Modern geocentrism

Modern Geocentrism is the advocation of a geocentric (Earth-centered) model of the universe. Although geocentrism has been rejected for centuries by scientists, a few people, mostly with a religious perspective, are convinced of a geocentric universe for a number of reasons, including Biblical passages and Church statements, plus the fact that a geocentric and a heliocentric system can both explain the kinetics and force interactions observed on earth and in the universe.

Description of the Modern Geocentric Model

The most popular modern geocentric model consists of a stationary (not rotating or orbiting the sun) Earth at the center of the universe. This results in a type of Tychonian system in which the Sun and stars rotate around the Earth once per day, and the rest of the solar system orbits the Sun, with exceptions for things such as moons orbiting their respective planets. The entire universe is embedded in a medium, often referred to as aether, through which it is carried in a gyroscopic motion about the center of mass of the universe (Earth). Precession by gyroscopic motion about the Earth is said to be the cause of positional changes of objects with respect to the Earth, for example, and is also claimed to account for the observation of parallax. Geocentrists also maintain a wobble of the gyroscopic axis can account for abberation. The negative result of the Michelson Morley experiment experiment is interpreted as evidence that the earth is not moving with respect to the aether, though scientists interpret it as evidence that there is no aether.

The universe as a whole in this picture is regarded as rotating, which is taken to be an actual rotation and not merely a corotating coordinate frame. It therefore has conserved angular momentum and gyroscopic properties. However, even if the universe is taken to be far smaller than modern science tells us that it is, centrifugal forces would be enormous and would require corresponding centripetal forces of some kind. The earth is considered the center of mass in this system and motionless with regard to the rest of it.

The [contrary] modern scientific point of view

The consensus of scientists today is

that there is no center or otherwise special position in the universe,
that there is a no special linear velocity determined by the laws of physics 'per se', but the velocity of the cosmic background radiation could be considered special, and
that there is a unique rotational velocity in which Newton’s laws of motion hold.

"There is no special position."

All the known laws of physics can be formulated without reference to any particular place, as long as an inertial frame of reference is chosen for the description. That this is true, as far as we can tell, at all places and has been true for all times is illustrated by the agreement of the laboratory value of the fine structure constant with that derived from the spectra of stars billions of light years away.

Even if the laws of physics are independent of any particular place, one might still ask whether the arrangement of objects in the universe points to a special place for the Earth. If Keplerian dynamics and Newtonian gravitation are applied to the solar system isolated from the rest of the universe, the Earth does not hold a preferred place within the Solar System. Qualitatively, it appears to be simply one of nine planets orbiting the Sun. Neither does the Solar System appear to be in a preferred location within our Galaxy, where the Sun is a normal, main sequence star among 200 billion other stars and is located about two-thirds of the way out from the center. Our galaxy is one of 35 in the Local Group, albeit one of the three largest. With this information the question is then not so much whether the Earth is at the center of the universe, but whether the Local Group is at the center of the universe or is in some other way special. There have been times that such an idea has been proposed in scientific journals as a possible explanation for peculiar observations, but the consensus opinion is that there is no evidence based on the distribution of astronomical objects that any particular position in the universe is special.

"The cosmic microwave background radiation determines the only special velocity."

All the known laws of physics can be formulated without reference to any particular velocity, as long as an inertial frame of reference is chosen for the description. Therefore if, from the point of view of physics, there is a special velocity in the universe, it can only be observed because some group of objects move with that velocity. To avoid begging the question, the group must contain many objects that are widely dispersed. Candidates are all galaxies, all quasars, and the cosmic microwave background radiation. Observations show that the velocity of the center of mass of each of these groups is the same and differs from the velocity of the Solar System by about 700 km/s.

"The inertial frame is the only special rotation."

If the known laws of physics are formulated in various frames of reference rotating relative to one another, the mathematical formulation of these laws vary. Generally, a centrifugal force and a Coriolis force, dependent on an axis and a rate of rotation about this axis, must be introduced. These two forces are called fictitious forces because they do no obey Newton’s laws of motion. There are some special frames of reference where the fictitious forces vanish. These are known as inertial frames of reference. Inertial frames of reference do not rotate relative to each other. Therefore, from the point of view of physics, the rotational velocity of inertial frames of reference is special, and indeed is the only special one. An easy way to think of this is that there is only one frame of reference in which the axes of gimbal-mounted gyroscopes remain fixed.

Independent of the definition of inertial frames, the motion of the objects in the universe can be used to define a particular rotational frame. If that is done with all the known galaxies or all the known quasars, it is found that they do not rotate measurably relative to an inertial frame, verifying the special nature of that frame.

Biblical evidence

There are some passages in the Bible, which, if taken literally, would indicate that the daily apparent motions of the Sun and the Moon are due to their actual motions around the Earth rather than due to the rotation of the Earth about its axis. One is Ecclesiastes 1:5:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Another is in Joshua 10, 10-14, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:

Then Joshua spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies.

