Strange

Neither of those claims are supported: 1. The variations in the CMB are very, very small (which is why they are so hard to find and why there is uncertainty about whether any anomalies exist). Given the quantum fluctuations in the initial hot dense state, a certain level of variation in the CMB was expected. Which is why it is being looked for - in order to test those models. The variations found are in line with expectation (with the exception of some apparent anisotropies). 2. The CMB does not show that the Earth is in a special place. As we are moving relative to the CMB, it shows quite the reverse. But feel free to ignore that counter-evidence as you always do.

No, I am not denying it. What gives you that idea. You seem to have serious problems understanding English. One possible explanation (or class of explanations) is that it is a problem with data capture, data analysis, filtering out other sources etc. That last one is quite likely to be relevant as, not surprisingly, many of the foreground sources that have to be removed have some sort of alignment relative to the solar system. Because on is what the paper says and doesn't support your faith. The other is one that you made up to pretend that it does. I don't see why you should be allowed to get away with that. I know your type always think it is OK to lie in the defence of your faith, but I don't. Fixed it for you.

IF this alignment exist, then the reason is not currently known. But alignments is not the same as pointed at, so even if this alignment exists it does NOT support your case. They are not aligned AT the Earth. Just because we do not yet understand something does not mean that you can invent your own explanation. This sees to be a sort of "geocentrism of the gaps" argument. But worse than that, you don't just cherry pick unknowns and claim they support you, you repeatedly ignore the evidence that shows you are wrong.

It is semantics: the meanings of words. You are claiming that these reports say something that they don't. Yet another dishonest creationist tactic. I tend to agree. Scotty has made his mind up and has managed to cherry pick and misinterpret some "facts" to support his faith. Nothing will change that so this seems a bit pointless now. I would be interested in his take on evolution and whether he is any more open to evidence on that. (I assume he isn't and would stick with his creationist views there, as well.)

So, it's true: Americans don't get irony! BTW, I am interested that you write "an unicorn". Does this reflect your pronunciation, "oonicorn" rather than "yoonicorn"; or is it just applying the "an before vowel" rule?

"Aligned" != "pointed at" I'm not even sure how a plane can point at something ...

Therefore God!!

Where does it say they are "pointed at the Earth"? This appears to be yet another example of you reading what you want read, rather than reading the words on the page.

There may be some alignment with the solar system. Some discussion of it here: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/anomalous-alignments-in-cosmic.html But, of course, that does nothing to support your beliefs. On the other hand, it may be nothing: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2013-10/hl2013-10-en.html Edit: actually, I'm not sure if that is relevant...

I don't know why. Arxiv.org is an open access site. This must be a problem with your PC. I have just been back through the last 10 pages and couldn't find anything. Can you post the links (or tell us the post number) and explain why you think they support your faith.

But if, in another thread, someone linked to FlatEarthDebunked.org you would be OK with that? How about if it were CreationismDebunked.org? Would that be OK? 1. Near the centre of a void; not at the centre. So not geocentric. 2. A void, not the void. So not a "void-centred universe", just one of the many voids that we know exists scattered around the universe. When you know so little about the subject, it is hard to take your claims seriously. Dark energy is hypothesized to explain the accelerating expansion. The expansion itself is an inevitable result of GR. No. See above. You didn't say "very similar", you said "they are one in the same." So it seems you are as sloppy in your writing as you are careless in your reading. 1. There is no centre 2. If there were, there is no evidence that there is a void there 3. If the Earth "filled it" then it wouldn't be a void. NEAR the centre of A void. That is completely unbelievable. We have had 16 pages where you refuse to acknowledge counterarguments, fail to learn anything and repeat the same false claims over and over. This does not sound like "playing devil's advocate". It is either religious fundamentalism or trolling. It is almost perfectly homogeneous and isotropic (and an almost perfect black body). There are some very tiny variations from this. Some of these may tell us something about the universe, some may be instrumentation errors, some may be problems with modelling and data analysis. But you still haven't explained how it supports your religion.

As much as I can perceive unicorns (I have seen actual real paintings of unicorns). The point is that it is possible to make glib statements about things for which there is no evidence. And that there is no reason for anyone to take these statements seriously.

