Modern geocentrism Guide, Meaning , Facts, Information and Description
Modern geocentrism is the advocation of a geocentric (Earth-centered) model of the universe (or at least the solar system). Although geocentrism has been rejected for centuries by almost all scientists and philosophers, a few people, mostly with a religious perspective, are convinced of a geocentric universe for a number of reasons, including the apparent endorsement by some Biblical passages and Church statements, plus the fact that the geocentric and the heliocentric reference frames are equivalent.
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:
Biblical evidence
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.
- Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth my footstool.
To the extent that modern geocentrism is based on a literal interpretation of such passages of the Bible, it is evident that the important point is whether or not the Earth rotates. Of course, if the Earth does not rotate, it is most natural to assume that it is at the center of the Solar system and that the Sun and the other planets rotate around it in a more or less complicated manner. The Biblical evidence does not speak directly to the question of whether the Earth or the Solar System has a privileged position in the Universe. Conversely, any scientific evidence that they do have a privileged position is not directly relevant to modern geocentrism.
From the point of view of kinematics, the description of motion, there is no debate about whether one coordinate system is just as accurate as another. A geocentric system can describe everything just as well as a heliocentric system. From the point of view of dynamics, the study of forces, there are differences between coordinate systems. A coordinate system where momentum is conserved is considered an inertial frame of reference. The geocentric system does not exhibit such momentum conservation and so is not an inertial frame of reference.
This point may require some elaboration. In physics a distinction is made between kinematics and dynamics. Kinematics is the branch of mechanics concerned with the motions of objects without being concerned with the forces that cause the motion, while dynamics is concerned with the forces that affect motion. Since kinematics is only descriptive, any coordinate system will in principle do. Consider for a moment the daily changes (the rotation of the Earth in the heliocentric system, or of the universe in the geocentric system) and ignore the yearly changes (Earth's revolution around the Sun in the heliocentric system, and the Sun's revolution around the Earth in the geocentric system). Call the inertial frame of reference in which the Sun and the Earth have no translational motion "heliocentric". In this frame the Earth rotates on its axis. Call the frame of reference in which the Earth has neither translational nor rotational motion "geocentric". In this frame, the Sun revolves around the Earth once a day. The relation between the Sun and the Earth may be described in either frame with equal accuracy. The situation with respect to dynamics is different. In the heliocentric frame of reference, there are no accelerations, so no forces are required. In the geocentric frame, the Sun is moving in a circular path, that is, it is accelerating toward the Earth, requiring a force in that direction. To account for the dynamics in this and all other cases requires the introduction of fictitious forces, namely the centrifugal force (directed away from the Earth) and the Coriolis force (in this case twice as large as the centrifugal force and directed toward the Earth).
In the sense that all phenomena may be described equally well in any coordinate system, it makes no sense within the framework of science to ask which system is "true" one. If a geocentrist believes on the basis of the Bible that the geocentric coordinate system is preferred by God, that is a religious statement that cannot be adressed by science. What science can do is to ask whether the laws of physics have a special formulation in any particular coordinate system. Concerning the origin of the coordinate system and its translational velocity, the consensus is that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent. Concerning rotation, there is only one frame of reference that does not require the introduction of fictitious forces. Physically, this unique frame of reference does not correspond to the classically geocentric frame that is corotating with the Earth.
To put it more simply, the laws of physics can be used to define the orientation of a coordinate system over time by pointing a gyroscope along each axis. Relative to this system, the geocentric system rotates once each day.
The most popular religiously-motivated modern geocentric model consists of a stationary Earth at the center of the universe. This results in a type of Tychonian system in which the Sun orbits the Earth 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). The spatial relations between the stars, galaxies, etc., relative to one another are fixed (other than any rotation or orbiting patterns). 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, accounting for the observation of parallax.
In general, the theory does not stand up well to rigorous scientific scrutiny. While there are arguable similarities between it and the modern scientific worldview, there are definite contradictions. Modern geocentrist argue, for example that in string theory, a similar concept to aether of "space foam" is sometimes employed, but is considered distinct from any medium of propogation for light. Likewise, the terms gyroscopic motion and precession also do not seem be be used in a way consistent with their technical meanings. Some of the points are in direct contradiction with relativity or other scientific observations:
An argument often brought against geocentrism is the complexity of the mathematical description required. The dynamical simplicity of a heliocentric solar system as compared to a geocentric solar system was the very reason that the Ptolemic geocentric universe was abandoned in the first place. In a similar way, it seems much easier to consider the Earth as just another planet since there is nothing particular in its physical characteristics to distinguish it from the other planets. Its size, mass, temperature, distance from the sun, gravity, chemical composition, and so on all lie somewhere in the middle of the range shown by the other planets.
