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

[Scotty99]

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.

 

Fair enough to your first point. And i am still confused by your second comment. I was asked to show what i meant with CMB data and how that relates to geocentrism, ive done my best research to find these articles and how people are saying "the jury is out" when the articles are clearly saying something is going on here.

 

What do i do? Do i take your word that the jury is out on this, or go by the information ive found on the internet that seems to come from very valid sources?

[ajb]

What do i do? Do i take your word that the jury is out on this, or go by the information ive found on the internet that seems to come from very valid sources?

You will find other sources that question the existence of these anomalies. You will find that there are experts in this that expect to find ways of removing these anomalies; foreground contamination maybe or some problem with the statistical methods used etc. The issue is far from solved and labelled "established science". But that is the nature of observational science right on the edge of our understanding.

 

You have to be careful taking the next step based on these observations. For example, it took a while for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe to be accepted. Different groups using different methods had to verify the first observations and theoretical studies were needed to rule out other possibilities. In this case the argument for dark energy became 'accepted'. It takes time and you don't want to 'jump the gun'.

 

Another example could be the superluminal speed of neutrinos that in the end was down to a faulty wire! Plenty of papers were quickly written about super fast neutrinos. Not sure how many are now actually interesting.

 

Anyway, you should also find other pieces of evidence that supports the idea of the Earth's location being special, ideally evidence that is independent of the CMBR or any other observations that are really still in question.

Edited August 10, 2015 by ajb

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

There seems to be a disconnect here. How can you use a measurement to show something resides in a special place if the data show that thing to be moving? It's not in the same place from moment to moment. Ergo, the CMB data does not support the notion that the earth resides in a special place.

 

This i of course agree with in a general way of thinking

 

I'm shocked, shocked that you reject scientific thinking.

[Scotty99]

You will find other sources that question the existence of these anomalies. You will find that there are experts in this that expect to find ways of removing these anomalies; foreground contamination maybe or some problem with the statistical methods used etc. The issue is far from solved and labelled "established science". But that is the nature of observational science right on the edge of our understanding.

 

You have to be careful taking the next step based on these observations. For example, it took a while for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe to be accepted. Different groups using different methods had to verify the first observations and theoretical studies were needed to rule out other possibilities. In this case the argument for dark energy became 'accepted'. It takes time and you don't want to 'jump the gun'.

 

Another example could be the superluminal speed of neutrinos that in the end was down to a faulty wire! Plenty of papers were quickly written about super fast neutrinos. Not sure how many are now actually interesting.

 

Anyway, you should also find other pieces of evidence that supports the idea of the Earth's location being special, ideally evidence that is independent of the CMBR or any other observations that are really still in question.

 

Id love to see the articles that that propose this is explainable in another way if you have quick access to them.

 

There is just one other small problem i have here, this CMB data isnt new they have had practically the same results since 1992 starting with the NASA cobe mission (which they won a nobel prize for). Then in 2003 i believe they sent up the wmap which had a far higher resolution imaging device than the cobe, and that came back with the same results. It would be much easier to dismiss this data if two missions didn't (was it two, or three?) come back with the same findings.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Scotty99

[swansont]

 

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.

 

For the second time in a few short hours, I will point out that the article is not discussing the CMB. One hint would be the use of the phrase "discrete sources"

[Scotty99]

 

 

There seems to be a disconnect here. How can you use a measurement to show something resides in a special place if the data show that thing to be moving? It's not in the same place from moment to moment. Ergo, the CMB data does not support the notion that the earth resides in a special place.

 

I'm shocked, shocked that you reject scientific thinking.

 

You are still misinterpreting what i am saying. What does the earth moving have to do with it being in a special place? Sure hard core geocentrists do think the earth is a still unmoving body in the center of the universe (something im still on the fence about). The CMB is not related to that line of thinking at all, you dont have to bring some of the ideas of geocentrists into the conversation here you just look at the data. The data suggests earth IS in a special place, i am flabberghasted you guys aren't ad least admitting THAT.

 

What do you mean about your second comment? When did i say anything like that, merely that if you look at CMB data you cannot leave that to chance. Again from the article:

 

"We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations"

 

For the second time in a few short hours, I will point out that the article is not discussing the CMB. One hint would be the use of the phrase "discrete sources"

 

I would really like if you can elaborate on what you mean by this. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about lol. Did you click the same article as this?:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1

[Strange]

 

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"

 

Large, relative to what?

 

Please tell us exactly how large, in numerical terms, these variations are.

 

 

 

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?

 

I will type this very slowly so you can follow it:

ALIGNMENT IS NOT PLACE.

 

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.

 

Again, where did I say that? Are you dishonestly putting words in my mouth? Or you unable to understand what I say?

 

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.

 

Then start a thread on that in the mainstream part of the forum. But, as far as I know, the current best answer is "we don't know".

 

You are still misinterpreting what i am saying. What does the earth moving have to do with it being in a special place?

 

If it was in a "special place" when you wrote that, then it isn't any more. Because it is moving.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Strange

[swansont]

What do you mean about your second comment? When did i say anything like that, merely that if you look at CMB data you cannot leave that to chance. Again from the article:

 

"We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations"

 

Nothing to do with the CMB. Quasars ≠ microwave radiation.

 

I would really like if you can elaborate on what you mean by this. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about lol. Did you click the same article as this?:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134v1

 

Yes. The one that says "Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue"

 

ANYTHING they conclude in that paper has nothing to do with the CMBR.

 

What I didn't do was stop reading when I saw "CMB" and "anisotropies" in the abstract, and just ignore the rest of the paper

 

You are still misinterpreting what i am saying. What does the earth moving have to do with it being in a special place?

 

 

What definition of "place" are you using? Because I'm using the one that is "a particular point in space". An object cannot be at a particular, fixed point and also be moving. The two are not mutually compatible.

 

I suppose you could argue that the earth is fixed and the CMBR is moving, but that would be something to add to the list for geocentrism to explain.

 

What do you mean about your second comment?

 

 

Klaynos made a factual statement about statistics and data, and you said you rejected that way of thinking. I was being sarcastic about being shocked by this, since your MO has been to reject things you disagree with and misrepresent what science says.

 

The bottom line is that if you don't understand something you can't validly draw any conclusions one way or the other about the topic.

[Moontanman]

 

? It should be fairly clear i am in the process of figuring that out for myself. Not sure if you are going anywhere with that question but let me make clear, there is virtually no difference between Mr Cliftons "void centered" universe and a geocentric view of the cosmos. From as far as i can tell, they are one in the same.

 

Thank you, edited.

 

 

I am going somewhere with that question, I don't want to gish gallop you but that question leads quite naturally to do you accept that the sun orbits the center of the galaxy? The thing to remember is that the Earth has several motions, all confirmed, that would indicate the Earth is not at the center of anything but the human mind...

Edited August 10, 2015 by Moontanman

[ACG52]

"Center of a void" is not even similar to "void centered universe".

[ajb]

Id love to see the articles that that propose this is explainable in another way if you have quick access to them.

First search should be of the arXiv. You can then try to chase up any published papers articles there cite, some maybe open access and others not.

 

A word of warning is that you will have to be careful just reading the words and not looking into the maths and methods used.

 

There is just one other small problem i have here, this CMB data isnt new they have had practically the same results since 1992 starting with the NASA cobe mission (which they won a nobel prize for). Then in 2003 i believe they sent up the wmap which had a far higher resolution imaging device than the cobe, and that came back with the same results.

Okay, and it was WMAP that found the anomalies. At the time of WMAP the existence of these large scale anomalies was is great question, though no good solution was proposed. Well, maybe the axis of evil is just statistically okay as the cosmological principal is a statistical statement. (As you know, some papers suggest that it cannot be just random chance)

 

 

It would be much easier to dismiss this data if two missions didn't (was it two, or three?) come back with the same findings.

The claims of anomalies remains with the Planck data.

 

This suggests that the problem is not with the instruments, they are two different pieces of equipment. However, there are several explanations as to the possible origin and significance of the anomalies. For example [1] discusses some of this

 

 

Anyway, from what I can gather, none of this really suggests that the Earth is in a special place, just that it maybe aligned with some of these anomalies. Which is either just chance, if the anomalies are real. In fact to my mind, any alignment of the Earth or Solar System with any of these anomalies like the axis of evil only suggest that they are not real and that we have missed something.

 

[1] A. Rassat, J.L. Starck, P. Paykari, F. Sureau and J. Bobin, Planck CMB anomalies: astrophysical and cosmological secondary effects and the curse of masking, JCAP08(2014)006. (arXiv:1405.1844 [astro-ph.CO])

Edited August 11, 2015 by ajb

[Scotty99]

What do you guys think of the recent findings of gravitational waves in the cosmos? In your eyes does this validate relativity? Im still on the fence on this entire situation, given that geocentrism has always had the back of newton im not sure this proves or disproves anything in this scenario. Im basically trying to understand why this is such a headline in the news today, everywhere i turn i see this headline lol.

 

I am still not a full blown geocentrist, but if i was what evidence does this new found information about gravitational waves mean to geocentrism. I keep waiting for news to prove either or and this is the closest ive felt to make a post on, given ive waited 6 months i hope it doesnt come off as trollish lol.

What do you guys think of the recent findings of gravitational waves in the cosmos? In your eyes does this validate relativity? Im still on the fence on this entire situation, given that geocentrism has always had the back of newton im not sure this proves or disproves anything in this scenario. Im basically trying to understand why this is such a headline in the news today, everywhere i turn i see this headline lol.

 

I am still not a full blown geocentrist, but if i was what evidence does this new found information about gravitational waves mean to geocentrism. I keep waiting for news to prove either or and this is the closest ive felt to make a post on, given ive waited 6 months i hope it doesnt come off as trollish lol.

 

Correct me if i am wrong, werent these tests done with EXACTLY the same equipment as the michaelson morley experiments? Clearly on a larger scale. Why is everyone celebrating is my question, what do these new results ACTUALLY explain. It is very cool a 100+ year old theory has some legitimacy brought to it, but lets not celebrate too early huh?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Scotty99

[Ophiolite]

It is very cool a 100+ year old theory has some legitimacy brought to it, but lets not celebrate too early huh?

You seriously think it had no legitimacy prior to this announcement?

[Strange]

What do you guys think of the recent findings of gravitational waves in the cosmos? In your eyes does this validate relativity?

 

Of course it does. It is also an important technological development that will lead to a knew form of astronomy.

 

I am still not a full blown geocentrist, but if i was what evidence does this new found information about gravitational waves mean to geocentrism.

 

Nothing. Geocentrism (in your sense) is a religious belief and therefore science is irrelevant.

 

 

Correct me if i am wrong, werent these tests done with EXACTLY the same equipment as the michaelson morley experiments? Clearly on a larger scale.

 

It is a similar setup to the Michelson-Morley experiment. I suppose if gravity waves were much larger, then that could have detected them. As it is, it was not sensitive enough by several orders of magnitude.

 

Why is everyone celebrating is my question, what do these new results ACTUALLY explain.

 

It demonstrates (1) the existence of gravitational waves and (2) black hole mergers, both of which behave exactly as predicted.

 

It is very cool a 100+ year old theory has some legitimacy brought to it, but lets not celebrate too early huh?

 

The theory has had evidence confirming it since the very beginning. It is one of the most well-tested theories ever. For 100 years. To high levels of accuracy.

[Robittybob1]

Those lectures (OP videos) are complete BS.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Robittybob1

[Scotty99]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf

 

Literally gave me chills reading this. I don't have time to quote the good parts cause im busy atm, but give the PDF a good readthrough if any of this stuff interests you.

