I was unaware until quite recently that there were any astronomers who maintained a belief in the earth as the unmoving center of the universe, but there is at least one, Dr. Gerardus Dingeman Bouw, who received his doctorate in astronomy from Case-Western Reserve University in 1973 and who maintains (or used to maintain) a website devoted to this premise:
He has written a book in support of his views, which come straight from the Bible. As he puts it:
It is the testimony of God as found in the Bible which constitutes the foundation of modern geocentricity. May it ever be so.
Case-Western Reserve is a respectable university and renowned for the Michelson-Morley experiment which took place there in 1887 and resulted in abandonment of the æther theory. They may have slipped in giving a degree to Bouw or it may be that his geocentric notions were formulated after he finished the Ph.D. He taught for many years at Baldwin-Wallace, a small liberal arts college affiliated with the Methodist church.
Dr, Bouw publishes (or did publish) a quarterly newsletter called The Biblical Astronomer which is available in PDF format on the website. The last issue listed there is from Summer/Fall 2009 so it may be defunct now.
It seems that there is no discredited idea in science which is not maintained by a few, including some with degree credentials. The human intellect is apparently unlimited in its flexibility of belief.
This is dreadful news; to think a respected university would credential a person with such a belief. I wasn't given a PhD from Gonzaga because "I was biased" and I suppose it was a good thing because I have become so militant in opposition to religion in general and catholicism in particular that I would bring shame on them.
I wonder if any of the people of Ohio recognized what he was teaching and if they agreed with him? For those who didn't, I wonder if they spoke out publicly to refute his beliefs? I would think parents would want their children to have a better education than they got there or from the The Assoc. for Biblical Astronomy a Ministry of the Mantua Country Baptist Church, Aurora, OH?
This is dreadful news; to think a respected university would credential a person with such a belief.
I can't quite agree with that. If he did respectable work on his PH.D. thesis at the time, then his beliefs are irrelevant. The degree should be awarded solely on the quality of the work and nothing else. Whether he brought his nonstandard views into the classroom is not clear and that would be a different issue entirely.
Jonathan Wells has a doctorate in biology from Berkeley, though he was chosen by Rev. Moon to go to grad school to "do battle with the Darwinists." Wonder what kind of work he did.
Pardon my french, but OH, FUCK! Case was bad enough for me as it was (Class of 1973), but to see some dipshit like this trying to unhinge something so fundamental as heliocentricity? As much as I HATE (yes, absolutely, utterly HATE!) my alma mater, Bouw is clearly full of Bouw-shit!
As for me ... I took what little I learned with my BSEE and turned it into 30 years of service. What's HIS excuse?
The papers he cites don't seem to directly support his position... and obviously the bible angle is an example of terrible 'science'. But his conclusion is not as strange as the hollow earth folks - however they reached their conclusion because of some strange results from various parallel pendulum experiments, not the bible.
There are lots of academics who "go potty" when they get older. There are some math crackpots who used to be real mathematicians.
I don't believe this is an effect of age, that is to say, of deterioration of mental processes. It seems he started working on these ideas of revisionist astronomy when he became involved with religion and felt it necessary to prove the Bible correct.
The academics who "go potty" aren't necessarily suffering from an organic problem either.
While Bouw discusses and finds fault with the standard interpretations of stellar aberation and parallax as well as the Michelson-Morley experiment, he does not, as far as I have been able to find so far, bring up the puzzle for which the Copernican theory was most famous for solving—the peculiar apparent motions of the other planets visible from earth. While stars are observed to move in the same direction, planets ('wanderers') appear to move back and forth. They literally make loops in their motions. It was this apparent motion that made the planets of interest to astrologers as bearing some kind of celestial messaging.
This is the major problem solved by the Copernican system. The motion as we observe it is only an apparent motion observed from a planet which is itself in motion. Copernicus with the additional help of Kepler and Newton tells us that all the planets move about the Sun in regular ellipses according to the inverse square law of gravity.
I would like to see Bouw's alternative explanation, but so far I have not found it in the quarterly journal and it may not be worth the effort to search it out any further.
And as if "Dr." Bouw's BS isn't bad enough, there is and has been for a while a considerable thrust, probably religious-based, wanting to assert that Galileo was wrong.
Admittedly, I haven't poked very deeply into this dreck, but then that's because I have very little patience with crap this ignorant. Still, have a look if you're up for it.
Something that caught my attention while watching Cosmos last night might explain the biblical justification for this hair brained idea. But, as with all biblical justifications using science, major points are either omitted or twisted.
At one point, Neil deGrasse Tyson stated that from the point of view of Earth, we are at the center of the universe. However, and here's salient point, you get the exact same perspective of geocentricity anywhere you go in the universe, due to the speed of light. Move a million light years in one direction from the earth, you can observe a million light years in that direction more than the earth can, but not a million light years in the other that can be perceived from earth. It's relative!
I see that Cosmos #4 is now available on the computer. I haven't watched it yet. I have seen demonstrations of the perspective of seeing oneself as the center of the universe, regardless of where one is. It is an ego shattering event. I AM NOT THE CENTER OF IT ALL! What an awful realization.
No wait! It is a full of awe moment, realizing that we are part of a much larger space dimension. It is all relative. Another term I learned was "standpoint specific". One's perspective is specific to one's standpoint. If one stands at the top of the stairs, one sees a perspective that is different than the one standing at the bottom sees.