Earth is the Center of the Universe?

While researching the evidence for Cosmic Consciousness, the implications of the collapse of wave function, QM and so on, I came across some interesting evidence pointing to the fact that the Earth not only resides in the special place of the universe, it is the center of the universe…The evidence comes from the so-called “Axis of Evil – the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle, which “appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance.”- Wikipedia

 

To list the implications of this very fact would take more than then several OPs,  but just to mention a few: the big bang theory is goodbyeo… If big bag theory is no longer applicable, is the age of the universe and the Earth based on it correct?

To sum this up: Cosmology as we know it may as well be scrapped…The universe revolves around the Earth because it is special and not a product of mindless processes…

Regarding the Axis of Evil” aligned to Earth Lawrence, before they were confirmed as facts in 2013 by Planck probe Krauss commented in 2005:

But when you look at [the cosmic microwave background] map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

What should “the seekers of truth “, like Lawrence Krause, do when the best theory no longer fits the data?

They ignore it…

Yet another nail in the coffin of materialism… ID stands vindicated again…Not that this evidence is going to have any effect on “the seekers of truth”… Cosmologists will just add few more assumptions to their current assumptions and preconceived, materialistic ideas to satisfy the majority of people with what they want to hear and believe…

The illusion has to appear to be “real”…. because fiction has to continue to make sense…

 

100 thoughts on “Earth is the Center of the Universe?

  1. J-Mac: You just contradicted you previous comment:
    “Have you watched the video? Earth lies in the same plane just like Mars.”
    Make up your mind!

    What is the contradiction?

  2. J-Mac: Wrong again. The orbits of Earth and Mars don’t lie in the same plane. Their paths around the sun are a bit tilted with respect to each other…

    Essentially they are. Why you think the error bars for calculation of the axis of evil is less than 1.85 degrees?

    Wonder why the designer decided on a 63 degree tilt on ecliptic and the plane of the Milky Way?

  3. It is a bit strange, isn’t it, that earth is in a special place because the plane of the solar system is purportedly aligned with cosmic features, while the plane of rotation of earth’s equator itself is tilted 23.5 deg. off of that plane? While it’s true that we like the tilt of the earth with respect to our orbit of the sun, wouldn’t it be more impressive if earth itself was aligned with the “axis of evil” rather than the plane of the solar system?

    Confirmation bias seems to be operating here. Either the orbital plane of the solar system or the plane through earth’s equator aligning would presumably be taken as somehow important (to be sure, that our neighborhood seems aligned to be in the center of several features at seemingly important angles (at least important to us) is interesting) when aligned with cosmic features, and since it’s the plane of the solar system that works in this case, well, it must be special.

    OK, that’s certainly not disposing of all of the curious facts, but it still seems worth noting that the plane of the solar system seems to be privileged in this case simply because it is the plane that seems to align with certain cosmic features.

    Glen Davidson

  4. newton: Wonder why the designer decided on a 63 degree tilt on ecliptic and the plane of the Milky Way?

    Why don’t you ask sheer dumb luck the why questions?

  5. newton: What is the contradiction?

    If you can’t see your own contradiction in the last few comments, maybe you shouldn’t be commenting in public forums?

    Give me one good reason why I should continue conversing with you?
    I don’t see the point…

  6. Here’s a rather adequate video depicting the revolution of the planets around the sun as the sun moves through space. It’s a pretty cool visualization.

  7. J-Mac: No, they are not the same, as I wrote more than once before…

    1.85 degrees different. I’ll ask again ,what is the accuracy in determining the axis of evil?

  8. J-Mac: If there is structure in the universe, as by your own admission, then there has to be a structurer or mind. Therefore,while in both views, theism and atheism, require a leap of faith, theism seems more probable then atheism based on your admission alone… And if theism is more probable, therefore it is more desirable in pursuing than the unlikelihood of atheism…

    I think that positing a trans-cosmic “structurer” as the cause of cosmic structure is a leap of faith. There’s no good argument for it.

  9. J-Mac: Why don’t you ask sheer dumb luck the why questions?

    Sheer dumb luck is not making the claim the one metric alone makes the Earth the center of the Universe.

    If the axis of evil and the inclination of the ecliptic being identical ( no evidence of that so far) gives evidence of significance and that points to a mind, what is the mind doing with the 63 degree tilt of ecliptic plane to the structure of the Milky Way?

  10. From what I can tell the dipole is aligned with the plane of the equinox but the quadrupole and octupole are aligned with plane of the ecliptic and that is the relationship which focuses on the earth and not on the solar syatem as a whole.

    The plane of the equinox is due to the tilt of the earth.

  11. CharlieM:
    From what I can tell the dipole is aligned with the plane of the equinox but the quadrupole and octupole are aligned with plane of the ecliptic and that is the relationship which focuses on the earth and not on the solar syatem as a whole.

