Scotty99

I understand that, those were my questions brought on by Tegmarks quote. No one knows whats possible in 3.5 billion years, so even talking about radio waves and how far they travel is absurdity.

I obviously am not talking about us going to other planets and finding life, i mean anything. Why havent we found siginals of any form, or data in the form of light. If we are the toddlers in the universe, and life has existed before us we should absolutely be able to find traces imo. And i do think Tegmark has a point about the colonizing, 3.5 bil years would be more than enough for a civilization to be able to do that. People keep holding onto the possibility to find life on europa by sending a tunneling device that morphs into an underwater drone, but say that comes back null where do we look after that?

More tantalizing to me is Tegmarks quote, how do you take into account earths age when speaking logically about why we have found no signs of life in the cosmos? If we are really 3.5 bil years, give or take, younger than the majority of other planets we have discovered, how havent we found life or as Tegmark said how wasnt our galaxy colonized in that time? Yes a sim is a sim, but the sim is based on what we currently know about the universe. How does it not say that? You keep holding onto the sim part of the study, but what is the sim based off of......yes discovered planets. I said this: How is that false?

I never said the study proclaimed this, i said above: I made this thread a year ago, and have been fighting you people off like i was a mongoose in a cave vs a thousand snakes because you knew i wasn't as versed in the particular subject at the time. Mainstream science comes out with a article that seemingly states the earth is different from nearly all other planets that have been discovered, and your demeanor hasn't changed 1 degree, i'm the idiot? Strange things are changing, this article is just the beginning. What astounds me is how little media coverage this story has compared to gravitational waves, mind boggling actually.

I forgive your ignorance mordred. No one expected this. If you actually read the entire PDF and came to the conclusion earth isnt special i pray for your soul. Im not here to prove im right, im here to spread a message. God shows everyone at least once in their lives he is real, this is your chance to accept him before its too late. This message isnt just to mordred, but anyone who read this thread. String junky do you have anything to say, i see you lurking in chat quite often.

Im not trying to be insulting, but its hard. You keep rattling on about saying ive had multiple instances in this exact thread where geocentrism has been debunked but that is purely false. Relativity in and of itself explains all frames are equally relevant. But that isnt even the POINT of this particular post. PLEASE PLEASE read this entire article and PDF and come back saying the earth is a run of the mill planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf Mordred im gonna post before you even come back with a reply, you are stupid. Do you realize why you are the only person to reply to my recent inquiries? Because no one was dumb enough to challenge the article i posted.This is life changing, world changing stuff. PLEASE stop trying to outsmart god because you will lose every time. I saw this a year ago and no one belived me, it feels so fucking weird being smarter than people that went to school for 8+ years. But god works in mysterious ways, and this is why people will never see the truth. Second coming is within my lifetime, dont pretend you werent warned.

Mordred please PLEASE stop. I just linked an article from scientific america where the title literally states LITERALLY says this : Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All What the hell are you talking about lol. This isnt a ploy mordred, i think before i speak and have never taken gods word before logic......but HOW do you deny this study.

Where did i even mention geocentrism? Please pay attention. The article i linked only says the earth is in a special place, NOT in regards to position in the cosmos. Why cant you even reply to that? Whoa wait a second, what is that green text. Am i seriously getting warned by a moderator, for what? I linked a legit article stating the earth in in a special place and i get a warning for?????

Mordred you are a simpleton. Instead of replying to my individual questions you make rash generalizations? Disgusting. You act as if you have more pull than the study i linked, who do you think you are lol? I literally linked a max tegmark quote stating he believes the earth is in a "COLOSSAL" violation of the copernican principle, but clearly you are smarter than a man working at MIT? Just stop dude, please stop and think before you type. I am actually disturbed at the lack of responses to this recent news article. There are only a couple of options as to why: 1. They feel i (and this study, which is peer reviewed on arxiv.org) are illegitimate so i deserve no response. 2. They are intimidated with the actual FACTS of the paper and what that means to our current view of the cosmos. Can i please ask you stop being a pussy and reply to my thread, all of you? Remember, i am a college dropout with an engineering degree as a major.

Again, you didnt read the article. What scares you so much? This is from scientific american not some random website. Please PLEASE open the PDF and look at what was actually recorded in data. Of 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets the earth was not only similar to a few of these planets in structure, but was almost always 3.5 millions years+ younger than any of them. If you cant contemplate what that actually means ill spell it out. If the earth is 3.5 million years younger than than the vast majority of exoplanets, how is it possible we havent came across "alien" life yet? How were we not inhabited in that time? This isnt a question of where we are in the cosmos in this study, its about how the hell is the earth so young but there is literally no evidence for any other intelligent life in the universe. I request to be moved from the speculation forum based on this max tegmark quote alone: But Max Tegmark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who also was not part of the research, thinks Earth is a colossal violation of the Copernican principle—not because of its location but because of its young age. “If you have these civilizations that had a 3.5-billion-year head start on us, why haven't they colonized our galaxy?” He works at MIT, what do YOU do lol. Again this is not me saying the earth is in the centre of the universe, merely people are STARTING to understand earth is special and the big bang is likely not a thing.

If you paid a SECOND of interest you would realize im not saying this article is about geocentrism, its about the earth being SPECIAL and the COPERNICAN principle being wrong. In the same breath you have to allow geocentrim, because of how different the earth is from the 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied.

