Jump to content

I can't be the only one.


Scotty99
 Share

Recommended Posts

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am fairly convinced the problem is not with our observations, simply that we are trying to interpret the results in an outdated system.

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

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

And I believe so to would the majority of scientists agree with Mordred. Tegmark is one man, and although I respect him, I believe he is also known for some ecentricity in certain fields, Fred Hoyle another otherwise great scientist, was wrong re his "Steady State" as compared to the BB.. Einstein himself doubted his own GR because it inferred a dynamic version when beliefs at that time were that it was static. Science is a discipline in eternal progress.

Quote

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am fairly convinced the problem is not with our observations, simply that we are trying to interpret the results in an outdated system.

The only "trying to get to" is your own apparent evangelistic crusade to cast doubt on a hum drum nothing special Earth, that of course conflicts with your view you are reluctant to discuss...you know some form of ID...some magic spaghetti monster...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Well as an accreditted Cosmologist I could describe numerous other forms of evidence that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. However to do so typically gets too math intensive for the average poster.  One such methodology involves comparisions of the integrated late time Sache Wolfe effect which will give insight to expansion rate variations. Expansion rates depends upon mass density distributions. This in turn also affects redshift datasets.   An anistropic universe if the coamological principle waa incorrect would affect distance measurements. Science today checks the redshift and luminosity to distance relations via various forms of parallax including intergalactic parallax.

 The formulas of LCDM are formulas that uses the cosmological principle as its basis. Deviations from their predictions would become readily apparent at further distances. The fact that every major dataset involving top of the line detectors that require years to complete a single survey will trump any youtube video in a heartbeat.

Here is a SDSS study using galaxy distributions

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7621&ved=2ahUKEwiS-4aOzrPaAhUIsVQKHf0kDUwQFjAEegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0th8UzI8GIS5z2BOPA69cx

I could keep going, for this study there is literally 100's of papers supportive of the cosmological principle. As you can see from this example not all of them require CMB datasets.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, beecee said:

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" 

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.

    Could be.  

    Though he strongly implied in a previous post that he didn't care too much for being labeled a religious person and that that isn't the angle he was coming from here. So?

    But. Could be.

    I kind of see what you say about u tube videos that any Tom Dick or Harry can make.

   So, surely it follows that any scientific paper is also far more likely to have more accurate observational data and facts, than some post on a site that any Tom Dick or Harry can post on. 

    Besides, I do honestly believe that the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos! 

   After all, earth is the only known spot in the cosmos that science can unequivocally declare harbors not only life, but life that is self aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Its still good to know why certain topics of cosmology is so fiercely competed despite the body of evidence. This happens to be one of those topics where no amount of evidence will counter a persons faith.

 Anyways hopefully your learning that this particular topic has undergone intensive studies over the decades.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, et pet said:

      Besides, I do honestly believe that the earth is in a special spot in the cosmos!  

That's your problem, but the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite.

 

Quote

After all, earth is the only known spot in the cosmos that science can unequivocally declare harbors not only life, but life that is self aware.

The space age is only 60 years old friend, and obviously the near infinite extent of the universe, and the vast distances between likeley habitats, makes discovery and meetings rather difficult.

11 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

I am not a religious person, but i also do not rule out a creator. Its not either or for me, god or random chance, i think a middle ground is whats really going on.

There is no middle ground...that's simply closeting the obvious. It's either follow the scientific evidence and methodology, or turn your back on logic and entertain the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 Its still good to know why certain topics of cosmology is so fiercely competed despite the body of evidence. This happens to be one of those topics where no amount of evidence will counter a persons faith.

Why would you make a comment like that, seems rather childish. Many well respected scientists think in a similar manner as myself, are they disallowed to have a discussion because we leave open the chance for a creator in trying to understand the universe? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is childish about that statement ? Its a truthful statement. There are numerous topics that various people will not accept regardless of scientific evidence. Lol just look at evolution as one example.

 lol another is the BB itself or any theory that supports the BB

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's your problem, but the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite.

 

The space age is only 60 years old friend, and obviously the near infinite extent of the universe, and the vast distances between likeley habitats, makes discovery and meetings rather difficult.

There is no middle ground...that's simply closeting the obvious. It's either follow the scientific evidence and methodology, or turn your back on logic and entertain the unscientific concepts of the supernatural and paranormal.

Thanks for clearing that up for me random poster on random internet forum, guess ill ignore my brain from now on. Why didnt i think of this earlier, could have saved me so much time.

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What is childish about that statement ? Its a truthful statement. There are numerous topics that various people will not accept regardless of scientific evidence. Lol just look at evolution as one example.

