Note: Your author is not a scientist. He has interest in some scientific matters, but he is by no means qualified to write about it except at the layman's level. Nevertheless, "science" is often appealed to by geocentrists who are no more qualified to debate it than your author, thus we will look at some basic scientific issues the geocentrists use to promote their belief and also some that potentially disprove geocentrism. Nearly all the information herein was gleaned from others more knowledgeable.
If one reads much geocentrist material he soon realizes they have a penchant for famous scientists. They are constantly quoting them, posting Facebook memes of them, and generally appealing to them for support of their position. That essentially none of these mostly godless, evolution believing, atheists believe in geocentrism does not phase the geocentrists. Even the fact that most of the more recent scientists think geocentrism is a remnant of the "Dark Ages" and all who hold it are woefully ignorant at best or a religious zealot at worst, but this still does not dissuade the geocentrists. They must find some "credible authority" to give validity to their claims.
Some of the names they throw around are familiar, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble, Stephen Hawking, Albert Michelson, Fred Hoyle, etc. Others are less well known, Hans Thirring, Max Tegmark, George Ellis, Lawrence Krauss, Paul Davies, Joseph Silk, Jonathan Katz, etc. When quoting them the geocentrists almost always extract a single sentence or even a single phrase from a larger quote. Here are some examples,
"The two sentences 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' are simply two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems" — Albert Einstein
"our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest." — Stephen Hawking
"This hypothesis (of a central Earth) cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort" — Edwin Hubble
"we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system." — Fred Hoyle
"when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun...That would say we are truly the center of the universe." — Lawrence Krauss
With quotes like this from "respected scientists," geocentrism seems to have a plausible standing of legitimacy, doesn't it? One would think from reading them that geocentrism is an accepted theory among science. Nothing could be farther from the truth. First, these quotes are often taken out of context. Modern cosmology holds nothing but contempt for geocentrism. Unlike evolution, where there are many credentialed scientists who do not believe it, there is not one practicing peer recognized cosmologist in the world that promotes geocentrism. If there were, undoubtedly the geocentrists would be parading his name everywhere. But without one recognized scientist to support them the best they can do is selectively quote some mostly dead scientists hoping something will stick.
Concerning the quotes above by Einstein and Hoyle, this page shows how they were taken out of context and selectively used to promote something the authors did not intend and did not believe.
Geocentrists like to claim non-geocentrists are "playing for the tie" when they claim Heliocentrism is a scriptural possibility. They insist since the Bible uses geocentric terminology, the Heliocentrists must overcome these terms by showing they are figurative, and even if they succeed, they have only shown Heliocentrism to be a possibility along with geocentrism. They have not proved Heliocentrism nor disproved geocentrism.
However, when it comes to the scientific community, the roles are reversed. Heliocentrism is the accepted cosmological method and the very best geocentrism can hope for is to "play for the tie" or reach parity. If the geocentrists can just get geocentrism to be a possible alternative among the scientists, then in their eyes they will have made a great victory. Then they can claim since the Bible uses geocentric language and geocentrism is a viable model in science, all the bases are covered. One can take the Bible's geocentric terms literally and also be supported by science. This is the reason the geocentrists like to quote the scientists. It helps make their arguments look plausible and "scientific." If only it were so simple.
The reason there are still geocentrists today is not for scientific reasons, the Heliocentric model does not violate any known scientific laws and is a much simpler and more workable system than any Geocentric system. It is more intuitive, sensible, and accommodating to solar system observation than any Geocentric system. For instance, all observable celestial bodies orbit larger bodies. Earth's moon orbits the earth and Jupiter's moons orbit Jupiter. All the other planets in turn orbit the sun so it only stands to reason that the earth would as well. There are many more similar examples. The primary reason most do not accept Heliocentrism is because of their religious beliefs. A few may doubt Heliocentrism because they "just don't trust the government," but most reject it for "scriptural reasons."
As we saw in previous chapters the Bible does not proclaim geocentrism as a doctrine or truth. It does use geocentric language, and we covered the reasons why. If the Bible dogmatically stated that the earth was stationary, the center of the universe, and the universe revolved around it, that would be enough for any Bible Believer, but it doesn't say that at all. As we said, the Scriptures are intentionally ambiguous on these types of matters.
