Mordred

Lol no prob discovering the Higgs boson was pretty significant. Placing that aside though, one of the best ways to avoid crackpot traps is to study the textbook concordance models. You'd be amazed once you understand the concordance models how easy it becomes to identify crackpot articles.

Sungenis can try to use this argument to support his wild claims but the CMB axis of evil has nothing to do with geocentric motion. If anything it argued for a deviation in thermodynamic processes which would have argued against homogeneous and isotropic uniformity. In particular uniformity in matter distributions. The CMB has nothing to do with rotations. However the latest findings show that the cosmological principle and LCDM (hot BB with cold dark matter) is incredibly accurate to observational data with less that 1% possibility of error. (Science never admits to 100% accuracy) two years after those findings we still find the cosmological principle is accurate. Even without the latest dataset. http://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/387566/425793/2015_SMICA_CMB/c8c4c802-4b76-49da-b80a-0fb8d02c62b7?t=1423083319437u Here is some of the latest images. by the way instead of listening to a non scientist who just happened to make a video, and who is obviously trying to disprove our models based on religious grounds. Might be advisable to listen to those that have replied here. Some of the people who replied have physics credentials of various levels. Some of them are working as professional physicists. My signature wikidot link has numerous textbooks and articles to help you learn the real science This one covers a bit on geocentric vs heliocentric. Nice visual slide show http://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cosmic-distance-ladder1.pdf

Becomes a single rho meson. Mesons have integer spin, they are bosonic and bosons do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle. Any number of bosons can occupy the same space.

On regard to the CMB anisotropy this has been corrected in the latest 2015 Planck data set. The latest images no longer show the anistropy

Google differential rotation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_rotation Sun is a prime example PS (I've been studying physics since 1989) on forum most of that time. You learn a thing or two lol Thanks for the accolade though. Much appreciated. Keep up the work never be daunted. Any misunderstanding leads to greater understanding. Life is trial by error, it's how we learn. I always prefer to I include study materials. Tends to answer those questions ppl are afraid to ask

Ah cool now we're getting to the heart of your concerns. This will take some thought but consider the sun is a ball of gas. It will have different dynamics than a solid. I would imagine you may find something similar on Jupiter. Never really looked at this in detail so will try to dig up some material on this specifically. Lol more of a overall universe cosmology guy and particle physics. For some reason what's in between really really big and really really small never captured my interest lol A direction to look I Earths atmosphere it also does not flow at equal rates in relation to the Earths spin. (Same rules and reasons should apply)

Play with equal masses etc. Try different angles. You'd be amazed at the similarities. Point 2 is simple the outer rotation of any spinning object is usually slower. Take a sprocket on a 1000 rpm motor. A 6 inch sprocket rotates with a lower velocity than a 1 inch sprocket. Both measurements have the same revolutions per minute but different speeds Not familiar with Sun spot cycles enough to help except you need to look at thermodynamics Sun spots are regions that are cooler. For that you need to look at the suns thermodynamic processes If I recall sunspots correlate to the suns magnetic field lines which are chaotic in and of themselves

Gravity works. If you introduce a new body of sufficient mass Then the barycenter will shift. The new barycenter becomes the new center of mass. I'm really not sure what your looking for in the above. You have two main factors conservation of momentum and gravity. How the sun and planets rotate is conservation of angular momentum. During formation all the plasma interactions develop a swirl effect. It's pretty near impossible to compress a gas without developing angular momentum interactions. As that plasma contracts then this spin increases. Any interactions later on can influence this rate. Now there is something called gravitational tidal locking where the gravity of one body can influence the spin of another object. Mercury is totally locked by the sun for example. However Jupiter does not tidally lock the sun. The Barycenter can influence the rotation of the sun in theory, however it's spin is still dominated by its conserved angular momentum. In point of fact the planets have a far better chance of being tidally locked than our massive sun. F=ma after all. As a side note the Earths axis rotation is regularly influenced. Usually by extremely small amounts by meteor strikes and nearby misses. But also from the moon. our day is roughly 1.7 milliseconds longer than a century ago. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation All forces and particle interactions contribute to conservation of angular momentum. To calculate a planets spin that is not tidally locked. Requires knowing the planets entire history. Good luck with that lol Here is a good experiment. Get a 20 kg ball bearing and several marbles. Place the bearing on the center of a trampoline. Then roll the marbles toward the bearing. It's a handy trick to visualize barycenter effects

I believe the range of questions your asking can best be answered not on a forum specifically but with some reading material. Look at my signature use the wikidot link. I recommend starting with the misconceptions section. Then read the two articles under site links ( yes I wrote those two with assistance) Then you will see a section on textbook style articles. These articles I chose are all mainstream science I keep alternative articles on a seperate location. Feel free to ask questions on any of the material. This material is also posted in the pinned thread on the Astronomy forum Cosmo basics. I would look over the entire pinned thread good info there My link has been updated a bit since my post there with a few new articles. Another excellent resource is Ned Wright's tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

Roughly three years I was stubborn WMAP 2003 data effectively clinched it.

