Monday, January 16, 2012

Discussion on Geocentrism

UPDATE 1/17/12: My interlocutor has withdrawn from the discussion. He insists that conceptual problems and dogmatism have prevented the issues from being properly contextualized.

In this he is, without the slightest doubt, correct.

The entire thread is very much worth a read, as a useful insight into how important it is- especially in matters of science- to recall that not all dots are white.


A very interesting discussion on geocentrism is underway at Stacy Trasanco's blog.

I am engaged on the question with a young fellow who has a degree in astronomy, and who is becoming acquainted with the astonishing, universe-spanning Axis in the Cosmic Microwave Background, which is aligned with crucial features of the relative motions of Earth and Sun.

This astonishing alignment of the largest structure in the visible universe, with supposedly insignificant Earth, has been dubbed the "Axis of Evil".

Evil why?

Evil because the standard concordance model of cosmology provides absolutely no reason at all to suspect that there should be any alignment whatsoever between the CMB, the "oldest light in the Universe" according to the standard model, and Earth, which is asserted not to have come into existence until nine billion years after the fact.

The geocentric model, on the other hand, ascribes a cosmological significance to precisely this plane.

My most recent comment having been tied up in moderation at Stacy's blog, I reproduce it here, and invite interested parties to follow and join the discussion.


Paul says:
“Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see where this article states that there are any features that suggest any alignment with respect to the earth.”
>> You are indeed missing it.
Here it is:
“the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (****and with the equinoxes****) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.” (emphasis added)
In other words, the dipole moment is aligned with the equinoxes of *Earth*, that is, the point in the annual relative motion of sun/Earth where the sun crosses the equator *of Earth*.
So there is, precisely, an alignment with respect to *Earth* in the CMB.
Which was to be demonstrated.
Paul: The dipole and higher anisotropies present in the CMB, which you can see in some beautiful pictures like:
is not aligned in any way with respect to the earth.

>> Paul is definitely wrong here. See the quote above, and do, please, go to the article linked below, “Why Is The Solar System Cosmically Aligned”. It contains a graphic, entitled “Ecliptic Alignments”, which graphically show (from the heliocentric point of view, of course), a direct alignment between the CMB and the ecliptic (the plane of relative annual motion of Earth/Sun) and the equinoxes (that point in the annual relative motion of Earth/Sun where the Sun is seen to cross the equator, when viewed from Earth).
Trust me, it sounds a whole lot more complicated than it looks; the graphic will assist greatly.
Paul: In fact, looking from north to south pole, the dipole moment suggests a motion of our sun with respect to the CMB that is at a ~45 degree angle.

>> Almost. First,assuming by “north pole”, you mean the Earth’s north pole, and not the galactic north pole, the actual angle is closer to 33.5 degrees.
This is because the heliocentric model assumes the Earth is tilted on its axis 23.5 degrees, and the graphic shows the Sun’s assumed path through the cosmos inclined at 10 degrees above the ecliptic, yielding the 33.5 degrees.
Second, the motion of the Sun through the cosmos is *assumed*, metaphysically. It has never been directly measured.
Observations would be equally consistent with a flow of the aether along the described axis, with the Sun in an annual series of daily orbital motions around a stationary Earth along the path of the ecliptic.
Either scenario would yield exactly the same observations.
See here for a graphic representation of the alignments, by Dr, Dragan Huterer of the University of Michigan, one of the authors of the paper linked above:
Scroll down to the graphic titled “Ecliptic Alignments”
Relevant excerpt:
“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other and the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”
NOTE: In the geocentric model, simply reverse the position of the words “Earth” and “Sun” in the above sentence- and also in the graphic.
Remember to tilt the ecliptic 23.5 degrees, since the Earth is not tilted in the geocentric model, the cosmos is- and, interestingly enough, it is tilted exactly on the angle built into the CMB- the largest visible structure in the cosmos.
Please try and understand: there is one and only one cosmological model that would have predicted a cosmological significance to this 23.5 angle of the ecliptic.
It is the geocentric model.
In the heliocentric model, this 23.5 degree angle is ascribed to a tilt in the Earth’s axis- in other words, it is a purely local phenomenon, not expected to have any cosmological significance *at all*.
In this specific observation, it is the geocentric model which proves to have a better predictive fit to large-scale cosmological observations.
This will help you understand why this astonishing alignment with the ecliptic and equinoxes *of Earth* is described as the “Axis of Evil”.
Evil why?
Evil because there should be no possible reason to expect an alignment of the universe’s largest structure with supposedly insignificant Earth (or, if you prefer, supposedly insignificant local solar system)……
unless of course you are already a geocentrist, in which case the alignment is a very interesting confirmation that this angle is not merely local, but is cosmological, in significance.
Paul: What is somewhat mysterious, and what I will have to think about more, is that the quadrupole and higher order moments seem to be closely connected to the dipole moment.
>> Again. The dipole moment is aligned with the equinoxes (of *Earth*, that is, the point in the annual relative motion of sun/Earth where the sun crosses the equator *of Earth*)
The quad and octupole moments are aligned *with each other AND with the ecliptic *of Earth* (whether considered as a 23.5 degree tilt of Earth on its axis, *or* considered as a 23.5 degree tilt of the annual cycle of orbits of the cosmos with respect to a stationary Earth).
Paul: I have a friend who has worked on the WMAP analysis, and probably knows some more about this. The alignment is from moment to higher order moment, and not to the earth, specifically.
>> The first assertion is correct, the second is wrong.
“Developing the multi- pole vectors allowed us to examine how the CMB’s large-scale features align with each other ********and****** the ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”
Or, alternatively, in the geocentric model, the features align with each other ****and****the plane of the Sun’s annual cycle of orbits around the Earth.
Observations would be precisely the same under either scenario.
Paul: For those reading who want to keep track of the discussion, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was predicted by Big Bang theory, specifically by Gamow and others. It was observed, and is nearly perfectly isotropic and homogenous, ~2 Kelvins. We knew it could not be perfectly isotropic and homogenous, because there are things like galaxies out there, and if the cosmic microwave background were perfectly smooth, then our universe would be perfectly smooth, and there would be no clumps. So Smoot and others sent up the WMAP satellite. This satellite detects all low temperature radiation (microwave radiation), and the largest signal was what looks like a yin-yang signal. This was expected, but not at the strength it was observed.
When something moves toward you and makes a sound, like a car with a horn, the horn goes from a high pitch to a low pitch as it passes you. Lower pitch going away, and higher pitch coming toward. Light does the same thing. It becomes bluer if moving away, and red if moving towards us. So the red region indicates the light moving away from us from the CMB, and blue the light moving toward us. This is interpreted as caused by the motion of our sun with respect to the CMB. The surprise is that the motion of our star (and thus our galaxy) is much faster than we expected.
When this term (and higher order terms, due to more local motions, as well as general relativistic corrections) was subtracted, we were left with the next brightest term, which was the low-level radiation from the center of our galaxy. This actually is much more scientifically interesting than the dipole, and much harder to subtract, in order to figure out what the actual component is from the big bang.
Interesting stuff.
>> All very good, though of course recounted from the GR/heliocentric viewpoint.
All of the observations would apply (do apply) under the geocentric hypothesis, and would yield precisely the same observations, though the metaphysical assumptions about motion differ.
In Paul’s version, space is not a substance (but it really is, once you start talking about things like “space curvature, “dark energy”, “the energy of empty space that isn’t zero”, etc).
In the geocentric model, space *is* a substance (“aether”) the properties of which will be found to explain the phenomena attributed in General Relativity to a constant speed of light, dark matter, dark energy, and inflation.
The key thing to take away from this is that Paul’s first assertion is wrong, and has been falsified directly from the cited literature.
The alignments are, precisely, with respect to Earth.