Many geocentrists will occasionally make snide remarks about science, scientists, NASA, the government, etc., and say they can't be trusted. Some will say if NASA said "the sun was shining" they would go outside and look before believing it. Many believe in various conspiracies, government suppressed information, government misinformation, faked moon landings, etc. Some will openly claim Heliocentrism is a great worldwide conspiracy by scientists to attack the Bible. The rational for their skepticism, at least among the Bible Believers, is often science's promotion of evolution. They will say "science is wrong on evolution, global warming and other things so why would one trust them in cosmology." At first glance they appear to have a point with this oft used "talking point," but there is a significant issue they fail to recognize.
Evolution is not an "operational science" like physics and mathematics. It is supposedly an "historical science" based on hypothesis. Physics and mathematics rely on constants that can be proven. No one can go back into the past and prove or disprove evolution. Thus, any claims made on the basis of physics can be tested by anyone (with the means to do so) to see if they are true. The claims made by the scientists on the motions of the heavens are all based upon fixed "laws" and calculations that are known to man and proven to be valid. Gravity is one such force governed by established laws. As we have seen Isaac Newton is most famous for his "laws of motion" and they have to do with the affect gravity has on material objects, and they have never been shown to fail.
Since these laws and principles of matter and motion can be tested and verified, and these are the laws appealed to to show Heliocentrism, this brings a very relevant human element into the equation—self-preservation or protection. This human element seems to be overlooked by the conspiracy theory buffs and the constant skeptics. They insist there is a "conspiracy among scientists" to destroy geocentrism, but they apparently underestimate the power potential humiliation and ridicule has among men. To put it in a nutshell: professional people hate to be wrong and will often go to great lengths to protect themselves from even appearing to be wrong. They have their professional reputation to defend. With that being said, it is very, very unlikely that a group of scientists would conspire to promote false information as fact when their claims can be tested by their very competitive peers. Deception can be done with a theory or hypothesis like evolution which cannot be conclusively disproven, but not with a hard science like physics.
Suppose nearly all the scientists in the United States did conspire against geocentrism and promoted Heliocentrism. What about the Russian scientists? How about the Chinese, Indian, French, British, German, Japanese, and even North Korean scientists? Are they all in it, too? Nonsense. Talk like this brings nothing but contempt to the Bible Believing community from rational people who are not even scientists. There is no grand conspiracy to destroy geocentrism; secular scientists couldn't care less about what the Bible says because nearly all are atheists or agnostics. To reiterate what we said above, there is not one practicing, peer recognized cosmologist in the world that promotes geocentrism. Not one. The reason? All of them truly believe Heliocentrism is a fact.
To test the scientist's claim that Heliocentrism is true, consider the space program of the United States from the late 1950s until today. All the rocket launches, earth orbits, moon landings, deep space probes, etc. relied on knowledge of the fixed laws of physics. Failure to properly apply these laws would have resulted in utter failure of their projects. They wanted to be right and succeed and most often they did. To your author's knowledge, every scientist, physicist, mathematician, etc. who worked on the space program was a Heliocentrist and approached the physical problems they face with Heliocentrism treated as a fact. Unless you are an extreme skeptic, all the successes they had showed they got their calculations right. They were not going to damage their reputation or the space program by promoting something they knew to be false just to disprove a Bible they don't believe anyway.
Furthermore, physics and cosmology is just one area of science. There are many more types of science and the geocentrists trust nearly all of them implicitly. For instance, if one gets sick or injured, who does he consult? A medical doctor, of course. A person trained in biological/physical sciences. If one or a loved one has to go to the Emergency Room for a sudden issue, does he ask the doctor if he is an atheist, Heliocentrist, etc., or just let the doctor treat him? Does he go to a fellow geocentrist and have him practice 3000 year old Babylonian "medicine" on him or follow 17th century "bleeding" practices to get the "poison" out of his body? No, he wants the latest, most "up-to-date" treatment with CAT scans and x-rays. What the doctor believes about the Bible is not very relevant. What matters is what the doctor knows about "medicine."
If a person wants to communicate with someone does he walk or ride a mule to them or send a courier with a letter? Or does he call or "text "them on a "smart-phone" or email them with the aid of a computer? He most often uses the current "technology," of course, which is a product of the study of the sciences and developed by people who may not believe the Bible or in God at all. The Lord allows the rain to fall on the just and unjust and He allows all men to share in His revelations of natural laws.
