Will the New Geocentrists take The CMB Alignment Challenge?

by Dr. Alec MacAndrew and David Palm (02/14/2015)

To this point, the new geocentrists have not fared well when challenged to produce their own, real mathematics or science (see, for example “Geocentrists Fail the Lagrange Point Challenge”,  “Geocentric Physics: Is That All You’ve Got?”,  “Elementary Physics Blunders in Sungenis’s Reply to Sky and Telescope’s Camille Carlisle”,  “Dr. Tom Bridgman Weighs In On Flunking the Lagrange Point Challenge”, and “Sungenis Botches the Math Again”).

So it will be interesting to see how they fare with The CMB Alignment Challenge.

The new geocentrists have been making extravagant claims about some anomalous alignments in the cosmic microwave background or CMB.  Specifically, they claim things such as:

The warm and cool spots of the CMB are systematically organized into distinct regions of the Universe that, when graphed on an X and Y axis, point directly to the Earth as the center of the distribution… It is very special and was placed in a very unique place in the Universe – in the very center (Robert Sungenis, “2013 Planck Data Shows Universe is Non-Copernican”, p. 2)

the CMB shows that the whole Universe is centered on the Earth (Robert Sungenis, “Interview with Robert Sungenis on Phil Plait’s Criticism of Geocentrism,” p. 10).

Well Planck has once again verified that the supposed most primal signal in the Universe knows about is pointing directly at the earth (Mark Wyatt, link).

The CMB, WMAP, SLOAN results all show the universe is centered in on the earth (“John Martin”, link.)

The CMB would neatly divide the cosmos, along the equinox plane.  The quadrupole and octopoles would, just to prove God has a real sense of humor, point out the ecliptic plane.  Anybody smart enough to measure the CMB and perform a spherical harmonic analysis would find themselves directed to us, from anywhere in the cosmos they might happen to be looking (Rick DeLano, link).

Since the release of Planck’s data confirmed the existence of just such a preferred direction in space, the Copernican Principle has been shown to be false, as a matter of scientific observation.  One can determine an up, a down, a left, a right, with respect to this Axis.  That would be more than shocking enough.  But the actual observations are much more shocking still.  That preferred direction happens to be pointing directly at us (Rick DeLano, link).

[This is just a sample – additional, equally categorical claims from the new geocentrists may be found at the end of this article.]

3-year WMAPThe alignments that the new geocentrists claim point “directly at the Earth” proving that it is in “the center of the Universe” are between certain features of the Cosmic Microwave Background [CMB] radiation – specifically features known as the dipole, quadrupole and octopole – and the Earth’s ecliptic plane and the equinoxes.  (For a detailed explanation of the CMB features see Dr. MacAndrew’s article “The CMB and Geocentrism”.)

To hear them talk, one would think that these alignments are absolutely precise.  Indeed, they’d have to be in order to point “directly at the Earth” and to prove that the Earth is “the very center” of the universe.

But in fact, these CMB alignments are only approximate.  Indeed, the measured data show that they can be quite a ways off.   We present the actual numbers in Dr. MacAndrew’s article, “The CMB and Geocentrism”:

  • The quadrupole to the equinox is 23.1°
  • The octopole to the equinox is 17.6°
  • The quadrupole to the dipole is 28.5°
  • The quadrupole to the octopole is 7.7°
  • The dipole to the equinox is well known and is 14.1°
  • The dipole to the ecliptic plane is 11.1°
  • The quadrupole to the ecliptic plane is 16.0°
  • The octopole to the ecliptic plane is 8.6°

Dr. MacAndrew divulged precisely where he obtained the data on which these figures are based, namely, Table 18 of “Planck Collaboration, Planck 2013 Results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB,” arXiv:1303.5083v3.

So how did Sungenis respond to Dr. MacAndrew’s calculations showing that the CMB alignments are far from exact?  Rather than interacting with them in any meaningful way, he just summarily dismissed them:

So what we find is that the “16 degrees” is not actually in the literature written by the authoritative experts in this field, but was Alec MacAndrew’s ipse dixit calculation (“Debunking Alec MacAndrew”, p. 7; note that Sungenis just quoted the quadrupole to the ecliptic plane figure in his article – although he normally quotes the entirety of his opponent’s piece, in this case he excised all the other (mis)alignments including the quadrupole to the dipole which are separated by 28.5 degrees.)

So Sungenis attempted to discredit the values presented by Dr. MacAndrew, not by presenting alternative figures, but by implying that MacAndrew’s calculations were biased or incompetent or both. Surely if Sungenis was able to do the calculations himself, he would have found either that Dr. MacAndrew was correct and so refrain from his comment; or that Dr. MacAndrew wasn’t correct in which case he would no doubt have gladly pointed out the error.

One strong hint that Dr. MacAndrew was correct about these misalignments is the fact that the new geocentrists are already trying to do damage control.  You’re invited to read “Yes, the CMB Misalignments Are a Problem for the New Geocentrists,” where we debunk those attempts.