Here's the crux we include antimatter and matter in our thermodynamic models. See chapter 3 of the latter article http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis The first is a full length textbook

The cosmological constant is roughly 6.0*10-10 joules per cubic meter. Even a vacuum must have a cause, vacuum states is a thermodynamic property of pressure relations. In quantum mechanics the lowest possible energy state due to the quantum harmonic oscillator which incorporates the Heisenberg uncertainty principle [latex] e=\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex] However this causes 120 orders of magnitude too much energy. In terms of strictly pressure ie a high energy region spreading out to a lower energy density distribution. Well this doesn't work either. The reason being is that it isn't homogeneous and isotropic. Also as the tension or pressures equalize the differents in the two vacuum regions is reduced . This would lead to a non constant value that reduces as the two regions stabilize. Lol side note this was a model I pursued for some time. I was able to disprove it via the problems I just mentioned. The three main problems is ",What keeps the cosmological constant equal"." Why is it's energy density so small" why is it homogeneous and isotropic" The answer that satisfied the above Will probably entail a thermodynamic process. There is some hope that it may involve the Higgs field but further research is needed to confirm that. Some people try to suggest the universe expanding into some void. This doesn't work either. Let's assume there is some magical outside just as a thought experiment. The regions closest to the outside would equalize first then the equalization (tension) would balance out progressively toward the center at max the speed of light. This is a preffered direction and location. Measurements agree the universe has no preferred location or direction. (Homogeneous and isotropic) Nor do we know if the universe is infinite or finite. Here is some material to clarify some details http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model

Here is a good article covers the reduced two body to one body method as well as the two body. http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/guide17.pdf Gotta catch my flight

Fair enough I posted a simulator on the thread in classic forum http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html I'll repost here

All planets orbit the barycenter. Here is a handy simulator http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html Moving Jupiter closer to the sun would cause a greater change in the barycenter than moving Jupiter away from the sun. The closer Jupiter gets to the sun the stronger its gravitational influence.

Let's look a bit further back in time. How does a plasma cloud start compressing to start a solar system formation? For that you need to look at Jeans mass. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability

The answer is yes that simulation does relate to reality, it tests our models. Using our models allowed us to show how galaxies formed. With the correct ratio of metals etc in the large scale clusters. When you look at the technical details its incredibly impressive. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504097 http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

Ok good, just a side note the influence planets have on their parent star causes wobbles in the star. Makes looking for those wobbles incredibly useful in our search for planets.

Think Newtons laws. Then realize that force is a vector quantity. As you have different planet orientations the vector sum of the gravitational force at the barycenter will also be different values.

Yes the barycenter shifts as the planets orbit they all have a contribution to the barycenters location. Those links included the related calculations. run the calculations at different planet locations within their orbits you will quickly see that the barycenter will be at different points depending on the planets locations relative to each other If you want to run the calculations don't forget orbits are elliptical. Keplers laws provide a decent approximation for our solar system. However it assumes the sun is the center of mass. On a related topic center of gravity also applies to ship stability. A lower center of gravity means a more stable ship. Hence placing the bulk of a ships weight near the keel leads to less rocking. Just an FYI.

All celestial objects orbit common centers of mass. However as our sun is so massive it is extremely close to the center of Mass. This is covered by Newtons shell theorem. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.math.ksu.edu%2F~dbski%2Fwritings%2Fshell.pdf&rct=j&q=shell%20theorem&ei=nWXVVL7cMteWyQS8mIKgDg&usg=AFQjCNF5JJzSaMChBAeVVNdIhIBdsO-sCg&sig2=tyJkh5eEcrMDNuUCJMbp_g

Lol my commute to and from work involves a flight each time.

Nice vid

The 2015 Planck data has been released. The dataset is still in strong agreement with LCDM and tightens the constraints on inflation. They corrected the polarization error on the CMB anisotropy. This brings the data much closer to the WMAP values. As well as removing the anisotropy itself. They have several other interesting maps http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications my advise read the overview first then the individual articles.

What a bunch of garbage, you want to learn cosmology? Study thermodynamics and the ideal gas laws aproximatations. both the FLRW metric and a Einstein field equations include the thermodynamic laws