Again, as soon as we say this someone will yell, "What about evolution. Scientists believes in evolution." Yes, many do, but also many don't. Unlike geocentrism, there are a number of credentialed scientists who do not believe in organic evolution. They believe in direct creation by God or in some sort of "intelligent design." Unlike physics, electromagnetism, medicine, and all other practical, operational, and provable sciences based upon proven scientific laws, evolution is a "historical" science that can never be proven because it cannot be demonstrated.
The mantra of the geocentrist is, "I like physical science...except the parts I don't like."
As we mentioned, geocentrists will constantly remind doubters that geocentrism is viable a model. They will continue to claim geocentrism does not violate the basic laws of physics—and in a limited sense they are correct! A Geocentric system could conceivably work if all the necessary components to make it work are in the right places—but in this universe we all live in—the components are not there. There is a huge difference between saying something can conceivably work in a theoretical sense and then showing it actually working with the way things really are.
In our present world pigs cannot fly. They are not equipped to fly. However, IF pigs had large enough wings AND the muscles to drive those wings AND the instinct to use them, then like other mammals, pigs could fly. The laws of physics would work the same for the pig as they do for a bat. geocentrism is similar. IF heavenly bodies were arranged in such a way to keep the earth stable AND tie the rest of the universe together, then it could conceivably work, but the simple fact is the observable universe is not put together that way at all.
Geocentrists will loudly proclaim that Heliocentrism or geocentrism cannot be told apart by observation and that both would appear exactly the same to an observer, but this is only partially true. It is true that a person on earth only observing motion could not see any difference between them. Any motion seen would be relative motion, and there is no way to prove what is moving, but there are ways and methods to determine which model is more likely and more consistent with known laws. Remember our Curly Neal spinning basketball example in a few chapters back? Was the ball spinning on his finger or the ball stationary with the basketball court, Neal and his finger, and all the rest of the universe spinning around it? Although both scenarios are physically possible, which would be simpler and more intuitive with what we know about reality and the physical laws?
Though some elements of geocentrism are physically possible, its adherents have a very steep hill to climb to show geocentrism as the preferred model. Heliocentrism is so much easier.
Geocentrists have a huge obstacle to overcome if they expect their claims to be considered reasonable, and the obstacle is simply gravity. Gravity is that constant force found in the universe that draws all matter together. It is the reason you fall towards the earth when you trip. It is the reason the moon orbits the earth and the earth the sun, it is the reason the whole universe sticks together. As another said, "Everywhere we look in the universe we see the effects of gravity as objects rotate on their axes and revolve around more massive objects." Gravity is universal and most if not all geocentrists affirm its existence.
Gravity causes all heavenly bodies to interact with each other and the "pull" each body has is in direct relation to its mass (generally how big it is) and distance. The bigger it is the more "pull" it has. Thus in every observable case when two heavenly bodies interact with each other the smaller one ALWAYS orbits the larger. There is no exception; it is a universal law that has always remained true, and that very law proclaims the death of strict geocentrism.
All Geocentric models insist the earth is motionless at or near the center of the universe and is being orbited by the sun and all the planets, and therein lies the problem. For the earth to remain motionless while being orbited by the sun (which is a much larger object), there would have to be an offsetting object with exactly the same amount of gravitational pull directly opposite from the sun at all times. As David Palms at www.geocentrismdebunked.org says,
"...there would have to be other sources of gravity that, at every second of every minute of every day exactly offset the constantly changing gravitational pull on the Earth from these close and massive objects.... There is absolutely no observational evidence for any such masses moving in any such way that would offset these local gravitational influences.
In other words, considering only the earth and the sun (adding the other planets makes it even more difficult for the geocentrists), there would have to be another sun sized object in the heavens on the exact opposite side and same distance away from earth and which exactly mirrored the movement of the sun to counteract the gravity of the sun and keep the earth stable. Needless to say, no such object exists. The object(s) could be farther away from earth and still work, but they would have to be much larger to bring the same gravitational effect to the earth and precisely counteract the sun's pull.
