Authors
Spyridon Kakos
National Technical University of Athens (PhD)
Abstract
From the beginning of time, humans believed they were the center of the universe. Such important beings could be nowhere else than at the very epicenter of existence, with all the other things revolving around them. Was this an arrogant position? Only time will tell. What is certain is that as some people were so certain of their significance, aeons later some other people became too confident in their unimportance. In such a context, the Earth quickly lost its privileged position at the center of the universe and along with this, the ideas of absolute motion and time became unbearable for the modern intellect, which saw nothing but relativeness in everything. After years of accepting the ideas of relativity at face value without doubting them, scientists are now mature enough to start questioning everything as any true scientist would do, including their own basic assumptions. And one would be surprised to see that the basic assumptions of today’s science in physics (and cosmology alike) are based on philosophically dogmatic beliefs that humans are nothing more than insignificant specks of dust. These specks cannot be in any privileged position in the cosmos, nor can their frames of reference. These specks cannot be living on a planet that is not moving while everything else is. There can be no hint of our importance whatsoever. Hence, the Copernican principle that has poisoned scientific thinking for aeons now. When one analyzes the evidence provided by science to support the idea of relativity though, he would see that the same evidence can more easily and simply fit into a model where the Earth stands still. Yet, scientists preferred to revamp all physics by introducing the totally unintuitive ides of relativity – including the absolute limit of the speed of light – than even admitting the possibility of humans having any notion of central position in the cosmos. True scientists though should examine all possible explanations, including those that do not fit their beliefs. To the dismay of so many modern scientists who blindly believe the validity of the theory of relativity at face value, the movement towards a true and honest post-modern science where all assumptions are questioned, necessarily passes through a place where the Earth we live in stands still. Non-relativistic explanations of the Michelson Morley experiment, related to a motionless Earth or to ether, are viable alternatives that deserve their place in modern scientific thought.
Keywords science philosophy  philosophy of physics  axioms  relativity  Copernican Principle  scientific theories
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

From Galileo to Hubble: Copernican Principle as a Philosophical Dogma Defining Modern Astronomy.Spyridon Kakos - 2018 - International Journal of Theology, Philosophy and Science 2 (3):13-37.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

From Galileo to Hubble: Copernican Principle as a Philosophical Dogma Defining Modern Astronomy.Spyridon Kakos - 2018 - International Journal of Theology, Philosophy and Science 2 (3):13-37.
Privileged, Typical, or Not Even That? – Our Place in the World According to the Copernican and the Cosmological Principles.Claus Beisbart & Tobias Jung - 2006 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 37 (2):225-256.
Why Natural Science Needs Phenomenological Philosophy.Steven M. Rosen - 2015 - Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 119:257-269.
The Tower Experiment and the Copernican Revolution.Gunnar Andersson - 1991 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5 (2):143 – 152.
What is Time in Modern Physics?Ivan Karpenko - 2016 - Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 49 (3):105-123.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-08-12

Total views
82 ( #139,946 of 2,498,779 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #48,576 of 2,498,779 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes