“ 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?
That is what we were discussing, in simple terms ,whether a system in which two bodies (A and B) orbit each other and one ( A)has so much more mass the barycenter is deep within its body whether it is accurate to characterize it as Bcentric. I say no. You could if you have some philosophical need I guess.
We live on the planet, that makes it special.You seem to want math to confirm it.
I get it…
But what if the earth is at the barycenter of the universe, as suggested by Weinberg in the tychonic model?
You NEED math to confirm our planet makes life special? 😎
Really?
Can you prove to me how many main stream scientists, cosmologists and physicists, have gladly embraced the data from 3 probes over 20 years that have proven beyond any doubt that CMBs form an axis pointing to the Earth?
Show me your rational argument first!
Yeah! How does gravity work?
Seven things that don’t make sense about gravity | New Scientist
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity/
What are you trying to tell me?
That sending Voyager into space is impossible without the heliocentric geometry? Or without relativity? Or, that GPS will only work with one or both?
What’s your point other than you don’t like geocentric model?
Wasn’t Newton the one who suspected geocentric universe ?
What he’s trying to tell you is rather obvious. How come the Voyager mission was successful if they used the wrong heliocentric model for their calculations? I’d venture it would have been a massive failure if they had used a geocentric or tychonic model
What does that matter? I have raised an objection that you have failed to address. If you’re a mere coatholder for other people (yet again), and don’t feel competent to discuss the very subject you brought up yourself, just say so.
What, again? The sun, planets and comets behave precisely as if the solar system were heliocentric. So what reason can you give for supposing it isn’t?
Irrelevant. However it works, either gravitation has a constant relation with mass/distance, or it doesn’t. The former accords with observation, the latter doesn’t.
No. Voyager was launched to exploit a particular planetary alignment that was derived from heliocentric geometry. It passed those planets as expected. If the geometry were in fact geocentric, they wouldn’t have been where they were expected to be.
Relativity? GPS? What on earth do they have to do with plotting a path through the solar system?
Yes. That. It makes no sense. It doesn’t work.
What’s your point other than that you do? (Dumb question, but you started it).
I don’t think so. Does it matter? ‘Newtonian’ does not mean ‘what Newton thought’.
Allan Miller,
Allan,
Be careful! There are “scientists” on this blog who killed the 1919 Arthur Eddington’s experiment… Apparently, gravity has no effect on photons of light, as Einstein’s theory predicted, as they, apparently, have “no mass”…
I think you, and the “scientist”, should go back to the drawing boards, or your efforts to pursued geocentric creationists are destined to fail…🤗
J-Mac,
ROFL, but the experiment that Bruce linked to was not about gravity warping space-time, it was about gravitational pull of objects with mass (the cylinders). And I still think it makes zero sense to conduct such an experiment with zero mass particles. And that’s ignoring the fact that it seems like an impossible task.
Also, no amount of hand-waving on your part is going to make that new confirming evidence for GR go away. Weren’t you supposed to be a truth seeker, ready to accept what better explains the experimental data?
More irrelevances to avoid addressing the point(s). Eddington was a schoolmaster a couple of miles up the road from here btw (also irrelevant of course). Photons can travel curved paths because of the curvature of spacetime by mass, not because they themselves have mass.
What’s on those drawing boards? What would persuade a ‘scientist’ to drop heliocentrism? You often claim to let the evidence lead where it may. This shows your stance to be a sham, since the evidence quite clearly points to heliocentrism.
The feeling is mutual then…
Ellis, Weinberg and even Einstein didn’t know about it?
You should send them an email…😊
99% of the unknown universe does?
Thanks
Allan Miller,
It was a joke directed at someone else…🤣
Except that I have actually been discussing the issue. You have not.
Appeal to authority. This is a discussion forum. Your approach to ‘discussion’ is merely to namedrop. I’d happily chat with them if they dropped by.
We’re not talking about 99% of the unknown universe, but the much more local fraction containing a few planets, asteroids, comets and a star. It’s there that geocentrism makes no sense. The answer “here’s something else that makes no sense” is a bit feeble.
Welp, the joke’s on you, buddy.
It does not point to the Earth, it is on the same plane , mostly, with the ecliptic plane and anything else in the universe on that plane for those who do not have preconceived worldview.
Second ,there are doubts that it exists. Rather it may be a artifact of the filtering process contend those who follow the actual data .
So my guess not an overwhelming amount have drawn the same conclusions you have from the data.
Doesn’t even line up “surprisingly” well — given that these maroons would also be jumping up and down if the dipole was perpendicular to the ecliptic, then 11.1 degrees or better is a one in four chance…
Preconceived, eh?