And there it is. geocentrism has been destroyed. geocentrism has not effectively answered this huge obstacle to their model. Yes, they come up with "responses," but they have no sensible answer that can be verified. They can produce no counter gravitational force that moves exactly counter to the sun to keep the earth stationary from the sun's gravity. Their typical response usually goes like this one from Robert Sungenis,
"From a geocentric point of view, the earth was created first and was the Center of Mass (Genesis 1:1-2). The other celestial objects were subsequently created (Genesis 1:14-17) and were placed around the earth with the earth still being the Center of Mass. God, as it were, calculated all the forces in the starry universe, and balanced them so that earth could be the center of mass. And then God set everything in motion, and it has remained so, just as Newton's laws of inertia state."
Sounds nice doesn't it...but it is all smoke and mirrors. Sungenis has very slyly changed the topic. He says the Lord balanced the universe so the earth could be the "center of mass." He is talking about "center of mass," not the local gravity of the sun. Here is the difference.
If one considers the universe as a single unit, it has a balancing point where it will balance just like a dinner plate will balance on the tip of one's finger. He [Sungenis] says if the universe is arranged so the balancing point is the earth, the earth would be the center of mass and the universe would revolve around it. He suggests since the sun is close to the earth that the Lord could put a little extra mass opposite the earth to compensate for it. The extra mass could be millions of light-years away in the stars. As long as it balanced all would work well. However, there are a couple things he doesn't mention.
First, if the universe is "balanced" heavy on one side to counteract the weight of the sun, since the sun moves in relation to the stars throughout the year, this heavy bulge in the stars would have to move every year with it! That does not happen. The stars stay in their same relative places year around.
Second, as we mentioned Sungensis' claim only speaks of the center of mass, it does not account for the local gravity of the sun and its pull on earth. This completely destroys his argument. Even if the universe in balanced at the earth, the sun and earth are constantly pulling on each other to bring themselves together. Since the sun is much more massive than the earth, the earth will do nearly all the moving towards the sun! There is nothing in the center of mass argument to counteract the suns local gravity. Again, gravity is the nemesis of geocentrism. It just won't cooperate. It keeps everything moving which can't happen in the Geocentric model. As Gary Hoge at www.geocentrismdebunked.org says,
"The bottom line is that if the geocentrists are right about the structure of the universe, it would be possible for the center of mass to be located as far away from the sun as the earth is. And yes, everything would orbit that point. But it would be impossible for a planet, or any other object, to remain motionless at that point, for two reasons. First, the center of mass itself is constantly shifting as the various masses in the universe rearrange themselves, and second, a point in space that close to the sun would not be a point of gravitational equilibrium. There would be an overwhelming gravitational pull from the sun. A planet at that location would either have to move fast enough to orbit the sun (as the earth, in fact, does), or it would plunge into the sun and be destroyed. In no case could it simply sit there motionless."
Unless geocentrists can demonstrate the forces required to keep the earth motionless, with just this one argument, geocentrism is shown to be impossible. Heliocentrism does not need any special forces or contrived explanations. Gravity does all the work for it. In every way Heliocentrism is the much simpler and more practical model.
For more thorough treatment of this topic from knowledgeable individuals see these web pages,
Modern geocentrism requires strange and mysterious forces to make its system work, forces that no one else can find. These are forces that do just what is needed when the geocentrist needs them to and then disappear without a trace when not needed. These forces both hold the universe together but also hold it apart. These forces do strange things that defy observation and reason...they are so elusive they make the "dark matter" of physicists seem as if in plain sight...but the geocentrists insist these forces are very real and govern the movements of the universe. What is the medium these forces travel through? How do they transverse between all matter in the universe? Why it is through the "ether" (or "aether," "plenum").
The generic term "ether" simply means a medium or pathway something travels on or through. In the old days, over 150 years ago, ether was a term used to describe the supposed medium light travels through. However, the entire concept of ether was abandoned when it was determined light is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and doesn't require a medium. geocentrists have modified this old idea and insist there must be an ether (even though some of their favorite tests indicate it doesn't exist) because without it their system cannot work. They must have this unseen, unfelt, undetectable medium for their unknown, untestable, unverifiable forces to travel upon. They describe this ether as a "frictionless superfluid" and yet "ultra-dense and granular." They claim matter passes through it ("Plank particles" working under "Mach's Principle," blah, blah, blah...) "like light passes through glass."
