Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Dolphin42]

From Marina000,

To be special, as opposed to the Copernican principle of not special, it takes the earth to be located in a special place, that being at or near the centre of the universe which statistically is unlikely as per chance.

My reply,

But does your theory hold that all the several hundred billion or so planets in the Milky Way are also special? Or just the Earth? Why do you believe in geocentrism and not, for example, Alpha Centauri Bd centrism?

My layman's understanding of galactic red-shift is that, as a general rule, outside of our local group of galaxies, the red-shifts suggest that speed of recession is approximately directly proportional to distance from us. The further away they are, the faster they are receding. If all groups of galaxies were spreading out evenly, this is what you would see from any one of them. This may not be what is happening, but it certainly fits the observations. We cannot travel to another group of galaxies to confirm for sure that it looks the same for them but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the presence of confirming evidence, isn't it sensible to assume that it does?

You appear to regard it as outrageous prejudice to assume, until shown otherwise, that the basic laws of physics and observation work the same for all observers. If we think like that then I don't see how we can do anything at all. Every single thing I do in my life depends on the assumption that other observers perceive the world roughly as I do, even though all the evidence suggesting that this is true (including their words) could be lies. And I can never look thru their eyes to make sure. For example, I am bothering to type a message in this forum because I assume that the words I see attributed to a person called "Marina000", indicate that we understand roughly the same language (English) as each other and that my words will be understood by you in roughly the way I intended and not, say, as a cake recipe or the barking of a dog.

Is it so wrong to look for uniformity?

Due to the construction of a galaxy being in the centre is not a safe place. There are supposedly black holes and all sorts of things going on there. Earth only needs to be in a galaxy that is near the centre of the universe to claim a special location and geocentricity

In this part you seem to be confusing being in the center of a galaxy with being in the center of the Universe.

[Marina000]

From Marina000,


(Nested quote removed.)


My reply,

But does your theory hold that all the several hundred billion or so planets in the Milky Way are also special? Or just the Earth? Why do you believe in geocentrism and not, for example, Alpha Centauri Bd centrism?

My layman's understanding of galactic red-shift is that, as a general rule, outside of our local group of galaxies, the red-shifts suggest that speed of recession is approximately directly proportional to distance from us. The further away they are, the faster they are receding. If all groups of galaxies were spreading out evenly, this is what you would see from any one of them. This may not be what is happening, but it certainly fits the observations. We cannot travel to another group of galaxies to confirm for sure that it looks the same for them but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the presence of confirming evidence, isn't it sensible to assume that it does?

You appear to regard it as outrageous prejudice to assume, until shown otherwise, that the basic laws of physics and observation work the same for all observers. If we think like that then I don't see how we can do anything at all. Every single thing I do in my life depends on the assumption that other observers perceive the world roughly as I do, even though all the evidence suggesting that this is true (including their words) could be lies. And I can never look thru their eyes to make sure. For example, I am bothering to type a message in this forum because I assume that the words I see attributed to a person called "Marina000", indicate that we understand roughly the same language (English) as each other and that my words will be understood by you in roughly the way I intended and not, say, as a cake recipe or the barking of a dog.

Is it so wrong to look for uniformity?


(Nested quote removed.)


In this part you seem to be confusing being in the center of a galaxy with being in the center of the Universe.

Why don't you take whatever recipe you think one needs to create a universe and shove that at some of these well credentialled researchers that appear to agree with me!!!!!!!

You may jump up and down as much as you like about uniformity, insult me and what I think, but suggesting I am alone in supporting geocentricity is obviously due to ignorance. To ask question you yourself cannot answer with certainty also means that I am not the one here trying to score meaningless points. I suppose geocentrics have to supply a higher level of substantiation than you have ever had or dreamed of having with BB and its mysteries.

It does not matter if other planets are also a part of the galaxy that is special because according to Copernicus earth can't be special in any way at all and did not say anything about other planets. Other planets being special does not exclude earth from being special. Earth again is special by goldilocks claims of address and we are the only planet within the galaxy and universe with substantiated existence of life. If the earth is central, as many researchers are now suggesting, all the better.

The other thing you need to concern yourself with is all the documentation that I have posted are not suggesting our galaxy is the centre of the universe. They are suggesting the EARTH may be in or close to the centre of the universe. So you can quibble over a galaxy being central as not being statistically significant but that is not what these scientists are suggesting anyway.

I am not confusing anything. The reason that a planet may not do so well in the centre of its' GALAXY is because there may be a black hole there. Have you heard of them? If they are there they cause quite a bit of havoc. Not a good address at all. It appears to be you that is confused.