  1. Sorry, I let it out of jail! Must have been the length???

  2. The expression "axis of evil" is certainly a rather interesting/curious one, especially from a traditional Christian perspective where evil is defined as a lack of a good. For those who properly adhere to the traditional Christian doctrine of geocentrism the so called "axis of evil" is actually a good thing not an evil thing because it is evidence of a truth and thus not lacking of a good, but rather supporting of a good.

    There is an interesting and quite recent article in Scientific American found at which treats of the "axis of evil." I just left the comment seen below between the asterisks at the Scientific American site. I hope it is not removed!

    20. AMDG4E
    04:21 AM 1/17/12
    It is no wonder that there is not much discussion in the popular press about what this article refers to in its second paragraph as the "axis of evil." Why? Well, the answer lies in the very nature of what this expression refers to. It is the extraordinary alignment in the CMB found in 2005 by Joao Magueijo and Kate Land. This alignment which has not been explained away by any known systemic error in observation and which has been confirmed over and over by scientists since 2005 shows an astounding, but nevertheless quite unambiguous contradiction to the standard Big Bang inflationary cosmological model. Also, the chances of this alignment being one of random coincidence is extremely small, so small in fact as to be utterly laughable. At the same time the alignment (aka: "axis of evil") is an incredibly strong and compelling piece of evidence pointing to a geocentric universe!

    It is this concrete scientifically observed gigantic piece of a cosmological jigsaw puzzle which is serving to build an ever stronger case for geocentrism that has many modern cosmologists/astro-physicists scrambling for answers. Can you blame them? Geocentrism, if established as the reigning cosmological paradigm would completely overturn their modern scientific apple cart. The ramifications of this would reach well beyond the halls of academia and professional research labs. In short a geocentric universe would mean that the secular priests of science had got it wrong on the most basic issues of science and their much vaunted world of Einstein et al science would come crashing down like a house of cards.

    But, why then exactly would the axis be called "evil?" I can do no better than to quote Dr. Robert Bennet (Ph.D. in General Relativity), the co-author of Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right (, probably the most comprehensive and detailed scientific treatise on the issue of heliocentric versus geocentric cosmology ever offered to the public. He states in Chapter 10 of said book: "Because it represents a return to the forbidden days of five centuries ago, when all science was geocentric/geostatic. It is the plain indication of an inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe."

    This is simply beyond the pale for so much of the scientific world. Geocentrism is by philosophical pre-disposition absolutely unacceptable for a great many scientists. For them, heliocentrism along with the Copernican and Cosmological Principles are sacrosanct. They are to be accepted with a blind faith!

    James Phillips

  3. Stacy: Yes, I see it got through, and it probably was the.....ahem....length :-)

    James- remarkably, your comment actually made it through on SciAm!

    It is interesting to see the comment thread addressing the implication of the Axis which even I rarely get far enough to address:

    the implication of an axis, of course, is that it involves something that must be rotating.........

    Now the Axis is not the universal axis of rotation in the geocentric model of course.

    It is, instead, the precise plane of its annual precession.

    All in all, the Axis is probably going to be kept pretty quiet for another couple of years or so, because the Planck satellite is now up and doing cosmology, and one of its primary tasks is to examine the Axis with a different scanning apparatus.

    This will provide a different set of data by which to check and verify the WMAP data.

    While nobody is talking do far about what Planck is seeing, I am of the opinion that Planck will confirm the Axis, and at that point there will be no way to keep it quiet.

    It will, I predict, become the straw that broke the camel's back for the Copernican Principle.

    A new worldview- a new metaphysics- is coming, for science, and for the rest of our culture.

    It will involve either a metaphysical multiverse, which means the end of science itself as a means of discovering universally valid physical principles......

    Or it will involve a frank admission that our universe proceeds from a Cause that cannot have been natural.

    In other words, we shall be faced with a choice between God and the multiverse.

