AbstractDreamer Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 ..i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like.. So you believe in something you never really thought about. That's just blind faith, and religious talk; don't-eat-this-or-else Jediism. That is as loony as egocentrism. 1
Scotty99 Posted December 13, 2016 Author Posted December 13, 2016 You know that's gibberish to me, what a childish tactic by mordred. Clearly all i am saying here is that special relativity states all frames of reference are valid, what about special relativity states that the earth CANNOT be in the center? Talk to me in plain english please as if i was someone just browsing this thread, explain to them where it says in SR that the earth cannot be in the center. So you believe in something you never really thought about. That's just blind faith, and religious talk; don't-eat-this-or-else Jediism. That is as loony as egocentrism. That is truly the silliest thing ive read in this thread so far, i actually dont even have a reply for that. -1
AbstractDreamer Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Using the earth as a frame of reference, its hard to describe the motion of the planets. They move in strange patterns and cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model Using the sun as a frame of reference, the planets appear to move in not-so-strange orbits. Can you prove Jedi's don't exist? No? Well then, at least I have given it some thought. You don't need a reply, you prefer ignorance it seems. Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer
Scotty99 Posted December 13, 2016 Author Posted December 13, 2016 Using the earth as a frame of reference, its hard to describe the motion of the planets. They move in strange patterns and cycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model Using the sun as a frame of reference, the planets appear to move in not-so-strange orbits. That has nothing to do with SR, that is to do with people saying planets orbits make more "sense" with a heliocentric view. That is the main thing people note when "disproving" the idea the earth can be in the middle, when in fact all it does is show they dont understand what SR says.
Mordred Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) You know that's gibberish to me, what a childish tactic by mordred. Clearly all i am saying here is that special relativity states all frames of reference are valid, what about special relativity states that the earth CANNOT be in the center? Talk to me in plain english please as if i was someone just browsing this thread, explain to them where it says in SR that the earth cannot be in the center. That is truly the silliest thing ive read in this thread so far, i actually dont even have a reply for that. That tactic is to show you SR has nothing to do with geocetrism. Isn't even involved under the SR transformation. You kept implying it does so I asked you to show that. Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted December 13, 2016 Author Posted December 13, 2016 That tactic is to show you SR has nothing to do with geocetrism. Isn't even involved under the SR transformation. You kept implying it does so I asked you to show that Way to twist words mordred. I asked what about SR says the earth could not be in the center of the universe, you reply with "sr has nothing to do with geocentrism". ???????? How i am supposed to respond to that?
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 Talk to me in plain english please as if i was someone just browsing this thread, explain to them where it says in SR that the earth cannot be in the center. I can't remember, are you a geocentrist who believes the Earth isn't spinning? That we're motionless in the center?
Klaynos Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 Ignoring the fact that sr argument is pretty much meaningless. The earth isn't an inertial reference frame. Special relativity's statement about all inertial reference frames being equal therefore doesn't apply. 1
AbstractDreamer Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) That has nothing to do with SR, that is to do with people saying planets orbits make more "sense" with a heliocentric view. That is the main thing people note when "disproving" the idea the earth can be in the middle, when in fact all it does is show they dont understand what SR says. No. I made no mention of SR. I only mentioned frames of reference. When Earth is the frame of reference, then by definition it is in the "middle". So by that, I have already proved that earth CAN be in the middle. But when it IS in the middle, its hard to describe the other planets moving relative to it, other than some Jedi moving the planets and stars around in a game of eternal deception. So my choice is to believe in the Jedi, or to try another frame of reference. And when i move my frame of reference to the big firey fireball thing that's really really hot, and really really bright, and really really really hard to miss, then what was hard to describe before becomes a lot simpler - that is, it looks like the planets are orbitting the big firebally thing. Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer
Mordred Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Way to twist words mordred. I asked what about SR says the earth could not be in the center of the universe, you reply with "sr has nothing to do with geocentrism". ???????? How i am supposed to respond to that? Simple truth, SR has nothing to do with geocentrism would you like me to lie to you instead?That has nothing to do with SR, that is to do with people saying planets orbits make more "sense" with a heliocentric view. That is the main thing people note when "disproving" the idea the earth can be in the middle, when in fact all it does is show they dont understand what SR says. In other words support your argument in regards to SR in this comment. Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 But when it IS in the middle, its hard to describe the other planets moving relative to it, other than some Jedi moving the planets and stars around in a game of eternal deception. I tried this argument earlier and he ignored it. I don't think he's thinking about all the points of triangulation we have available that allow us to plot star patterns, and how messed up they are when you pretend Earth is at the center. As an analogy, it's like in the movie The Incredibles, when Gazerbeam had burned the word KRONOS through the stalactites and stalagmites in the cave. It made no sense until you were in the right position, then it suddenly made perfect sense. It's the same with celestial orbits.