    The plane of the equinox is due to the tilt of the earth.

    I thought all this, and more, was clearly stated in the video, wasn’t it?

  12. Kantian Naturalist: I think that positing a trans-cosmic “structurer” as the cause of cosmic structure is a leap of faith. There’s no good argument for it.

    I thought we had agreed that both atheism and theism require a leap of faith?
    I argued that theism requires less faith, and therefore is more likely worth pursuing, as all known structure is preceded by a structurer that requires mind…
    I guess your choice is the less likely leap of faith?

  13. J-Mac: If you can’t see your own contradiction in the last few comments, maybe you shouldn’t be commenting in public forums?

    Maybe you should be able to back up your claims rather than trying to change the subject with lame insults.

    Give me one good reason why I should continue conversing with you?
    I don’t see the point…

    All roads lead to Rome.

  14. newton: Maybe you should be able to back up your claims rather than trying to change the subject with lame insults.

    All roads lead to Rome.

    Its not an insult. Read your comments again and compare them with NASA’s statement:

    “Also, the orbits of Earth and Mars don’t lie in quite the same plane. The paths the planets take around the sun are slightly tilted with respect to each other.

    https://mars.nasa.gov/allaboutmars/nightsky/opposition/

    I don’t have time to teach you the comprehension of your own statements…

  15. J-Mac: I don’t have time to teach you the comprehension of your own statements

    No one does! That comprehension is at like 7.5 on average. I’d drop him like a bad habit!

  16. J-Mac: I thought all this, and more, was clearly stated in the video, wasn’t it?

    Yes but some people are arguing as though it wasn’t. But whether there is alignment with the earth and/or with the solar system there is structure in evidence that current theories do not account for.

    Thanks for bringing this to the attention of those of us who were unaware of it.

  17. walto: No one does! That comprehension is at like 7.5 on average. I’d drop him like a bad habit!

    You should have told me that few days ago! I wouldn’t have wasted so much of my valuable time…. Dammit! knew he was off…😉

  18. J-Mac: I thought we had agreed that both atheism and theism require a leap of faith?
    I argued that theism requires less faith, and therefore is more likely worth pursuing, as all known structure is preceded by a structurer that requires mind…
    I guess your choice is the less likely leap of faith?

    You certainly asserted that all known structure requires a structurer, but you didn’t argue for it and I don’t see how any argument for that claim can take you all the way to the conclusion that a trans-cosmic structurer is more a likely cause of cosmic structure. There’s still plenty of room for an agnostic to take cosmic structure as a brute fact.

  19. Kantian Naturalist,

    There’s still plenty of room for an agnostic to take cosmic structure as a brute fact.

    Could a creator be a brute fact based on the evidence inside the universe?

  20. Kantian Naturalist:
    Here’s a rather adequate video depicting the revolution of the planets around the sun as the sun moves through space. It’s a pretty cool visualization.

    Wow, not really adequate, and if the visualization is cool, it’s also misleading.

    There’s certainly no gain in understanding or accuracy in seeing planetary motion as a vortex. The sun and planets do orbit the center of the Milky Way, and yes it’s different if you combine both sorts of orbital motions, but the video can’t even depict a “vortex” except by making the paths persist through time. Show the sun and planets alone, and it’s just a bunch of planets orbiting the sun as they all orbit the center of the Milky Way.

    What’s next, should we add in the movement of the Milky Way relative to M31? And the local group’s movement compared with the Virgo Cluster? No, because that just gets complex, and it would ruin the impressive-looking vortex.

    Motion is relative, and here it need only be seen so in the Galilean sense. For orbital motions around the sun, it doesn’t really matter if the sun is seen as orbiting the center of the Milky Way or as completely still in relation to the Milky Way, any more than walking in an airplane that’s flying at 500 mph (level, not noticeably accelerating) differs meaningfully from walking in a parked plane. There’s nothing inherently wrong with seeing one as “walking 503 mph” by combining the motion of the plane and the walking, but the only gain by doing so is complexity, not accuracy.

    With respect to physics, depicting orbital motions as a vortex is confusing rather than enlightening. Most of all, because it treats motion as if it were absolute rather than relative.

    Glen Davidson

  21. Kantian Naturalist: You certainly asserted that all known structure requires a structurer, but you didn’t argue for it and I don’t see how any argument for that claim can take you all the way to the conclusion that a trans-cosmic structurer is more a likely cause of cosmic structure. There’s still plenty of room for an agnostic to take cosmic structure as a brute fact.

    Again, we both agreed that a leap of faith is required in both cases… If you can think of many examples of structures that don’t require a structurer, make your argument. I can easily propose that dark energy is the most likely cause of structure in the universe being responsible for the fine tuning of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and the creation of space-time, if time is really real… Any fine-tuned structure requires a mind. In case of the mind behind dark energy, the mind would have to be superior to known minds today… I’m not even going to mention the power…

  22. timothya:
    The zodiacal houses all lie on the ecliptic. Therefore, astrology must be true.

