Does the Earth Move?

UTEOTW
I read this in the Bad Theology in the Hymnal thread and it has bothered me since then.
Here...

First I would like to ask for some URLs to papers by secular scientists that prove this is possible. Second, I would like to have some help finding some verses in th Bible that clearly speak of the Earth having NO motion. I have found a few along the lines of the foundation of the Earth and Psalm 93:1 comes close, but in context seems to suggest something more like a foundation that is eternal (well at least long lasting) and cannot be shaken or destroyed except at God's will.

I will concede that from a purely geometrical perspective that sure, the Earth could be sitting still and everything moving about in such a way that it looks the same to an observer as the normal explanation. What I want to understand is the physics of how this could be possible. Speed is a problem. Even within the solar system, Pluto would have to be moving at greater than the speed of light to make it all the way around in a day. The nearest star outside the solar system would have to move at something like 10,000 times the speed of light. Even if you doubt the distances to stars, we know the distances to the planets with great precision and accuracy. We would not be able to sail spacecraft all over if we did not. Gravity is also a problem. You might could suppose that there was enough mass in our region of the universe to have the rest of the universe in orbit with us at the center. But not at those speeds. But there is no way to find a way for the Earth to have enough mass to hold the Sun and the planets in orbit about us even at normal speeds.

I suppose you could say that space-time itself is moving around the Earth such that the motions of the bodies in it could be described classically, but then you have to suppose that Earth is NOT a part of space-time. So how could you see the universe if you are not a part of it?

How widespread is this belief? I noticed that no one in the other thread even questioned the assertion.

CHRIS TEMPLE

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
How widespread is this belief? I noticed that no one in the other thread even questioned the assertion.

Not very. The earth is certainly not central in the universe. But God is.

Even more amazing is His grace which he chose to pour out on our celestial ball.


UTEOTW

That I am glad to hear.

My reason for asking is this. People can believe what they want. But if an unbeliever were to hear a Christian stating that the Earth does not move or spin and is the center of the universe then they would likely shut their ears to anything else that a Christian would have to say. It would be very hard to reach somebody whose impression of Christianity was based on such a fringe belief.


BARTHOLOMEW

Hello friends,
It is absolutely true that the earth is immobile, in the dynamic centre of the universe. This is supported my many verses of scripture, but just have a look at how the Bible talks about the sun. Does it describe the earth as turning, or the sun rising? Which? Who are we to say, "well, God just wrote that because it looked like it was moving, even though it was really the earth.." rubbish. All through the bible, the sun is said to move. Look at Joshua's long day: the sun STOOD STILL. The earth did NOT stop turning. There are loads of scriptures, but I don't have time now to talk about them in depth at the moment. God is right. Let Copernicus be a liar.

As for science, the thing is that our laws of science are true relative ot the universe itslef. Newton's laws assumed that the earth was moving through absolute space. But how did he know that the universe itself wasn't actually moving? There's no way of telling - unless you're outside space, and taking a look (and God told us what was going on). As for the speed of light, well special relativity applies only in straight lines, not rotations; and secondly, the rotational speed of light (in the geocentric model) is much faster the further out you go - so there's no violation anyway.

I hope that helps - thanks for keeping an open mind. Take a look at www.geocentricity.com for more info.

Your friend and brother,
Bartholomew

GRASSHOPPER

Don't be afraid of science:
http://www.reasons.org/


PAUL OF EUGENE

Actually, the earth rotates on its axis, the earth also orbits around the Sun, the Sun has a vast orbit around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxy is moving along with the rest of the local cluster of galaxies towards a spot that is termed the great attractor, which nobody has any idea what it is, but it's somewhere in the direction of the constellation Sagitarious.


ISDAMan

The rotation of the Earth has been measured for centuries from within the Earth. The effect of the force of the rotating Earth with a rotating core is clear. The stuff we call science was invented by God. No true scientist could ever, after looking at the facts, claim that the Earth is the center of the universe. The Bible is true on science. It never alludes to the Earth being the center of the universe. In fact, I think, God would likely place us out of the center to counteract our pride.