 

Its incredibly childish, you are attempting to devalue my comments because i havent wrote off the idea of a creator when trying to understand this place we call the universe. Maybe just maybe we need a creator to connect the dots. 

Im actually glad you brought up evolution. To try and give you an idea of how my brain works never once have i thought evolution and a creator were incompatible ideas, not even as a kid. 

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't devalued any of your comments. I was making you aware of why this topic is debated by others despite the evidence. Its a warning to pay close attention when self studying via internet based resources.

 There is tons of links, papers vids etc with agendas to overthrow this theory. One has to learn to watch for the signals that indicate an agenda

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

I haven't devalued any of your comments. I was making you aware of why this topic is debated by others despite the evidence. Its a warning to pay close attention when self studying via internet based resources 

There you go again lol. 

You arent even aware you are doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well think what you like, I never attack any poster that is never my methodology. Never gets anywhere lol.

 Nothing wrong with self study on the internet but it is difficult to find trustworthy resources. Its easy to be led astray. Happens to people all the time. 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mordred said:

Do you enjoy spending your time finding reasons to judge others?

So what if I editted my comment I do so all the time when I think of things to add. What is wrong with that?

 How am i judging anyone, if anything the reverse is happening here. There is nothing wrong with editing a thread (how could you even insinuate that is the issue?) its that you added the word "agenda" in your crusade to devalue this entire thread because i made the comment that i have not ruled out a creator in trying to understand our universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tgen why pray tell did you comment on my editing my post? Why would you believe I am trying to devalue this thread in the first place? All I have done is present evidence supporting the cosmological principle

Please show me where I personally accused you of a religious agenda

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

Thanks for clearing that up for me random poster on random internet forum, guess ill ignore my brain from now on. Why didnt i think of this earlier, could have saved me so much time.

We all have brains ol son, [well most of us] but sometimes mythical beliefs drummed into a person at a young age, is hard to dispatch, even with logic. But you and I are not cosmologists, nor astronomers, and as people have been trying to tell you, the general overwhelming consensus is that we are nothing special, other then the only place we know of with life and for the reasons already stated.

And yes, we all have agendas...mine is science, particularly cosmology. Yours already has been noted despite trying to closet it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beecee said:

We all have brains ol son, [well most of us] but sometimes mythical beliefs drummed into a person at a young age, is hard to dispatch, even with logic. But you and I are not cosmologists, nor astronomers, and as people have been trying to tell you, the general overwhelming consensus is that we are nothing special, other then the only place we know of with life and for the reasons already stated.

And yes, we all have agendas...mine is science, particularly cosmology. Yours already has been noted despite trying to closet it.

And another guy trying to do the same thing mordred was, childish is actually the best term i can come with to describe this type of posting.

As an aside i am 37 and the only time ive stepped foot inside of a church had to do with a wedding or a funeral. My family was not religious in the slightest, but glad you seem to know me so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's your problem, but the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite.

The space age is only 60 years old friend, and obviously the near infinite extent of the universe, and the vast distances between likeley habitats, makes discovery and meetings rather difficult.

 

    Wow. I have never ever been told before that being thoroughly appreciative of not only life, but having the ability to truly enjoy this life was in some way a problem. Just, WOW.

    Yet, the evidence overwhelmingly says the opposite, you say?

     So, just WOW.

    And all the rest you go on about space age, infinite extent,etc., is just one tiny smidgen of all of the reasons that this earth is in a special spot in the cosmos! 

    

   

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So presenting evidence in support of mainstream textbook cosmology is an agenda?

14 minutes ago, Scotty99 said:

And another guy trying to do the same thing mordred was, childish is actually the best term i can come with to describe this type of posting.

 

 I asked you to show where I accused you of a religious agenda. Please do so or stop the false accusations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So presenting evidence in support of mainstream textbook cosmology is an agenda?

Mordred you are misunderstanding, lets clear things up.

 

First the quote in question is this:

 

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

This happens to be one of those topics where no amount of evidence will counter a persons faith.

Right here you are setting me up as a crackpot/religious person, EVEN when i have max tegmark at my side. I dont disagree that there are likely two sides of the story in this CMB debate, but "faith" is not something that is clouding my judgement. In fact how i got to where i am includes things like logic, deductive reasoning and occams razor, not religious text....

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No I wasn't even referring to you I eas referring to other websites articles videos etc

Still not adding up. I have only linked two videos, one from just a random guy (with no agenda that i can tell, just a guy that is into science) and one from max tegmark describing what we see in the CMB. Where exactly does faith come into this if not directed at me?

Edited by Scotty99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't specify any particular vids, I am specifically applying a blanket statement to take any non peer reviewed resource with a hesitation. Any resource that is not peer reviewed is questionable.

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.