Scotty99

No that's fine id just rather ask you a question instead.  According to you there are various papers outlining that there are no real problems with the CMB data, but what is the mainstream's take on this if a public figure like max tegmark seems to have a different view on the issue?

For example if i went to all my local universities and asked professors what their take was on the CMB results what do you think would be the split? Would there be a split?

16 minutes ago, beecee said:

Stop being so obtuse. As I already said, Tegmark finishes off by saying.." What's less clear is what it means"  He certainly unlike you or me, is no Tom Dick or Harry, but irrespective, scientists do at times disagree. He certainly is not burdened with some ID religious nonsense to skewer his views. 

According to mordred there are no problems, the what it means part isnt even a question for him because it does not exist.

For me the what it means is exactly what this thread is trying to get to, this took me 3+ years to get to and i am fairly convinced the problem is not with our observations, simply that we are trying to interpret the results in an outdated system.

Any tom dick and harry eh, max tegmark teaches at MIT and as i understand it worked closely if not directly on the cosmic background exploration missions.

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You will always find competitors to any standard model in physics. It doesn't matter in what model the competition is involved in.

 Even the most basic formulas are constantly tested and retested even f=ma hence MOND. Then too there is a ton of sermingly intelligent persons with credentials that are crackpots. A little hint if they resort to youtube videos in the first place suspect the latter case.

 A professional physicist doesn't require youtube videos nor pay a website to get their works published.

This particular topic will always be contested as it runs counter to popular religious textbooks

So basically the paper you linked trump my videos and thats that?

7 minutes ago, et pet said:

    from reading the "Moderator Note" 's, it seems that New Posters(?) must pony up or back up claims, so :  

   " ...figures for just The Milky Way Galaxy.

   about 100 billion to 200 billion stars 

   about 3,700 or thereabouts exoplanets

   about 2,700 or so solar systems "

            https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/other-solar-systems/en/

            https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/beyond/overview/

I have no idea what you are trying to assert with those numbers. What does that have to do with the cosmological principle, which is what the discussion is about.

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

A project of this magnitude requires a large body of collaberators. Secondly the sheer sensitivity of the Planck detectors can pick up anomolies that are incredibly difficult to filter. 

 For example our motion compared to the Early CMB causes what is called a dipole anistropy on measurements. There was a 2013 paper that discussed the need to deboost these detectors for certain detection frequencies. 

Here is the paper

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5083

 

If you look through the Planck publications you will find there is an incredible effort to fine tune each dataset and on callibration for a large variety of defects. They have publishef numerous papers specifically dealing woth these callibrations

What is max tegmarks official stance on the CMB results?

I know you guys hate videos but please just watch this 30 second clip of him describing the CMB results a few years back:

You link me an article stating it isnt real when this rather bright man (in my estimation) says otherwise. Its just a funny deal all around and you gotta wonder why there is any dissention among the ranks here.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-cmb-and-geocentrism/

The New Geocentrists have been claiming for some time that recent measurements of certain cosmological features “point straight at the Earth”^[1], and that therefore the Earth must be in the centre of the Universe. More recently, they have been promoting their movie, The Principle, which they hype as “one of the most controversial films of our time”^[2]. The movie is ostensibly about a “fair, balanced and comprehensive treatment” of the Copernican Principle – the proposition that the Earth is not in a central or favoured position in the cosmos. Of course, it is well known that the movie’s principals, Robert Sungenis and Rick DeLano, are strict geocentrists who believe, for religious reasons of their own, that the Earth is absolutely static and located at the exact centre of the Universe. Strict geocentrism has been superseded for centuries – and there are clear modern refutations of the idea^[3]. Strict geocentrism is also a far more extreme position than would necessarily follow if the Copernican Principle were to be violated. It is clear that The Principle movie is a Trojan Horse for strict geocentrism, even though DeLano in particular claims that the film contains no more than an examination of the Copernican Principle.

 

more at link....

And? The principle has solid science from my estimation, ive looked into most of their claims and it holds up. Have you done the same?

That paper is news to me, that contradicts every single article ive researched about the CMB results. 

I am curious , how many of the people that worked on those satellite missions are endorsers of that paper?

Its just really hard to imagine someone endorsing that paper who worked so closely on these missions, the alignment of the anisotropies was so shocking to them im not sure how that 2015 paper really holds any credence. 