  4. As to your last sentence Rick, where there is a fundamental disordered/backwards thinking reflecting an erroneous inverse set of values (i.e., good is evil and evil is good) the choice becomes that of God spelled backwards (dog) or multiverse. Then the choice is rather easy -- a multiverse over a dog any day! (A microchip in the hand or forehead -- sure, why not -- buying and selling over a dog any day!)

    Interesting it is how some intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals will allow themselves to be easily blinded in a speculative, hypothetical, or theoretical way, but not in a practical way. In the abstract they will even go so far as to deny the most basic of every day principles, that of the law of non-contradiction as they seek to relativize truth, itself. Yet, at the very same time on a practical level they will consistently adhere to the law or principle of non-contradiction as shown by the fact that they consistently open a door (if it is closed) rather than try to walk through it. They always pour gas into their car and water into their mouth, never the reverse (unless the radiator level goes down :-). The more important concern, however, is (or at least should be) what they are pouring (or not pouring!) into their minds.

    As for the false premise of the existence of multiple universes, that will, of course, inevitably lead to the false conclusion that our geocentric universe (if that ever be agreed to) is not really important in the "big" scheme of things and certainly does not necessarily point to the existence of God who placed us at its center. The false premise of multiple universes will also help immensely to bolster the frog to prince evolution fairy tale.

    The battle for the establishment and the spreading of the truth of geocentrism is in a certain sense a battle for the minds and hearts of people. The battle is intricately tied to the battle for souls, the battle for eternal salvation. The fact that this connection between the two battles seems to be so rarely perceived, and even much less publicly acknowledged, does not in any way diminish its truth.

    I would submit that the battle for the establishment and dissemination of the truth of geocentrism is a spiritual battle even more than a natural battle. I would further submit that if we do not see this we are proceeding in a mode akin to those who wish to fight the evils of the world without recognizing the existence and workings of the devil. The devil being the "father of lies" is lurking out of the sight of many, but we can be assured that it is he who is in the forefront of fighting against the spreading of the truth of geocentrism because he obviously knows the implications of what the acceptance of that truth would mean.

    In this regard as we continue in the battle to spread the truth of geocentrism, it is very well and very important to recall the words of Scripture: "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Unless the Lord keep the city, he watcheth in vain that keepeth it." (Psalms 126:1) St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine to whom the great 2 volume work Galileo Was Wrong: The Church is Right is dedicated has provided us a lengthy and most wonderful commentary on this passage. It is too long to quote in its entirety here. Suffice it to say that he recalls the words of our Lord: "Without me you can do nothing." Also, he reminds us the importance of God by way of his comment on the admonishment that God gave to the Jews when they were trying to build the temple, "the work of man is of no value, unless God, the principal builder, be there to help them: and, therefore, that they should work not only with their hands, but also with their hearts and their lips, in invoking God, and confiding mainly in his help."

  5. Cont.
    Further on St. Bellarmine tells us that "we are surrounded by enemies, who hate nothing more than the extension of the Church." If we confide in ourselves in trying to protect the truth once established our efforts will surely be in vain. Therefore, let us never fear to acknowledge our utter reliance (and confidence!) in all things, on our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity!

  6. James, again I have been thinking about your posts here.

    It is certainly true that we depend absolutely upon Our Saviour for any good work we can possibly hope to accomplish, and if that is the gist of your meaning, then we are in perfect agreement.

    However, as Thomas Aquinas memorably taught us, we must refute the enemies of the Faith *on their own chosen ground*.

    We must do this precisely because our Holy Faith teaches us that, while Faith is above Reason, there can never be any real contradiction between Faith and Reason.

    If an atheist or naturalist wishes to propose a falsification of a doctrine of the faith on materialist grounds, then he must be refuted, at least to the extent of showing an alternative explanation of the observations exists, on precisely those grounds which he chooses.

    Once this is accomplished, then the discussion should, of course, proceed to the relative merits of the metaphysical world views which underlie the two interpretations of the data.

    From this, we proceed, finally, to the question of the highest and most certain form of knowledge; that is, Revelation, and its logically necessary deductions derived from theology.