Strange

There is no "unequivocal proof" in science. There are better and worse models. The best models we have do not treat the Earth as the stationary centre of the universe. There are all sorts of things that are much, much easier to explain if you do not assume geocentrism. For example, the movement of the planets, Foucault's pendulum, ... Another flat out lie. Has the man no shame? Does his perverted form of Catholicism require its members to lie?

If that were so, then he would be able to publish his ideas in a scientific journal. So he hasn't been working out the science, he has been working out how to mislead people. Lots of people do this. Einstein spent some years working on the theory of relativity (and discussing it in small groups of friends and colleagues). He couldn't know it would be accpeted until it had been tested. So one of the first things he did was some calculations which could be tested (by observing an eclipse of the sun). Believing you are right is a great motivation but it is not enough by itself in science. It is a bit like all those celebrity talent shows, at the initial auditions, you see distraught teenagers saying things like, "I don't know why I was rejected when this is so important to me." It's because you can't fricking sing! Similarly, if Sungenis had evidence rather than just faith, he might be able to get somewhere. Sadly, his faith blinds him to the evidence. (By the way, one of the principle people behind the big bang theory was a physicist, astronomer and Roman Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. So faith doesn't have to get int he way of science.) That si sounding less and less plasuible. Hang around on science forums for a while and see all the people who come along with their wacky personal theories. One of the repeating tropes is "I have been working on this for 30 years" (just think how much science they could have learned in that time). They also stress how important tier "unique" insight is (although it is usually just the same old tosh that comes up repeatedly). What is it about "the same is true of every point in the universe" that doesn't make sense? In what sense? Science makes continual progress with occasional exciting paradigm shifts. (There have been several of those just in my lifetime.) A huge amount has been learnt from the LHC (but don't forget that there are masses of other research projects going on at CERN and elsewhere). And no, science doesn't end. That is what makes it so exciting. You do not have to create multiverses with mainstream cosmology. I don't know where you get that idea from. Neither of those sound plausible. It should be easy for Sungenis or someone to provide a mathmatical proof of that. But I can't see how just changing the coordinate system changes Newtonian gravity.

What bothers me is that you appear willing to accept Sungenis's idea which has little or no support, and yet you aren't willing to consider mainstream science, which is mainstream precisely because it is supported by a lot of evidence. Its the entire basis of our understanding of the cosmos, how do you even start a conversation to the contrary? There is a good reason why (nearly) all the literature presents the mainstream view. (And it isn't because of a conspiracy!) But there are plenty of scientists investigating other possibilities. You can find scientific papers discussing alternative cosomologies, modifications to Gneeral Relativity, etc. Well, no one really knows how much you do or don't know. People will assume a certain familiarity with the subjhect. You should think of this as an opportunity to learn: when people use a term you don't understand, ask for an explanation (sometimes that might be better in a new thread). Some of us are very familair with Sungenis. I have deliberately said what I really think of him as I don't want you to think I am just being negative. (But it sounds like that hasn't worked!) I try, particularly on this forum and especially with new members, to only say things that I would be happy to say in real life. I'm sorry if you feel bullied, but I think you are misunderstanding a spirited defense of science and some strong words about pseudoscience (i.e. Sungenis and his ilk).

Any science forum worth its name will give you a similar, or tougher response. Some will instantly ban you for not discussing science. Some will just ridicule you. One or two will give you the sort of serious considered responses you have got here. I'm not sure what else you could ask for. Sigh. You still don't get it. It is not about being negative or not considering alternatives. It is about requiring those alternatives to be supported. For example, what if your doctor said, "I have never studied medicine but I have been thinking outside the box and, using pure logic, have decided that extracting half your blood and boiling it up with some crystals will cure you". Or your car mechanic said, "I have determined that the problem with your car is the frobnitz. Now some negative, closed minded mechanics who learnt about cars by working on them and studying "books" will tell you there is no such thing as a frobnitz. But I have bypassed all that by thinking outside the box. Just believe!" Would you trust either of those? Thinking outside the box is OK if it is combined with a deep understanding of the subject (i.e. you have to have been in the box first) and critical thinking. Sungenis totally lacks the the former. Sadly, you seem to be lacking the latter. But this is not a problem: you can learn critical thinking skills. And this would be a good venure to practice. Unfortunately, "thinking outisde the box" is, too often, shorthand for "I don't know anything about this and can't be bothered to learn. But you should still take me seriously".

