronemer and medical doctor. His mind was so great he was compared to Moses-so his tombstone states "From Moses (the original) to Moses (Moses son of Maimon=Maimondes) there arose none like Moses".


Note: though Chaim may have another tradition. In Lubavitch we hold that all Torah literature up to and included the Shach and Taz (around 1600s) ARE divinely inspired. How there could be disputes in Divine writings is a topic for another time.

[Lubab]

The Talmud on this issue is actually in Maseches Yuma it says that the Scholars of the Jews debated with the scholars of the gentiles and the scholars of the gentiles won the debate. The Rabbis however, did NOT give in to their arguments in spite of this beause they said the Torah says otherwise. They quoted a particular verse, which I will try to find for you next week G-d willing.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Thank you, Lubab.

"See Maimonedes in his Mishne Torah Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah 3:4 where he first explains the various orbits of the planets and stars and then says "and they all orbit around earth in circular fashion while earth is suspended in the middle"."

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with Maimonides on this particular issue. I don't believe the Earth is suspended in the middle or that the other planets in the solar system are orbiting around the Earth.

I have only the slightest and most superficial knowledge of the Talmud and Bible. I have heard that Nachmonides gives an account of the creation of the Universe, how it expanded from a particle about the size of a mustard grain, from a substance almost without substance, how time took hold and other mind boggling concepts. He didn't take credit for these revelations, but credited them to his Rabbis who learned them from previous Rabbis etc. etc.

I guess my real question is where did this knowledge originally come from ?
Can such deductions and knowledge have been ascertained merely from an expansion of Biblical text ? Did the knowledge come from oral teachings passed down from generation to generation over thousands of years ? If so, when and where did the oral transmission of such amazing knowledge originate ? The whole thing is very mysterious and puzzling to me.

One thing is certain, the vastness and mysteries of the Universe are beyond human comprehension.

[jdl4ever]

Rabbinic opinions on science were never transmitted in the oral law and have no authority unless it says so directly in the Bible and there is no other possible meaning since the Rabbis were not experts in Science, they were experts in Torah and Scientific discovery improves as time passes on so old concepts are disproven and replaced every generation.  Maimonities tried to explain the Torah using the Science of his time, as we all should, and he was very advanced for his time period, but the stuff he writes about medicine and some stuff he writes about planetary motion is outdated.  Also, Lubav is twisting the Talmudic passage that says the Earth goes around the Sun to mean something it did not intend to mean.  In the Talmud, it is fairly straight forward that the Rabbis accepted the Greek's point of view, otherwise the Talmud would not have said that the secular scientists won.  Don't you think the Talmud would have said that the Rabbis won the argument if they were correct?   Obviously, the scientists proved their theory to the Rabbis. 

Secondly, you don't understand relativity Lubav.  Anywhere outside Earth's atmosphere or the Sun's atmosphere is an objective standpoint according to relativity since you are no longer on those two objects.  Spacecrafts that we went on missions to the moon were not orbiting us when they went on their mission, they were traveling through space.  Also, as I said before, relativity has nothing to do with anything except confusing Lubav.  Mathematical and scientific proof proved that we go around the sun since if you calculate the orbital paths of the planets, they can only be going around the Sun.  Forget about relativity.  It doesn't matter how things look to cave men, objective proof of the reality is what matters.  If we had no scientific proof then relativity would say that either we go around the sun or it goes around us since by observation only your point of reference matters, but once the proof came in, we eliminated the other possibility.   

Again, the Earth goes around the Sun.  It has been proven hundreds of years ago, and continues to be proven to this day.  They sent space probes to Pluto and Mars using calculations from the modern scientific model of the universe which says we go around the Sun.  If it was the other way around, don't you think  the probes would not have gotten there?  It amazes me how stupid people can be.  I can't believe there are still people who think the Earth is the center of the universe, after so much proof.  It only makes me see more things wrong with Chassidism. 

[Muck DeFuslims]

So where did Nachmonides' knowledge come from ? I find it difficult to believe it could be derived by merely expanding Biblical text or reading between the lines. Nachmonides himself attributed the knowledge to his predecessors who passed it on to him. Surely there is nothing in Genesis which imparts such detailed information regarding the details and mechanics of creation to us.