Mordred Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Yeah he flat out ignored my triangulation post as well. Geocentrism seems to fall in the same category as flat liners " The Earth is flat not round" In both cases the believers ignore observational evidence. No matter how much evidence you present. Of course they usually have no idea of the mathematical modelling either. Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted December 13, 2016 Author Posted December 13, 2016 I think there is a bit of confusion here, so let me rephrase. I understand orbits are a big thing people like to talk about for heliocentric vs geocentric models but please lets suspend that talk for just a second. In SR where exactly does it state that the earth couldn't be in the middle of the universe. Disregarding orbits for just a second, does SR state we could not be at the center.
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 Yeah he flat out ignored my triangulation post as well I was at the IAC a few months ago when Elon Musk revealed his Mars plans. I guess he didn't mind spending all that extra money figuring out geocentric orbits, even though the Earth doesn't spin.
Klaynos Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 SR is irrelevant. Tot are demanding something that is utterly ridiculous.
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 SR is irrelevant. Tot are demanding something that is utterly ridiculous. This is what Scotty99 does. It's like ridiculing a yardstick because it can't tell you what shade of green the couch is.
AbstractDreamer Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyRJZbNmC7U That's part 1. There's 9 parts I'm sure you can find them. That's not my voice, I'm not that condescending. Usually. Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer
Klaynos Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 This is what Scotty99 does. It's like ridiculing a yardstick because it can't tell you what shade of green the couch is. I was trying to think of an annology this is perfect.
Scotty99 Posted December 13, 2016 Author Posted December 13, 2016 Its kind of funny you guys haven't figured out what i am talking about already. No of course not everything works out perfect in a geocentric model otherwise it will still be the leading candidate, but what i also find funny is in the numerous times ive said "i cherry pick" in this thread, no one has asked me what exactly i am cherry picking. The reason i asked what in SR says we cannot be in the center of the universe is because the earth being in the center of the universe is one of the things ive cherry picked from the bible, i feel to get to truths suspending disbelief may be something you have to do and orbits are one of the things i do in such a way. I feel that ptolemy had it right, i feel the bible had it right. I feel that it was accepted for SOOOO LONNNNNG and the fact our current view of the universe would mostly allow the geocentric model if you just suspend disbelief when viewing the orbits in the sky, that is why to me it is more than likely true than isnt. So yes i am cherry picking the bible, and you now know why i have a hard time letting go of geocentrism even if everything does not line up for me. Again lets not forget this is me trying to come to a truth, a situation i believe possible above anything else i can come up with, are the orbits of planets in the night sky enough for me to outweigh everything else that i have taken into account? Its like that for me. Obviously this is not a scientific approach, to the scientific minded the orbits we witness is surely enough to move to the heliocentric model and that is the main reason we did, but guys it just isnt enough for me.