    I didn’t know that. Thanks.
    I fail to see the connection though…

  23. J-Mac: I didn’t know that. Thanks.
    I fail to see the connection though…

    Evidently. Irony does not seem to be your strong point.

  24. J-Mac: Neither is yours…

    Just like Billy always does: when all else fails, default to the pathetic “I know you are, but what am I”

    Birds of a feather…

  25. walto: J-Mac: I don’t have time to teach you the comprehension of your own statements

    No one does! That comprehension is at like 7.5 on average. I’d drop him like a bad habit!

    J-Mac’s statements are always delightfully Hoffstadterian.

  26. Clearly Earth’s moon is the center of the universe. We aren’t special, cratered spheres of silicate rock and dust is! (there’s also much more of it in the universe)

    QED.

  27. GlenDavidson in reply to Kantian Naturalist: Wow, not really adequate, and if the visualization is cool, it’s also misleading.

    There’s certainly no gain in understanding or accuracy in seeing planetary motion as a vortex.The sun and planets do orbit the center of the Milky Way, and yes it’s different if you combine both sorts of orbital motions, but the video can’t even depict a “vortex” except bymaking the paths persist through time. Show the sun and planets alone, and it’s just a bunch of planets orbiting the sun as they all orbit the center of the Milky Way.

    What’s next, should we add in the movement of the Milky Way relative to M31?And the local group’s movement compared with the Virgo Cluster?No, because that just gets complex, and it would ruin the impressive-looking vortex.

    Motion is relative, and here it need only be seen so in the Galilean sense.For orbital motions around the sun, it doesn’t really matter if the sun is seen as orbiting the center of the Milky Way or as completely still in relation to the Milky Way, any more than walking in an airplane that’s flying at 500 mph (level, not noticeably accelerating) differs meaningfully from walking in a parked plane.There’s nothing inherently wrong with seeing one as “walking 503 mph” by combining the motion of the plane and the walking, but the only gain by doing so is complexity, not accuracy.

    With respect to physics, depicting orbital motions as a vortex is confusing rather than enlightening.Most of all, because it treats motion as if it were absolute rather than relative.

    Glen Davidson

    Of course Kantian Naturalist is correct about the video. If the discussion was about the earth with respect to the solar system then you could argue that the video is a distraction, but we are discussing the earth and its place in the universe and so its motion with respect to the galaxy and even the entire universe is totally relevant.

    Put it this way: If you had been on a flight around the world and you wanted to discuss your journey then your movements within the aircraft would be incidental. What would be relevant would be the direction in which you travelled and your various locations around the globe.

    What do you think is more real and relevant to the purpose of its composition, a musical score laid out on a sheet or the piece being performed live by a orchestra? Should we ignore the performance because it is more complex than the score?

    Reality is complex and I think you are getting confused between reality and the models used to depict reality.

    What makes you think that the video depicts motion as absolute? It is making an attempt to depict the solar system in relation to the galaxy. This is relative motion, only relative on a larger scale than that which you seem to want to confine your thinking. If you want to understand reality you need to deal with things that persist in time”.

    I postponed a thread when J-Mac started this one. It has a lot to do with vortices but I wanted to see how this discussion developed before going ahead with it. It is interesting that we are discussing movements and vortices on a grand scale while I was going to post on a similar theme but closer to home.

  28. CharlieM: Of course Kantian Naturalist is correct about the video. If the discussion was about the earth with respect to the solar system then you could argue that the video is a distraction, but we are discussing the earth and its place in the universe and so its motion with respect to the galaxy and even the entire universe is totally relevant.

    I mentioned other motions that were ignored, and you just ignored them again in order to claim that the wooish “vortex motion” video is correct. Have you no shame?

    Well, no.

    Put it this way: If you had been on a flight around the world and you wanted to discuss your journey then your movements within the aircraft would be incidental. What would be relevant would be the direction in which you travelled and your various locations around the globe.

    Yes, of course. That’s my point. You don’t need to bring up planetary orbits if you’re discussing movement of the entire solar system, and vice versa. Do you ever think before making lame comments?

    What do you think is more real and relevant to the purpose of its composition, a musical score laid out on a sheet or the piece being performed live by a orchestra? Should we ignore the performance because it is more complex than the score?

    You’re the one who is fine with ignoring various motions in favor of a video that artificially asserts “vortex motion” to the planets.

    Reality is complex and I think you are getting confused between reality and the models used to depict reality.

    Oh really, reality’s complex. Gee I didn’t know that.

    Why did I bring up additional complex motions that you ignored to claim that the idiotic “vortex motion” video was fine?

