Hubble Demonstrating the Bias in
Modern Cosmology Against Geocentrism

Do you believe that astronomers came to the heliocentric position (i.e., the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) by an unbiased interpretation of observable realities? It is not so.

Here is famous American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889–1953) telling everyone, in his own words, how diligent we must be to avoid any astronomical hypothesis that suggests the earth occupies a unique position at the center of the universe (i.e., geocentrism). You need not understand the scientific ideas he is describing to see the very strong bias against geocentricity expressed in the highlighted words:


“The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense to the ancient conception of a central earth. the hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.” (page 40)

. . .

“The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and assume that space is sensibly transparent.” (page 40)

. . .

The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions. (page 42)

. . .

“Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” (page 46)

— Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (1937)


Though most try to hide it, even prominent scientists who hold to the heliocentric ‘solar system’ model, where the sun is at the center rather than the earth, sometimes acknowledge that there is no compelling reason to embrace this view, despite the fact that many others today will dogmatically assert it to be settled science, as if it has already been proved that the earth revolves around the sun. It’s really a matter that is driven by one’s religious beliefs:

“”People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.””

— George Ellis, professor of applied mathematics at the University of Cape Town and theoretical cosmologist, being quoted in the article “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally” published in Scientific American, October 1995