You can play chase a tail and demand better substantiation than the mystery you've got to offer all you like with me. Don't forget I have quoted very well and appropriately credentialed researchers that have published works on this topic. Hence you are welcome to struggle but these scientists are not idiots and I dare you to suggest they are. A less complicated model that better aligns with the theory of general relativity that does not need mysteries obviously would be called parsimony in any world of science that was not silly enough to be guided by a philosophy

So again I say there is ample observed evidence to support geocentricity. I think some scientists are really sick to death of applying different brands of sticky tape and bandaids to save BB along with its mysteries and multiple universes, from a slow death.

[Dolphin42]

A very strange reply. Where did I insult you? I suspect you're lumping me in with the one called Teh who appears to specialise in ridiculing and insulting pretty much everybody. Anyway, I guess I'm going to get nothing coherent from you so I'll leave you to it. Happy new year.

[Marina000]

A very strange reply. Where did I insult you? I suspect you're lumping me in with the one called Teh who appears to specialise in ridiculing and insulting pretty much everybody. Anyway, I guess I'm going to get nothing coherent from you so I'll leave you to it. Happy new year.

Perhaps I did do a bit of lumping. I apologize.

My reply to specific questions around cosmology that relies on algorithms is.... Why ask me when well credentialled researchers don't have clarity themselves when it comes to this algorithmic data and what they are seeing and interpreting?

Uniformity is what these researchers are trying to find but haven't. There is nothing wrong with trying. Indeed they need to marry quantum mechanics to the theory of general relativity. What is wrong is to suggest that what is on show at present around BB is credible, because it isn't. What may also be wrong is using a philosphy itself as a method to cull out any possibility of falsifying its own claim, and biasedly narrowing the field of possibilities to explore.

You said

The further away they are, the faster they are receding. If all groups of galaxies were spreading out evenly, this is what you would see from any one of them. This may not be what is happening, but it certainly fits the observations. We cannot travel to another group of galaxies to confirm for sure that it looks the same for them but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary and in the presence of confirming evidence, isn't it sensible to assume that it does?

That is right we cannot travel elsewhere to confirm. What I claim is absolutely correct. The illusion is theoretical and is an assumption based on BB theory. Hence what has happened is that theorists have predicted the evidence that supports BB but this is not confirmed. Then an unconfirmed prediction is used as evidence. I am just using the evidence and suggesting that if red shift has merit then perhaps it is actually saying what it appears to say and this illusion does not occur at any point in space.

If the universe is not expanding then we won't see any galaxies fading out of the view of the horizon any particular telescope viewed previously. I have not seen any data to suggest observed movement, only that it is a prediction that galaxies will fade from view.

What I like to do is to separate theory from observation. What we observe is galaxies in all directions. We observe what look like fussy bits that are meant to be 'primitive galaxies'. We see them all around us as if we are in the middle and something a little different exists all about and around us at the outer extremes of the universe. Scientists suggest they can see back 13 billion years and yet there is no huge void to look through to see the galaxies on the other side or the endless of void of the space we are inflating into on the other side. What galaxies have faded away from observable view such that we can confirm they are travelling anywhere at all? None that I know of. This is what is observed.

There is no observeable information to suggest that we are on the edge of a ball and previous cosmology was overtuend with the finding that the maths did not add up which created dark energy. IOW a mystery was invented to resolve a huge anomoly.

Honestly and seriously, it appears to me that all OBSERVATION suggests we are in the middle of the universe. There is no observed data that challenges this observation.

Then there is red shift and a heap of algorithmic assumptive theoretical science. Helios and geocentrics have some to offer. When I speak to redshift I usually qualify 'IF' the method has merit, and that data also suggests most galaxies are moving away from us. That is what the initial data suggests. Again one must further speculate that this illusion is the same at any point in space, but speculation it remains that cannot be supported not falsified at present..OR can it?.

Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance Hilton Ratcliffe, Ph.D., 2010.
The physical association between objects with different redshifts has been made clear in observation. If we find in observation that the Hubble redshift relationship is subject to notable exceptions, which certainly appears to be the case, it is to be hoped that they would attract careful scrutiny. Just one such exception, reasonably verified, would suffice to cast doubt upon the reliability of redshift/distance theory, with far reaching consequences for astrophysics.

http://journalofcosmology.com/Multiverse10.html

I am not convinced that red shift data is saying what they think it is saying, even though for now it supports geocentrism.

So for now all observation really does support the earth being in or near the centre of the universe. The raw data on redshift also supports geocentrism for now. It MAY be just a convenient coincidence that the universe is set up so that it appears earth is the centre of the universe. It MAY be inconvenient that scientists have to speculate around this presumed illusion and come with incredibly complicated theories that are still in plenty of trouble. Fine. However for now the data better aligns with what one would expect if earth was at the centre of the galaxy. There are now some models emerging that give the concept even more credibility with many researchers seeking better answere than BB.