A suggestion that the Earth is stationary is Isaiah 66:1:

Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.

Of course, many Bible scholars believe that the language of these passages is consistent with the scientific belief that the perceived motion of the Sun and Moon results from the rotation of the Earth.

Scientific Evidence concerning whether the Earth is at the center of the universe

Geocentrists point to certain astronomical observations as evidence which could be interpreted as placing the earth at the center of the universe.

Gamma ray bursts

One such observation is reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ~ S^-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma.

This "dilemma" is resolved by realizing that the gamma ray bursters are so bright that they can be seen at distances corresponding to the early universe. GRB 990123, for example, has been located at 9 billion light years (see the article on gamma ray bursters. The edge of the spatial distribution centered on us is really an edge to the temporal distribution, which is converted to an isotropic spatial distribution by the finite speed of light. The cosmological distances associated with GRBs are an observational confirmation of part of the cosmological principle that is foundational to modern cosmology, namely that the universe is isotropic on the largest scales.

Geocentrists argue that there is simply too much energy involved in both GRBs and quasars for them to plausibly be as far away as scientists claim. It is not clear how they determined what makes the energy "too much".

Quantization of redshifts

Another line of evidence is related to redshift quantization. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, isn't expanding but has a redshift-distance realtion, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.

The first claimed observations of redshift quantization came from studies of galaxies. In 1970 William G. Tifft, astronomer at Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona claimed that a few dozen galaxies were situated from Earth at specific redshifts, namely, in multiples of 72 km/sec in redshift values. He continued to argue his claim through the 90s, for example in the articles "Global Redshift Periodicities: Association with the Cosmic Background Radiation" Astrophysics and Space Science, 239, 35 (1996), and "Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the CBR Rest Frame," Astrophysics and Space Science, 1997. Halton Arp has also supported the hypothesis of redshift quantization of galaxies in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies." He and Geoffrey Burbidge also wrote of their work in Physics Today, 37:17 (1984) in the article "Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On."(From private correspondence between Truth_Seeker and Robert Sungenis, author of "Galileo was Wrong")

There have also been claimed observations of redshift quantization in quasar populations. This was first put forward in 1976 by astrophysicist Y.P. Varshni, who favored an interpretation involving “laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star”, which found little or no acceptance in the scientific community. One attempt to explain Vashni’s findings within the accepted framework of cosmology came from C. B. Stephenson, who suggested that the Big Bang produced periodic bands of quasars that spread out over time. This model found approval neither from the establishment nor from Varshni.."(From private correspondence between Truth_Seeker and Robert Sungenis, author of "Galileo was Wrong")

The scientists making observations of quantized redshifts have all recognized and rejected the possible interpretation that the Earth has a privileged position in the universe. Considering the meager evidence for alternative explanations, it seems likely that this choice was motivated more by a philosophical predisposition than by an analysis of the evidence.

Since these early observations were made, galaxy surveys have increased the quantity and quality of the redshift data enormously. One study with the new database was specifically designed to test Arp’s theories that quasars are not at cosmological distances but are associated with galaxies, and that the redshifts of these galaxy pairs are quantized, that is, they appear in regular intervals and are not homogeneous. The statistical methods were approved in advance by Arp and carried out by Edward Hawkins and his colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England. The original paper, E. Hawkins, S. J. Maddox and M. R. Merrifield, “No periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey data,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 336, Is. 1, October 2002, p. L15, is also discussed in "No Quantized Redshifts", Sky and Telescope 104:28, 2002. The conclusion is “Among 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any quantized redshifts appears". Despite their prior approval of the methods, Arp and his followers still reject the result (William Napier and Geoffrey Burbidge, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2003, 342, pp. 601-604).."(From private correspondence between Truth_Seeker and Robert Sungenis, author of "Galileo was Wrong")

Those scientists who still believe in quantized redshifts represent a very small minority. What all sides can agree on is that the effect, if it exists, is so small that it can only be detected by sophisticated statistical methods. It is also evident that effects like the evolution of the universe, large-scale structures in the universe, and local clustering can, in some circumstances, mimic the trace of redshift quantization.

Theories of geocentrism

The simplest way to define a theory of geocentrism is to apply the appropriate coordinate transformation to existing theory, but this is not very satisfying to anybody. Geocentrists generally believe there is additional substance to their worldview that can be expressed in a theory with explanatory and, ideally, predictive power. They generally accept at least classical physics, in particular Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. There is no theory that is accepted by all geocentrists, and no theory that is formulated well enough mathematically to be falsifiable, but some general comments can be made.