How convenient it must be to magically conjure up any and all forces and mediums one needs to make an imaginary system work! Even if some type of ether does exist, all these fanciful forces and powers that the geocentrists claim travel through it are pure speculation. If you don't have a way to account for the bulge of the earth, just invent some mysterious ether and a force to cause it. Don't have a way to explain the Coriolis Force? Just consult your local snake oil...oh, we mean...ether salesman,
"Step right up folks, step right up. What we have right here in this bottle is an highly exotic superfluid developed by desperate minds that will cure any and all issues you may have with Coriolis forces, geostationary satellites, Foucault pendulums, equatorial bulges, rotational issues, speed of light problems, earth stability issues, and all similar issues. All you need to do is acquire a bottle of our magic ether elixir, and any time one of these issues come about just douse it with the ether. If the issue persists, just use more ether more forcefully. This magic ether will cure all your geocentrism problems whenever you need it and then become invisible whenever you don't need it. It is truly a one of a kind cure-all. Get your bottle today!"
The geocentrists magic ether is their cure for all issues. That it has never been conclusively proven, demonstrated, verified, or detected is no hindrance to them at all.
Frankly, there is little point in going on with the "scientific evidences" for geocentrism because it cannot make it over the first hurdle. Not that there are not many other evidences showing geocentrism is not true, such as,
- The Speed of Objects in the Universe
- — Since according to geocentrism the firmament would be spinning faster than the speed of light out past Neptune, there should be a 'spatial Coriolis' seen in the Pioneer probes and other spacecraft we have sent into the heavens. That is, they would have to accelerate to the speed of the moving bodies to reach them and this is not possible.
- Geostationary Satellites
- — Geostationary Satellites hover over the same point of the earth because they orbit the earth at the same speed as the earth rotates. However, in geocentrism the earth is motionless thus the satellites cannot be moving to remain direct above. What force holds them in position? The geocentrists can't provide any sensible and physically demonstrable answer.
- Aberration of Starlight
- — "Aberration is a direct effect of the earth's movement about the sun and is perfectly consistent with Newtonian physics. Under geocentrism, however, arbitrary explanations must be invoked to explain it."
- The Equatorial Bulge
- — When something is spinning it tends to swell or bulge outward. The same is true for the earth. As result it is slightly thicker at the equator than around the poles. This bulge has also been noticed on Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune because they rotate fast enough to cause one. geocentrists will admit the bulges on the other planets are caused by them rotating, but at the same time they insist the bulge on earth is not! They try to claim the universe through its "ether" is "pulling" the bulge on earth. How convenient.
- What Keeps the Earth Still
- — If the universe is pulling the bulge in the earth's equator and the universe is spinning, what is keeping the earth from spinning? If the firmament can exert enough force to cause the earth to bulge, why is that force not pulling the earth around as it turns? They have no answer.
- Coriolis Force
- — Hurricanes rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. This is cause by the rotation of the earth. Jupiter's Great Red Spot also rotates for the same reason. Again, the geocentrists will say Jupiter's Red Spot rotation is because of the planet rotating but earth's hurricanes rotate because the universe is rotating! The magic ether is at work again.
- A Change on Earth Affects the Universe?
- — When something happens on earth to slightly change its rotation, like an earthquake (scientists actually measured a change in the rate of rotation of the earth after the 2009 Japan earthquake), how does something happening on earth actually affect the rest of the universe? If the earth doesn't rotate, somehow the earthquake had to affect the entire universe to make the rotation change! (Some more of those mysterious geocentrism forces we presume.)
- What Holds it all Together?
- — If the universe is spinning around the earth like a huge spinning disk, the outer parts of the disk which are millions of light-years away would have forces on it that would be unimaginably huge. It would be like being on a large merry-go-round. At the center the centrifugal force would be small and it would be easy to hold on. As one walked away from the center the force would become stronger and stronger till he could no longer hold on. If the merry-go-round was very large it would fly apart. Imagine a spinning universe. The stars would all be cast off in a straight line deeper into space. There are no known forces or laws to hold them in orbit. (Oh, the magic ether does it. I forgot...Not)
These are just some of the problem geocentrists face. Of course, they have "high-sounding" replies to all of them, but they don't have any real answers. As we mentioned, most of their answers have to do with the fictitious "ether" or "plenum" that supposedly holds the universe together, but they have not been able to prove any of it. The "seams" show in all their answers. They start with the result they want and then try to come up with something they can call "evidence" to support it. Observances Heliocentrism can easily explain require many pages of contrived Geocentric jargon. For multiple examples just visit Robert Sungenis' site www.galileowaswrong.com. You will wade through 100s of pages of babble and "explanation" and still not get a satisfactory answer. Sungenis' tactic it seems is to rely on a large quantity of words to "bamboozle" the naive.
