Geocentrism and Science

Find out why the scientific case for neo-geocentrism should be rejected as an elaborate pseudo-scientific exercise in special pleading, held together with conspiracy theories.

It Really Is That Simple: Geocentrism Lacks Basic Evidence, by David Palm:  In this long-running scientific controversy it’s good to get back to basics.  It’s very easy to show why modern geocentrism is not a viable scientific viewpoint.  For geocentrism to be viable, the geocentrists would have to provide observational evidence for both the existence of and precise motion of masses that at every instant of time are positioned perfectly to offset the enormous gravity of the Sun and other planets, thus leaving the Earth motionless.  There is no such observational evidence.  Therefore, geocentrism is not a viable scientific theory.  (And no, the geocentrists don’t get to appeal to General Relativity to save themselves.)

A New Geocentrist to Catholic Answers: Get Some Science Education!, by David PalmGeocentrist Robert Sungenis chides the staff at Catholic Answers for not having enough science education. The problem is that he himself doesn’t have any degrees in science and makes basic scientific blunders.

Dr. Alec MacAndrew Debunks the New Geocentrists:

Here Comes the Sun: How the new geocentrists persist in scientific and logical errors, by Dr. Alec MacAndrew (added 04/13/2014):  Physicist MacAndrew has weighed in on the geocentrism controversy with a new article challenging the scientific acumen of geocentrist Robert Sungenis, as well as highlighting what MacAndrew rightly dubs the “Great Inconsistency” in the geocentrists’ appeal to modern science.

There He Goes Again (added 07/17/2014) –  In a follow-up to his scientific critique of the new geocentrism, Here Comes the Sun, physicist Alec MacAndrew spotlights still more of Robert Sungenis’s scientific misunderstandings and errors.  Sungenis continues to argue that geocentrism works under classical mechanics, but MacAndrew demonstrates that Sungenis’s claims of gravitational balance and his “center of mass” arguments fail.  MacAndrew also notes that Sungenis failed to address the glaring Great Inconsistency at the heart of the modern geocentrist polemic, namely, that they reject General Relativity while simultaneously using it to promote geocentrism.

The New Geocentrism: a Scientific and Theological Mess:  Dr. Alec MacAndrew is not a theist, but he lays out a perceptive case for why geocentrism is problematic both scientifically and theologically. This is basically a summary of his more detailed piece below.

Flogging a Pink Unicorn: Why Modern Geocentrism is Intellectual Blancmange: A summary by physicist Alec MacAndrew explaining why geocentrism just won’t work.

The CMB and Geocentrism, by Dr. Alec MacAndrew:In this article, Dr. MacAndrew not only explains what the CMB is and how its existence was predicted by the same standard cosmological theory the geocentrists loath, but also thoroughly rebuts these extravagant claims of the new geocentrists—while at the same time acknowledging that there are interesting anomalies in the CMB data that require further research and explanation.

The Derivation and Meaning of the CMB Anisotropy Vectors, by Dr. Alec MacAndrew:  In this article Dr. MacAndrew presents in a more technical fashion the mathematical demonstration of the facts that the CMB vectors convey directional but not positional information and that by definition they converge on the center of observation.

Geocentric Physics: Is That All You’ve Got?, by Dr. Alec MacAndrew (added 08/22/2014):  The new geocentrists finally stepped up after four years to try and answer the very important Lagrange point challenge.  And what did they come up with?  Dr. MacAndrew summarizes: “Well, we have an analysis of the forces that would be required to keep stars and galaxies rotating daily about the earth but no source for those forces. That derivation contains elementary mathematical blunders and so gives an incorrect expression for the force required. We also have two lengthy mainstream derivations of the positions of the Lagrange points written by other people, which occupy 23 of the 30 pages of Bouw’s paper, one of which Bouw has plagiarised without reference or acknowledgement and the other of which is an exact copy of the original. These derivations are based on Newtonian mechanics in which the Sun and Earth orbit their mutual centre of mass and in which the Earth is not static. That’s it. That’s all he’s got. All we get is mathematical and scientific incompetence, intellectual theft and an abject failure to achieve the declared objectives”

Gary Hoge:

As the Universe Turns: Is it physically possible for the whole universe to orbit the earth?
Dialogue on the Center of Mass of the Universe: Why the earth can’t be the center of mass of the universe
Dialogue on the Center of Mass of the Universe, Part 2: Why the earth can’t be the center of mass of the universe

Geocentrism Disproved: How Newton’s Laws Prove the Earth Orbits the Sun: dialogue between Ken Cole and Robert Sungenis.

Dr. Steven Dutch, 21st Century Geocentrism:  Dr. Dutch was one of the first scientists to rebut the new geocentrism.  This essay and a related one, “Why I Don’t Believe in Conspiracy Theories“, are well worth reading.

“Anthony T”,  Geocentrism: A Dangerous Pseudo-Science

Dr. Tom Bridgman Debunks Geocentrism: A collection of essays by astrophysicist Tom Bridgman, creator of

Dr. Ethan Siegel’s Essays on Geocentrism: Physicist Ethan Siegel, creator of the Starts with a Bang science blog, weighs in with several articles on the new geocentrism.

Mary Daly and “Science Mom”:  Here is some great commentary by a couple of science-savvy homeschooling moms.

Dr. Todd Wood Critiques the First (and Only) “Annual” Geocentrism Conference