The falsity of geocentrism

The recognition that geocentrism is false is so nearly universal, that modern belief in it is viewed as iconic ignorance, if not stupidity. Witness the following recent, casual citations: (1) “Deep down in my heart of hearts, I might feel that the sun revolves around the earth…but before I start announcing this as a truth about the way the universe works, I should go ahead and examine the evidence to see if it is actually true. It is this kind of never-wavering requirement for proof that allows us to have a clear-eyed look at the universe.” ( and (2) scoffing at “the (alleged) NASA plot to cover up geocentrism” (

Geocentrism is not false because heliocentrism is true. Rather geocentrism is false because heliocentrism is false.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there is no absolute reference frame for motion. If the earth were moving with respect to an absolute reference frame, then the speed of light should depend upon direction. However, the experiment demonstrated that the speed of light is a constant, independent of direction. Notice that the correct inference is not that the earth is stationary with respect to an absolute reference frame, but that there is no absolute reference frame.

Consider the statement: The earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. That the earth orbits the sun is a statement affirming the heliocentric depiction of the relative motion of the earth and the sun. However, ‘and not vice versa’ is the affirmation of heliocentrism. In heliocentrism, the depiction is taken as absolute, excluding as false all other possible depictions. However, the relative motion of the sun and the planets can be accurately and interdependently depicted as heliocentric, geocentric as well as saturnocentric. Each depiction is compatible with and interdependent upon the others. The others must be valid for any one to be valid. To affirm any one of these depictions as absolute and thereby excluding the others as false is respectively, heliocentrism, geocentrism and saturnocentrism.

Any reference frame in analytical geometry is compatible with every other such reference frame. Reference frames in analytical geometry are linearly related to one another. Consequently, the choice of a reference frame does not affect the degree of any equation of physics. The following two illustrations should be intuitively convincing that reference frames are interchangeable.

Consider the perspective of an observer on the ground at an air show and the perspective of a pilot, who dives his craft toward the earth and pulls out of the dive. That depiction is in accord with the observer on the ground and in accord with the depiction of his motion in the pilot’s own mind. However, the motion observed by the pilot is the earth’s surface coming at him and then the earth’s surface receding. Both the land and the aircraft based motions are valid as observations and as depictions. They are compatible. The affirmation of one does not falsify the other. The affirmation of each depiction affirms the other.

Let a bicycle be ridden around the oval of a stadium. One recording camera is mounted on the bicycle frame facing the stands. Another is mounted on the rotating hub of the front wheel, facing the stands. A third camera is in the stands with a scope of the entire oval. Which record of the motion is actually true? Given the record of either the frame camera or the hub camera, one could figure out what a record of the motion would be like from the perspective of a camera in the stands. In other words, only if the stadium is moving about the bike, can it be true that the bike is moving around the oval of the stadium. In fact all three records of the motion must be true depictions of the motion for each and every one of them to be a true depiction of the motion.

The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that there is no absolute reference frame for motion. Only if the sun moves around the rotating earth in a year can it be true that the rotating earth orbits the sun in a year.

The question of the earth orbiting the sun ‘or’ vice versa is not a question of what is really true, but a question of the utility of the depiction. If it were a question of what is really true, then the prevailing wisdom must label as false the listing of the times of daily sunrise and sunset. These times reference the location of the sun to the earth. In the prevailing wisdom the earth must be located with reference to the sun, not vice versa.

Galileo was not an advocate of the beauty, simplicity and utility of the Copernican heliocentric depiction of motion. Rather, he was an advocate of heliocentrism. The advocacy of heliocentrism is as ignorant and as stupid as the advocacy of geocentrism, although in Galileo’s time this may not have been so readily apparent. However, today we have no excuse for accepting heliocentrism as really true, but for the effectiveness of the propaganda falsely positing exclusivity.

The depiction of the relative motion of the sun and its planets as heliocentric and observed from a virtual observation point outside of the solar system is inferred from geocentric observation. The geocentric depiction as observed from a virtual observation point outside of the solar system would be fully compatible with the heliocentric depiction. Both are inferred from the same set of geocentric observations. It is exclusivity which renders heliocentrism vs. geocentrism nonsensical.

1 comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: