Galactocentricity



Galactocentricity is a cosmic center model which places our galaxy (the Milky Way) near the center of the universe.

Dr. Russell Humphreys defines it thus:

Philosophical Issues
Needless to say, the notion of a galactocentric universe is contrary to the Copernican Principle, sometimes referred to as the ‘Cosmological Principal’. Wikipedia’s page on the CP, referring to Herman Bondi’s 1952 work Cosmology, states : George Ellis, with coauthor Stephen Hawking, writes:

The Philosophical Nature of the Copernican Principle
It must be emphasized here that the Copernican Principle is a philosophical preference as opposed to conclusion compelled by observations. Further, one’s philosophy serves as the foundation for the framework within which one interprets observations; as such the Copernican Principle serves this purpose within mainstream cosmology - an operational assumption or axiom.

This point was powerfully illustrated by a key figure in modern cosmology, Edwin Hubble, in his 1937 work The Observational Approach to Cosmology. Hubble commented on pages 50-51 (page 40 of pdf): On pages 58-59 (page 46 0f pdf), Hubble wrote: Note why Hubble favored the assumption of uniformity; it provided the only escape hatch from the implication that we occupy a unique, central position in the universe. Hubble found such an implication to be an unwelcome, intolerable horror that was to be avoided at all costs. In other words, he favored the assumption for purely philosophical (and emotional) reasons.

The philosophical nature of the Copernican Principle is recognized by modern, mainstream cosmologists as well. In a 1995 Scientific American profile, cosmologist George Ellis stated that: Likewise, Ellis and coauthor Stephen Hawking write: Further, Hawking writes: Thus, we see that the choice of which 'big picture' of the universe one picks is a philosophical issue. That being the case, those with philosophies differing from those of Hubble, Ellis and Hawking are free to reject the Copernican Principle. Assuming a galactocentric universe as a framework within which to organize astronomical observations is just as legitimate as assuming the Copernican Principle. As Ellis might say, there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

The Bible and the Copernican Principle
The fundamental presumption of the Copernican Principle - that there is nothing special about neither the earth nor humanity - is blatantly unbiblical. First, the earth is the only planet that is even mentioned in the creation account. Second, God speaks of His entire creation in terms of its focus - mankind. In Genesis 1:14-18 God creates the sun, the moon and the stars and declares that their purpose is to serve man:

Genesis 2: 4-5; 8 & 15 make clear that earth is to be man's home:

In Genesis 1:26-29, God creates plant and animal life on earth and reveals that their purpose is, again, to serve man:

After the Flood, in Genesis 9: 1-4, God gives man animals as food, in addition to plants:

The table below summarizes the 'realms' of creation and their purpose as stated by God:

God sums up the special purpose for which he created the earth in Isaiah 45:18:

God's reason for focusing all of creation on mankind is also clear from scripture: God created man - and only man - in His image. God first declares this in Genesis 1:26a (see above); something He reaffirms in Genesis 9:6 as a basis for the death penalty:

Those in the mainstream (i.e. secular/atheistic) scientific establishment reject the notion that man and the earth are special, protesting that it is 'arrogant'. Stephen Hawking's adoption of the Copernican Principle on grounds of 'modesty' is a case in point. However, 'arrogance' and 'modesty' are in the eye of the beholder. Contrast the preceding with David's deep expression of humility, awe and worship in Psalm 8:

To claim that man and the earth are nothing special is, at best, to blaspheme God as a liar or, at worst, to deny His existence. From a biblical perspective, all of creation is centered on man, in purpose if not in location. It would thus be perfectly consistent, though not required, if we were to find that earth is, indeed, at the cosmographical center of all creation - the universe.

Occam's Razor and the Copernican Principle
There is one more point to make about this issue vis-à-vis philosophy. One of the fundamental axioms employed in the practice of scientific investigation is Occam's razor. This principal states that, of competing theories capable of explaining a set of observations, the one employing the fewest assumptions is preferred. Occam's Razor is defined by Dictionary.com thusly:

A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.

Dictionary.com goes on to offer this definition of parsimony Adoption of the simplest assumption in the formulation of a theory or in the interpretation of data, especially in accordance with the rule of Ockham's razor. Applying this principal to cosmology, assumptions should not be invoked simply to avoid the 'unwelcome' implications. As we saw above, Hubble did exactly that. His observations were perfectly consistent with a galactocentric universe - an implication he found philosophically repugnant. The straight-forward implication of his observation conflicted with his initial assumption of uniformity. In order to salvage that initial assumption, Hubble invoked a second assumption: that of 'spatial curvature'. Thus, Hubble adopted two assumptions that were completely unnecessary to explain his observations. Applying Occam's Razor, we can conclude that the galactocentric hypothesis is preferable to Hubble's alternative. Interestingly, Hubble himself alluded to this principal when he stated: Had he applied this principal consistently, he might well have come to a conclusion different than he did. The fact that Hubble, by his own confession, fled the clear implications of his observations, gives the title of his work - The Observational Approach to Cosmology - a twist of irony.

This is something we will see repeatedly in this article. There are many independent lines of evidence for which the simplest explanation is that we inhabit a galactocentric universe. Yet, time and again, mainstream cosmologists - following Hubble - insist on employing assumptions that, while unnecessary to explain the observations, are necessary 'to escape the horror of a unique position'.

A Stark Difference and a Clear Choice
We have seen how different 'starting points' can lead to radically different destinations. It is very clear, from a biblical point of view, that earth and all that inhabits it, particularly mankind, are not just special, but extraordinary. Interestingly, all of the evidence we have corroborates the assertions of the bible; we have no empirical grounds for believing that earth and its teeming life are anything but utterly unique.

Two recent books bear directly on this topic. From an evolutionary perspective, Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee’s Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe makes the case that, contrary to frequent pronouncements from the scientific establishment, that the complex life found on earth is likely to be exceedingly rare if not completely unique. The product description at Amazon.com states:

A similar case is made from an Intelligent Design perspective by Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards in their book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. The book makes the case that Earth is designed for both life and scientific discovery. The product description at Amazon.com states:

Again, the evidence is more consistent with the Bible. As Edwin Hubble lamented, an atheistic philosophy offers the only escape from such a 'horrible' implication.

Observations Consistent with a Galactocentric Universe
Having established the legitimacy of the ‘galactocentric hypothesis’ we will now review observations that are consistent with, indeed suggestive of, that hypothesis; we begin with Hubble’s observations, already noted above.

'Density of the Nebular Distribution'
Hubble observed that:

As seen above, this was the observation that horrified Edwin Hubble as it implies - absent additional hypotheses - that we occupy a unique, central position in the universe.

Redshift Quantization
Dr. Russell Humphreys introduces his paper on the subject this way:

Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Map
John Hartnett's article, New evidence: we really are at the centre of the universe, sums up these observations:

Dr. Hartnett continues: As Dr. Hartnett points out, the SDSS data provides independent support for Humphreys' contention that the earth is centered on a concentric series of 'shells of galaxies'. Dr. Hartnett presented these findings at the recent Crisis in Cosmology 2: Challenges to Consensus Cosmology and the Quest for a New Picture of the Universe conference (September 7-11, 2008).

CMB Map
coming soon...

Evidence Suggesting a Rotating Cosmos
coming soon...

Cosmic Bubble
coming soon...

Fingers of God
coming soon...

Gamma Ray Bursts
coming soon...