How do you know it has a biased position as you refuse to read it? As you repeatedly refuse to explain how the CMB supports your position (and have repeatedly admitted that it doesn't) why keep mentioning it? Now you have been challenged on this, I expect you will throw in another "fact" to confuse the discussion. Or go back to one of your previously debunked claims, thinking no one will notice.

Why not? Other possibilities: Operator error Technical faults Apophenia You wouldn't know that if they were secret, would you? Also, ball lightning and similar phenomena can be generated by radar systems and it is possible that the electric fields could interfere with the radar system. I don't know if any of these ideas are correct or not, but they all rely on things that exist, rather than invoking magic.

Yes, there could be a Unicorn who is above ALL RELIGIONS and SCIENCES ! It has the Hardware and Software where Every Bit of the Matter and Particles [perhaps Energy included] form the Hardware and Knowledge, History,Messages, Information, Event Records , Predictions and Calculation etc are the Software with a Unicorn perhaps as The Operating System ! Unicorns can perhaps create / manage such life forms or just use the Life forms They have already created [Human Beings] in such an Effort. Therefore the MOOT POINT is If such a New Life Form is created by Unicorns or Got Created by Unicorns through Human Beings or Such Other Unicorns' Instruments WHO IS THE CREATOR OF THE NEW SPECIES ? Man or Unicorn? We think 'WE THINK ON OUR OWN' but Unicorns might Manipulate / Manifest THROUGH OUR THINKING !

That is what a charge controller or battery management system does. I'm not sure I understand this. If the batteries are to stay full after energy is taken out, then does that mean you always have a source of energy to recharge them form? In which case, what is the function of the batteries? Why not just take the power directly from the source / generator?

What is "choice" other than the brain responding to external stimuli (and using memories, learning and instinct)? You seem to imply that there is something other than the brain that could be making the choice.

Off the top of my head: Reflections Ball lightning Distant lights (stars, planets, the moon) Secret military craft Mass delusions All these are (a) know to exist and (b) can appear to behave as claimed and © have been definitely shown to be causes in other cases. Before you can pretend it is evidence for something imaginary, you have to show very strong evidence why it is is impossible for it to be one of these (or the many other things that people with more imagination and/or expertise could come up with). Because if there is the slightest chance that it could be something mundane, then there is zero reason to invent space-aliens.

Let me know when you have some evidence.

I can't. But how is that relevant. I could come up with several mundane explanations based on things that we know exist which therefore must be more plausible than imaginary entities. The only possible conclusion appears to be: "unknown". Using that to assume it must therefore be unicorns, Martians, pan-dimensional mice, angels or any other sort of intelligence is completely irrational.

Or, more plausibly, they have made the decision before being aware they have made the decision. And I don't see how this is relevant to free will (although perhaps it depends which of the multitude of meanings is intended). It is still the person making the decision, even if they are not consciously aware of it.

This is as childish as your refusal to say why your irrational beliefs are different from any other irrational belief. You do a very good impersonation of one. For example, taking offense at challenges to your belief (see above). And syaing things like: This jumping from one topic to another as a way of avoiding awkward facts is typical of creationists and other nutters. You seem to have some very serious misunderstandings (again). 1. He is not talkiing about a "void centred universe" 2. Dark energy is not required to explain the expansion of the universe 3. His model does not explain the expansion of the universe Then you need to read more carefully and not jump to the conclusion that something supports your beliefs. 1. He does NOT say the Earth is at the centre of the void 2. He does NOT say that the void is at the centre of the universe. You go off in a hissy fit because you don't like the name of a website, and yet we are expected to put up with your repeated ignorance and/or dishonesty. It is an interesting suggestion. Although it has not been confirmed. But it is typical of religious people to jump on anything that (they think) confirms their beliefs, rather than looking at the full picture or learning the subject in any detail. You have done this with the (disputed) CMB data, the (unconfirmed) large structure and the (speculative) void model. Sadly, claiming not to be a believer and to be "just asking questions" is another dishonest technique used by the religious.

Because this is a good analogy for the way the universe is modelled, as you have been told many times. The fact you have huge gaps in your knowledge (and refuse to learn) is not really relevant.

Reminds me too much of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24927078 "Police discovered his body inside a zipped-up red sports holdall, in the empty bath of his bathroom."

But remember, in these lower-dimensional analogies we are talking about the surface of these shapes. So where would the centre of mass of the surface of a torus be?