The observations

The major observations to be explained, as expressed from a geocentric perspective, are

variations in the length of the day [1]
- a general slowing down over time (attributed by modern science to tidal friction)
- a variation over many years (attributed to changes in the Earth's core)
- seasonal variations (attributed to changes in the jet stream and the distribution of ice and water)
- occasional sudden changes (attributed to events like major earthquakes or particular weather patterns)
motions of the stars and the Sun
- daily motion in near circles centered on the Earth
- monthly variation on top of that (attributed by modern science to the orbit of the Earth around the center of mass of the Earth-Moon system)
- yearly variation on top of that with a radius of one astronomical unit
- proper motions, i.e., movements of the stars relative to each other according to Newton's laws of motion and gravitation
motions of the planets and of artificial satellites and space probes
- daily, monthly, and yearly motions as for the stars
- Keplerian orbits around the Sun on top of that
physics on the Earth
- centrifugal force
- Coriolis force

Theories based on classical gravitation

Some geocentrists believe that at least part of these observations can be explained as a result of classical gravitation with a particular mass distribution. Indeed, a uniform distribution of dark (and otherwise unobtrusive) matter, coupled with a quadropole gravitational field imposed from the “outside”, could provide the centripetal force associated with the daily rotation. Gravitational fields uniform throughout the universe and rotating monthly and yearly would result in those components of the motion. On the other hand, classical gravitational fields cannot provide the torque needed to account for the variations in the length of the day, nor can they provide the Coriolis forces observed in planetary motion and in physics experiments on Earth.

Theories based on a rigid aether

A different approach to accounting for the forces required to explain the observations is kinematic constraints. If all heavenly bodies (sun, planets, comets, stars) are rotating daily around the Earth, it is natural to suppose that they are embedded in a transparent but rigid material. Geocentrists generally believe in such a substance and refer to it as aether. This aether is not necessarily the same as the late 19th century concept of luminiferous aether that was supposed to be the material through which light propagates. In fact, geocentrists sometimes cite the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for a stationary Earth, which only makes sense if light does not propagate through the rotating aether in which the heavenly bodies are supposedly embedded.

The aether hypothesis not only provides the centripetal forces needed to explain the circular orbits of the stars and Sun, it also provides a natural way to synchronize the monthly and yearly motions. Geocentrists sometimes refer to these periodic variations as resulting from gyroscopic precession, although the details of the model are not specified. When the finite speed of light is taken into consideration, the picture is more complex (at least assuming the enormous estimate of the size of the universe belieived today). If we see all the stars moving at the same time, then the stars farther away must have moved earlier in order to allow their light time to reach Earth. This implies not a rigid aether but an aether supporting torsional waves that propagate with the speed of light and converge on the Earth. To explain the irregular or sudden changes in the length of the day in this way requires a reversal of the presumtive cause and effect, that is, the aether waves must cause the earthquake or weather pattern that is associated with that change in the length of the day. It is also difficult to reconcile the rigidity of the aether required to contain and synchronize the motions of the stars with the tenuousness implied by the fact that the proper motions appear to be uninhibited.

If simple aether theories might be able to explain some of the properties of the motions of the stars and Sun, more complex theories are necessary to explain orbits in the Solar System and experiments on the Earth. This is partly because the rigidity/tenuousness dilemma brought up for stellar motion is even more visible there, but primarily because a single centripetal force is no longer adequate. The observations can only be explained by separate centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

Theories based on frame dragging

Recognizing the inability of gravitational and mechanical models to explain the Coriolis effect, geocentrists often invoke frame dragging, also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. This effect is a often claimed as a subtle consequence of general relativity and has only recently been demonstrated by sensitive satellite experiments. In fact Lense and Thirring developed the theory for a geocentric universe model (and later for the universe as a spinning disk). It predicts, for example, that a gyroscope near the Earth will not remain fixed relative to the stars, but will rotate a tiny amount in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. The relevance for geocentrists is that a rotating universe (possibly including a massive aether), will cause frame dragging at the Earth, which will have the same form as the Coriolis force. Geocentrists sometimes carry the argument farther and believe that the daily rotation of the stars around the Earth causes gravity, as well.

Theories based on a radically different cosmology

Some geocentrists believe that the difficulties in the types of theories discussed above can be overcome by rejecting some of the assumptions that were implicitly made in that discussion. In particular, some geocentrists believe that the universe is very much smaller than the billions of light years calculated by modern scientists. A detailed theory of this sort is not available, so its plausibility and freedom from internal contradictions cannot be evaluated here.

References

Much of this page is adapted from [2] and [3], and private correspondence between Truth_Seeker and Robert Sungenis, author of "Galileo was Wrong".

Bouw, Gerardus: Geocentricity
Ciufolini, I. and Pavlis, E. C., A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect Nature 431, 958-960 (21 October 2004)
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman, 1973
Sungenis, Robert: Galileo Was Wrong, (pending, 2005)