So "NO", it is not sensible to assume anything more than what is observed unless what is observed does not align with what you hope to find. This is where philosophy and much hand waving kicks in and assumptions are made to reason out why what is actually observed is an illusion.

Then you ask

"Is it so wrong to look for uniformity?"

No, it is not wrong to look for uniformity. Indeed astrophysicists needs to align quantum mechanics with the theory of general relativity to have any hope of thinkng about what a singularity might do, they also need to find out what they are talking about in dark energy and dark matter and multiple dimensions and string theory. "Dark" is science speak for "we have not got a clue". BB has become so ridiculusly complicated that some scientists can clearly see something is very much amiss.

However, whilst these scientists are looking for uniformity the evidence is building that these are not going to find uniformity. They only ever find more complications to resolve. It appears that some day in the not too distant future scientists are going to have to abandon this myth of dark energy and stop chasing ghosts and go with parsimony.

Parsimony indicates, even at this very early stage, that models which do not require dark matter and still align with the theory of general relativity are obviously the least complicated explanations.

Still, right or wrong, Clifton raises an important point. Assumptions like the Copernican Principle, which lie at the bedrock of cosmology, can't be held immune to scrutiny. Scientists shouldn't dismiss ideas just because they might undermine some deeply cherished assumptions.

Nor should they dismiss observations. I encountered such a situation when I was writing a story about the work of physicists Luciano Pietronero and Francesco Sylos Labini at the University of Rome. They argue that 3D maps of the galaxy distribution produced by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) show that the universe is not homogeneous, but fractal. This, too, challenges the Copernican Principle, and as such, most of the cosmologists I spoke to dismissed it outright.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... -void.html

Here is another paper that challenges the status quo of an expanding universe that was refused publication without satisfactory explanation. This is yet another paper where well credentialled researchers are challenging the Copernican principle. More and more scientists who have not made their careers on BB are speaking out in frustration.

http://www.setterfield.org/static_universe.html

Hence when it comes to uniformism, my expectation is not that these researchers look for more excuses to support a current paradigm that is problematic, but to actually look to see what the data is telling them without Copernican blinkers on. Is that too much to ask from the scientific community?

It appears to me that the Copernican principle demonstrates ongoing bewilderment is preferable to giving up a philosophy of faith. If the earth is special I am sure some scientists don't want to know.

-- Updated December 28th, 2012, 1:19 am to add the following --

People today claim that the Heliocentric planetary model (which replaced the old geocentric one) is the correct scientific model for representing the movements of planets.

However those who make such claims surely forget one very crucial and important aspect of Science: that it is here only to create models and that changing a reference system does not affect AT ALL the "correctness" of such a model.

Why do people still refer to such things in terms of "right" and "wrong"? How much have we forgotten what science is all about?

Your opinions?

I think I'd like to reply to this again to try and get the topic back on track.

I don't think that science is only here to create models. I think science has the goal of finding answers, seek knowledge and mostly understand. Unfortunately much of what many of us would like to know is still only in model form.

If the current model of heliocentrism is changed to a geocentric model, then the 'correctness' of the heliocentric model was flawed, which is akin to 'wrong'. I think something can be wrong if it is substantially falsified. I think there is a difference between being 'tweaked' or being reinvented so differently that 'changed' is an apt description.

Researchers and philosophers, should not suggest an opposing view is 'wrong' unless it is credibly falsified and explored, or 'right' until a model has reached a certain level of substantiation. If one has already made up their minds over what is 'right' or 'wrong' this can be a huge hinderence to scientific progress.

[Teh]

Honestly and seriously, it appears to me that all OBSERVATION suggests we are in the middle of the universe. There is no observed data that challenges this observation.

The above statement is not true. All observations are consistent with the solution to the equations of general relativity of a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe in the presence of dark energy and dark matter. The cosmic microwave background contains a direct signal of dark energy. Dark energy has thus been observed, which was confirmed this year.

The paper that "Marina000" keeps citing as evidence for geocentricism is inconsistent with observation. It is inconsistent with the structure of the universe, and is refuted by the physical fact of the existence of dark energy.

The universe has no centre.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


The above statement is not true. All observations are consistent with the solution to the equations of general relativity of a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe in the presence of dark energy and dark matter. The cosmic microwave background contains a direct signal of dark energy. Dark energy has thus been observed, which was confirmed this year.

The paper that "Marina000" keeps citing as evidence for geocentricism is inconsistent with observation. It is inconsistent with the structure of the universe, and is refuted by the physical fact of the existence of dark energy.

The universe has no centre.

I was trying to get this thread back on track but you still want to grind on. OK then.

How do you know the universe has no centre? Oh that's right some confused algorithmic magic based on 96% of the universe being an unexplainable mystery resulting in unexplainable multiple dimensions, that does not align with quantum mechanics, all of which is guided by a philosopher that had no clue this important mystery existed, and this must prove its existence. Good for you! "I publish, therefore I must exist".