Strange Posted December 13, 2016 Posted December 13, 2016 That is the second time you have left this post ("im sorry we tried but failed"). If you dont like what i have to say thats fine, but why keep coming back? It is not about whether anyone likes your beliefs or not. It is about the difference between science (testable ideas based on evidence) and random beliefs you (or others) have for no reason at all. Its not like im proposing a scientific theory here, if it pleases you what would be a better word to use to summarize my world view than theory? I have repeatedly pointed out that it is indistinguishable from any other religious belief - i.e. it is purely based on what you want to be true, and not on any evidence. Yet you reject this categorisation (although with no stronger argument than "no it isn't", which isn't terribly compelling). If you don't like the description of it as an arbitrary (quasi-religious) belief, then WAG (wild-assed guess) is the next best thing. It certainly ain't a theory. I don't want it to sound like i am proposing some kind of religion in this thread, that is so far from my intent lol. And yet that is all you do. Like i said in my OP i am obsessed with knowing truths, Which is a religious perspective, not a scientific one. i am not able to lie to myself You are constantly lying to yourself when you cherry-pick evidence that supports your faith and reject other evidence. In this thread i am just proposing a scenario that i believe could be a possible truth, In other words, your belief. Indistinguishable from any other religious belief. you have to remember i am not a religious person i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like in any way shape or form, just that the knowledge of this creator would be substantial. The fact you belief in a creator god, make this a religious belief. BY DEFINITION. You lie to yourself and us every time you deny that this is a religious belief. In SR where exactly does it state that the earth couldn't be in the middle of the universe. Disregarding orbits for just a second, does SR state we could not be at the center. SR only describe INERTIAL reference frames and therefore the Earth does not count. If you are not even able to understand this basic idea, it is hard to see why anyone would take you seriously.
AbstractDreamer Posted December 14, 2016 Posted December 14, 2016 (edited) next time you get on a train or a car... take a look out the window. If you think like a geocentric, then your train is the frame of reference and the train is in the middle. When a tree goes past your window, it is because the Almighty Jedi is pulling the entire universe past your window. This IS the most obvious thing ofcourse. You are not moving (on the train). Therefore the tree must be moving. Its really hard to explain how Jedi is doing this, but all you need is faith. If you think like a scientist, then you realise that there is an alternative! What if the tree is stuck to the Earth, just like it is when I'm not in a train? What if i take the Earth as the frame of reference? Then....erm.... the Earth and the tree is the side that is not moving, and... and... and... I must be on a train moving relative to the Earth! Both frames are equally valid. Cherry pick which ever one you want. The only thing that makes sense of geocentrism is a Creator. This goes back to the thing you haven't given any thought to ..i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like.. As why the almighty Jedi unbounded in power, is yet bounded in desire? ..this is what our creator wants .. So I ask you for a third time. Tell me of your Creator. Edited December 14, 2016 by AbstractDreamer
Scotty99 Posted July 7, 2017 Author Posted July 7, 2017 Well hello again science forum, its been a while. I took a bit of a break from this subject and saw a few news articles recently that piqued my interest.... https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/can-we-ditch-dark-energy-by-better-understanding-general-relativity https://cqgplus.com/2016/01/20/the-universe-is-inhomogeneous-does-it-matter/ Which ultimately led me to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02139.pdf Is the cosmological principle dead? How can this be? I know you guys do not believe me when i say this, but i do not nor have i ever had an agenda, i have no horse in this race other than the truth. Id just like to ask people who are active in science circles, how are people taking the realization that the foundation of our world view is in question? Are people ok with tweaking things to fit or are there actually groups that would like to start over given the current situation?
Mordred Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) No the cosmological principle isn't dead. You will always find counter argument and model papers. The thing to remember the principle applies at a sufficient volume to approximate a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. The volume is usually 100 Mpc, however numerous papers and studies suggest this volume needs to be larger. Some papers recommend 120 to 150 Mpc. It can literally be any volume as long as the Average mass distribution approximates a uniform distribution. Key word on average. Another key note is a lot of your competing models do not want a homogeneous and isotropic universe. So they in turn look for anistropic distributions. All part of the scientific method. The research of these competing models assist in refining what size scale the principle holds true. Now here is the trick, LCDM predicted that as the universe evolves this distribution will become more and more anistropic. It is a natural consequence of the dynamics of matter evolution as large scale structures form. The last paper suggests it holds true in the early universe but not in the universe today. (it will take a lot of studies to support the last paper) to cause any changes though. Edited July 7, 2017 by Mordred
Scotty99 Posted July 7, 2017 Author Posted July 7, 2017 Gonna be honest with you, i have no idea what MPC even means lol. I just found these articles today, i don't even get how this isnt frontpage news. I just randomly stumbled across that paper. Surely you cant just "tweak" the CP, so much of what we know is tied to that in one way or another....
Recommended Posts