You actually didnt read the article, unbelievable. Can we get a ban on mordred.

FFS man at least TOUCH on the article i linked. PLEASE. Here it is again: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/ I started this thread over a year ago, only looking for more information on geocentrism. I got a ton of advice and a ton of criticism, now that a LEGIT article pops up on the subject everyone turns their back on me?

Rob i really dont wanna be a dick but you clearly dont understand relativity, it was created CREATED to write out a creator. It does not matter where you put the subject, all frames are equally relevant in relativity. Thus meaning the earth could revolve around the sun, or the ENTIRE UNIVERSE could be rotating around the earth. But the crux of this entire situation is one has to be correct, meaning relativity isnt. Given this new study stating the earth is DEFINITELY in a special place, im going with the latter. Why no replies on this subject matter? I usually get 20 replies within 5 minutes, but i post something with validity no one replies? COme on where is strange, mordred, ajb.....the regulars of this forum. I wanna talk dammit lol.

? Special relativity[edit] Main article: Special relativity USSR stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics: The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity). This is the biggest news in science in 400+ years, the lack of replies to this is DISTURBING.

Yet to be seen my friend, yet to be seen. (relativity says both are feasible). Just to clarify robby, those newly found findings on grav waves used the same equipment as the michaelson morley experiment (basically, but more advanced clearly) to detect the waves. What blows my mind thru the roof is even with indisputable proof no one could accept the earth wasnt moving, but as soon as the grav waves tripped the equipment people across the world celebrated as if they won the lottery (which is what i could never understand). Relativity isnt a sound theory, people dont realize this on the whole. Grav waves are only a small small predictor that was found to be true, but do you guys know that relativity was actually created to debunk the michaelson morley experiments? We had no idea what to believe 100 years ago, relativity simply wrote a creator out of the equation by saying nothing is real, it depends on your point of view lol.

I was a little tipsy when i made the post about gravitational waves and i my thoughts didnt come off very clear, thats why i didnt respond to any replies (i didnt even remember what i wrote, i just knew i was confused why everyone was so excited about gravitational waves i truly didnt understand the hype around it). But what i just linked above needs some replies lol. I just want to see someone explain away this evidence, or at least try to. Max Tegmark who is an absolute genius in my eyes said this: What! He didnt say the word god or geocentrism but went as close to it as you can without saying the actual words. My argument from the START should have been against the copernican principle, but i still feel deep down its 100% possible the earth is at the exact center of the universe. Given this new study, we need to start talking about how wrong galileo really was.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/ http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf Literally gave me chills reading this. I don't have time to quote the good parts cause im busy atm, but give the PDF a good readthrough if any of this stuff interests you.

What do you guys think of the recent findings of gravitational waves in the cosmos? In your eyes does this validate relativity? Im still on the fence on this entire situation, given that geocentrism has always had the back of newton im not sure this proves or disproves anything in this scenario. Im basically trying to understand why this is such a headline in the news today, everywhere i turn i see this headline lol. I am still not a full blown geocentrist, but if i was what evidence does this new found information about gravitational waves mean to geocentrism. I keep waiting for news to prove either or and this is the closest ive felt to make a post on, given ive waited 6 months i hope it doesnt come off as trollish lol.

You are still misinterpreting what i am saying. What does the earth moving have to do with it being in a special place? Sure hard core geocentrists do think the earth is a still unmoving body in the center of the universe (something im still on the fence about). The CMB is not related to that line of thinking at all, you dont have to bring some of the ideas of geocentrists into the conversation here you just look at the data. The data suggests earth IS in a special place, i am flabberghasted you guys aren't ad least admitting THAT. What do you mean about your second comment? When did i say anything like that, merely that if you look at CMB data you cannot leave that to chance. Again from the article: "We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations" I would really like if you can elaborate on what you mean by this. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about lol. Did you click the same article as this?: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1

Id love to see the articles that that propose this is explainable in another way if you have quick access to them. There is just one other small problem i have here, this CMB data isnt new they have had practically the same results since 1992 starting with the NASA cobe mission (which they won a nobel prize for). Then in 2003 i believe they sent up the wmap which had a far higher resolution imaging device than the cobe, and that came back with the same results. It would be much easier to dismiss this data if two missions didn't (was it two, or three?) come back with the same findings.

Fair enough to your first point. And i am still confused by your second comment. I was asked to show what i meant with CMB data and how that relates to geocentrism, ive done my best research to find these articles and how people are saying "the jury is out" when the articles are clearly saying something is going on here. What do i do? Do i take your word that the jury is out on this, or go by the information ive found on the internet that seems to come from very valid sources?

The data in the CMB seems to say the earth is in a special place. If you havent glazed over the articles i linked its a pretty fascinating read.

It actually says the exact opposite of that. That we arent special, we are just a random rock in any given space. This i of course agree with in a general way of thinking, but if you look at CMB data how can you possibly associate that to random chance?

1. Then how do you explain this line from the article: "First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales" 2. Again, from the same article: "What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun" Unless we are reading two different things, how do you come to the conclusion the CMB data does not show the earth is in a special place? In the same article it says: "It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon." I don't see how you can come say CMB data does not bring the cosmoligical principle into question when i am reading about it to the contrary. The question is where do you go from here? I asked earlier how do you explain these anomalies, that is where id like the discussion to go.