Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[ACG52]

The photons of the CMBR fill all of space and move in all directions., so there is no directional information we can get from them.

[Scotty99]

Pick some Galaxy other than our own. Imagine an alien on some planet orbiting some star in that Galaxy.

 

What would that alien read for the direction "pointed" by the CMB?

 

First off lets make sure not pass over that the Copernican principle states there should be no special places in the universe, which if you go by CMB data this is obviously false. Secondly this data found seems to line up with the earth. When you take the large vectors of the CMB data two lines intersect right at earth, one at a 23° tilt that matches the earths tilt, and the other directly at our equator. I am not sure what you are getting at with you question, because unless these aliens are on earth they would not be observing these same results.

[pzkpfw]

Yeah, I'm happy to take a balanced scientific view on that: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-cmb-and-geocentrism/

[Scotty99]

You....just linked me a site titled geocentrismdebunked.org and expect me to reply?

 

Listen i am just purporting the facts about CMB data right from any science journal you can find easily on the internet. These intersecting planes do exist (and amazingly, are aligned with the earth), and we cannot explain why. This is one of the major factors that got me really thinking about geocentrism, and one that is very much still a mystery in the scientific world.

 

EDIT: Different topic

I remember earlier in this thread someone asking me for "maths" on how a geocentric model can explain out dark energy, i finally found the paper i was looking for by a Oxford physicist by the name of Timothy Clifton written in 2008. In the paper he suggests in a void centered universe that the expansion of the universe can be explained without the addition of dark energy, here is the link:

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0807.1443

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[Moontanman]

You....just linked me a site titled geocentrismdebunked.org and expect me to reply?

 

Listen i am just purporting the facts about CMB data right from any science journal you can find easily on the internet. These intersecting planes do exist (and amazingly, are aligned with the earth), and we cannot explain why. This is one of the major factors that got me really thinking about geocentrism, and one that is very much still a mystery in the scientific world.

 

EDIT: Different topic

I remember earlier in this thread someone asking me for "maths" on how a geocentric model can explain out dark matter, i finally found the paper i was looking for by a Oxford physicist by the name of Timothy Clifton written in 2008. In the paper he suggests in a void centered universe that the expansion of the universe can be explained without the addition of dark matter or dark energy, here is the link:

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0807.1443

Do you accept the Earth revolves around the Sun?

[Endy0816]

The pdf doesn't mention dark matter.

[Scotty99]

Do you accept the Earth revolves around the Sun?

 

? It should be fairly clear i am in the process of figuring that out for myself. Not sure if you are going anywhere with that question but let me make clear, there is virtually no difference between Mr Cliftons "void centered" universe and a geocentric view of the cosmos. From as far as i can tell, they are one in the same.

The pdf doesn't mention dark matter.

 

Thank you, edited.

[pzkpfw]

You....just linked me a site titled geocentrismdebunked.org and expect me to reply?

 

Listen i am just purporting the facts about CMB data right from any science journal you can find easily on the internet. These intersecting planes do exist (and amazingly, are aligned with the earth), and we cannot explain why. This is one of the major factors that got me really thinking about geocentrism, and one that is very much still a mystery in the scientific world.

...

There was no question in my post. There was no need for you to reply. (Frankly I think this whole thread is a waste of time. You started in post #1 with the usual disingenuous "I'm just looking" sort of claim, but it's been very clear you actually came in with a definite opinion that you'll never let go of).

 

What I linked was a fair and balanced item that acknowledges the issues and discusses them from a point of view of current science. Whether you read it or not is up to you. (That you reject it based on the site being called "geocentrismdebunked" supports my "waste of time" aside in the paragraph above).

 

I'm simply countering your unsupported assertions about the CMB.

[Scotty99]

No, i REFUSE to read something from a site with that title. What in the world are you even up to? Why not link CMB data from a reputable site to try and "counter my unsupported claims". Unbelievable.

 

And no i am not a geocentrist, i am simply playing devils advocate in SEARCH of the truth.

 

I am actually reporting your post for trolling, and i hope the moderators see it the same way i do.

Feels odd to leave this thread on that sour note, but that guy really rubbed me the wrong way lol. Im heading off for the night but id love to hear peoples thoughts on the paper i linked about the void centered universe. Have you seen this being discussed, or heard of it before?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[pzkpfw]

...

Why not link CMB data from a reputable site

...

I'm not disputing the data, I'm disputing your geocentrist interpretation of it.

 

You'll note that in my post #308 I wrote "... item that acknowledges the issues ...".

 

Your head in the sand approach isn't helping you.

