Scotty99

 

But they aren't pointed directly at earth, so that's moot.

 

OTOH, any anisotropies that we observe are going to be relative to the point of measurement, which of course is in the vicinity of earth. There's the dipole anisotropy, which is the doppler shift due to our motion with respect to the CMB — red-shifted in one direction, blue in the other. That will be unique to us, because we did the measuring.

 

But that raises a question: how can the CMB data say we're at the center when we are moving with respect to the CMB? We're moving relative to the rest frame of the CMB! You can't be both moving relative to something and be at its center, except for one instant in time.

 

Which is it - the ecliptic, or the tilt?

I think there is a bit of confusion here swanson. A geocentrist views the CMB data and comes away with two things:

1. That the cosmological principle may have to be looked at again, as these deviations should not exist given the theory.

2. That the earth is in a special place

Geocentrists do not use the CMB as a proof of the earth being in the center of the universe, merely its in a special place.

And please correct me if im wrong here, but arent the ecliptic and tilt one in the same:

Obliquity of the ecliptic is the term used by astronomers for the inclination of Earth's equator with respect to the ecliptic, or of Earth's rotation axis to a perpendicular to the ecliptic. It is about 23.4°

 

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.

If it exists? So now you are denying it does? Or you have knowledge beyond the papers i linked from Cambridge and the University of Michigan?

I am not sure why you wont let go of the pointed/aligned deal. Can we just agree that there is some sort of preferred direction in the CMB, and that surprisingly seems to have some relation to earth and earths 23.5° tilt?

 

It is semantics: the meanings of words. You are claiming that these reports say something that they don't. Yet another dishonest creationist tactic.

Why are you like you are? I am a guy looking at things and trying to figure stuff out, i link you the stuff you ask me for then start saying things like this? Clearly there is a preferred direction, a spot in the CMB that seemingly is pointed/aligned (however you want to put it) somehow with the earth. What is the explanation for this? I am posting from a geocentrists point of looking at these things, how do you explain these things aligned directly at the earth? In this enormous universe, the oldest light we can detect shows a preference of some sort at our tiny insignificant (according to the cosmological principle, we are just a random dot) earth.

I am very willing to hear the ideas of people on how to explain this, but how do you? There is just no chance at this being random, now how do you get around that?

"Aligned" != "pointed at"

I'm not even sure how a plane can point at something ...

Come on that's semantics, i assume you knew what i meant.

 

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.

Please, read over the original article i posted again and come to the conclusion these planes are not pointed directly at the earth.

"Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic"

"The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole"

Going to link this article as well from 2006, i think people may have missed it on the last page.

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

 

First of all, the anisotropy is very small. Here's a reference (New Scientist ?!) from the arxiv paper you link to

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/

 

The "unexpected" deviations are because the theory predicts uniformity, and it's not perfect. This particular paper is discussing the distribution of quasars and related objects, not the CMBR.

Yet you don't mention how we cannot explain these particular anisotrophies are seemingly pointed directly at earth, this is what really shocked me about these findings.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

 

Since when does the CMB have position information?

Sorry, i just meant the readings are seemingly pointing into our direction. You are right that does not give location information.

What is the center of mass of the surface of a billiard ball?

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.

Not it's surface. You're getting the three dimensional object confused with the two dimensional surface that is being used as an analogy for the harder-to-conceptualize three dimensional curvature of space.

 

(Besides which, even if we were talking about the shape, a toroid's center of mass is outside the torus)

Why is there not a center of mass on a surface? No one knows the exact curvature of space of course, but lets pretend its a perfectly straight line. If you took all of the mass on that line and did the math to find the center, why is that not a feasible concept as well? Your comment of a toroid's (props on that word, first time ive ever seen that lol) center of mass being outside itself went straight over my head.

If the universe has positive curvature, it could be finite with no center. It would be the 3-dimensional equivalent of the 2-D surface of a sphere or torus.

