Jump to content

I can't be the only one.


Scotty99
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scotty99 said:

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

    I have yet to gleen what this "it" is that you purport to be "up against", but as far as "the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos", well here are some 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

   So, "Scotty99", I hope that the "it" you allude to is not such easily confirmed current information.

    

Edited by et pet
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

4 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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

blanket denials on your part will never work.

Lets put this as simple as possible If any dataset was found to support the Earths location as being special. Such an event would be all over the news 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scotty99 said:

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

 

!

Moderator Note

Actually, it’s on you. You’re the one making claims running counter to mainstream and accepted science, so you are the one who needs to start ponying up the evidence. YouTube videos don’t cut it. If you can’t do this, the thread will be getting closed.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I am telling you, as an administrator of this forum, that it is your responsibility to back up your (frankly outlandish) claims. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told yoi where to find the paper. Do I need to do the work for you on a simple google search. Fair enough here it is.

"In summary, we find no evidence for cosmic defects from the Planck 2015 data, with tighter limits than before.
7. Conclusions42
(1) The six-parameter base ΛCDM model continues to provide a very good match to the more extensive 2015 Planck data, including polarization. This is the most important conclusion ofthis paper."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01589

The entire paper supports the base 6 parameter Lambda CDM model which specifies a homogeneous and isotropic universe.

Your turn

(nothing in this paper supports the Earth as having a special location)

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty99 said:

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.

Not the angle you are coming from??? Sure it is...and whether you chose to remain coy about it is neither here nor there.

As I have already pointed out, your god of the gaps attempts where science maybe ignorant does not hold any water. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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.

 

The only skewed results [mythical fabricated results that is] I see, are that of some religious fanatic, trying to find any obscure reason to support some sort of ID, rather then where the evidence has already taken us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The formulas for the dipole anistropy are contained in this link

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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.

Video concludes with Tegmark saying " What's less clear is what it means" 

 

and the other link concludes with......http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-cmb-and-geocentrism/

"The anomalies in the CMB, and the other observations that we have reviewed do not support strict geocentrism, and they disprove neither the Copernican Principle nor the Standard Model of Cosmology. We have seen that observations in the last decade have reinforced rather than undermined the Standard Model. Of course, that is not to say that the Cosmological Principle of homogeneity and isotropy on the largest scales is sacrosanct. Astrophysicists and cosmologists publish and discuss many challenges to that concept, but even in the extreme case, geocentrism is not the natural successor to the Standard Model, should a substantially inhomogeneous universe model become accepted.

The basic fallacy of the geocentrists is to believe and to argue that evidence against the Standard Model and against the Cosmological Principle, such as it is, is evidence in favour of a geocentric cosmology. It’s not".

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

12 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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?

No, and I don't believe you have either. Like I said, and as at least two articles show thus far...simply a god of the gaps"scenario

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    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/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with new posters if anyone makes a claim that runs counter to the standard models the onus is on said claimant to provide supportive evidence. This includes myself or anyone else. 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, et pet said:

    I have yet to gleen what this "it" is that you purport to be "up against",    

The "It" he obviously has a problem with, is the "it" that is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence so far, that the Earth has no special place in the universe, and is most certainly most definitely not the center of the universe, other then the 'observable universe" The "It" is the fact that cosmology and science in general, has gradually done away with the ancient age old mythical nonsense that spacetime, the stars, planets and universe in general need some form of magic spaghetti monster to explain it. The "It" he purports to argue against, is simply based on areas where there are gaps in science, and the almost fanatical efforts then to cover those gaps with what is known as "the god of the gaps" 

10 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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

Any scientific paper is far more likely to have more accurate observational data and facts, then some u tube video that any Tom Dick or Harry can make.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you like the results from dozens of different datasets all professionally done for comparision?

 Youtube vids means literally nothing in the scientific community. The only papers that are acceptable on the majority of any scientific forum or community is peer reviewed.

 Here is the thing when a model or theory becomes mainstream it usually requires decades of research, counter arguments, counter papers, supportive evidence etc. The cosmological principle itself did not happen overnight to become mainstream. Its been a hotly competed theory for decades. The evidence of 100's of studies won out in favor of the cosmological principle.

Lol no forum topic on any forum will ever change a mainstream view. That approach will always be insufficient

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.