beecee

Video concludes with Tegmark saying " What's less clear is what it means" and the other link concludes with......http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-cmb-and-geocentrism/ "The anomalies in the CMB, and the other observations that we have reviewed do not support strict geocentrism, and they disprove neither the Copernican Principle nor the Standard Model of Cosmology. We have seen that observations in the last decade have reinforced rather than undermined the Standard Model. Of course, that is not to say that the Cosmological Principle of homogeneity and isotropy on the largest scales is sacrosanct. Astrophysicists and cosmologists publish and discuss many challenges to that concept, but even in the extreme case, geocentrism is not the natural successor to the Standard Model, should a substantially inhomogeneous universe model become accepted. The basic fallacy of the geocentrists is to believe and to argue that evidence against the Standard Model and against the Cosmological Principle, such as it is, is evidence in favour of a geocentric cosmology. It’s not". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: No, and I don't believe you have either. Like I said, and as at least two articles show thus far...simply a god of the gaps"scenario

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-cmb-and-geocentrism/ The New Geocentrists have been claiming for some time that recent measurements of certain cosmological features “point straight at the Earth”[1], and that therefore the Earth must be in the centre of the Universe. More recently, they have been promoting their movie, The Principle, which they hype as “one of the most controversial films of our time”[2]. The movie is ostensibly about a “fair, balanced and comprehensive treatment” of the Copernican Principle – the proposition that the Earth is not in a central or favoured position in the cosmos. Of course, it is well known that the movie’s principals, Robert Sungenis and Rick DeLano, are strict geocentrists who believe, for religious reasons of their own, that the Earth is absolutely static and located at the exact centre of the Universe. Strict geocentrism has been superseded for centuries – and there are clear modern refutations of the idea[3]. Strict geocentrism is also a far more extreme position than would necessarily follow if the Copernican Principle were to be violated. It is clear that The Principle movie is a Trojan Horse for strict geocentrism, even though DeLano in particular claims that the film contains no more than an examination of the Copernican Principle. more at link....

The only skewed results [mythical fabricated results that is] I see, are that of some religious fanatic, trying to find any obscure reason to support some sort of ID, rather then where the evidence has already taken us.

Not the angle you are coming from??? Sure it is...and whether you chose to remain coy about it is neither here nor there. As I have already pointed out, your god of the gaps attempts where science maybe ignorant does not hold any water.

Isn't that what you started this thread for? You know, stating absurd notions supporting Earth as somehow privileged as designed by whatever designer you personally accept? You know, like many YEC's and IDers, revelling in the apparent notoriety you receive on a science forum from people who certainly know better. Sorry ol buddy, inferring any "god of the gaps" myth, where some gaps in scientific knowledge and presently unexplained coincidences exist, do not hold any water...never have, never will. These "god of the gaps"exercises in such futility are expected though, as a last minute defence against science and cosmology as it continues to push any notion of ID into oblivion. For your information: The facts so far as they stand: [1] Our solar system is heliocentric. [2] It is just one stellar/planetary system among 3 or 4 hundred billion other systems just in the Milky Way galaxy, which itself is part of a gravitationally bound local group of galaxies. [3] Which is just one local group among many billions of others only limited by the observable horizon of our observable universe. [4] Logically concluding that no matter where we measure in that observable universe, that will be the only logical center to ever speak of...ie the center of one's observable universe. Science isn't really about "proofs" It's about constructing models that align with what we observe, the results of our experiments, and the ability to make successful predictions. As further observations confirm our model, and as successful predictions are made, so to does the confidence in our models increase. eg: GR...BB, and certainly, undoubtedly the theory of evolution of life. Science also is continually showing that we/Earth is not special or centralized in any respect that you are obviously speculating on...actually the exact opposite to what you speculate/dream on in your statement.

Totally false bunkum. In fact Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer as to how life arose in the universe. The odds of some all powerful all knowing magical spaghetti monster is far more difficult to believe and like all paranormal/Supernatural myths, are for the impressionable and gullible.

The only thing remotely special about the Earth, is that at this time, it is the only place where known life exists. Most scientists though accept that life does exist elsewhere where conditions are favourable and potentially in our own solar system. We were all born in the belly of stars.

I actually see more a case of delusional, nonsense and false claims, probably driven by some agenda.

I always use the terminology spacetime, and find much logic in the Minkowski quote. I also always refer to any reference of the evolution of spacetime at the BB, as spacetime as we know it, and to differentiate from before the BB, if that has any real meaning at all, and whether it is the nothing from whence the BB arose, and depending on what one defines as nothing. I believe that Strange's question re "what happened instead of the singularity predicted by GR?" is more appropriate.

The BB was an evolution of space and time, as we know them. The spacetime concept was born with Einstein and GR, and formerly recognised by his teacher Hermann Minkowski and summed up as follows.... "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." Herman Minkowski The following answer by Sten Odenwald may help make some sense in what I believe are some of your mistaken ideas. Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? "No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation". Return to the Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers page. All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program. from....https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< NB: The rather confusing/contradicting bit I highlighted "can and do not" is just that, and an apparent typographical error. This was confirmed by Sten Odenwald in an E-Mail when I asked for clarification on that particular question. The answer as it should be...... "No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation".

Hi Lasse: No one is trying to take away any belief but one needs to accept that any supernatural/paranormal answer as a "final solution" is simply unscientific. I see you as a reasonably reasonable bloke/sheila, unlike many others that come to science forums, with a "chip on their shoulders" or to see the need to conduct some evangelistic crusade against the supposed evils of science, that has deposed any need for any deity of any description into near oblivion. I'm not sure that science can ever be able to answer the question/s of how we, Earth, the planets, stars, spacetime etc, all evolved from essentially nothing or if you prefer quantum foam. But the investigations and research always continues with no short cuts as beautifully summed up by the greatest educator of our time [in my opinion]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU While the Catholic church has wisely accepted the validity of the theory of evolution of life, along with the BB, they then, not unexpectedly fill in the missing part/s with their "god of the gaps". In summing up my thoughts, science, particularly cosmology and Astrophysics are powerful domains, and its rather refreshing seeing some one such as yourself, who it appears still has religious beliefs of sorts, at least recognise that fact.

