Earth at the center of the Universe?

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?

The orbit of Venus and the Sun around Earth…

The orbit of planets around egg yolk…

If you wish, you can see anything.
And this is more real than you might ever believe…

It has been proved that heliocentric system of world is not effective, but some scientists still try prove that it is. Could you please explain why this happens?


Where has the solar system model been proven ineffective? Sources?

We insist that the Sun is the center of the system because we are not only concerned about relative movement but about underlying forces. The theory of gravity is not coherent with a model of planetary systems where the sun orbits a planet.

For starters, it is ineffective to measure motion NOT from the point you stand…


In this case, the view from where one stands does not tell a full enough story…

First thought is that, as the universe is uniformly expanding from a BB, it means that every single point in the universe is simultaneously at the centre of the BB.
Next thought is that it make a great deal of difference to recognise that as distinct objects neither are at a centre of the universe in relational terms

The reason that we do not consider the earth as motionless with the sun going round it is that objects in the UNiverse would have to transgress the speed limit (speed of light) for it to be true.
This is the difference between geometry and physics.


Do you know what the “full” story is? How?

Many galaxies speed away from us is speeds greater than that of light. But anyway, NO. Changing reference point does not call for a change in the laws of physics. If something moves in speed X around an object, it does not matter which object you call “center”…

Because “things” like gravity and electromagnetism cannot be seen directly - but are inferred from a large amount of evidence and many many observations. If the planets and the Sun revolve around Earth, most of what we know about space and astrophysics is wrong. Did we land on the moon by an incredible, fortunate accident or is there something that works really well about our current physics models?


It is an ontological choice, not a reality one way or the other.

To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe. :sunglasses:

You might have a good point there. One in need of a centering inspiration. The other in need of escape from the noise. :laughing: