Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[swansont]

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Strange]

There may be some alignment with the solar system. Some discussion of it here: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/anomalous-alignments-in-cosmic.html

 

There are several attempts to explain these anomalies, e.g. instead of using the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric, one can consider anisotropic or inhomogeneous models, foreground effects, lensing effects, quantum gravitational imprints, non-trivial topologies of the universe, modifications of the gravitational potential that the background photons might experience (Rees-Sciama/Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect), scattering of the CMB (Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect), etc.

 

But, of course, that does nothing to support your beliefs.

 

On the other hand, it may be nothing: http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/research/current_research/hl2013-10/hl2013-10-en.html

Edit: actually, I'm not sure if that is relevant...

Edited August 10, 2015 by Strange

[Scotty99]

 

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.

[Strange]

 

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.

 

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.

[Scotty99]

 

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

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[Strange]

"Aligned" != "pointed at"

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

[Scotty99]

"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.

[Strange]

 

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

 

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

There seems to be a full frontal assault on several scientific forums by completely blinkered geocentricists, all posing similar nonsense about the CMB.

 

Can we not say we have now had our fun and close this thread?

 

I tend to agree. Scotty has made his mind up and has managed to cherry pick and misinterpret some "facts" to support his faith. Nothing will change that so this seems a bit pointless now.

 

I would be interested in his take on evolution and whether he is any more open to evidence on that. (I assume he isn't and would stick with his creationist views there, as well.)

[Scotty99]

 

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?

[Strange]

 

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?

 

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.

 

I am posting from a geocentrists point of looking at these things, how do you explain these things aligned directly at the earth?

 

They are not aligned AT the 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?

 

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.

[Scotty99]

 

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?

[swansont]

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Which is it - the ecliptic, or the tilt?

[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°

[Strange]

If it exists? So now you are denying it does?

 

No, I am not denying it. What gives you that idea. You seem to have serious problems understanding English.

 

One possible explanation (or class of explanations) is that it is a problem with data capture, data analysis, filtering out other sources etc. That last one is quite likely to be relevant as, not surprisingly, many of the foreground sources that have to be removed have some sort of alignment relative to the solar system.

 

I am not sure why you wont let go of the pointed/aligned deal.

 

Because on is what the paper says and doesn't support your faith. The other is one that you made up to pretend that it does. I don't see why you should be allowed to get away with that. I know your type always think it is OK to lie in the defence of your faith, but I don't.

 

Can we just agree that there is appears to be some sort of preferred direction in the CMB, and that surprisingly seems to have some relation to earth and earths 23.5° tilt?

 

Fixed it for you.

[ajb]

There are from time to time discussions about large scale anomalies in the CMBR and various explanations thereof. You have to remember that the study if the CMBR is not simple and involves lots of analysis and removal of other sources. It is plausible that these anomalies can be removed with careful analysis. However, this is not my area of expertise.

 

Anyway, these anomalies if found out to be real (the jury is out on on these, such as the 'axis of evil') do not add any weight to the idea that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, but they would suggest that we need to look again at the cosmological principal.

[Strange]

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

 

Neither of those claims are supported:

 

1. The variations in the CMB are very, very small (which is why they are so hard to find and why there is uncertainty about whether any anomalies exist). Given the quantum fluctuations in the initial hot dense state, a certain level of variation in the CMB was expected. Which is why it is being looked for - in order to test those models. The variations found are in line with expectation (with the exception of some apparent anisotropies).

 

2. The CMB does not show that the Earth is in a special place. As we are moving relative to the CMB, it shows quite the reverse. But feel free to ignore that counter-evidence as you always do.

[swansont]

 

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.

But it's moving!

 

 

(edit: xpost w/ Strange)

 

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°

 

 

You're wrong here. The obliquity of the ecliptic is the tilt. i.e. the angle it has with respect to the ecliptic. Read the definition. It pretty clearly states that they are not the same thing. The earth's equator is not in the plane of the ecliptic.

[Scotty99]

But it's moving!

 

 

(edit: xpost w/ Strange)

 

 

You're wrong here. The obliquity of the ecliptic is the tilt. i.e. the angle it has with respect to the ecliptic. Read the definition. It pretty clearly states that they are not the same thing. The earth's equator is not in the plane of the ecliptic.

 

Again geocentrists don't use the CMB data as proof of a earth centered universe, that comes into play in difference areas ive touched on in this thread. Just that the earth appears to be located in a special place given the data.

[ajb]

Just that the earth appears to be located in a special place given the data.

The cosmological principal would then say that every planet appears to be located in a special place. The idea is that aliens on another planet would pretty much see the same CMBR as us, that is once they have removed the local sources.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ajb

[Scotty99]

 

Neither of those claims are supported:

 

1. The variations in the CMB are very, very small (which is why they are so hard to find and why there is uncertainty about whether any anomalies exist). Given the quantum fluctuations in the initial hot dense state, a certain level of variation in the CMB was expected. Which is why it is being looked for - in order to test those models. The variations found are in line with expectation (with the exception of some apparent anisotropies).

 

2. The CMB does not show that the Earth is in a special place. As we are moving relative to the CMB, it shows quite the reverse. But feel free to ignore that counter-evidence as you always do.

 

1. Then how do you explain this line from the article:

"First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales"

2. Again, from the same article:

"What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun"

 

Unless we are reading two different things, how do you come to the conclusion the CMB data does not show the earth is in a special place?

 

In the same article it says:

"It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon."

 

I don't see how you can come say CMB data does not bring the cosmoligical principle into question when i am reading about it to the contrary. The question is where do you go from here? I asked earlier how do you explain these anomalies, that is where id like the discussion to go.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[Klaynos]

...There is just no chance at this being random, now how do you get around that?

I disagree. If you measure enough things some of them will correlate or align, just by the law of large numbers. Correlation does not mean causation.

[Scotty99]

The cosmological principal would then say that every planet appears to be located in a special place. The idea is that aliens on another planet would pretty much see the same CMBR as us, that is once they have removed the local sources.

 

It actually says the exact opposite of that. That we arent special, we are just a random rock in any given space.

I disagree. If you measure enough things some of them will correlate or align, just by the law of large numbers. Correlation does not mean causation.

 

This i of course agree with in a general way of thinking, but if you look at CMB data how can you possibly associate that to random chance?

[Klaynos]

 

This i of course agree with in a general way of thinking, but if you look at CMB data how can you possibly associate that to random chance?

Easily, no causation has been proposed. No conclusion can be drawn so we defer to the other evidence. The earth is not special.

[Scotty99]

Easily, no causation has been proposed. No conclusion can be drawn so we defer to the other evidence. The earth is not special.

 

The data in the CMB seems to say the earth is in a special place. If you havent glazed over the articles i linked its a pretty fascinating read.

[ajb]

It actually says the exact opposite of that. That we arent special, we are just a random rock in any given space.

I would not say the 'exact opposite'. If every place appears to be special then no place is actually special!

 

Anyway, like I said, the jury is out on the existence of these CMBR anomalies and their explanations. They may just go away under careful re-analysis.