It was a singularity "OF" spacetime, [as we know it] as distinct from a singularity "IN" spacetime.

The apparent problem with Trump, is that he appeals to the lowest common denominator.

LIGO and Virgo seem to have been quite of late, so I thought I would peak in... I hope most find the following interesting if not entirely new.... LIGO: A Discovery that Shook the World: This is the third video in Advanced LIGO Documentary Project's eight-part series on LIGO's historic discovery of gravitational waves and the birth of the new age of gravitational wave astronomy. In August 2017, LIGO and its Italian partner, VIRGO, made a discovery as important as its historic first detection of gravitational waves in 2015. They detected gravitational waves from two colliding neutron stars, which ejected a spectacular gamma ray burst that was seen by seven space-based telescopes and dozens of astronomical observatories on earth. It was the long dreamed-of marriage of gravitational wave astronomy with conventional astronomy, and the results were spectacular. https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/LIGO-a-discover-that-shook-the-world The video is around 16 minutes long.

Thanks Strange, damn!! Got in before I could rub the sleep out of my eyes...again! Important extract from your article, which may [or may not] explain observations.

Bingo! again as Strange has suggested. I really cannot see anything too complicated in what I said.. The meat in what I said is highlighted. It seems you have trouble of not being able to see the woods for the trees? But again, thanks, certainly an Interesting article. Actually this is incredible science and highlights the advances in technology that seems to be proceeding at tremendous pace and once again confirms what was earlier suggested and hypothesised. Obviously the far more densely packed galactic center, and the expected violent interactions, has lead to difficulty in "teasing out a signal" among the many other interactions between binary/trinary stellar partners, including Neutron stars accumulating matter and eventually overcoming its NDP. And of course LIGO and Virgo have shown us that intermediate and stellar size BH's are probably more common then once thought.

The enormity and "near infinite" extent and content of space/time/universe in which we belong..the fact that generally speaking, the "stuff of life" is everywhere we look....if Abiogenesis happened once, it can certainly happen again. I do though agree that at this stage of human evolution, we only have evidence for life on Earth...so essentially it is only a belief, although a belief that most scientists seem also to accept.

I'm sure there is, but possibly rarer then once thought.

Your link is in Russian. Sorry, I'm not able to read Russian. And of course you have been put on the right path, a path that has been tried and tested over centuries and stands as solid as any scientific model would wish.

It appears Strange got in before I did on this topic ...Perhaps this could be merged with that thread? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/114225-study-suggests-neutrino-could-be-part-of-dark-matter/

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-astronomers-bright-fast-explosions.html Astronomers find 72 bright and fast explosions April 2, 2018, Royal Astronomical Society Gone in a (cosmological) flash: a team of astronomers found 72 very bright, but quick events in a recent survey and are still struggling to explain their origin. Miika Pursiainen of the University of Southampton will present the new results on Tuesday 3 April at the European Week of Astronomy and Space Science. The scientists found the transients in data from the Dark Energy Survey Supernova Programme (DES-SN). This is part of a global effort to understand dark energy, a component driving an acceleration in the expansion of the Universe. DES-SN uses a large camera on a 4-metre telescope in the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in the Chilean Andes. The survey looks for supernovae, the explosion of massive stars at the end of their lives. A supernova explosion can briefly be as bright as a whole galaxy, made up of hundreds of billions of stars. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-astronomers-bright-fast-explosions.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are these likely to be BH's in a feeding frenzy? Or perhaps Neutron stars accumulating matter before turning into BH's? And a more definite question....How are these related to FRB's?

Study suggests the elusive neutrino could make up a significant part of dark matter Physicists trying to understand the fundamental structure of nature rely on consistent theoretical frameworks that can explain what we see and simultaneously make predictions that we can test. On the smallest scale of elementary particles, the standard model of particle physics provides the basis of our understanding. On the scale of the cosmos, much of our understanding is based on "standard model of cosmology". Informed by Einstein's theory of general relativity, it posits that the most of the mass and energy in the universe is made up of mysterious, invisible substances known as dark matter (making up 80% of the matter in the universe) and dark energy. Over the past few decades, this model has been remarkably successful at explaining a wide range of observations of our universe. Yet we still don't know what makes up dark matter – we only know it exists because of the gravitational pull it has on galaxy clusters and other structures. A number of particles have been proposed as candidates, but we can't say for sure which one or several particles make up dark matter.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-elusive-neutrino-significant-dark.html#jCp

Science is a discipline in continued progress. As Strange has said, this is a discovery, although other interpretations may be possible, the likelyhood is that they are correct. If in the future, evidence turns up showing that they are/were mistaken, the new model will then be accepted. The interpretations are obviously from credentialed professional cosmologists and scientists in general, through the proper channels and via the scientific methodology. That is far removed from adhoc, unevidenced and unprofessional ideas and claims from any Joe Blow with access to a public forum. Nice article...thanks. So far on my times on science forums, that 99.9% is far closer to 100% in actual fact. But your point is well made.

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why? Questions like do I have any possible preconceived agenda that is leading me up the garden path?Or as Strange has alluded to, perhaps you have some fundamental misunderstanding.

And the current conventional thinking with regards to tides has also been verified many times, and also explains why the Moon is moving away from the Earth and the Earth is slowing in its rotational rate.