Arguments that are made about simplicity such as these are sometimes referred to as a principle known as Ockham's Razor. The application of this principle has led to many foundational principles in science, for example the Copernican Principle and the Universality of Physical Laws. To the typical geocentrist, who has a religious perspective, the principle that God chose the Earth to be the center of His creation trumps all other considerations, and thus the simplicity of a given model is not even worthy of discussion.
Detractors also point out that since the Sun is much more massive than the Earth, the Earth should be gravitationally forced to orbit it. Geocentrists argue that if the Earth holds the central position in the universe, then the gravitational force of the rest of the universe might counterbalance the gravitational attraction. Unfortunately, in order for this to allow for a stationary Earth, there would have to be an anisotropy of the surrounding medium that would exactly cancel out the gravitational force due to the mass and proximity of the sun. As it stands right now, scientists observe the distribution of mass in the universe to be very nearly isotropic on the largest scales so that no observable gravitational effect would be expected. Certainly the local anisotropy is far to small for the Earth to be in a gravitationally stable Lagrange point.
An important distiction is that the geocentric system is defined with respect to the Earth. In contrast, an inertial frame of reference is defined with respect to the laws of physics, rather than to any particular distribution of matter.
There are a large number of observations that are relevant to this discussion, among them that
Even if the laws of physics, which are independent of any particular objects, point to an inertial frame as being more special than the frame corotating with the Earth, one might still ask whether the arrangement of objects in the universe points to a special place (or velocity) for the Earth. All the scientific evidence cited to support modern geocentrism seems to be directed to this question, even though there is no connection between this hypothesis and the Biblical evidence cited.
If Keplerian dynamics and Newtonian gravitation are applied to the solar system, the Earth does not hold a prefered place within the solar system. Rather, it is simply one of nine planets orbiting the Sun. Neither does the solar system appear to be in a prefered 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 (oftentimes with the tongue firmly planted in cheek) as a possible explanation for peculiar observations. Modern geocentrists have attached themselves to a few such proposals that are discussed below.
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:
Many in the fringe and completely outside of the scientific mainstream have made noise surrounding the idea that observed redshifts are quantized. A large percentage of these people explicitly reject the Big Bang model of the universe and try to explain the Hubble Law Expansion observed relationship that connects redshifts with distance as being due to alternative effects. Modern geocentricists have also joined in, hoping to use the quantization of redshifts as proof, not of an incorrect redshift-distance relation, but rather as an indication that our observing point is the center of the universe. As it stands now, there is no evidence for redshift quantization, so the enterprising geocentrist must look elsewhere for evidence that we are at the center of the universe.
The first claimed observations of quasar redshift quantization came in 1976 by astrophysicist Y.P. Varshni. He presented his data with three possible interpretations, one of which is that Earth was in the center of the universe. Varshni wrote (in Astrophysics and Space Science, 1976, 43:3)
In 1970, William G. Tifft, astronomer at Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona showed that a few dozen galaxies were situated from Earth at specific redshifts, namely, in multiples of 72 km/sec in redshift values, as recorded in "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. Even today, Tift continues to insist on a quantization of local galaxies' redshifts. In 1992, Sky and Telescope magazine gave coverage to Tifft's ideas and extrapolated a possible geocentric interpretation to his fitted data ("Quantized Redshifts: What's Going on Here?" 84:128, 1992). At that time there was considerable controversy surrounding seeming contradictions that had arose in the Big Bang model which have since been resolved by the observational concordance of the Lambda-CDM model. Tift's work has subsequently been shown lacking in scope and in believability by the vast amounts of new data from galaxy surveys which show no statistical evidence for redshift periodicity of galaxies.
