Earth at the center of the Universe?

Is the Sun at the center of the solar system?
Most people would argue “Yes”.
And they would laugh at anyone saying otherwise.

But as Einstein said, “The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS”.

Why then do we still insist that “The Sun is at the center of the solar system”? (especially when there are modern theories from modern cosmologists with Earth at the center of the universe solving many problems of modern cosmology, including the problem of dark matter - see George Ellis)

And no, it is not because the heliocentric system is more simple than the geocentric one. Actually the heliocentric system uses MORE epicycles than the geocentric! (the true breakthrough in that came with the elliptical orbits of Kepler, not with the transition to the heliocentric system)

The truth is that behind our belief that the Earth IS NOT at the center of ANYTHING, lies a deep dogmatism: We believe that we ARE NOT unique. So deep is that dogmatism rooted into our thought, that we have formulated a respective astronomy PRINCIPLE (aka “axiom”, i.e. something NOT PROVEN) called “the Copernican Principle”.

Based on that principle, Hubble himself postulated that Earth is NOT at the center of the UNIVERSE EVEN THOUGH HIS DATA PROVED OTHERWISE!
One can see for a brief analysis of arguments concerning the subject, including an analysis of the paper issued by Hubble and how he changed his initial finding based on his dogmatic beliefs.


What would be causing the Earth to be at the center (or stay there)?

What is at the “center” of anything does not matter at all.
But that is exactly the point: If it does not matter, why are many so eager to exclude Earth from the center?
Behind that lies the atheistic dogmatism that humans are just another “nothing” in a vast sea of “nothingness”.
This is what I am trying to say here.
Our own personal philosophical beliefs should not matter at all when it comes to scientific models!
And yet, the notion that the Earth is at the center seems so absurd today by so many believing in the “Copernical Principle”…

Well, I only gauge by a basic gravity model. And gravity would indicate that a Sun is not going to arc, or hardly move at all, around a planet. So in what way would I be wrong about that?

The sun is determined to be the orbital center of our solar system.
Do you think the sun orbits earth instead?
But ultimately, I don’t understand what the proposed center of the solar system has to do with the center of the universe.

I just watched an hour and 40 minute lecture by George Ellis, and I don’t think he believes what you seem to think he believes – that the solar system, galaxy or universe has the earth as its center.
A direct quote:
“The solar system is incredibly small and insignificant compared with our galaxy. This is Andromeda; if it was our galaxy, that is roughly where we would be. We’re way out towards the outside edge and the previous picture was looking from there, looking inwards towards the center of our galaxy.”
“We have in fact believed that we can see on the order of a hundred thousand million galaxies in the observable part universe, each with a hundred thousand million stars, and a huge number of those will have planets around them, so the earth and this room are insignificantly small in this context.”[/size]

It seems to me he just stated quite plainly that planets, like earth, gather around stars to form solar systems and that stars, like ours, cluster together in structures called galaxies.
Ellis stated that our solar system is on the outer edge of our galaxy. So if the earth is on the outer edge of our galaxy, not the center, how could the earth be the center of the universe?

“Center” does matter in this context, center in this conversation means something like (or exactly) the orbital center.

George Ellis is Quaker and Copernicus was Catholic. Their cosmological conceptions are not “eager to exclude earth from the center,” they just don’t put earth at the center of their models because they believe there is better scientific justification and coherence with the sun at the center.

By the way, the link to the George Ellis lecture video:

The original belief that Earth was at the center of the universe was a deep dogmatism. When the idea was formulated the Greeks looked at earth as the densest, dirtiest part of the universe. As the densest parts fall towards the middle, like the bowels of a human, therefore, the Earth was at the center. The peoples that formulated the idea thought of up and down in much the same way as we think of out and in. The Earth was the innermost, nastiest thing. The Earth was essentially a shit hole, and they go to the center.

Aspects to remember, though they had kick ass geometry, Algebra didn’t come around until much after this theory was created. LOL, they did amazing things with geometry…

One train moving next to the other.
Or… the other train moving against the first?