[Scotty99]

I was a little tipsy when i made the post about gravitational waves and i my thoughts didnt come off very clear, thats why i didnt respond to any replies (i didnt even remember what i wrote, i just knew i was confused why everyone was so excited about gravitational waves i truly didnt understand the hype around it). But what i just linked above needs some replies lol. I just want to see someone explain away this evidence, or at least try to.

 

Max Tegmark who is an absolute genius in my eyes said this:

 

Max Tegmark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who also was not part of the research, thinks Earth is a colossal violation of the Copernican principle—not because of its location but because of its young age. “If you have these civilizations that had a 3.5-billion-year head start on us, why haven't they colonized our galaxy?

 

 

What! He didnt say the word god or geocentrism but went as close to it as you can without saying the actual words.

Nothing. Geocentrism (in your sense) is a religious belief and therefore science is irrelevant.

 

 

My argument from the START should have been against the copernican principle, but i still feel deep down its 100% possible the earth is at the exact center of the universe. Given this new study, we need to start talking about how wrong galileo really was.

[Robittybob1]

...

My argument from the START should have been against the copernican principle, but i still feel deep down its 100% possible the earth is at the exact center of the universe. Given this new study, we need to start talking about how wrong galileo really was.

Does the Sun orbit the Earth?

[Scotty99]

Does the Sun orbit the Earth?

 

Yet to be seen my friend, yet to be seen. (relativity says both are feasible).

Just to clarify robby, those newly found findings on grav waves used the same equipment as the michaelson morley experiment (basically, but more advanced clearly) to detect the waves. What blows my mind thru the roof is even with indisputable proof no one could accept the earth wasnt moving, but as soon as the grav waves tripped the equipment people across the world celebrated as if they won the lottery (which is what i could never understand).

 

Relativity isnt a sound theory, people dont realize this on the whole. Grav waves are only a small small predictor that was found to be true, but do you guys know that relativity was actually created to debunk the michaelson morley experiments? We had no idea what to believe 100 years ago, relativity simply wrote a creator out of the equation by saying nothing is real, it depends on your point of view lol.

[Robittybob1]

 

Yet to be seen my friend, yet to be seen. (relativity says both are feasible).

,....

Prove it.

[Scotty99]

Prove it.

 

?

 

Special relativity[edit]

Main article: Special relativity

USSR stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).

This is the biggest news in science in 400+ years, the lack of replies to this is DISTURBING.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Scotty99

[Robittybob1]

 

 

?

 

Special relativity[edit]

Main article: Special relativity

USSR stamp dedicated to Albert Einstein

Special relativity is a theory of the structure of spacetime. It was introduced in Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (for the contributions of many other physicists see History of special relativity). Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics:

1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity).

 

So do you think the Sun orbiting the Earth is uniform motion?

[Scotty99]

Rob i really dont wanna be a dick but you clearly dont understand relativity, it was created CREATED to write out a creator. It does not matter where you put the subject, all frames are equally relevant in relativity. Thus meaning the earth could revolve around the sun, or the ENTIRE UNIVERSE could be rotating around the earth.

 

But the crux of this entire situation is one has to be correct, meaning relativity isnt. Given this new study stating the earth is DEFINITELY in a special place, im going with the latter.

Why no replies on this subject matter? I usually get 20 replies within 5 minutes, but i post something with validity no one replies? COme on where is strange, mordred, ajb.....the regulars of this forum. I wanna talk dammit lol.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Scotty99

[Mordred]

Talk away this thread has enough countering details.

 

You clearly aren't interested in the real physics.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

Talk away this thread has enough countering details

 

FFS man at least TOUCH on the article i linked. PLEASE. Here it is again:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

 

I started this thread over a year ago, only looking for more information on geocentrism. I got a ton of advice and a ton of criticism, now that a LEGIT article pops up on the subject everyone turns their back on me?