“Armed with multipole vectors,
and joined by Dominik J.
Schwarz of the European Orga-
nization for Nuclear Research
(CERN), we have discovered unex-
pected patterns in the CMB. Not only
are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but
their planes are nearly perpendicular to the
ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the eclip-
tic plane lies precisely between the warmest
and coolest lobes of the combined quadru-
pole plus octopole map.
The likelihood of these alignments hap-
pening by chance is less than 0.1 percent.
Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes
are also perpendicular with the CMB
dipole, which points to the direction of
motion of the solar system. Why CMB pat-
terns are oriented to the solar system is not
at all understood at this time.
Other researchers found similarly
unlikely alignments. For example, Kate
Land and João Magueijo of Imperial Col-
lege in London found that temperature
anisotropies in multipoles 4 through 7 also
align with a particular axis close to the
CMB dipole, and to the Sun’s motion
through space. They have humorously
dubbed this odd alignment — apparently
the same one we found — the “axis of evil.”
The elusive explanation
Many cosmologists find the various CMB
alignments extremely unlikely to have
occurred by chance. Moreover, nearly all
the alignments point to the solar system’s
motion or the orientation of the ecliptic
plane. Is there a deeper explanation?”
“Researchers have considered a variety of
possibilities. One might be some kind of
imperfection in WMAP’s detector that
introduces the patterns, but there’s no evi-
dence for this. It is also possible that some
as-yet-undiscovered signal — a huge cloud
of dust in the solar system, for example —
is masquerading as a cosmological CMB.
Another speculation is that a preferred
direction of the CMB arose early in the uni-
verse and has persisted. In each case, the
explanation either introduces more coinci-
dences than it solves, or else is simply not
consistent with our knowledge of the solar
system or the universe’s structure”.
This is at least the second time I have explained the same thing to you…
Give me again at least one more reason why I should continue? I hope you arrive at the same conclusion though it may not be as overwhelming to you…
🤗
You’ve misspelled morons in reference to the truth seeking scientists…🤣
Published in 2007
Like I said, it does not point to the Earth , when you combined quadrupole and octopole cool and warm nodes are aligned with the plane of the ecliptic and everything else in the universe on that plane.
So the estimate this alignment happening by pure chance is less than .1% ( no data on how this was calculated) so to be safe let’s say .01% . It is estimated that there are 100 billion Earthlike planets in the Milky Way and sixty sextillion habitable planets like Earth in the Universe.You do the math, just by dumb blind luck that means there are a shitload of planets which have the same plane as our ecliptic plane.
All that assumes those objections prove unfounded which is not a certainty.
“Now, Daniela Saadeh and Andrew Pontzen, cosmologists at University College London, and colleagues have ruled out special directions with the most stringent test yet. They also use measurements of the CMB, this time taken with the European Space Agency’s Planck spacecraft, which collected data from 2009 to 2013 and provided far more precise CMB maps than WMAP. Instead of looking for curious imbalances in the CMB, they systematically worked the other way around. They considered all the ways that space could have a preferred direction and how such scenarios might imprint themselves on the CMB. Then they searched for those specific signs in the data.”
If your conclusion is follow the data, the better the tools the better the data. Scientists are constantly improving the tools.When and if the James Webb goes on line it will be a giant leap forward .
To be fair, the Andromeda galaxy completing a ~8 million light year orbit in one year is pretty impressive.
Dark energy is being challenged again, not on theoretical grounds, but as the result of improved observations.
Ah, but it’s not ‘really’ that far away!
Exactly!!!
So, with the Planck Probe data available now, that’s been hammered by so many experts since 2014, are we closer, or further way, from the inference that the universe has a special direction?
The Mathematical Center of the Universe
No Dark Energy? No Chance, Cosmologists Contend
Per my reference of the study , further.
Thanks Bruce.
There is math supporting geocentrism too. Ellis is not the only one who makes the claim…
With the big bang model…
Oh, come on, newton! You can do better than pretending…
You can’t tell the difference between the 3 probe results?
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/735694main_pia16874-full_full.jpg
None of that looks like it points to Earth. Any critique of the study beyond sarcasm?
Being wrong does not make the argument irrational.
I am still interested in hearing from Jock, about how you can stretch something, that has a middle, and yet the middle remains the same.
Its the same problem you have with the doughnut shaped universe. As space gets bigger with the doughnut, what gets bigger, the outer wall of the doughnut, the inner wall of the doughnut, or both, in which case the hole in the middle also must get bigger, so the hole in the middle, which doesn’t exist, becomes a bigger hole that doesn’t exist.