Think about it, we have Nachmonides giving an account of creation which closely matches modern science's account regarding the Big Bang, only this was done centuries ago, at a time when every scientist and philosopher agreed the universe didn't have a beginning, that the universe wasn't finite, but eternal with no beginning or end.

Where did this amazing knowledge and insight come from ?

[Mifletzet]

The debate is in Pesachim, not Yoma.

It has nothing to do with Geocentrism, as both the Greeks and Chazal were Geocentric.

It has to do with whether the galgalim (invisible heavenly-etheric spheres) move and the stars are stationary, transporting them around the Earth. Or it's the stars themselves that move around the Earth, and that it's the galgalim that are stationary.

By definition of Relativity, there can be no proof of the Earth going round the Sun, or vice versa ie both are equally scientifically acceptable ways of looking at the universe - not just mathematically, abstractly, philosphically or religiously - but in hard physics.

Otherwise Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett would never dare to say that "We cannot feel our motion through space - nor has any experiment actually proven that the Earth is in motion".

If you know of such an experiment, then you have disproved Relativity, and you get the Nobel Prize and $$$$!

Of course, then you have your work cut out explaining the zero-velocity result of the Michelson Morley experiment. If there's an ether, then why is the Earth stationary wrt it: obviously because the Earth really is at the center of the universe!

ie whether Relativity is right or wrong, the Geocentric paradigm cannot be disproved!

Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. All motion is attributed to the Sun and stars: Hashem means what He writes and writes what He means.

[Lubab]

The debate is in Pesachim, not Yoma.

It has nothing to do with Geocentrism, as both the Greeks and Chazal were Geocentric.

It has to do with whether the galgalim (invisible heavenly-etheric spheres) move and the stars are stationary, transporting them around the Earth. Or it's the stars themselves that move around the Earth, and that it's the galgalim that are stationary.

By definition of Relativity, there can be no proof of the Earth going round the Sun, or vice versa ie both are equally scientifically acceptable ways of looking at the universe - not just mathematically, abstractly, philosphically or religiously - but in hard physics.

Otherwise Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett would never dare to say that "We cannot feel our motion through space - nor has any experiment actually proven that the Earth is in motion".

If you know of such an experiment, then you have disproved Relativity, and you get the Nobel Prize and $$$$!

Of course, then you have your work cut out explaining the zero-velocity result of the Michelson Morley experiment. If there's an ether, then why is the Earth stationary wrt it: obviously because the Earth really is at the center of the universe!

ie whether Relativity is right or wrong, the Geocentric paradigm cannot be disproved!

Nowhere in the Tenach is any diurnal or annual motion attributed to the Earth. All motion is attributed to the Sun and stars: Hashem means what He writes and writes what He means.

Forget it. JDL4Ever cannot even answer my simple question about the tennis ball- Let alone disprove relativity. He either does not understand or refuses to accept the relativity at play between all objects that appear to be in motion. He still thinks you can go in a spaceship and find an "objective" spot. But ask him to prove to you that the spaceship is not also in motion and you'll be met with dead silence.

I do believe the debate is in Yuma it might be in both, I'll get you sources next week G-d willing. 

I don't beleive any sceintist would have the audacity to say that this can only work out one way mathematicallyas JDL4ever says.  Any scientist who does say that is a liar.

[Lubab]

Another problem JDL4ever has is a big misconception about Torah scholars. Torah is the blueprint with which G-d created the world. This means that if one is truly a great Torah scholar he will have insight into many many things before sceince discovers them. The Talmud and Zohar have been ahead of the curve when it comes to sceince. One my favorite instances of this is the role of CSF (cerebro-spinal fluid) in thought process and generally giving life to a human being. The Zohar has over 40 pagees explaining this. Sceintist now are only begninning to reaserch the possiblity for using this liquid to prolong life. They always just thought it was a brain-cushioner and nothing more. The Zohar written centuries ago knew in detail what the scientists still don't even know. There are many many other examples of this.

G-d is the creator of the universe-and who understand the world better than the Creator? His wisdom is in the Torah. The words of our Sages of Blessed memory are part of that Torah.

[Lubab]

P.S. In Torah we don't beleive in cavemen. Adam was the first man and he also had the most understanding of G-d and the world. Moses was smarter than those leaders after him. The Rabbis closer to the giving of the Torah were smarter than the later ones etc. Throughout the generations in some ways we've gotten smarter. But in many ways we've gotten dumber too.