The only thing to me that makes any sense aside from us being in a special location in regards to the CMB results is cosmic variance, who knows what those images would look like if it were taken from a completely different part of the cosmos.

No its on mordred, feel free to close the thread but the results of the cosmic background exploration missions are well known and documented at this point. This thread will exist as a reminder of how results get skewed and misrepresented to fit the mainstream belief of the day.

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Try reading the publications that can be downloaded from the Planck website. They are readily available to anyone

blanket denials on your part will never work

Blanket denial of? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The honus is on you here with the "calibration error" statement.

Just now, Mordred said:

The axis of evil in the 2012 was a calibration error hence in the later dataset the axis is no longer aa pronounced. The CMB data supports a homogeneous and isotropic universe and does not support any special place in the Universe including the Earths location.

Calibration error? Ya gonna need a lot of links to prove that, the findings have not changed from cobe to wmap to planck. 

So were not going to be nice i take it?

Reported, for the second time.

Just now, Strange said:

You still haven't said what this "information" is or why it supports your religious beliefs. I am having to guess what you are referring to and, as far as I can tell, it contradicts your faith-based claims.

You need to stop making snide, cryptic comments and explain why evidence that the Earth is moving through the universe supports your religious belief that it is stationary. That really doesn't make much sense. You might as well claim that getting a speeding ticket proves you were parked by the side of road. 

I have already reported you once for the labeling me a religious person, going to ask you nicely to stop because that is not the angle i am coming from here. Secondly i am not going to spell out for you what the CMB readings mean, if you are want to continue posting in this thread there is plenty of data out there for you to research on your own.

lol strange, this isnt "information" ive stumbled across, its literally the results of decades worth of CMB missions which all came back with the same results.

Its not my job here to inform people of this data these aren't new findings, its about where do we go from here.

I have no idea who that guy is btw, i linked it because he has the facts correct on the CMB readings.

Its actually mind boggling to me most people on this forum really have no idea the problems with the copernican principle, too focused on dark matter/energy i reckon.

Eh and btw koti that is actually what the anistotropies and its alignment are called, not some sort of conspiracy theory lol.

3 hours ago, DrP said:

That would be because it is just as credible....  less so even being honest.

So something with zero basis in reality has more credibility to you than a world view that lasted for thousands of years?

I am up against it more than i realized, heh.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The fact you have only made vague reference to the CMB rather than specific data. 

I gather you are referring to the anisotropy. I fail to see how much his supports your faith. If the Earth were in the centre I would expect it to be isotropic. The fact it isn’t show we are moving relative to the CMB so if we were in the centre in the past, we aren’t anymore. 

Its incredible that even forum regulars such as yourself dont actually know the problems with the CMB, i will even bookmark the spot in the video for you:

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does the small mass remain stationary while the large mass moves in a circle (or ellipse)?

By small mass i assume you mean us? We are entrenched unmoving at the centre, this would also explain earths bulge at the equator.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

And there's your answer to "how haven't more people come to the same conclusions i have?"

What takes the place of Newtonian gravity in the geocentric model?

Special relativity works for inertial reference frames. Rotation and revolution are not inertial.

Oh there is rotation alright, but its not us thats moving.

Whats really sad about this entire deal is many people lump geocentrists with flat earthers, flat earth (in my opinion) was created to distract from actual truths and it turns out people were just dumb enough to bite.

That was a bit harsh but its the truth. All of the stuff you hear about flat earth should be about geocentrism (or rather, the copernican principle), people know something is off with our current understanding of the universe but they are barking up the wrong tree.

Just now, swansont said:

And there's your answer to "how haven't more people come to the same conclusions i have?"

What takes the place of Newtonian gravity in the geocentric model?

 What about the geocentric model makes you think gravity does not function in that system. Again i am suggesting earth occupies the exact center of mass in the universe and the entire sum of mass rotates around us. Local gravity does not change here, you are still going to have the small rotate around the large. I even recall researching why people think gravity does not work in a geocentric system, what laws is it breaking?

Actually relativity itself dictates you cannot differentiate if we are going around the sun or if the universe is going around us. Its absolutely brilliant in that sense, but that does not mean its how reality is

12 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

What about 5 billion years ago? When there was no earth? What was in the centre? 

