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UPDATE 1/17/12: My interlocutor has withdrawn from the discussion.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: http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~cosmo/pub/Main/CosmicMicrowaveBackground/dipole_klein2.jpg
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:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf

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.