Was Galileo Wrong?

Now here's a topic that gets very little attention and is considered "proven" even moreso than evolution and a billions of years old earth. We have the Protestants to thank for keeping the candle burning on Creationism and for giving it a certain credibility, after Catholics totally abandoned the defence of Creationism over the last 40 years. But since the Protestants have ignored Geocentrism, there's been really no one to defend it, and hence no real discussion.

We freely admit we've not studied this question in any detail at all and therefore are not writing this to contradict the heliocentric model of the solar system. It's the accepted model and until convinced otherwise, we accept it. However, the possibility of Geocentrism does offer fascinating possibilities for the science fiction writer.

Most write-off the question as irrelevant if they are not castigating proponents of Geocentrism as "retards" (this generally unacceptable-in-polite-company words seems to make a resurgence in these debates). But if we try to cut through all that garbage, it seems that there is a theological relevance. We also don't think it's completely cracked, since the observation of motion is always relative (think of how the moon appears to follow you as you drive, or how when on a train the landscape appears to move). Also, in something as massive as the universe, how can anyone say what is, or isn't "the centre" (if we take Geocentrism to mean simply that the earth is centre of the universe, not necessarily that the Ptolemaic model of the solar system is accurate). Until recently the Church seems to have used its teaching authority to hold to Geocentrism -- and no Catholic (and even non-Catholic) can easily ignore the teaching authority of the Church. Not even in science, for the Church has never been some backwards luddite/anti-science institution, but rather quite the opposite (see chapter 5 of How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. for a good exposition on this; although we don't endorse the entire work and believe  chapter 8 -- on economics -- is totally off-base)

On a more practical level, look up into the clear night sky (you may have to get out of the city to do this) and consider the Earth fixed and unmoving at the centre of creation with the universe in rotation around it.  Then, with your eyes still on the sky, imagine we are on a small rock hurtling through space in some backwater galaxy in an infinitely expanding void. You may soon realise why this is no longer an insignificant question.

But as writers,  it makes for some interesting ideas. Perhaps given the universal acceptance of heliocentrism one would have to do it in a steampunk  or alternate history/space fantasy setting. It seems  that all the celestial bodies would have to be a lot closer to earth than we thought, making it a lot easier/faster to get to at least the other planets in the solar system. We don't know enough about Geocentric theory to know whether extrasolar planets are possible under that model. But if they are, then certainly they'd be much closer as well -- making interstellar travel a whole lot cheaper and easier even without faster-than-light technology.

ARTWORK: RED BULL STRATOS

By Godfrey Blackwell

Back in 2012 we were all very excited about the Red Bull Stratos jump. It was the first, "Space First" for any of our children, and the first one of moment for the parents too! At the time I drew this in honour of the project, with St. Joseph of Cupertino (patron saint of astronauts) and an angel watching over Felix Baumgartner.

Godfrey on Private Space Exploration

It's frequently shocked me that in the 1960s men were able to visit the moon at a time when the necessary calculations still had to be done with a slide rule and pencil-and-paper, yet fifty years later we have neither visited again nor gone any further. Things seem to have stalled as governments (except maybe the Chinese) lost much interest in space exploration. And as much as I'm interested in space exploration, I'm not sure it's a bad thing for government to get out of it. Is it really something the public purse should be paying for? Perhaps, perhaps not ...  but regardless, privatization of space exploration seems to be the way things are going ...

I think the Russians, in practical non-hyper-safety-sensitive Slavic style, were the first to start with a sort of "space tourism" to help fund their space programme in a faltering economy. Starting in 2001 they sent seven fee-paying individuals into space (halting the project when the space shuttle was retired and Soyuz became the only way of getting to the ISS). For $20-35 million USD a number of wealthy adventurers were able to spend 1-2 weeks aboard the International Space Station (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tourism)

Then there is SpaceX, founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, which has developed two families of space craft (including a re-usable rocket) which now routinely transport supplied to the International Space Station.

More ambitiously, Virgin Galactic (owned by Sir Richard Branson), has been preparing for years to take the first tourists into space. For $200,000 USD, 430 very wealthy people will supposedly be able to fly on a suborbital flight into space. Virgin Galactic recently unveiled its "Gateway to Space" launch centre/star port, although they still have no timelines on flights.

Then there was the Red Bull Stratos project, where stunt man Felix Baumgartner successfully sky-dived from low earth orbit -- the first time I can remember in my lifetime that a space "first" was achieved, and this one completely by private interests and for a publicity stunt.

Some Thoughts from Godfrey on Science and Faith

I saw the picture above posted to Facebook. I certainly agree that "science and faith are compatible", but I think that the picture wrongly suggests that if you believe this you MUST accept the "big bang theory". The thing is, it's just that -- a theory. And how could it be otherwise since obviously no one other than God Himself was around at the time to see what happened.

The Big Bang theory does make a certain amount of sense, but, it's unprovable, and furthermore, there IS scientific evidence out there in favour of a "young earth". Just because you ascribe to that theory doesn't mean that you believe science and faith are incompatible. And, frankly, it would be great if there were more open study of such questions. The problem is that the modern-day secularist inquisition forbids a truly open and honest discussion of these things. You must accept evolution or you're a crazy fundamentalist. You must accept the "big bang" or you're a crazy fundamentalist. Et cetera. And it seems to me that we're buying into that mentality a bit when we make memes and videos like the ones above.

Moreover, it seems to me that the reason modern "scientists" and university professors persecute those with "heretical" views is because in some respects they have elevated unproven theories to the level of dogma in some sort of quasi-religion which they call "science" but really isn't science. Hence the witch hunt for creationists and others. So the opposition isn't really between faith and science. They frame it this way to stack the deck in their favour. But the opposition is frequently between this pseudo-religion and faith.

Just some random thoughts.

Book Review: The Writer's Guide to Creating a Science Fiction Universe

Title: The Writer's Guide to Creating a Science Fiction Universe
Authors: George Ochoa and Jeffrey Osier
Publisher: Spectra Books
Rating: 4.5 stars (out of 5)
Summary in a Sentence: A Fantastic Resource for Science Fiction Writers, providing excellent tools for realistic world-building

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in writing in the genre because of how it has helped me with my world-building and is a reference I return to time and again. It is not a "how to write science fiction", but rather a handy reference book for the various areas of science that a science fiction writer might find useful, with chapters devoted, inter alia, to: space and spaceships, planets and planet design, aliens, designing a future setting, nanotechnology, intelligent machines, bioengineering, and alternate universes.

I found the book to be well-organised and easy to read. All sections are written in a clear, easy to understand manner, assisting the non-scientist layman (like me!) in writing convincing science fiction. One of the best features, in my view, was that the authors point out all the "wrong science" blunders common to science fiction, thereby helping you to avoid them. They also point out examples of excellent science fiction and how those authors used known science in a convincing manner.

The only significant shortcomings of this book relate to its age: it was printed in 1993 so the science risks becoming dated as we move further from its publication. Additionally, this means that it has gone out of print and one can only obtain used copies. However, there is nothing newer out there that covers all the areas that The Writer's Guide to Creating a Science Fiction Universe does, so it is still well worth the effort of obtaining it.

I have also read the Science Fiction Writing Series (edited by Ben Bova - to be reviewed eventually) World Building and Space Travel and I preferred The Writer's Guide to Creating a Science Fiction Universe. There is nothing wrong with the Bova books, they were excellent as well, but I found Messrs. Ochoa and Osier's book easier to read and more insightful. Plus, it is very convenient having everything in one place. On the other hand, the Science Fiction Writing Series books are more comprehensive and still in print.