BARTHOLOMEW

I'm not. That's why I'm sudying for a degree in physics.

Actually, Paul, with all due respect: You're wrong. That story is just what the introductory astronomy texts say, and is only true if you assume that the rest of the universe is stationary. But that's what we're arguing about!!! We'd observe exactly the same things if the universe actually rotated about the earth. This fact has been known for a century, and I'm affraid the texts you are reading are very misleading. How can we know if the universe, or the earth, is rotating? There's only one way - go outside it and look. God's outside it, God's looking, so why not believe him?

With all due respect: you're wrong. What has been measured is the rotation of the earth RELATIVE TO the universe. We know that ASSUMING the universe is startionary, the earth rotates every 24 hours. But then, assuming the earth is stationary, the UNIVERSE rotates every 24 hours! How do we know which it is? Well, the atheist says there's nothing special about the earth or man, so we had better assume that the earth is just like anywhere else. However, the Bible says the universe was created AFTER the earth, and (at least in part) for MAN'S benefit. God's Son died here.
It is here that the events that the angels desire to look into happen. It is here that Jesus will reign for 1,000 years. It is on a new EARTH that God will dwell with us in the New Jerusalem. And it is the earth that God says doesn't move (Psalm 104:5, 93:1, etc.), and about which he says the sun travels every day (Eccl 1:5, etc.). Either believe God, or man's (unproven and unprovable) guesses.

Sir, you are wrong:
Professor Sir Fred Hoyle:
We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance.

Also, here is a list of some papers proving that a geocentric universe works, and accounts for everything we see:

Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38, 1.

Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.

Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.

Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1921, Ibid. 22:29.

Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.

Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.

Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.

Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

These are not written by fundamentalist Christians, but respected scientists, who understand the physics of relative motion. Also, the director of the "Biblical Astronomer" (whose website I posted the link of above) has a PhD in Astrophysics - and he believes the earth is the dynamic centre of the universe. I suggest you think again about your statement: "No true scientist could ever, after looking at the facts, claim that the Earth is the center of the universe."

Yes it does. But further - there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that the earth spins or goes around the sun. Absolutley not!!! In fact, the complete lack of evidence of the earth's motion actually led to modern physics saying, "it doesn't matter - all motion is relative!" Every piece of evidence "proving" that the earth spins also "proves" that the universe spins.

I think the Bible's testimony is more important than what you think.
I know this idea seems wacky, but just take an open mind to the Bible and science.

But UTEOTW, salvation by grace through faith used to be a "fringe" belief. In fact, the very idea that the earth goes around the sun was an extreme "fringe" belief throughout the time that the Bible was written, on till the 17th century. Your argument that geocentricity discredits Christianity is exactly the same as the argument that creationism discredits Christianity, or that preaching against wordliness discredits Christianity, etc. etc. Actually, what discredits Christianity most is people who look at a verse of scripture and say, "wel, it doesn't really mean that - God just said that because it looked like that to scientific ignoramuses..." To many people it just makes total sense that if God really did create the earth as he said, and if he really is so interested in its affairs, then he should have put it in the centre of the universe - no stumbling blocks there. Let's just believe and teach the Bible.

Your friend and brother,
Bartholomew

[ June 09, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

HELEN

Yes, the earth moves, just as Paul of Eugene said! If it did not, NASA would not have been able to get on the moon, meet up with Hubble for fixing, or send space probes where they want to.

Bartholomew and other geocentrists who are referencing Bible are mistaking a view from the earth with astronomical geocentricity. We still speak of the sun rising and setting, but no one is arguing from this that the sun goes around the world! When Joshua said the sun stood still, what else was he going to say? As an aside here, George Dodwell, the late government astronomer for South Australia, did an enormous study near the end of his life on the earth’s axis tilt. His papers are in the process of being readied for publishing now. He was able to prove not only mathematically, but from ancient drawings, architecture and references as far back as possible that the earth did indeed change the tilt of its axis. This produced a wobble effect that not only ‘stopped’ the sun from going down at one point, but caused the shadow on the stairs in Hezekiah’s time to go backwards.

Also…

The "foundations" of the earth being immoveable (and not the earth itself, by the way) is a little different than what those who do not pay attention to the original word in a decent concordance will understand. In the quoted section I am including a brief study I did on this several years ago:

If, indeed, the earth were the center and the universe twirling around it, the galaxies a few billion light years away would not look like bright points – stars – in the sky, but would be smeared streaks across our night sky, if we could even see them at all, due to the speed at which they would have to move.

Lastly, it should also be noted that, depending on where you start, just about ANYTHING can be proved mathematically.

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Paul of Eugene here, replying to Bartholomew

Just a little pause here to note that the ADVANCED texts tell the same story . . . !

Well, you must be referring to Einstein's theory of relativity when you assert that "we'd observe exactly the same things . . . " And I have a bone to pick with your method of using that theory. It might be fair to adopt the viewpoint, from a relativity point of view, that the earth is actually stationary. Then it is necessary to consider that the stars, which would otherwise be rotating about us faster than the speed of light, dwell in a space that has contracted in the direction they are traveling, thereby curling space in a most interesting way. This reduction of the space focuses the accumulated gravitational field of the outer reaches of space in such a way as to cause a radially outward gravtitational pull that takes exactly the same form we would otherwise attribute to centrifigal force, and so forth and so forth. It is all perfectly consistent and perfectly horrid to figure out. I'M not going to do those calculations!

But where you have crossed the line and violated the principle of relativity is when you assert that in my version, when I mentioned the more traditional interpretation of earth's motion, that I am wrong. In relativity physics, one properly asserts that both views are correct, and may be adopted as needed for convenience sake.

Interruption for a completely inconsequincial side note: Your assertion that the earth is stationary is against Barry Setterfield's faster light speed physics. Well, I think his physics is wrong also, but I want to point out that Setterfield postulates a simultaneous spontaneous change occuring frequently in space in terms of photon strength, particle mass, and such things as that. Standard relativity disavows cosmic simultaneousness as a valid physical concept, but Setterfield holds this to take place in the simultaneous frame as established by the universal background radiation. And the earth is certainly moving in relation to this universal background radiation standard!

And now I'll let you in on a deep, deep secret. There is not really such a thing as space or time. All that is real are events and the relations between them. The entire universe remains "merely" a word spoken by God. The reality of how the events relate to each other is so strange and fantastic as to remain utterly beyond our mortal minds. We invent concepts such as space and time to help organize our thinking to make sense of the events in which we participate. I use them myself. I share our common limitations. There is a certain sense in which it is true to say the sun is about 93 million miles away, and it is wrong to say that the sun is ony a hundred miles away. The ability to depend on that makes it possible to send our space probes out into the solar system. It would become impossibly complex to calculate orbits if we adopt, for the sake of calculation, that moving state from which our earth is actually only a hundred miles from the sun.

 

RADIOCHEMIST

Bartholomew,

The Foucault pendulum has long been used to illustrate the rotation
of the earth. Since you do not accept that the earth rotates, I
wonder how you explain the movement of the Foucault pendulum? See
below for a description of this device.

"The Kansas State Capitol was once the home of the world's
"tallest pendulum." On November 15, 1945, Dr. George W. Davis
of Ottawa hung a 105-pound lead weight which was attached to
a 163-foot piece of number 14 wire. This was suspended to the
ground floor from the inner dome of the Kansas Capitol. At 9:00
a.m. each morning, L. D. Robinson , custodian, would start the
pendulum swinging back and forth in a 14-foot swath across the
floor. Later in the day, the pendulum would be swinging in a path
well off the original course. What did this mean?

In 1851, physicist Jean Foucault, came up with the idea to prove
a long-known belief that the earth rotates on its axis. Foucault
knew that a pendulum which is supported so as to be free to
swing in any plane will tend, because of its inertia, to keep
on swinging in the same direction. Therefore, if the earth were
stationary, an undisturbed pendulum would continue to swing in the
same direction until friction finally stopped it. But if the earth
rotates, a swinging pendulum would appear to change direction
according to the earth's rotation."
http://www.kshs.org/features/feat401e.htm

[ June 11, 2002, 08:48 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

SHANNON DOYLE

How can someone say the Earth is standing still?