People seem to get confused on a geocentrists take on a center. They dont mean a place in terms of a visual center (dont know a better way to put that), they mean the center of MASS. Even an obscure shape like a torus would have a center of mass, correct? (given that the shape is finite, of course)

What special point have you picked?

How can this be anything except the exact center of mass in the universe? Im not picking a special place here, if the universe is finite (likely) you add up all the mass in the cosmos there IS a center of mass. Thinking of a top is probably the best way to visualize it, if you took your hand and spun the entire universe there is a mid point to which it would all spin around.

Geocentrists suggest earth is exactly in this spot. (CMB data also appears to back this up)

 

Not necessarily.

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

No! Our models suggest that space is flat (on the scales of cosmology) and so modelled by ii) in my earlier list.

This, i am willing to admit i dont understand. But lets put that aside for just a second, lets assume the entire universe is on a flat scale rather than a sphere. Even then how do you explain a centre in an ever expanding universe? Yes it will only be for a speckle of time, but for that speckle, there is a centre. Albeit in this view the centre is more of a mid point than an actual centre, there is still a preferred point in space (as you suggest the universe is a flat line, then surely there is a mid point to THAT line, no?)

I am not aware of any model that suggests that.

 

The expansion of the Universe does not imply a centre. Look the balloon analogy again. Partially inflate the balloon. Where is the centre? Blow up the balloon more, and ask the same question.

This is exactly what im trying to get at. For a moment, no matter how small of time, there is a centre in the balloon analogy! (which is how science looks at the universe NOW!).

Sure, its an ever evolving center in this view, but there IS a centre.

I am not going to quote every individual reply ajb but i will reply.

The main point here is trying to understand what science deems as infinite. According to current data (which relativity agrees with, lets keep this in mind) is that from the big bang onward there is literally a line, think of it as an ever expanding balloon that if you could ever travel fast enough and far enough you could catch up with and literally visualize the universe being born.

This, blows my mind. How is it possible that science says there are NO special places in the universe when it also says when you go out far enough you WILL find the reaches of the universe. If we accept the universe isnt infinite (as science states currently) how can you not agree,for at least a small point in time (as the universe is ever expanding) that there IS a centre.

Let me clarify my thoughts, as i feel they are slightly confusing.

Science assumes the universe is ever expanding but NOT infinite. How then, at any point in time (as the universe continues to expand) is there not a centre to the universe? Sure its for a very brief milisecond, but there is a centre.

This is what some basic assumptions about homogeneity and isotropy of space say, and it seems to be okay with all observations so far.

Not quite:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe

Not really, we are talking about the centre of space, rather than space-time. Remember we can only really see just the Observable Universe.

 

As an illustration, once again think of a sphere. That surface has no boundary, has no privileged 'centre', yet it is of finite extent. You could also think of a plane, that is similar but now of infinite extent.

A couple things here:

1. Center of space vs space time. Exactly how does this differ? What does the observable univserse have to do with this particular conversation? Are we talking about aliens all of a sudden?

2.I cannot, in any sense, grasp what you mean by a sphere not having a center.

Finite in age, yes it does imply that as the CMBR is one of the features of the standard model of cosmology.

Age=size no? How is there a "limit" to what our sensors can produce if there actually isnt a limit? This harkens back to what i said earlier, if you can travel fast and far enough there is "supposed" to be a point where we can literally see the universe being born. How does this go against geocentrism?

Please throw this in the trash can.

This is the first time ive seen you reply in this thread, im just curious as to why you think this deserves to be moved to the trash bin?

So... you presume there is a sign and a blank white wall at the "edge"?

I dont presume this, science does. Go look, we predict there is a "wall" of sorts out there. Meaning, if you could travel fast enough you could find this particular spot in the universe and actually visualize the universe being born.

Ok think about what you are saying for a second people.

Relativity says there are no special places in the universe, meaning there is no CHANCE of there being a center. This would imply you ALL think the universe is absolutely infinite and there is no possibilty of a center in any case.

Think on that for just a second (even when CMB data does suggest the universe is finite).