One object revolving against the other.
Or… the other object revolving against the first?

Got it?

Every model is equivalent and equally valid.

Choosing the Sun instead of the Earth is purely a matter of atheistic “we are nothing” beliefs.


In any system you can choose any center!
This is basic if we want to proceed with the discussion.
If for some reason you believe a specific center is more “valid” than any other, then you must justify it.

Here’s a physics.stackexchange question on the same topic, with some possibly enlightening answers.

Throughout my other readings on the topic, the most common answer seems to be “We treat the sun as the center because the equations are simpler.” So, it’s not just a matter of atheistic ‘we are nothing’ beliefs. There’s an actual practical benefit to it.

All things are NOT relative.
Relativity itself is merely relative.

I don’t believe that the universe has a geometric center. And that allows for one to be chosen based upon other concerns. And the mathematical model used to predict movements is essential and that leads to the use of the Sun as a center and the Milky Way’s black-hole as a center. Any spiraling, orbiting, or amassing establishes a center.

Humanity can easily be the center of priorities for humans. But with that in mind, mathematical centers must be respected.

If you hypothetically take away our sun, could you still perceive earth as center, with any amount of epicycles?

If you hypothetically take away earth, could you still perceive the sun as the center of orbit for the remaining planets?

You can do whatever you want, but I don’t agree that makes sense.

Actually the heliocentric system needs MORE epicycles.
And Hubble did not think about that at all.
He just DISCARED his conclusions that the Earth seems at the center of the Universe simply because “Humans could not be at the center”!
And this was an atheistic belief.

Isn’t that only true if you take the planets to be orbiting in circles?

In other words, taking the planets to orbit the sun in elliptical paths with zero epicycles is simpler than the sun and the planets orbiting earth with epicycles, no?
If no, then why do epicycles happen?

I am afraid both models are wrong, and its scientifically provable.

After reading the book ‘The Book Nobody Read’ about the history of the work De Revolutionibus and its influence over the science of the next few centuries (sun was not the center by the way, it orbited a void at the center) I started collecting data, in pursuit of classical Natural Philosophy… of the cosmos, and nature, in the form of biology and geology.

After years of reviewing the data, I came to a startling yet impossible to ignore conclusion, based on direct observation and years of empirical understanding… the one uniting element observable in every case was me. Therefore, I am the most common binding element to the universe, and all revolves around me. Every chemistry test, I was there. Every plant cataloged, I was there. Every undiscovered valley descended into and climbed, I was there.

Truely, I am there, everywhere. Infact, I can disprove most third party scientific data is wrong, as the data doesn’t show evidence of my presence, but when I replicate it, I find this glaring omission of me present.

So much for Schroeder’s Cat.

That’s fucking science.

The Universe has meaning because of our consciousness.
The observer gives reality its… “realityness”… :sunglasses:

My theory is that in our universe bodies move in a spiral-cyclical way.

The orbits of both moons around their planets and the planets around their stars, and even the stars around their galactic center clearly do not describe circles or ellipses, but spirals. For example, while our Sun spirally orbits the center of our galaxy, the Earth spirally orbits the sun, and our Moon spirally orbits the Earth. For bodies that move around bodies, which also move around bodies, do not move two-, but three-dimensionally. They move spirally and thus also cyclically, more precisely said: in a spiral-cyclical way. If something moves around a body or a point which does not move around another body or point and is not moved in a different way by external forces, then (and only then) can this (and only this) motion be two-dimensional.

Like this?

That’s a great theory, because it’s right. I think most everyone agrees with it, too. At any rate, just as it’s fine to talk about a car speeding in a straight line on some highway on the surface of the earth, it is still possible to talk sensibly about a heliocentric solar system and elliptical orbits when the frame of reference is the solar system. Context is key.


Thank you for that link - well done, Fuse.

My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all developments, thus also evolution and history.

The Universe is ever expanding from all points simultaneously. In this way, all points in the Universe are at the centre.

Perhaps you are confusing this thought with the out-of-date hello/geo-centric argument which is long solved?