But let’s keep the focus specifically on the misalignments themselves and Sungenis’s dismissal of the scientific evidence.  The sort of hand-waving in which he indulged demonstrates one of two things: Sungenis’s mathematical incompetence or his laziness. Dr. MacAndrew cited the scientific work in question and even directed the geocentrists to the very page and table containing the data.  He did the calculations to transform the galactic coordinates given in the paper to ecliptic coordinates that would express these vectors with relation to the ecliptic and equinoxes, and then calculated the angles between the various CMB features and the ecliptic plane and equinox.  Most significantly, you’ll notice that in that very table, one of the angles (between the quadrupole and octopole) is specifically reported and Dr. MacAndrew got the same result, which supports our claim that the method he used is correct.


As we are talking about mathematics here, there are only two possibilities.  Either Dr. MacAndrew did the calculations correctly or he did not.  If he did them correctly then the CMB alignments are as he says – not at all exact but only approximate.  If he did not do them correctly then the geocentrists have a golden opportunity to demonstrate their own competence and trustworthiness.

So here is The CMB Alignment Challenge to the new geocentrists to show that they have even the basic competence to discuss these matters:

  1. Start with the direction data for the quadrupole and octopole given in galactic coordinates in the cited paper defined precisely in the notes below.  Use the datum for the dipole given in the notes below.
  2. Do the calculations to transform the direction of the dipole, quadrupole, octopole and equinox, as required, to galactic or ecliptic co-ordinates so as to be able to calculate the angles between them.
  3. Calculate the eight angles between these vectors, the equinox and the ecliptic plane as presented in “The CMB and Geocentrism” and reproduced above.
  4. Publish your work on-line, including, on-line, your working for calculating both the co-ordinate transformation and the angles.
  5. Tell us on that site which is true, either that a) Dr. MacAndrew’s calculations were correct and the alignments of the various features of the CMB are, as he says or, b) that Dr. MacAndrew’s calculations are incorrect and you can now show him to be mathematically incompetent.


Note again that this challenge specifically concerns the misalignment of the CMB vectors with the ecliptic and the equinox.  We acknowledge, and always have done, that the low multipole alignments with themselves and the dipole and ecliptic/equinox are anomalous and not currently understood.  But the geocentrists cannot therefore deflect this challenge by pointing to the low probability of random alignment.  That is not the focus of this challenge.  To make sure there is no misunderstanding, we are focused on the geocentrists’ repeated claims that the CMB alignments point directly at the Earth and Sungenis’s hand-waving dismissal of our demonstration that they do not.

It will be interesting to see if the new geocentrists are willing and able to take up and meet this latest mathematical challenge. If they want to be taken seriously, then it’s high time they do some calculations of their own.  And let’s be perfectly frank. If Sungenis and Co. refuse to take up the challenge, then it’s either because they can’t do the mathematics or because they know that Dr. MacAndrew was correct.

So there it is.  The ball is in their court now.


Please see the companion to this article, “Yes, the CMB Misalignments Are a Problem for the New Geocentrists.”


  1. These sort of calculations are subject to rounding errors – so getting results within about  0.2° is fine
  2. The working should clearly demonstrate the mathematical basis for both the co-ordinate transformation and the calculation of the angles and show the steps in both stages of the calculations.
  3. The vectors for the quadrupole and octopole in galactic co-ordinates are to be taken from the Planck paper, Planck 2013 Results. XXIII. Isotropy and statistics of the CMB, Table 18, p21, the final row (SMICA component separation algorithm, kinematic quadrupole corrected)
  4. The dipole vector is l=264.0°, b=48.3° in galactic co-ordinates; this is a well-known and uncontroversial datum that has been measured many times.
  5. Calculations are to be done in the J2000 epoch


Additional Neo-Geocentric Claims about the CMB:

COBE, WMAP and Planck . . . showed us that if we draw lines that connect all these warm and cold spots (as if you were playing Connect the Dots), those lines would point like an arrow from the edge of the universe directly to the Earth (Sungenis, “2013 Planck Data Shows Universe is Non-Copernican”).

As they see it, we just happen to live on the one in which the Earth is in the center and the whole CMB sky points to it like the spokes of a giant bicycle wheel. (Sungenis, “Darwin, Newton and Einstein: At the End of Their Rope”, pp. 10f.)

. . . this explanation misses the elephant in the room, i.e., that the entire universe, as represented by the CMB dipole, is aligned with the tiny Earth. One has to be blind or biased to miss this” (Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong, 9th ed. vol. 1, p. 331).

The shocking fact about the CMB is that it is aligned with our solar system, but our solar system is inside a 93 billion light-years universe, thus our solar system is only 10-17% [sic] of the size of the universe (Sungenis, Galileo Was Wrong, 9th ed. vol. 1, p. 311).

The CMB has an imprint in it that points right back to us on the largest scales. (Mark Wyatt under the pseudonym “John_QPublic”, link).

Now After 4.5 Years Of Data Gathering ~ The Planck Deep Space Satellite Shows That The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Points Directly To Earth aka; Geocentrism (link).

Geocentrism perfectly accounts for LaGrange points. . . . oh and by the way that very interesting little Axis in the CMB- the one that is pointing like a huge, universe spanning arrow, directly at….well.  It ain’t the “galacto” in galactocentric, Tom- although I have nothing (gastronomically!) against against a Milk-centered universe mind you……It is the “geo”.  As in “geocentric” (Rick DeLano, in the same thread in which he issued the LaGrange point challenge which has caused the geocentrists so much difficultylink.)


This entry was posted in Science. Bookmark the permalink.