The earth is not at the centre of the solar system, the galaxy or the universe. This thread is not supporting any of these unscientific claims. Rather, the aim here is to show how geocentric approaches complement mainstream astronomy and physics. Niels Bohr said physics and biology are complementary.* This is the sense in which geocentric approaches complement big bang cosmology – they are studying different topics which cannot be reduced one to the other, although they must be mutually compatible. The superseding of traditional geocentric cosmologies has caused distortions in modern science, including its difficulty in studying possible relations between physics and biology, and its difficulties in giving attention to topics such as cycles, as argued by rtomes at
http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...verything.html .
*
http://www.bautforum.com/questions-a...-einstein.html
This thread expands on the discussion at
Is it allowed?. There I noted that all observation using the sky map of astronomy is geocentric, simply by its locating of objects by coordinates and constellations, and the earth may well be the only place in the universe to have produced such a map. This intellectual product presents one limited sense in which we can say a geocentric approach makes sense, in that human thought, as a material product of the earth, has mapped the positions of all visible objects in relation to the earth using right ascension and declination as a purely geocentric coordinate system in astronomy. If other intelligent life exists it may have created similar sky maps from their planets, but ours is the only one we know of. This does not necessarily privilege earth.
A further level at which geocentric approaches are coherent is in the actual relation of the earth to the cosmos. For example, these graphs of observed planetary positions
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...-1999-2008.gif and
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...endar-2008.gif are practical geocentric maps of the solar system, not in a Ptolemaic sense, but as empirical diagrams. My recent discussion
Precessional Cosmology sought to explore a similar agenda of how to analyse geocentric cosmic rhythms – geocentric in that rhythms such as precession are centred on the earth, not that they privilege earth.
In discussing the 2008 calendar with Maksutov, he criticized my use of the four traditional elements of earth, fire, air and water. These themes are important in biology, where they have something of a complementary status as fundamental inputs to life, as the 92+ elements are fundamental building blocks of matter. A geocentric view in biology can be usefully informed by the four traditional elements as principal factors in ecology. My calendar presents a traditional mapping of these ‘elements’ onto the tropical zodiac.
Tides are the best example of a regular geocentric rhythm, based on real influences of sun and moon. Tides are geocentric in that whether the earth moves or not is irrelevant to their measurement, while apparent motion of the sun and moon is the main factor. I believe the science of tides can be extended into other fields including biology and meteorology. For example the attached chart of empirical data of moon positions and rain levels in Sydney presents a possible correlation of planetary effects and events on earth, linking cosmic data (moon phases) that is purely a function of the earth moon sun system with actual terrestrial cycles.