What about inertial effects that are only found in rotating frames of reference?

It is usually true that motion is relative, but only motion in inertial reference frames.

If you rotate or accelerate you automatically know you are moving, within your own reference frame, and you do not have to look outside your system.

We have observed and can feel inertial effects on Earth, due to the Earth's rotation and accelaration, ie. Correolis effects for example - there are other effects as well.

 

EXCREATIONIST

Well according to Donald B. DeYoung's book, "Astronomy and the
Bible", the
earth's tilt probably hasn't changed:

In Joshua 10:13 it says that the sun stood in the middle of the sky
and
stopped going down for about a full day. It would have had to be a
pretty
ordered wobble since it doesn't mention anything about the sun
shaking from
north to south at all. The spinning of the earth around its own axis
would
just be caused by momentum I think. If you're on the surface of the
spinning
earth, I think the only way for it to appear that the earth has
stopped
spinning is for it to stop spinning. Or you could be at the axis. So
the
axis of rotation could have moved to where Joshua was. For the axis of
rotation to move I think there would need to be external forces that
"grabbed" the earth and shifted the axis of rotation.

In 2 Kings 20:9-11, the sun's movement reversed in the sky. Dr.
DeYoung says
that the "ten steps" probably means that the time on the sundial went
back
about 5 or 6 hours. In that case, the axis of rotation is still the
same,
but the rotation is in the opposite direction. This would also need an
external force to happen I think.

But I guess God could have done it since he is all-powerful.

The problem is that as far as I know, no other cultures have recorded
these
relatively recent amazing events. Perhaps those events never happened.
Surely the Egyptians would have noticed their sundials acting
strangely and
decide to draw some hieroglyphics about it...

 

MARK KLUGE

Bartholomew wrote:

Bartholomew is absolutely right here, folks: If it is possible to construct a physics consistent with observation and the earth’s moving, then it is also equally possible to construct an equally-consistent (both internally and with observation) physics in which the earth is stationary! It’s not hard to find references to prove it. I commend young Bartholomew’s diligence in examining physics literature titles and finding articles that do so. I wish young Bartholomew well in his study of physics.

But as he matures as a student I hope Bartholomew will take the time to learn the physics of those articles, to learn not only that it is possible to construct a consistent geocentric physics, but also why it is possible so to do. Bartholomew will learn that while a geocentric physics is a consistent physics, it is also a perverse, sterile, and worthless physics.

To understand this, one must first understand that the earth not only rotates on its axis: It also orbits the sun, its axis precesses and nutates (according to the laws of a spinning gyroscope), it and the moon orbit their common center of mass. These are observed motions. Additionally, the earth behaves in its orbit as if perturbed gravitationally by Jupiter. (I do not know if gravitational perturbations due to other planets have been observed.) There are other motions of the earth, that of our solar system through the galaxy, that of the galaxy in our local group of galaxies, although I shall not consider those cosmological motions here since I know of no terrestrial experiments by which those cosmological motions are actually observed.)

Now, in order to construct a consistent geocentric physics, one has to calculate all of those motions of the earth as functions of time. One then transforms to a different (noninertial, but geostationary) coordinate system by subtracting the earth’s time-dependent coordinates. In this coordinate system Newton’s laws are not valid Instead there are fictitious forces. One gets a perfectly consistent physics with those fictitious forces incorporated into the equations of motion, but the only to determine those fictitious forces is to “pretend” that the earth can move, responds to external forces, and calculate its motion according to Newton’s laws. (If one wishes to go into curved space-time, into a geostationary coordinate system, one still has the same problem.) From the point of view of geocentric physics those necessary fictitious forces are completely arbitrary fudge factors. Yes, they make the “theory” consistent with observation, but their presence makes no sense unless one constantly goes back to a physics “as if” the earth moved.

Of course such a physics is ridiculous! One could just as well construct a self-consistent physics in which the moon, Alpha Centauri, or even the tip of the long white hair growing out of the bottom of my left nostril, is stationary, employing fictitious forces based upon my nostril-hair’s motion on everything else in the universe.

