Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Scotty99

  1. Scroll up a few posts to the articles i linked... The reason the CP is being questioned is not only that it isnt homogenous like we expected, but it also has an anisotropy (basically a preferred sense of being/direction) that is aligned exactly to the axis (ecliptic) of this tiny little rock we call earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil_(cosmology) They have sent up at least 3 missions (maybe more by now?) and they have all come back with the same results. Instead of using intuition science is now trying to rewrite the cosmological principle to wipe away this result.
  2. I am merely suggesting there needs to be a nice middle ground where intuition has a part to play. If we can simply remove religion from the equation i think science could begin to have the conversation about what role a creator could play in all of this. I do believe this is eventually what is going to have to happen, its just going to take a number of years before we see this discussed on a mainstream level.
  3. Intuition is something you have to account for when coming to truths, and the method does not allow this. Then again if truth isn't important to you....
  4. 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....
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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. Like i said in my OP i am obsessed with knowing truths, i am not able to lie to myself and that has helped and hurt me in many ways but its unavoidable, its the way i am built. In this thread i am just proposing a scenario that i believe could be a possible truth, 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.
  12. That is possible as well, for me tho i think some of it slipped through the cracks, and that is where i am completely guilty of cherry picking. What i am more suggesting in this thread is that we had a greater knowledge of a creator in the past, a knowledge that brought people together not tore them apart. Something so substantial that a creator is not something you questioned, it was a part of your core knowledge. Or i could just be a loony bin, but i sure hope not.
  13. Well that's part of what i am suggesting in this thread, we only have part of the story.
  14. This coming from someone with a "far better understanding of SR" than me, heh. From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity The result was special relativity theory. This is based on the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference and the principle of relativity. inertial frame of reference: a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Shorthand: space the same everywhere at all times. principle of relativity: the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference. Shorthand: same equations work everywhere and at all times. Also: Galileo had already established the principle of relativity, which said that physical events must look the same to all observers, and no observer has the "right" way to look at the things studied by physics. I don't think you have a full grasp of special relativity mordred, or at least have gotten so off course that you forgot what it says at its heart.
  15. Again mordred i am not getting into the juicy bits i already stated that in this thread, i had my geocentrism thread and the moderators felt it needed to be closed for whatever reason and that is fine. The bottom line here is that you cannot prove that the earth is not in the center, just as i cannot prove that it is.
  16. Wait what? Again lets not turn this into another geocentrism thread i already had that one, but we need to make a couple things clear: 1. You said the fact we can witness moons rotate around planets was enough to "disprove" a geocentric view of the universe. Nothing about that has anything to do with geocentric universe, that is gravity. 2. You said "we can literally see the earth revolving around the sun via satellites". You cant state that so matter of fact, it could just as well be that we are seeing the sun rotate around the earth. It amazes me on a science forum how unfamiliar people are with the theory of special relativity.
  17. Apparently that went completely over my head, i don't even know what you are getting at. Are you basically relating a 9 year old girl at her birthday party to someone who believes in the possibility we are at the center of the universe, and that the evidence so far points to us being the only life in it? Or i could have completely missed what you were saying, that happens to me sometimes as well.
  18. I think you are confused a bit. Geocentric model does not change gravity, just the center point. Satellites will still orbit around their parent star in the geocentric model of course. Also no, we CANNOT see the earth "revolving around the sun", where you got that i have no idea. Ive never understood this line of thinking, that its egotistical to think that we are the center of the universe, as if we had anything to do with that if we were. We ARE special, YOU ARE special. Until we find life somewhere else i am absolutely going to believe we are indeed special, why would i think about it any other way?
  19. Or did we watch the sun go round the earth my friend? I think you may need to look over the special theory of relativity again.
  20. A geocentric universe is absolutely a possibility, its just that some people believe the orbits of planets make more sense with a heliocentric view. Nothing about the geocentric model has been "disproven" its really all about your point of view, as relativity states. And i think saying "super intelligent" civilization is the wrong wording. I never suggested they had flying saucers and death rays, i just think we had a deeper understanding of the universe and that possibly with that came advanced knowledge on harnessing energies on this planet. 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? Its almost like people think i am asking for advice here, really really strange. 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?
  21. It really can't tho... I mean you have your theories i have mine, you can't prove anything i am saying in here is wrong because we don't know either way. This thread is simply my best guess as to how things really are. I get that many people do not think the way i do, but it is in my opinion we aren't going to solve the riddles of the universe with methods invented by our human minds. I think our best shot currently is a better investigation of our oceans (which would take a long ass time, i know this)i do truly believe that we have had a greater understanding of the world not that long ago, and i have to think there is some evidence left behind of this.
  22. Congrats on your job, i can only hope i end up in a related field as i truly believe the real discoveries are going to come from exploration rather than science. Sphinx's age for me is just a small example of a larger picture here, i was not claiming anything nor is my mind made up on the subject i just found it an interesting read. I will say yes i am cherry picking here, cherry picking a lot of things that fit into my theory of how things are....thought i made that clear in the first post. Is there something inherently wrong with that? I am not picking these things out of thin air to fit some sort of agenda i have, ive just taken bits of information that made a whole lot of sense in my head and put them together to form a larger view of our existence. Bottom line here is no one knows the truth, this thread is just my best guess as to where we are at today. To be honest i am not even sure what the goal of the thread was, i just felt like thinking aloud and if anyone else had a "best guess" they could participate too. Not sure what you are trying to get at really, if you kept up with my ramblings i think this universe exists for us and aliens are not a thing. I claim we simply had a better understanding of our existence in the past, with only small remnants of that knowledge possibly existing today in religious texts. I think the truth is in the middle somewhere and that science is not the tool to get us there. I think the truth is so incomprehensible to us that is why our universe exists as it does, we can see it and view it and measure it and it kind of makes sense, i think only now are we starting to realize this is only because this is what our creator wants us to see and the truth is beyond our realm of understanding. I think the universe is put together like it is for various purposes, one being that it lends us to being inquisitive and curious other being it simply needs to be there for life to exist here on this planet. Of course the instant you find life on another floating rock this all falls apart for me, but i really dont think that will ever happen. Back to the incredible ruins on this planet, if i had to fare a wager i would say in the next century we will find something so incredible (probably underwater) it will force the world to view history more in the way i am suggesting here. Of course i am already there with the ones on land, i am just curious what it would take for you guys to do a double take and say wow, that should not have existed back then.
  23. To be honest i have never looked into anything about atlantis, the stuff that exists on this planet is enough for me. The thing that bothers me is ancient alien nutters, because that show/crowd exists it gives people like me some kind of stigma for having some of the same thoughts as they do. Instead of "because aliens", i think i am taking a far more logical approach in saying we simply had a broader knowledge about existence and the structures from antiquity really do speak to that for me. Have you never questioned the how and why in regards to some of the structures left behind on this planet? Are our best guesses good enough for you? I really do not like to underestimate human ingenuity, but what really trips me up with some of these structures is the timeline. There are so many examples but to give another one, studies of the sphinx suggests that is is much much older than believed because of its state of decay, that wind could not have caused the damage and to date it correctly when there was enough precipitation in that area we would have to go back to the 5th or 6th millennia BC. To me tho the why's are much more important than the how's. If we can figure out the why's the how's should fall right into place.
  24. Well that is not exactly a large stone, THIS is a large stone lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_the_Pregnant_Woman That is located in lebanon on a site believed to be inhabited for 9000 years or more. These ancient structures are again only part of how i put together this little theory i have, but as to that subject i do believe we had far more advanced knowledge of basic physics than we do now. The best example i have heard of which i mentioned in this thread is sound. Sound has some pretty incredible properties and i believe we had been shown a way to harness sound in a way that we cannot even fathom currently.
  25. Here is the thing, i do believe i am using critical thinking, just not in the way you are accustomed to. I have debated going back to school believe me, but i honestly feel its in my best interest that i continue down the path i am. I am not pushing any of my ideas on anyone here and but some replies in here make me believe some people think that, the title of the thread is ramblings and that is really all i am doing, just tossing ideas about and seeing what kind of feedback i would get. I fully respect the method i dont want you guys to get the idea that i dont, but i just feel there has to be people out there in the world trying to come to conclusions in a different way. My question would be why are you trying to dissuade me? Besides myself (that is why i assume you are trying to get me out of this way of thinking) who am i hurting here by just tossing about ideas i have had? I mean its just so odd to me, i posted on a philosophical section and the amount of pushback for not thinking in a scientific manner is something i did not expect to this level, even knowing the title of this forum is "science". Like the post i just quoted from my OP says this does not exactly come from a methodological viewpoint you are used to, i just wanted to get some sort of a discussion going. The crazy thing is you guys are simply unable to even speculate as to whether its true or not because it was not derived using the scientific method. All i was doing in this thread was asking for you to suspend disbelief for 10 minutes out of your day and if you HAD to take a guess what is your best shot at where we are at currently.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.