The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and quantum mechanics cannot be explained within a geocentric viewpoint. Life, by and large, can. A geocentric frame of reference applies to the study of all terrestrial cycles and has potential to inform terrestrial observation by placing it in a cosmic context. An underlying question here is how physics and biology are complementary, and how geocentric phenomena in biology illustrate this complementarity. For example geocentric rhythms such as day and night have main effects at the biological level of organism and ecology rather than at levels explained directly by atomic physics. The moon rain cycle chart attached to my last post suggests one area, meteorology, where empirical research into planetary effects could increase its predictive power. This is partly about the relative importance astronomers and other scientists place on different areas of study, with those that are explicitly geocentric generally accorded little importance.

I am trying to extend the mainstream to new areas rather than to criticise positive mainstream ideas. The examples I provide, such as tides, rain and precession, show how cycles of life on earth are structured by cosmic rhythms, often in ways not widely understood. The empirical links between cosmology and biology may one day be mainstream but not yet. Geocentric approaches have a defined legitimate scope, but the empirical framework for studying the effects of cosmic patterns on life on earth also has broader implications for what is ruled in and out as mainstream areas of study. The idea of complementarity is itself somewhat against the mainstream, as Einstein criticised Bohr for departing from the reductive logic of physics.