    What makes you think that the video depicts motion as absolute?

    Because it states that “planets rotating around the Sun is not only boring, it is incorrect.” Can’t you pay attention? It’s not necessarily boring, and it’s certainly not incorrect. How would it be “incorrect” except if motion is absolute? If motion’s relative, planets revolving around the sun is certainly not an incorrect depiction at all.

    It is making an attempt to depict the solar system in relation to the galaxy.

    Not really. I mentioned orbiting the center of the galaxy, they didn’t. They didn’t even care about explaining why the sun is moving. They’re focused on making planetary orbits into “vortex motion.”

    This is relative motion, only relative on a larger scale than that which you seem to want to confine your thinking.

    See, you just don’t even think. I brought up the larger scale motions that the video ignored in favor of pretty pictures, and you don’t pick up on it at all, you’d rather attack without reason or understanding.

    If you want to understand reality you need to deal with things that persist in time”.

    Like your inability to understand?

    I postponed a thread when J-Mac started this one. It has a lot to do with vortices but I wanted to see how this discussion developed before going ahead with it. It is interesting that we are discussing movements and vortices on a grand scale while I was going to post on a similar theme but closer to home.

    Oh yeah, this unaware attack piece bodes well for your OP.

    Glen Davidson

  29. GlenDavidson,

    And have you considered that because our galaxy is also in motion so our solar system in relation to this larger motion is travelling in a vortex?

    I take it you think that the “vortex motion” of water down a plug hole is also wooish?

    You do realise that we are discussing the earth and its place in the universe and not just its place in the solar system?

  30. CharlieM:
    GlenDavidson,

    And have you considered that because our galaxy is also in motion so our solar system in relation to this larger motion is travelling in a vortex?

    No. That’s like saying that the automobile’s fan blades are “traveling in a vortex” in relation to the auto’s larger motion down the road. One can describe a vortex through time if one wishes to combine motions through time, but the fan really is sensibly just rotating on its shaft. The fan, on the other hand, does produce a vortex.

    I take it you think that the “vortex motion” of water down a plug hole is also wooish?

    I take it that you don’t know the difference between a real vortex and some wooish crap trying to claim vortices that sensibly don’t exist.

    That’s the difference between you and me, I realize that there are meaningful vortices coming off from plane wings that are produced by complex motions that do persist through time and have important effects, and that we should reserve terms like “vortex motion” for phenomena such as that. It’s a matter of keeping language meaningful.

    You do realise that we are discussing the earth and its place in the universe and not just its place in the solar system?

    Well, I am. You’re not.

    Glen Davidson

  31. walto: I think the Big Bang puts the center of the universe right around Borfort 112.

    I thought it was at Franklin Barbecue.

  32. J-Mac: Its not an insult. Read your comments again and comparethem with NASA’s statement:

    “Also, the orbits of Earth and Mars don’t lie in quite the same plane. The paths the planets take around the sun are slightly tilted with respect to each other.

    A fact,I did not dispute . However what I did say is whether the deviation from Eliptical Plane is significant objection would depend deviation of the EP from the quadrupole and octopole.

    Funny thing is eliptical plane is not perfected aligned. The angle is 16 degrees between the EP and the quadrupole and 8.7 between the EP and the octupole.

    With that in mind if we take your objection concerning the deviation of the orbits of the other planets let us just focus on the planets orbiting beyond the Earth. Saturn is off 2.49 degrees , Uranus .77 degrees the rest about 1.75 degrees from the Eliptical Plane. In other words , all are aligned far more closely to eliptical plane than the eliptical plane is with the temperature nodes CMB. It is even possible some orbits could be aligned closer to the CMB than the EP.

    Your position seems to be a small discrepancy on the orbital alignment is an issue but a far larger discrepancy in the eliptical plane alignment is not. Could you clear that up?

    I don’t have time to teach you the comprehension of your own statements…

    Luckily, I have the time to teach you about double standards.

    Care to learn about the alignment of the plane of the equinox and the alignment of dipole, the second evidence for the Earth being the center of the Universe?

  33. newton: I thought it was at Franklin Barbecue.

    It is–but not the one you mean, the one on Borfort. (You can tell by the invisible umlaut over the “i” in “Franklin.”)

  34. walto: It is–but not the one you mean, the one on Borfort. (You can tell by the invisible umlaut over the “i” in “Franklin.”)

    How’s the brisket and potato salad?

  35. The ‘cool video’ certainly is cool, but oh, so wooish.

    Loved the music though. And the graphics.

  36. graham2:
    The ‘cool video’ certainly is cool, but oh, so wooish.

    Loved the music though. And the graphics.

    Yes, it’s pretty.

    If it just didn’t have all of that woo, it could simply make the point that helices can be produced by revolutions 90 deg. to forward (or backward) motion.

    Glen Davidson

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.