And in some you will get responses along the lines of, "Wow that's awesome! That, like, totally fits with the idea of helical vortices in the space-time neural quantum substrate of dark matter-energy composite laminar flows that my spirit guide told me about"

I'm not sure why. There are good reasons why theories are accepted. Maybe you should have just asked some questions, instead of starting with an attack... He's great, ins't he. (He? I have no idea )

This is one of the clearest, non-technical descriptions I have seen: http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm There have been a few threads about this recently which had some good videos. This was a good one: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87347-why-hidden-variables-dont-work/

We don't have ahidden variable theory. What we do have is Bell's theorem, which tells us that no locally realistic hidden variable theory can produce the same results as a hidden variable theory. And I guess that is why people invent things like multiverses. I will be excited by the idea when their is evidence for it. I find it hard to get excited about speculations with no basis. You're welcome

But it works extremely well. Until someone comes up with a scientific theory that works better, it will be the standard theory. And that needs to be a scientific theory: making quantitative predictions, those predictions tested against evidence, the results reviewed and replicated by others, etc. I guess one could try and develop a theory where the speed of light is not constant. But then you would need to show that it is possibel to measure the varying speed of light. No one has been able to do this. But it is still a science forum, so speculations have to stick to the scientific method (or an informal approximation of it). It is not crazy to think Einsten was wrong. No scientists should be trsuted. Unfortunately, it is a lot harder to argue that the facts are wrong. Science doesn't proceed on the basis of things being really neat. If you can produce some evidence, then he idea could be considered. (Videos made by a proven crank and liar are not evidence.)

Yes we have. The radioactive decay of atoms, for example. We have very detailed and accurate equations for quantum physics. Rolling a dice is completely deterministic (non-random) so one could in principle predict the outcome. The chance of rolling a six is still 1/6 not 100% I am nopt aware that we need a multiverse for anything. It is just an idea (or a family of ideas) with no evidence. Hmmm... not much.

Still making claims without any support I see. I just have to assume it isn't true. That is not how lingusitics (which is a science) works. Definitely this. This has absolutely nothing to do with what you are claiming here. In fact, one of the most fundamental tenets of linguistics is that signs are arbitrary; in other words, just because there are phonetic similarities you cannot assume a similar meaning. Comparing yourself to peoiple like Turing just highlights exactly how deluded you are. As there is no evidence of any gods, the question is totally meaningless. How is the sign associated with Santa Clause?

But red/blue shift is caused by wavelengths getting longer or shorter (changes in frequency, if you prefer), not by changes in phase.

As I say, you won't find a lot of detail on youtube. There might be few useful animations and some "talking heads" but precious little real information. That is pretty garbled, you either watched a really bad video or you are not explaining it terribly well. For example: - "the speed of light is only constant when in relation to the receivers on the earth" The speed of light is the same for ALL obsevers. - "If you are in a plane while moving away from the satellite and turn your lights on, they claim you need to add the velocity of the plane to light" This is just false. The speed of light from your plane is the same speed of light everyone else sees. No need to add the speed of the plane. Aberration is a measurement. It does not depend on the results of the Michelson Morley experiment. In fact, it was measured about 100 years before that experiment. That sounds like a flat-out lie. (No surprises there.)

We see a both red shift and blue shift in nearby galaxies showing that they are moving towards or away from us, as they move through space. Beyond a certain distance we see only red shift (in all directions) showing that galaxies are being moved away from us by expansion of space. The telescopse velocity realtive to what? We are measuring the velocities of the galaxies relativbe to us; therefore the telscope is stationary (relative to us). I don't know why: spectroscopy allows us to measure the wavelength of light very accurately. Why would it matter what the distances are. Light is light. 360 degree shift in what?

Indeed. No one denies that the apparent anisotropy was unexpected. Whether it exists and what it means will require more work. Maybe it just confirms that youtube is a pretty poor place to gather scientific information. I am no great expert on cosmology but I have seen a huge amount written about this topic (and read a small amount of it).

Well, if there is an asymmetry then it must be aligned with something, somewhere. By definition. So, no, not amazing at all.

Well, they are both living things growing on a substrate that provides nutrients, but beyond that the similarities end. Trees are plants and moulds aren't (they are varieties of fungus). Tree use sunlight and photosynthesize food. Mould doesn't. Trees can grow pretty big, but the biggest known organism is a fungus.

If our telescopes were accelerating towrds some point in the universe, then we would see blue shift in that direction and redshift in the opposite direction (and no shift at right angles). So the Walker's Model doesn't work.

One of the problems measuring the CMB in all directions is that there is this great big thing called "the galaxy" in the way. And then lots of other things, like other galaxies. So in order to measure the overall CMB a lot of filtering work has to be doine to remove these foreground sources. These depend on having accurate models of what thos foreground sources are so that they can be accurately subtracted. This has to be done very accurately because the variations in the CMB are minute. So the best anyone can say is that there seem to be these anisotropies. It seems likely, given the difficulties of removing the foregorund, that that is the source of the apparent alignment. However, even if the alignment were real, that wouldn't necessarily say anything about the earth occupying a special place in the universe. For example, if there is some very large scale asymmetry in the universe, then that could also make it more likely for planetary systems to be aligned with it. In which case, again, maybe many planets would see themselves having some speical alignment. So: exaggaerating the significance and drawaing unwarranted conclusions. This sort of thing is frowned upon in science, Sungenis and his ilk thrive on it.

Some models are closer to "reality" than others. But as we can only know what "reality" is via our models, I'm not sure the question makes much sense. But you can find images that have been made of atoms, and even of the electron orbitals within molecules, and they look pretty much like our models predict.

All accepted science is based on scientific papers that have been reviewed and published in reputable journals. This is how the system filters out opinions and bad science from stuff that is supported by evidence. I would say that makes you a religious person (but that depends on how you define "religion", which is notoriously tricky). However, there is currently no way of ruling out a creator who made the universe and the laws of physics and set it running like a giant machine. And I suspect there never will be. So if that is what you want to believe, fine. But don't let it trump reality. Because it is very big (possibly infinitely big) and very complicated, and our brains are very small. I can't see why that is a logical conclusion, but if it is what you want to believe, then go ahead. I don't follow that, either. If we knew everything then maybe would just have infinitely brilliant music, etc. (Your creator must be very dull with no art, music, etc. Maybe that is why it created the universe?)

The website may not be actively updated any more (I don't know) but all the information is still relevant. But there are plenty of good popular books on evolution out there (I read The Blind Watchmaker years ago and it was pretty good). Your questions on genetics cover some quite advanced stuff (well, beyond me, anyway) - I would get an understanding of the basics first. I imagine the difference in the figures quoted is mainly due to them measuring different things. In other words, what does "similarities between humans and chimpanzees" mean? There are many ways this could be measured and they will give different results. But, not surprisingly, they are all consistent with evolution.

One thing you can conclude from the observation that recessional velocity is proportional to distance is that all objects are moving apart from each other at a speed proportional to their distance apart. This has nothing to do with science, cosmology, geocentrism, the copernican principle or anything else. It is simple geometry. You can prove it to yourself with a few drawings on paper. So what Sungenis is saying is that basic geometry is wrong because it conflicts with his "religious" belief. I don't have a problem with religion, but if it is a choice between belief and reality, I'll go with reality every time. I don't see why that would be the case. The rotational speeds of galaxies would still not be explained by the mass in the galaxy. Shifting your reference point to the edge of the galaxy instead of the centre wouldn't change that. (I guess the maths would be somewhat more complex if you insisted on modelling it as rotating around the Earth, which is why we don't do it.) (And no one "has to" create multiverses; they are not a part of any mainstream theory. Just speculative ideas, which would be just as valid in a geocentric model.) But neither is Mars-centrism, Betelgeuse-centrism or X-centrism (where X is any point in the entire universe). If you are referring to Sungenis, then I don't know what you mean by his peers. As far as I know, his peers are a small bunch of cranks who believe in Geocentrism. Oh come on. You must have seen comedy programs where interviews are edited to make people say ridiculous things. Why waste your time. Wouldn't it be more productive to actually learn some science, instead? If you are not from a scientific/mathematical background, then one approach would be to read books (or, if you insist, watch videos) on the history of science: if you can understand the reasons why different theories were rejected in favour of others over time, then it might help you get a better perspective on this.

That is true. And the expanding universe makes it seem as if everything is moving away from the Earth. But the same would be true of every other planet around every other star in the universe. (See how dishonest he is, telling just half the story?) That is not what they concluded. The experiment was to test for the existence of a "luminiferous aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the Aether is not moving with respect to the Earth. Other experiments show that the aether is not stationary with respect to the Earth. Basically, all experiments show that the aether (which was only ever an assumption) is undetectable and therefore effectively non-existent.

Neither of these have anything to do with why science has abandoned geocentric models. The first one is plainly wrong as science regularly modifies or discards theories when new evidence comes along. Sometimes this can mean overthrowing ideas that have stood for centuries. Most scientists wouldn't care if something in some random religious book happened to be true or not. But if the evidence leads to a conclusion then that is where science will go. Relativity theory (which overthrew centuries, or maybe millennia, of established knowledge) shows us that all motion is relative. So you could consider the Earth to be a central stationary point. And we do for a lot of purposes. Setting speed limits on roads, putting satellites into orbit, etc. But any other point can be equally validly consider to be the centre. So when studying the solar system and planning space probes to other planets, a sun-centred system is used. And when studying the whole galaxy, then it is convenient to consider the centre of the galaxy as a reference point. That's all there is to it: convenience. It would be a bit mad, when considering the behaviour of two galaxies thousands of light years away, to insist on plotting their motions relative to the Earth. It is much simpler to consider their motion relative to each other, perhaps around their common centre of mass. Sungenis has been grossly dishonest in making this movie. He tricked people into taking part and then edited their interviews to make it sounded as if they support his opinion. He claims to be a Catholic, but his own church rejects his views.