[Strange]

Got me on this one lol. That said, none of the various models suggested in the articles have read about infinite vs finite universe proposed a shape like this so im not sure the point of the exercise i guess.

 

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.

[ajb]

How can this be anything except the exact center of mass in the universe?

 

How could there not be a center of mass in a finite volume?

Homogeneous and isotropic would suggest that there is no well defined centre of mass. Roughly any observer would see himself as being the centre of mass of his own Observable Universe..

[ACG52]

No, i REFUSE to read something from a site with that title.

He will refuse to read anything not supporting his views. I believe he's said before he will not consider any other position.

 

And no i am not a geocentrist, i am simply playing devils advocate in SEARCH of the truth.

Thats an obvious lie.

 

I am actually reporting your post for trolling, and i hope the moderators see it the same way i do.

So he's reporting you for presenting disagreeable information and he doesnt want to talk to anyone who doesn't support what can only be deemed his religious view.

[StringJunky]

Can I suggest the OP has plenty of material in this thread to ponder over and that any new additionis is just repetition of what's already been delivered. It's clear the OP has his fingers stuck in his ears.

[Strange]

No, i REFUSE to read something from a site with that title. What in the world are you even up to? Why not link CMB data from a reputable site to try and "counter my unsupported claims". Unbelievable.

This is as childish as your refusal to say why your irrational beliefs are different from any other irrational belief.

 

And no i am not a geocentrist,

 

You do a very good impersonation of one. For example, taking offense at challenges to your belief (see above). And syaing things like:

Again i dont believe nearly anything in the bible, ive never read through all of it. The only thing i am fairly certain on is geocentrism, and if geocentrism is correct that means there is a god (Creator). This is of course leads to other problems, i know the bible has a lot of crazy shit in there and if i believe one thing from it does that mean i need to take everything else in there at face value as well?

There is just SOMETHING about geocentrism that my brain will NOT let go.

 

 

EDIT: Different topic

 

This jumping from one topic to another as a way of avoiding awkward facts is typical of creationists and other nutters.

 

I remember earlier in this thread someone asking me for "maths" on how a geocentric model can explain out dark energy, i finally found the paper i was looking for by a Oxford physicist by the name of Timothy Clifton written in 2008. In the paper he suggests in a void centered universe that the expansion of the universe can be explained without the addition of dark energy, here is the link:

 

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0807.1443

 

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

? It should be fairly clear i am in the process of figuring that out for myself. Not sure if you are going anywhere with that question but let me make clear, there is virtually no difference between Mr Cliftons "void centered" universe and a geocentric view of the cosmos. From as far as i can tell, they are one in the same.

 

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.

Im heading off for the night but id love to hear peoples thoughts on the paper i linked about the void centered universe. Have you seen this being discussed, or heard of it before?

 

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.

[swansont]

 

First off lets make sure not pass over that the Copernican principle states there should be no special places in the universe, which if you go by CMB data this is obviously false.

 

You just agreed you were wrong about this. So I will ask again: what CMB data gives position information?

[Scotty99]

He will refuse to read anything not supporting his views. I believe he's said before he will not consider any other position.

 

Thats an obvious lie.

 

So he's reporting you for presenting disagreeable information and he doesnt want to talk to anyone who doesn't support what can only be deemed his religious view.

 

Way to blow things up. I refuse to read one article from a site with a purely bias position and now im the bad guy? Come on now lol. Why did it HAVE to be that site, why couldnt he just link CMB data from a known site i recognize that is contrary to everything i read about the CMB data?

[Strange]

 

Way to blow things up. I refuse to read one article from a site with a purely bias position and now im the bad guy?

 

How do you know it has a biased position as you refuse to read it?

 

Come on now lol. Why did it HAVE to be that site, why couldnt he just link CMB data from a known site i recognize that is contrary to everything i read about the CMB data?

 

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.

[swansont]

 

Way to blow things up. I refuse to read one article from a site with a purely bias position and now im the bad guy? Come on now lol. Why did it HAVE to be that site, why couldnt he just link CMB data from a known site i recognize that is contrary to everything i read about the CMB data?

 

Obviously it's going to be biased when considering the conclusion; it disagrees with your position. But without reading it, you can't assume it was biased when considering the facts, or lack thereof.

[Scotty99]

This jumping from one topic to another as a way of avoiding awkward facts is typical of creationists and other nutters.

