Geocentrism – Anthropocentrism
Somebody once observed to the eminent philosopher Wittgenstein how stupid medieval Europeans living before the time of Copernicus must have been that they could have looked at the sky and thought that the sun was circling the earth.
Surely a modicum of astronomical good sense would have told them that the reverse was true.
Wittgenstein is said to have replied: “I agree. But I wonder what it would have looked like if the sun had been circling the earth.” ~ James Burke, The Day the Universe Changed
Geocentrism is the belief that Earth is the center of the Universe. Whatever Earth model people believed in in general, spherical or flat, prior to the Copernican Revolution, most models assumed Earth at the center of a Creation. This is certainly understandable, as this is how we directly perceive our place in the world. It’s a natural sensation, lulled into our subconscious through modern world view beliefs.
Remarkably, the Tychonian geocentric model is still used today for astronomical calculations, so there is definitely a very real ‘apparent’ aspect to it as far as functionality.
Modern day geocentrists come in a wide variety, from fundamentalist religious believers who see it as the word of God, through to some rather astute scientific types, who, though religious in character, instead rely on assessing the published scientific data. The later are seriously questioning the Copernican Principle.
The main points of contention consist of: the parallax issue, including Airy’s Failure; the unexpected results of the ether drift experiments and the rise of relativity; quantized galactic redshifts indicating shells of galaxies surrounding our location in space; and, the Earth-cosmos alignments of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies, along with possibly related galaxy, quasar and Gamma Ray Burst (GMB) distribution inconsistencies with the standard model.
We must consider the shift of consciousness during the Copernican revolution, the search for answers outside of human sensation, using only that which could be weighed or measured. Our innate anthropic sense is not allowed into a science based on materialism and uncertainties about life and consciousness.
And thus the materialists’ search for a hydromechanical ether began, starting because no parallax could be measured at the time. This indicated that light would have to travel with the earth around the Sun, that Earth is dragging the ether, and thereby also the light travelling through it.
There eventuated a stream of innovative experiments using light beams, to see if changes in velocity and other markers could be measured by relationships to Earth’s motion and material substances.
Perhaps the most famous, the Michelson-Morely experiment, supposedly ended the search for the ether, but nothing could be further from the truth.
It is orthodox gospel that the failure of this experiment to measure the ether led to the logical conclusion of Relativity. However, upon examination we find that there actually was an ether measured, just not the magnitude expected:
“…we find the aether drift to be probably less than 1/6 the orbital velocity of the earth and perhaps as high as 1/4 the orbital velocity of the earth. An aether drift of 1/6 the orbital velocity of the earth would be about 5.7 kilometres per second, which is well within the 4-40kps predictions of the time. Obviously a velocity of 1/4 the orbital velocity of the earth would be even faster.” ~ Michelson and Morley
“The indicated effect was not zero; the sensitivity of the apparatus was such that the conclusions, published in 1887, stated that the observed relative motion of the earth and ether did not exceed one fourth of the earth’s orbital velocity. This is quite different from a null effect now so frequently imputed to this experiment by writers on relativity.” ~ Dayton C Miller, 1933
Dayton Miller went on to produce further experiments, finally, through evolved understanding and refined apparatus, attaining significant measurements of the ether:
“Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec. towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic.” ~ Dr James DeMeo
So then we must consider this statement and its implications to the orthodox paradigm:
“My opinion about Miller’s experiments is the following… Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory, in its current form, would be invalid.” ~ Einstein
Using a modified apparatus, the Michelson-Gale experiment (proposed by Michelson in 1904, performed in 1925) measured Earth’s rotation to an accuracy of 2% of the angular velocity as measured by astronomy.
Georges Sagnac performed similar interferometry experiments in 1913 where he was able to measure earth’s rotation through change of movement of his light table apparatus via shifts of cross-referencing light beams. This effect, known as the Sagnac Effect, now used in fibre optic gyroscopes to measure of Earth’s rotation.
And again we find a curious statement to ponder, how could Einstein say this in light of the experimental record?
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment…” ~ Einstein
One interesting point is that the geocentrists cover most of these experiments, highlighting the fact that it appears the Michelson-Morley experiment didn’t measure the orbit of Earth around the Sun, while the Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments measured Earth’s rotation, or as they conclude, the rotation of the ether around a central, fixed Earth, causing the same effect. But they seem to leave out Dayton Miller’s later successful measurements.
One interesting point is that the geocentrists cover most of these experiments, highlighting the fact that it appears the Michelson-Morley experiment didn’t measure the orbit of Earth around the Sun, while the Sagnac and Michelson-Gale experiments measured Earth’s rotation, or as they conclude, the rotation of the ether around a central, fixed Earth, causing the same effect. But they seem to leave out Dayton Miller’s later successful measurements.
Galactic redshifts present a conundrum. The term “redshift” is in regards to the emission spectra of distant cosmological objects being shifted towards the red side of the Newtonian spectrum.
Orthodoxy sees this as a type of Doppler Effect, and this is the basis for the expanding universe thesis, in which everything is moving away from everything else, following an attendantly conjured Big Bang birth of the universe. The thesis is that the higher the redshift, the farther away and more distant in time the object being sighted.
