No Copernican Principle, no dark energy needed

Why would cosmologists invent dark energy, if a simpler, geocentric model, works without it? What purpose does the Copernican Principle serve? Why would cosmologists try to hide the fact that the Earth could be in the center of the universe?

“ Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own. ”
—Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies.
(Nature, 273:336, 1978.)

At the end of each year, and the beginning of the new year, many people reflect on the past, present and look to the future… Maybe someone will be able to reflect and provide me, and possibly others, with the answer to this question:

Why is there so much deception in the world of science?

0

257 thoughts on “No Copernican Principle, no dark energy needed

  1. DNA_Jock: , I do not think that it is germane that Sungenis may be an antisemitic holocaust denier;

    Well, you could argue that anyone who pushes despicable lies like holocaust denial clearly lacks the integrity to be believable on other topics.

    Of course, it is also the case that he is an untrained layperson criticizing one of our most confirmed scientific theories, with an obvious religious agenda, and doing so by YT videos and movies made by lying to interviewees.

    There is definitely that as well.

    0
  2. BruceS: Well, you could argue that anyone who pushes despicable lies like holocaust denial clearly lacks the integrity to be believable on other topics.

    There is evidence everywhere online that Krauss falsely accused Sungenis. Krauss embarrassed himself in the movie The Principle…but has not returned the cheque yet he got for the expert consultations in the movie..

    DNA_jock could have chosen to verify the accusations, but chose not to, as true theists always do…

    Would you like a link or two? Or, you know how to google?

    0
  3. BruceS: made by lying to interviewees.

    They all signed the releases! They knew the movie was going to be controversial because they were going to explore many scientifically proven facts and the inverviewees MENTIONED THEM THE MOVIE.
    So, what’s the problem, really?
    Have any of them returned the money?

    0
  4. The youtube video has a relatively succinct 469-word summary, which gives one the flavor of the thing.
    Mind you the comments section is pretty scary, but that’s youtube for you…

    Sungenis is incapable of doing the Newtonian math correctly, so the idea that he has developed an alternative to GR seems unlikely.
    Here he fails to correct the claim that the centrifugal force generated by the earth’s (supposed) rotation is “far greater than one sixth the earth’s gravity”.
    No it isn’t.
    Best, by far, is his original attempt to calculate the centrifugal force experienced by the sun as it rotates (annually) about the earth. [Please ignore the fact that he thinks the earth is not rotating, so his calculation is 365-fold off; that’s a minor error]

    The centrifugal force is calculated by the mass of the Sun multiplied by linear speed multiplied by the radius from the center, or Centrifugal Force = mlr or Mw^2r (where w measures angular speed).
    The mass of the Sun is 1.98 x 10^30 kilograms. The linear speed is 30 kilometers/sec. The radius (which includes both the equatorial radius of the Sun and the Earth) is 1.5 x 10^8 kilometers.
    Hence, the centrifugal force on the Sun is 1.18 x 10^34 Newtons.

    WTF? The centrifugal force would be mv^2/r; “mass times linear speed times radius” is the angular momentum, FFS!
    The dimensionality is wrong!
    He does manage to do the calculation sort-of right, somehow, but messes up the switch to SI units, and ends up with a value that is six orders of magnitude too large. He then points out that this is 12 orders of magnitude greater than the force required to keep the sun in (annual) orbit around the earth.
    As others have pointed out, if he had managed to do the calculation correctly, and had compared it with the force required to keep the EARTH in annual orbit around the SUN, he would have discovered that the numbers match.
    Oh dear.
    It was only when someone pointed out his High School error that he went and plugged numbers into an online calculator to come up with a new number that was off by twenty-two orders of magnitude! When responding to someone pointing out his math error.
    Not getting any better.

    ETA: Fix link and clarify: the effect of switching from one-rotation-a-year to one-rotation-a-day is a 365-fold change in the angular momentum, but a ~133,225-fold change in any forces and accelerations.
    I’m still enjoying the idea that the Baby Boom Galaxy circumnavigates us daily.

    0
  5. DNA_Jock: The youtube video has a relatively succinct 469-word summary, which gives one the flavor of the thing.
    Mind you the comments section is pretty scary, but that’s youtube for you…

    You watch the whole video???

    DNA_Jock: Sungenis is incapable of doing the Newtonian math correctly, so the idea that he has developed an alternative to GR seems unlikely.

    Neither was Einstein, it seems…
    The best minds have been working on the unification of GR and QM for over 80 years…maybe there is something wrong with GR?

    DNA_Jock: He does manage to do the calculation sort-of right, somehow, but messes up the switch to SI units, and ends up with a value that is six orders of magnitude too large. He then points out that this is 12 orders of magnitude greater than the force required to keep the sun in (annual) orbit around the earth.

    How does this compare to 10 ^120, as per mainstream science? 😅
    Have you tried to fix this? You should as it looks like you got the hang of it…lol

    DNA_Jock: Oh dear.

    Have you tried to plug in ether? Since 96-99% of the universe is unknown, filled with dark forces and matters, maybe your math will add up? 😉

    Some physicists have been reconsidering going back to ether to explain the world, though reluctantly… for obvious reasons of course… Nobody, especially proud scientists, like to admit they were wrong… Just look at you! Lol

    0
  6. Alan Fox:
    Moved a comment to guano.

    There is no need, Alan.
    This just proves, again, that trolls don’t read the threads. Because if they had, they would have seen this link:

    http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/no-copernican-principle-no-dark-energy-needed/comment-page-1/#comment-265474

    And even then, most trolls at TSZ have good days, and bad days, but mostly bad…

    If you hadn’t moved this comment to guano, I would have had more ammunition to shoot with; that is, if I really cared…😉

    0

Leave a Reply

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