 

 

I don't see how i was jumping from topic to topic at all. I only put "different topic" there because when i posted about that paper it combined my post instead of creating a new one. Again i was done with the guy linking stuff from "geocentrsmdebunked.org". I actually find it really shocking people are backing that guy up in here. If i am clearly so wrong about CMB data why couldnt he link it from any normal science site that can be found withing a matter of seconds in a google search? Why does it have to be one called "geocentrismdebunked.org?"

 

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

 

 

1. In his paper it states "If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy". Again i know this proposed model is just that, but clearly he is talking about a "void centered universe", no?

2. Confused on this one i guess, ive been under the impression for a while that is required, along with dark matter, to explain why our universe is expanding at its current rate.

3. I cant read the whole paper when i click on it it says i need permission for the PDF, but we are sure he isnt at least trying to do so with this model?

 

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.

 

 

1. No, of course he doesn't. I am merely saying his void centered universe is of a a very similar nature to one a geocentrist proposes, where there is a void at the center of the cosmos and all the matter collects around it (in geocentrism earth would be filling that void).

2. He just says "If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void". Now i dont know if he actually means the center of the universe or not to be honest, he just says a special place.

 

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,

 

 

I was just trying to figure out what kind of attention the paper has gotten, as it was interesting to me. Again please with the religion stuff, as i said earlier i can only play devils advocate here i am not putting forth ideas to you guys that i believe to be correct, only finding interesting ones to see what people think of them.

 

You just agreed you were wrong about this. So I will ask again: what CMB data gives position information?

 

 

There seems to be some confusion here, i admitted a page back i was mistaken about position data. What i meant to say (and corrected already) that the CMB data does suggest that there are some special places in the universe, not that we are the center of the universe.

 

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.

 

Hold up a second, are you suggesting the CMB data does show homogeneity and isotropy? Serious question, because i was under the influence that it was widely believed to show inconsistencies in the universe and it was still being worked on to explain why.

 

Here are a couple articles i found, again correct me if i am understanding this wrong:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1

http://arxiv.org/vc/astro-ph/papers/0703/0703325v1.pdf

 

One from cornell in 2013 and one U of Michigan in 2006.

[Strange]

Again i was done with the guy linking stuff from "geocentrsmdebunked.org".

 

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. In his paper it states "If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void where the local matter density is low, then the supernovae observations could be accounted for without the addition of dark energy". Again i know this proposed model is just that, but clearly he is talking about a "void centered universe", no?

 

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.

 

2. Confused on this one i guess, ive been under the impression for a while that is required, along with dark matter, to explain why our universe is expanding at its current rate.

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.

 

3. I cant read the whole paper when i click on it it says i need permission for the PDF, but we are sure he isnt at least trying to do so with this model?

 

No. See above.

 

1. No, of course he doesn't. I am merely saying his void centered universe is of a a very similar nature to one a geocentrist proposes,

 

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.

 

where there is a void at the center of the cosmos and all the matter collects around it (in geocentrism earth would be filling that void).

 

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.

 

2. He just says "If we were to live in a special place in the Universe, near the centre of a void". Now i dont know if he actually means the center of the universe or not to be honest, he just says a special place.

 

NEAR the centre of A void.

 

Again please with the religion stuff, as i said earlier i can only play devils advocate here i am not putting forth ideas to you guys that i believe to be correct

 

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.

Hold up a second, are you suggesting the CMB data does show homogeneity and isotropy?

 

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.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Strange

[Scotty99]

Again, i just found it a curious interpretation of a different form of a universe where we wouldn't have to fit dark energy into it to explain the ACCELERATION (yes this is of course what i meant, but due to my limited and early knowledge of this stuff) i mistakenly put "expansion".

 

I am not going to bullet point your comments, ill just agree with you that his paper is not close enough to a geocentric model to talk on anymore in this conversation. Care to look over the articles i posted about CMB data? The thing you "challenged me" on?

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[Strange]

 

3. I cant read the whole paper when i click on it it says i need permission for the PDF

 

I don't know why. Arxiv.org is an open access site. This must be a problem with your PC.

Care to look over the articles i posted about CMB data? The thing you "challenged me" on?

 

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.

[studiot]

There seems to be a full frontal assault on several scientific forums by completely blinkered geocentricists, all posing similar nonsense about the CMB.

 

Can we not say we have now had our fun and close this thread?

[Scotty99]

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.

 

 

Ok, again confusing. From http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1 :

 

"Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies"

 

And also:

 

"The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995%confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations".

 

You can see my confusion now. You tell me one thing, but this article says another. There are two planes in the CMB that pass through our equinox and our north pole which are apparently not just random and can be ruled out at a 99.995% rate of being random.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99