However, galactic redshifts are quantized, that is they appear in certain ranges of measurements. If one considers them as measures of distance, they appear in distinct shells around the earth, as though the earth is the center, with the all the universe expanding away from our apparent centrally located Earth.
Much work in this area was done by the astronomer Halton Arp, who was a victim of orthodoxy for scientifically discovering divergent redshifts in connected cosmological objects.
Arp’s work indicates that quasars have nothing to do with being 13 billion light years away and in the past, rather they are young proto-galaxies, in our local galactic super-group, birthed from mature galaxies undergoing galactic core eruptions.
Since quasars are supposed to be the most ancient and distant objects in the universe, it is better to disrupt the scientific work of pioneers like Arp who showed them to be young and nearby, in order to preserve the tired old paradigm. In effect Arp’s work destroys both the expanding universe and the supermassive-black-hole-galactic-center theories, and shows the universe to be constructed quite differently than the speed of light measuring stick concept construes.
A recent documentary, The Principle, argues for geocentrism based on measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, said to be the thermal radiation remaining from the formation of baryonic (atomic) matter following the alleged Big Bang.
From the readings a strong anisotropy was recorded, now termed the Axis of Evil, whose dipoles and quadrupoles appear potentially aligned with Earth’s Ecliptic and Equatorial planes.
The Principle theorizes that these anisotropies confirm that the formation of Earth took place in the center of Creation.
Naturally there is strong opposition from the skeptics’ camp, claiming gross inaccuracies: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org.
There are further alternative explanations for the CMB being proffered.
One catastrophist’s hypothesis is that there is a local origin, that a “proto-Venus” struck Jupiter, creating the Great Red Spot, on its way to its current orbit. Grasping this Velikovskyian scenario is outside the scope of this article, but much effort has been put into explaining it here https://cycliccatastrophism.org.
And Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s explanation, in congruence with the Electric Universe thesis, that the CMB is caused by microwave radiation from Earth’s oceans, and thus explains the alignment with ambient microwave radiation surrounding our planet:
This is an interesting angle to consider because oceans have been suggested as a potential contributor, or at least as a modifier of Earth’s magnetic field!
https://www.universetoday.com/139077/did-you-know-the-earth-has-a-second-magnetic-field-its-oceans/But then again all the readings may be equipment error. Robitaille’s Sky Scholar YouTube Channel delves deeply into the techical aspects of this.
Whatever the situation with the CMB, the Geocentrists have some other interesting scientific data to back up their thesis.
There is a definite asymmetry in the universe, we see it in our molecular biology, where molecules tend to be left handed, and right handed people are the majority. This goes for the distribution of galaxies as they appear from Earth, as left-handed spiral galaxies are the majority in Northern skies, and right-handed spirals in the Southern skies, a mirror symmetry based around us! What’s even more interesting is that the alignment axis of this pattern aligns with the mysterious cold spot in the CMB. See: Evidence for a Preferred Handedness of Spiral Galaxies
The CMB multi-poles also align with the Virgo Supercluster of galaxies, which is considered a lobe of the greater Laniakea Supercluster, which is focused on the Great Attractor. The GA, a “gravitational anomaly” in intergalactic space, is thought to cause the galactic superclusters.
There are other aligned anisotropies in the cosmic distribution of quasars and radio galaxies. There is much evidence, if we take these readings at face value in the current paradigm, that Earth is in a special place. Much food for thought here, and I’ve merely scratched the surface to provide insights into the development and foundations of various world views.
Considering all this ether and cosmic alignment data, what if Earth were in the center? What would orthodox scientists think?
“… such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena…. Therefore we disregard this possibility … the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable…” ~ Edwin Hubble
“Redshifts would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth… This hypothesis cannot be disproved” ~ Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology
“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either Coordinate System could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different Coordinate Systems.” ~ Einstein & Infeld, The Evolution of Physics
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” ~ George Ellis, Scientific American, October 1995
“All this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe… We reject it only on grounds of modesty” ~ Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time
There are orthodox scientists who adhere to the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which is a philosophical consideration that not only are humans adapted to the universe, the universe is adapted to humans. While everything should be just random chance in the soul-less materialistic universe, where the paradigm says life and consciousness arose by mere lucky chance, there are the obvious facts that the world we find ourselves within is spectacularly adapted to creating and sustaining our lives… that is if we are intelligent enough to manage our collective evolution!
The scientists adhering to the anthropic principle are not in the geocentric camp, but they acknowledge some of the obvious facts which mechanistic science attempts to reject.
Anthropocentricity!
Going deeper into this concept we encounter Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy. What is germane to our discussion here is the work of the natural scientists working out of his Goethean natural scientific impulse.
Steiner’s indication to his scientific associates was that all living beings – plants, animals, humans – on our planet have biological rhythms and shaping from formative forces affected by the direct relations and motions of the sun, moon and planets as perceived from earth. Some of the most enlightening insights were gained from following that impulse.
