[9 Iyar 5724]
Dear Editor,
This is in reference to the column "Questions and Answers" which appeared in your April 10th issue. I was very surprised to read the answer which the columnist gave to the question, “Does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun go around the earth?” the columnist makes the categorical statement, "Modern science has proven that the earth revolves around the sun," etc.
I have studied astrophysics for a number of years, and I am not aware of such “scientific proof” as suggested by your columnist. To be sure, the prevalent scientific view in the last century was that the earth revolved around the sun. Even then, it was not held as a proven fact, but rather as a more acceptable theory. However, since the theory of relativity has been universally accepted, and has become the basis of modern science, the present scientific view is in accordance with this theory that when two bodies are in motion in space relative to one another (such as the sun and the earth), it is scientifically impossible to prove which one is stationary and which one is moving. In other words, to the extent that it is possible to speak of scientific proof in this situation the conclusions are exactly the reverse from that indicated in the statement of your worthy columnist quoted above, namely the only scientific proof is that it is impossible to ascertain scientifically whether the sun revolves around the earth or vice versa.
I further wish to express disagreement with your columnist in relation to another view expressed by him in that column, although it touches upon another area. I am referring to his remarks about the Rambam (Yesodei Hatorah), etc., which your columnist attempts to interpret that there are some mystical or Cabalistic meanings involved therein, and should not be taken literally, etc. It is well known that such an interpretation cannot be applied to the Rambam, certainly not to his Yad Hachazaka, even though it has been applied in relation to Midrashim and the like.
I hope that, though my remarks are at complete variance with your columnist on these points, you will nevertheless, provide space for this critique.
Sincerely yours,