You backtracked too far. Once you reach the Geocentric model, turn right, you turned left.

Then go on Copernican Blvd and go straight.

Geocentric model isnt perfect (orbits for example), but to me it got more right than the copernican does.

Something obviously isnt right with out understanding of the universe as it currently sits, whats a shame is people are attacking the big bang model instead of the CP:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

I truly think that is the wrong way to go about this.

Just now, Silvestru said:

wooow.... really? I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. Even the Vatican would disagree with you. (not sure where your agenda is coming from)

My brain does not work like that, i have no ulterior motive here. I just strongly feel that i have stumbled upon a truth in the universe based on my research, and if science is able to backtrack far enough i think real progress can be made to better humanity.

And its not the vaticans fault for thinking that either, relativity is a rather genius theory.

Well that's the thing, if what i am suggesting in this thread is actually how the universe is laid out no one with a logical brain would be able to deny a creator. If we are the exact center of mass it didnt happen by accident. Also lets not confuse god with a creator, they are two different things in a discussion such as this. Saying god will conjur up images of stories that are almost certainly exactly that, stories. If we truly do have a creator like i believe we do, any knowledge of that was lost to time.

If i was to throw my best guess out there as to how the universe really is, whoever created this put into the design just enough to see we are special, but to fully understand the inner workings is way beyond our capacity.

Because people trust science, not religion. If science can actually prove this is all here for us people are going to take notice, things would change.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Our best science tells us this is not so (and trivial to show it; we know we are moving). Which means being "a pretty bright guy" probably had nothing to do with your conclusion.

It's possible that life on earth is a unique event. The conditions (both local and galactic) are just right, and life doesn't exist anywhere else. For the earth to be special, though, you would have to show that the earth had to be the place where this happened, rather than we just happened to be in that place. Winning the lottery does not mean it was pre-ordained. It means you were lucky.

No experiment has ever been done to prove the earth is moving, in fact a large part of why einstein worked on relativity was to explain away the interferometer results done by michaelson and morley (and a few others that i forget).

Lorentz is another one that harkens back to my relativity/occams razor comment. Now whats more likely the earth is at rest or the equipment they are using to measure actually shrunk? This is how they tried to explain the null results, and people to this day still accept that. if you redo those same tests today with the assumption the earth is still you will find something that resembles a 24 hour cycle (universe rotating around us) not us moving around the sun, which would have been a far greater number.

8 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

How? Why?

Thats a confusing question to me, if tomorrow science proved we are in a special place that wouldnt be positive news to you? Knowing that this is all for us wouldnt lift up humanity to refocus on the important parts of life?

5 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

If we are "special" that wouldn't be good news. That would mean we are alone.

I kinda see it the other way, if science was able to prove we are in a special spot that would be quite a positive thing for civilization as a whole.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Define "special"

 

In my estimations, the most likely explanation for where earth resides is exactly at the center of mass in the universe.

This would explain a whole lot of things, including the two examples i gave above.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

The only thing remotely special about the Earth, is that at this time, it is the only place where known life exists. Most scientists though accept that life does exist elsewhere where conditions are favourable and potentially in our own solar system.

We were all born in the belly of stars.

This is also of course a part of how i got here, but it does not rank very high on my list if you can believe that or not. 

I actually just posted a topic in science news the other day about this:

You seemed to have skimmed over the meat of that article:

They estimated the size of this void to have a radius of about 1 billion light-years. If they’re right, humans are living in the middle of the largest known void in the observable universe.

What about the readings from the CMB dont you understand? It seems that people do really try and put a twist on the CMB and what multiple missions have gathered in data, this guy has a decent summary of what we observe in  the CMB:

Just now, koti said:

How did you deduce that the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos? Give your reasoning. 

Its really a large combination of factors, the two main scientific observances for me are the cosmic microwave background readings and the fact the earth just so happens to occupy a region that is the largest void in the entire observable universe. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/home-sweet-void/529623/

Relativity in itself is also a big one for me, at its core all relativity is is the penultimate example of occams razor. 

That is really just the tip of the iceberg for the how and why ive gotten to this point, but again i made the thread more as a curiosity as to why i seem to be nearly alone on this one. I think the scientific observations are growing to a point where the copernican principle is going to have to be looked at in a real way sometime soon but i just dont get why its not talked about more.