Dr Lili Kolisko, for example, did four decades (1920s-60s) of crystallization experiments with metallic salts in relation to planetary positions and relationships. Steiner tasked her with physically describing a link as considered in alchemy between the noble metals and the ‘planets’ of old (the luminaries); Sun-gold, Moon-silver, Venus-gold, Mars-iron, Jupiter-tin, Saturn-lead.
For example she would dissolve gold chloride into liquid solution and take a 10x10cm or so square of blotter paper rolled into a cylinder and place it vertically into a petri dish with the solution; she would do this during various geocentrically-observed cosmic events (planetary relationships of angles of 15 degrees and multiples thereof) and watch the crystal-forming patterns as they rose contra-gravity. There are many thousands of these experiments, but one prime example is that gold crystallizes imperfectly during solar eclipses, when the moon blocks the sun.
My video, Workings of the Stars in Earthly Substances, an introduction to L. Kolisko’s work, on her Lead-Saturn-Sun experiments:
Spirit in Matter – A Scientist’s Answer to the Bishop’s Queries, by L. Kolisko:
https://archive.org/details/spirit-in-matter-a-scientists-answer-to-the-bishops-queries-l.-kolisko
Lawrence Edwards investigated the relationships between planetary motions and plant morphology, specifically bud shapes. He discovered that buds change form rhythmically, and that these rhythms are those of the alignments of the Moon and planets. For example, he found that a specific tree or flower changes the form of its buds in the rhythm of the lunar alignment with a specific planet. The Oak, for example, appears to change with Mars, the Beech with Saturn and the Birch with Venus.
Edwards’ research is the first and only one to have, from first mathematical principles, successfully described any biological form. This implies that DNA cannot alone be the propagator of living form, and random process cannot alone drive evolution. http://www.budworkshop.co.uk/
The shape forming characteristics are the relationships of the diverse forms of plants to the planetary motions, both in an archetypal sense in form, but also in an active living sense in the various plant tropisms.
We know of plants that follow the sun through the day, such as the sunflower. There is much wisdom in planting to the moon cycles to allow roots to develop their best. All plants have reactions to the planets as well. The archetypal plant is precisely the geocentric and heliocentric relationships of our solar system intertwined. This is much easier to visualize with pictures, even moreso studying plants in the right format.
Rudolf Hauschka, founder of Wala Pharmaceuticals (Dr. Hauschka’s cosmetics bear his name) did experiments following on from earlier experiments by the Baron Albrecht Von Herzeele, indicating that plants create matter as they grow.
Von Herzeele, in his The Origin of Inorganic Substances describes experiments of seeds sprouting in distilled water, the original content of the plant’s elemental components increased, and they apparently were transmuting calcium into phosphorous, magnesium into calcium, nitrogen into potassium, etc.
Hauschka reproduced these experiments, sprouting from standardized seeds in distilled water inside sealed containers, and their weight was measured by precision scale. It was shown that matter appears and disappears as the Moon goes through its phases, different minerals have a more dominant appearance at different times of year, as the Sun processes through the Zodiac. See his illluminating Nature of Substance.
Hauschka’s experiments show that life processes precede the elements, that they are formed into materiality through life processes. Steiner also says this in his Agriculture course, where he indicates that the elements of the chemist are the ‘corpses’ of cosmic processes, brought to materiality through the rhythms of life.
These are strong indications of a higher order life body around the Earth. Does this indicate Earth is the center of the universe? Not necessarily, but it does show science has missed the high notes while it spent centuries looking into matter, excluding life and consciousness since they can not be weighed and measured.
“The center everywhere, the circumference nowhere” ~ Hermes
In Guenther Wachsmuth’s Etheric Formative Forces In Cosmos Earth and Man there is a diagram showing both the geo and heliocentric models interwoven, in an explanation of the influence of planetary spheres on Earth life.
“In considering the action of the planets upon terrestrial occurrences, it will be necessary in future to take a much broader view if we are desirous of reaching a comprehensive grasp of the group of facts under consideration. The wise men of past centuries, especially those of the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, possessed a knowledge of these things which, unfortunately, is entirely lost in essential points to our own age, so extraordinarily proud of its scientific achievements. It is fortunate that it has occurred to some of the most advanced investigators to bring the action of the planets under consideration in exact fashion in relationship with the earth, although we are only at the beginning of this inquiry.” ~ Guenther Wachsmuth
This of it like this, the heliocentric model is basic extensible “3D” space as presently conceived by the status quo paradigm, it is like our skeleton, deep within our being. The geocentric, or more properly anthropocentric, model is like our living flesh on top, this magical, sensual interface with manifestation. All biological life relates to as though Earth is in the center, which is why Steiner termed his work Anthroposophy.
In effect the Tychonian structure is a “Virtual Reality” program running on the physical circuitry of the heliocentric model. Think of the Heliocentric model as inert space, the gravity bound paradigm. Then consider the Anthropocentric model as alert space, the realm of levity and life. They function together.
So this is not a question of “either-or”, “heliocentric or geocentric”, but rather a question of awareness of interwoven spaces comprising living manifestations. And there’s more…
Next: https://thomasbrown.org/archecosmos-geocosmos/