Gerardus Bouw said in 1984 at the National Bible Science Conference,
"I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures."
What a revealing thing to say! This candid statement from one of geocentrism leading proponents actually says more than some geocentrists may want it to. Bouw states he is not a geocentrist because of his scientific observation of the interaction of the earth and sun nor is he one because he believes science shows it to be the most plausible and "scientific," he is a geocentrist because he believes the Bible teaches it. If geocentrism is the most rational and scientific conclusion man could arrive at from his study of the universe, why would one not believe it on that basis as well as because he thinks the Bible says it? Ah, it's because he KNOWS science does NOT favor geocentrism! Science may not utterly disprove it, but it by no means presents geocentrism as the easiest and most probable model. That distinction goes to Heliocentrism.
It is an obvious fact known to Heliocentrists and honest geocentrists that Heliocentrism is a much simpler and workable model than geocentrism. As we have seen, geocentrism demands the universe do some very strange and nearly unimaginable motions that are completely unnecessary in Heliocentrism. For instance, insisting the entire universe, which may be billions of light-years wide, rotates every 24 hours is a titanic claim. It was one thing for the Hebrews to say the (to them) relatively close sun, moon, and stars rotated above the earth, but to assert that billions of entire galaxies (which most geocentrists now acknowledge) are rotating around it is much more extreme. Also, geocentrism insists the universe makes a completely different range of movement as well to cause the seasons (See below).
Isaac Newton said in his famous book, Principia Mathematica (1687):
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things, than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
This simply means, "One should keep his theories and hypotheses as simple as they can be while still accounting for the observed facts. It is foolhardy to make things more complicated than they are. For instance, when the Lord devised the salvation that is in Jesus Christ He did not make some elaborate and complicated system that is hard to follow or understand. He made it very simple without needless and incomprehensible excess. It's called, "the simplicity that is in Christ" (2Cor 11:3). When he showed the Israelites how to make the tabernacle (a type of the universe), He did not have them make it in a complicated, counter-intuitive manner. They made it as one would expect a tent to be made. The same can be said for Heliocentrism. Between it and geocentrism it is much more simple, sensible, and practical from an observational and scientific perspective. Again, geocentrism requires many unneeded motions and forces that are completely unnecessary to account for the universe as man observes it.
Geocentrists don't speak much about the seasons on their stationary earth. The key reason is likely because of the counter-intuitive motion of the universe that is required to have seasons in their system. In the Geocentric model, not only does the universe revolve around the earth once a day, it also oscillates up and down 23.5 degrees, stopping and changing direction every six months! They have no practical explanation for what force causes this up and down motion. What mysterious power makes the universe move like this, and, more than that, completely stop its vertical motion every summer and winter solstice and change direction?
With the Heliocentric method the seasons are "easy as pie." There are no unexplained motions and instead of the entire universe having to move, the earth does it all by itself because of its pole orientation. The earth's poles do not point "straight up" in relation to its orbit but are tilted on an axis of 23.5 degrees. This tilt always stays in the same orientation throughout its yearly orbit, and as a result, the sun directly faces a slightly different part of the earth every day. In the winter, part of the earth tilts away from the sun and in the summer, it tilts toward it. No extra, mysterious movement is needed to accomplish this, the earth's fixed tilt and yearly orbit does it all.
In Genesis 8:22 the Lord mentions how the seasons are a permanent fixture,
"While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
Notice how only the earth is mentioned in relation to the changing seasons and "day and night." There is no mention of the sun, heavens, oscillating universe, or other geocentrism complications, only the earth. Yes, Gen 1:14 mentions the "lights in the firmament" are to "divide the day from the night" and "for seasons," but it in no way says the lights or firmament are moving. Gen 8:22 says it is the state of the earth that is responsible, "While the earth remaineth," and that state is its axial tilt.
What makes the geocentrists seasons idea even more silly is their contention that the seasons seen on some of the other planets IS caused by the tilt of their axis and their movement around the sun...but the earth's is cause by the oscillating universe. Go figure, desperate people have desperate ways.