Let’s hear it for left-nostril-hair-tip-centric universe!

 

W FORTENBERRY

Bartholomew is correct in stating that the earth is the center of the
universe. Not just theoretically correct. This premise is backed by
observation.

In 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected what we now know as
cosmic microwave background radiation (CBR). This radiation has
traveled to the Earth from across the entire visible galaxy. Yet, in
spite of those travels, our measurements of the CBR are nearly exact,
regardless of which direction we look. This indicates that the
universe which that CBR traveled through is basically the same in all
directions when viewed from the Earth.

There are three possible explanations for this discovery. The first
is that the universe is infinite. The second, that the universe
looks the same in every direction regardless of the position of the
observer within the universe. The third is that the Earth is at the
center of the universe.

The first is easily disproved by the expansion of the universe and is
seldom now considered to be scientific. The Second is a little more
subtle in its error. It explains the universe as existing within a
spherical plane, and thus, just as on the surface of the Earth, any
point and every point within that plane can be said to be the center.
This explanation may seem valid on first glance, but contains a
slight problem. Namely that nothing consisting of three dimension
can be described as planar.

We are left with the third explanation, that the earth is at the
center of the universe. Though this idea is contrary to common
beliefs, it is the only possibility which holds up to scientific
scrutiny.

The question which then is asked is, "even if the Earth is the center
of the universe does it still rotate on its axis?" My answer is,
"Yes."

It is my proposition that the earth rotates on its axis completing
one complete turn around its center in approximately 24 hours.
However, it is also my proposition that the solar system and the
universe revolve around the Earth at such a rate as to complete one
complete revolution in approximately 365 days. Furthermore, this
revolution of the universe is slightly offset from the axis of the
rotation of the Earth. Thus producing the seasonal changes in weather
and constellations.

Therefore I agree with Bartholomew that the Earth is at the center of
the universe but I disagree with him in regards to the Earths
rotation.

Forgive me for being so brief. I am preparing for a week of youth
camp in which I will be working. I will be unable to respond to any
replies until after the 21st, but will gladly after that date provide
as much proof for my conclusions as necessary.

Until then,
w_fortenberry
Eph. 4:29

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

Hello, Brother Fortenberry, thank you for contributing to this discussion and thank you for providing the opportunity to help clear up the conceptions of modern science regarding the state of the universe. May the Lord grand us the blessing of participating in the increase of knowledge prophesied by Daniel so long ago, and not be left out.

There is a little bit of a misconception here. The cosmic background radiation is perceived to be constant only after appropriate corrections are made for all the motions of the earth. It is possible to detect the motion of the earth around the sun, for example, as a doppler shifting in the background radiation. This is just taken for granted in all the news for the public, but it happens. Also, the background radiation doppler affects show that our entire galaxy along with its neighbors are all moving at about 600 kilometers per second towards the great attractor. Here's a link concerning that motion:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/gclusters/attractor.html

Sorry, the idea that the universe is infinite has not been disproved. Mathematically, that remains a possible explanation. Most scientists think its probably not true, but they also say they'd love to know for sure. You will not be able, however, to catch anybody in a mathematical contradiction for this view.

Ah, now here you've vastly misunderstood the literal picture the scientists are trying to convey, and merely been misled by the parables they use to try to explain the literal picture. Let me try to help make their viewpoint more clear. Consider a single circle. It has line for the outside edge. It has a single point for a center. The formula for the size of the line is pi times 2 times the radius.. The equation for a single circle is x^2 + y^2 = 1. This equation, drawn on a graph, gives a perfect circle.

Now consider a sphere. It has a surface for an outside edge. It has a single point for a center. The equation for a sphere is x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1. It has surface area equal to 4 times pi times the radius squared.

Now lets look at another equation: w^2 + x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1. There are FOUR variables here. What shape is represented geometrically by this equation? You can't imagine it, because it is four dimensional, but mathematically, it exists. It is often called a hypersphere. The "outside surface" of such a four dimensional object would be three dimensional It is equal to 2 * pi ^2 * radius^3. It is no use saying there is no fourth dimension, we are talking about the mathematics only, so far, and what the math would be like IF there were such a thing. That the math exists is undeniable.