Other references to the same type of work on quantized quasar and galactic redshifts, are Tifft and Cocke writing of this phenomenon in Sky and Telescope, 73:19, in 1987 in the article "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts," as well as in New Scientist of June 22, 1985, in the article "Galaxy Redshifts Come in Clumps." Burbidge wrote about the same phenomenon in Mercury in the article "Quasars in the Balance," 17:136 in 1988. Halton Arp has provided the most information in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies." He and Burbidge wrote of their work in Physics Today, 37:17 (1984) in the article "Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On." In 1991, astronomers Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William M. Napier of the Royal University at Edinburgh compared the redshifts from 89 single spiral galaxies and found a periodicity that was very close to Tifft's quantum multiple for this class of galaxies. At the time, 89 galaxies seemed like quite a lot, but it pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of galaxy redshifts measured as of today.
It happens that all of these analyses suffer from either poor data-fitting models or bad statistics. Currently, with today's collections of galaxy and quasar redshifts from galaxy surveys, there is absolutely no statistically detectable evidence found for quantization of redshifts. Sky and Telescope reported this finding conclusively in its 2002 issue ("No Quantized Redshifts" 104:28, 2002). The "controversy" has been laid to rest, and only a few hangers-on such as Halton Arp and William Tift continue to ignore the vast preponderance of the evidence from modern sky surveys. The most recent, most complete, and most accurate measurements of quasar redshifts do not support a distribution of galaxy and quasar "celestial spheres" centered on our location. Indeed, as galaxy surveys have been collecting more and more quasar counts, the quantization coincidences are not seen as model phenomena.
Some physicists argue that the velocity of the center of mass of the universe determines a unique reference velocity. This argument, known as Mach's principle, has never developed into a quantitative, testable physical theory. In any case, it is observed that the Earth has on average a velocity relative to the CMB and distant galaxies, and in addition a periodic yearly variation relative to these. (In a kinematic geocentric description, the universe flows past Earth with a cycloidal motion.)
Interestingly, the observation of a restframe-velocity for the CMB that is different than that of our own by a yearly average of 600 km/sec dictates a prefered frame of reference for the entire universe. This frame is not, however, Earth, but rather is the surface of last scatter which defines the CMB radiation that permeates space. Having a prefered frame of reference might seem to violate the basic tenet of general relativity explicitly rejecting preferred frames of reference, but the physics is completely invariant for any choice of a zero velocity. Since the entire universe decoupled everywhere at the same time, the CMB is a useful (and prefered) starting point for measuring relative velocities in cosmological work.
This is an Article on Modern geocentrism. Page Contains Information, Facts Details or Explanation Guide About Modern geocentrism Scientific Evidence
Description of the Modern Geocentric Model
Simplicity Argument
Center of Mass Argument
Geocentric vs. inertial coordinate systems
These observations are not controversial, and all of them may be naturally explained by simple gravitational or mechanical forces as long as an inertial frame of reference is chosen for the description. All these phenomena may also be described in a frame of reference stationary relative to the Earth, that is in a geocentric (and geostatic) frame of reference. In order to do so, centrifugal and Coriolis forces (or forces equivalent to these) must be introduced corresponding to rotation around the Earth's axis and rotation around the axis of the Earth-Sun orbit.Whether the Earth has a privileged position in the universe
GRB distributions
This "dilemma" is resolved because gamma ray bursters have been measured to be at cosmological distances rather than in our own galaxy. This result means that GRBs are some of the brightest transient objects to shine in the universe -- so bright that they can be seen at distances corresponding to the early universe. GRB 990123, for example, was measured to be at a distance of 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 seemingly random distribution of GRBs across the sky is really 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.Quantization of redshifts
Varshni calculated the odds against a chance arrangement of 57 concentric spheres of quasars around the earth to be 3 x 1086 to 1. This, unfortunately, is an example of an eggregiously misleading miscalculation based on faulty Bayesian priors. Varshni ultimately attributed his results to an intragalactic (that is, non-cosmological) location of the quasars and a redshift resulting from a laser phenomenon rather than cosmological expansion. Whether the Solar System has a privileged velocity
The above observations concern the question of whether the Earth occupies a privileged position in the universe. One can also ask whether the Earth has a special velocity. In 1963, Pensias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB). Initial measurements found that the radiation was approximately uniform in all directions, indicating that the velocity of the Earth relative to this remnant of the Big Bang is not too large. Subsequent measurements had sufficient accuracy to detect the dipole asymmetry indicating a finite velocity, and this velocity was consistent with that derived from other evidence.Books
Reference
External links