Likewise with Jock’s stretching rubber disc, if the middle is point 0,0, if it stays point 0,0, then you aren’t stretching the middle, you are making a new middle. Where is the new middle coming from? 2,2 becomes 4,4, but 0,0 stays 0,0. How does that math work Jock? Is math supposed to map reality?
Really. Link, then?
phoodoo,
You have no trouble with a God existing nebulously ‘outside space and time’, but struggle with the idea that there may be no ‘privileged position’ within it?
Umm, not sure where that is coming from. Zen?
I was just guessing what you were referring to as observational
evidence, and providing some input under that assumption.
???
Did you read the link? I’m afraid it was an attempt at a mathematical rick roll.
You have no trouble with space increasing and decreasing, coming and going out of existence, but struggle with a God outside space and time?
If the axis of evil are not the evidence for cosmic microwave background, but instead, some local microwave background, this would mean that there is no evidence for the big bang…
Ironically, the 3 probes that have been sent over the period of 25 years, at the cost of many billions of dollars, which were supposed to find the proof for the big bang, may turn out to be the nail in the coffin of the big bang cosmology…
In other words, anything that has been published in cosmology over the last 50+ years could be, and probably is, wrong…I’m sure cosmologist will embrace such a possibility the same way evolutionist would embrace the possibility that 85% of cancers are not genetic diseases, but rather metabolic…
There would be, and already is, a lot of resistance to both possibilities… TSZ is just a small demonstration of it…
Well, yes, to be honest, I do. ‘Existence’ makes no sense outside of space and time. People say the words – may well think they grasp the concept – but to me the notion is incoherent.
I have tried to explain this to you a number of times, but you seem unable to grasp the concept. There is nothing different, or special, about the point that you have designated 0,0 — that is your arbitrary choice. Your cousin Vinnie can declare that the point you call 4,4 (today) is in fact the origin. All he has done is choose a different (inertial*) frame of reference. He will note that everything is moving away from his origin at a speed proportional to distance, just like you do.
Your use of language suggests some strange misconception : 2,2 does not “become” 4,4, rather that point is now twice as far away from your arbitrarily chosen origin, just as every other point is now twice as far away from every other point. You cannot detect absolute motion, so neither you nor Vinnie can claim your co-ordinate system is superior. Nor can the LGM in the Baby Boom Galaxy.
*side-note: J-Mac’s geocentric Frame is accelerating relative to the heliocentric one, which introduces complicated and unnecessary fictitious forces. If it is also rotating [!] these fictitious forces are huge. Parsimony, man!
Clearly not. Why read a paper when you can read the abstract? Why read an abstract when you can read the title?
Einstein didn’t help with his rather confused ‘Ptolemy vs Copernicus’ passage. It is not the same thing to say ‘ the earth spins’ and ‘the heavens spin’.
He didn’t even get the jest of it this time.
Good for you, Allan! 🙂
Actually, a geocentric coordinate system has a much more convenient math. When calculating the view of the heavens from the earth prospective is more realistic, as opposite to trying to imagine what the view would be of an imaginary observer looking at solar system.
For example, GC coordinate system may be more convenient when calculating satellite orbits, the Moon; i.e. objects influenced the Earth’s gravity…
No, the middle of a circle is not an arbitrary point. Sorry.
The middle of the surface of a balloon might be though. Because you are ignoring the middle.
Its the same thing as saying there is no middle to a circle, because you are only including the one dimensional ring on the outside.
A pie(pi) is not a hula hoop.
I begin with reading the conclusions; the summaries… Then I scan the paper…
If I find something worthwhile, I read fulltext… usually more than once…
There is so much junk out there… who can read it all? lol
Fine!
Howeveer, have the recent results of the Planck Probe increased, or decreased, the evidence that there is special direction in the universe?
Yes or no?
I guess you read all full text papers you already know are wrong, or need re-write?
What a great way to use time! Eternity must me your thingy… 🙂
Yahoo!
Well yes, for objects orbiting earth, of course you’d put earth in the centre. Why in heck would you do that for comets, planets or the motion of the Milky Way?
I’d thought you’d read it? No?
Evolution of Physics Paperback – Oct 30 1967
by Albert Einstein, Leopold Infeld
That’s certainly how I approach your content. However, Bruce’s link was not ‘really’ about the mathematical centre at all, so clicking on it before thanking him for it might have helped avoid looking silly.
I know…
Maybe we should get together for a pint of Guiness and “ask Einstein”, or challenge relativity? 😉