The cosmologists propose that our universe is an expanding hypersphere and we live in the outside "space" that is the outside "edge" of the hypersphere and has, in fact, three dimensions. Hence your objection, based on the wording for "planar", is not relevant. Trying to make the situation understandable to laymen, cosmologists will say the space of our universe is possibly "like" the planar surface of a sphere. But they don't mean that is the literal truth! We can't picture the literal truth they are trying to convey!

There is no evidence for making earth the center of the universe. It is not even at the center of our galaxy! Our space probes, freed from the surface of the earth, have been able to look back at our planet and observe it circling the sun just like Mars, Venus, and Mercury, and all the rest of them.

Here's a link to a neat discussion of the universe as a hypersphere:

http://www.bright.net/~mrf/

 

W FORTENBERRY

Thank you Paul. I have taken the time to research the link you
provided regarding the hypersphere model of our universe, but I still
have several questions which I believe should be addressed.

First, I have provided observational evidence and have proposed a
theory which is consistent with that evidence. You have denounced
that theory claiming the presence of a fourth spatial dimension as
proof of my error. My question then is, what evidence can you
present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?

Second, my position is based solely on observational data, while
yours adds theoretical data to that of observation. Why then should
the hypersphere model be accepted over the geocentric model?

Third, Bartholomew and Mark Kluge have both referred to the
mathematical possibility of a geocentric universe. You yourself have
stated that the infinite universe still remains a mathematical
possibility. Likewise you also argue for the hypersphere model by
claiming that it is also a mathematical possibility. Why then should
one mathematical possibility be preferred to all others? In other
words, why should one accept your position over the geocentric
position, or even the left-nostril-hair-tip-centric position proposed
by Mark Kluge?

Fourth, Psalm 19 claims that the heavens declare the glory of God.
How does the hypersphere model fulfill this Scripture?

Fifth, how did this hypersphere develop? If God created it, on which
day was it formed? If it is a product of celestial evolution, what
process led up to its existence?

Sixth, is there any scientific or mathematical reason why the
geocentric view of our universe should not be accepted as accurate?

 

PAUL OF EUGENE

In reply to W. Fortenberry:

Thank you for your interest and willingness to consider these issues on their merits. It is a delight to address a reply to someone who has actually taken the time to consider the things I wrote earlier.

I believe the evidence you cited was the absolute uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. It may be that you are unaware that the background radiation is not really uniform and shows signs that the earth is, in fact moving. Discussions about the amazing uniformity of the background radiation in the literature always take it for granted that the reader understands this doppler shifting caused by the earth moving has been compensated for when they say it is so uniform. But here is a link to a site that explicitely considers that non-uniformity of the background radiation:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990627.html

As for evidence that there is a fourth spatial dimension, there is only one possible evidence for such a thing, and that is for space to be shown to be non-euclidian. In fact, this has been done in the particular case of starlight passing close to the sun during eclipses! Since space is shown to not exactly fit into a mere "3" diminsions, and is in fact curved, it must in fact curve into another, fourth, dimension. Or maybe several other dimensions, as far as that goes. That is, as long as you think there is such a thing as space.

Hmmm - I'm not sure you've set up reasonable alternatives. The hypersphere model is one of several possible generalized "huge universe in which the earth also moves around like everything else" theories. The hypersphere model has the advantage of being finite (tho very huge) and hence more comfortable to contemplate. The geocentric model is ruled out because the earth moves.

Understand, my favor toward the hyperspherical model instead of the infinite model is tentative. I just keep up with writings about science and the universe and watch developing theories and insights with interest. I'm not a scientist.

Well, it is a glorious universe after all, and therefore, any Creator of it would also be glorious!

I am enormously flattered that you think I even have an inkling how to answer this question. I have faith that God was involved. That's all I can tell you about it.

When the space probes sent to the outer planets send their radio messages back to earth, the mission directors have to make sure the antenna points at earth. They have to instruct the on-board computer to swing it back and forth to follow the earth as it moves around the sun. I cite this as evidence that the earth moves around the sun.