For now dark energy has all the properties of a God being a powerful force that controls the universe that you cannot see nor explain that simply exists because some people need 'it' to be. I hope you never ridicule theists!!!!

The problem is Teh that I have supported my view with peer reviewed research from many sources that challenges all you said above and all that these researchers have claimed. All of this is algorithmic magic and there is tons of it coming out every year with conflicting views that are also published.

You do understand don't you that the result of accepting dark energy is that you also accept multiple dimensions, on the back of a substance researchers have absolutly no clue about! Now this is starting to sound like science fiction. You do understand that an accelerating universe blew and overthrew an entire cosmological ideology and dark energy, a mystery, was then invented as an insertion value. It appears to me that cosmology is now off chasing ghosts to support itself these days and after over a decade researchers are still clueless.

The work you quoted and all work states very clearly that researchers have no idea what dark energy is and until they do and until their physics make sense dark energy is not confirmed at all.

Of course, skeptics say the work is very preliminary, and much more research will be needed to confirm that dark energy actually exists. "Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time," says researcher Bob Nichol from the University of Portsmouth, "so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence."

http://theweek.com/article/index/233303 ... -to-expand

"Astronomers studying the brightness of distant supernovae over a decade ago won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics for their conclusion that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. But some scientists argue this is an illusion, caused by the relative movement of Earth in relation to the rest of the cosmos. Others suggest shortcomings in our understanding of gravity are more likely responsible than dark energy."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1 ... 5420120912

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... claim.html

Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance

http://journalofcosmology.com/Multiverse10.html

What researchers have now is exactly the same as they did a decade ago, and that is, NO idea what dark energy or dark matter are. All they have done is describe God. Many researchers are sick of quacking about dark energy and are off to find something they can actually explain that makes sense.

The other thing, and most important point you have not addressed is that the OBSERVATIONS I spoke to are valid. Researchers identify nothing of all this above at all through their telescopes.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 2/48/full/


Now tell me Teh, how is it that 'primitive galaxies' are identified through a telescope at 13 billion years old, but there is no identified void in any direction. What has been observed is galaxies all around and about us right back to the earliest galaxies, IF that is what they are.

Where is this void these researchers are talking about? Why do we not see galaxies-huge void-galaxies-primitive galaxies one way; and then galaxies primitive galaxies, in another direction? There is no ridiculously large void anywhere in the middle of the universe, as described by some models. Why don't we see it? I am very interested in your reply.

[Skakos]

Uniformity and Symmetry is what we, as humans, like to see. But we do not have uniformity and symmetry everywhere. Unfortunately... (?)

There are indeed models of the Universe which do not have a "center". Such models indicate that the Universe started expanding like a baloon inflating and we are all on the 3D surface of that "baloon". We see everything getting away fro us, but this is an illusion because everyone else on that 3D surface also see the same.

But there are other models of the Universe calling for Earth to be at the center. As I mentioned in my article, George Ellis proposed such a cosmological model. And this model deems the use of Dark Energy and Dark Matter useless. He could be wrong. But one cannot rule out the possibility of this model being "more correct" (what does this mean?!?) just on the grounds of authenticity...

PS. And yes, as Marina has implied, "peer review" is really more an obstacle than something good when it comes to paradigm shifts in science. Peer review only tries to verify what we already consider as "correct". Not a good path if you want to discover new things...

[Marina000]

Uniformity and Symmetry is what we, as humans, like to see. But we do not have uniformity and symmetry everywhere. Unfortunately... (?)

There are indeed models of the Universe which do not have a "center". Such models indicate that the Universe started expanding like a baloon inflating and we are all on the 3D surface of that "baloon". We see everything getting away fro us, but this is an illusion because everyone else on that 3D surface also see the same.

But there are other models of the Universe calling for Earth to be at the center. As I mentioned in my article, George Ellis proposed such a cosmological model. And this model deems the use of Dark Energy and Dark Matter useless. He could be wrong. But one cannot rule out the possibility of this model being "more correct" (what does this mean?!?) just on the grounds of authenticity...

PS. And yes, as Marina has implied, "peer review" is really more an obstacle than something good when it comes to paradigm shifts in science. Peer review only tries to verify what we already consider as "correct". Not a good path if you want to discover new things...

I think discovering 'new' things does not always appear to equate to 'true' things. Dark energy and matter may be an example. We don't get to see all the so called 'failed' experiments on the laboratory floor that support other views. They are scrapped as soon as they indicate the 'wrong' information and are continually tweaked until a result the scientific community can live with is found.

The current scientific method is perhaps not the best method from which to advance scientific knowledge. As I have mentioned, the current scientific method requires a hypothesis/assumptions to make predictions and methods of falsification. This is a very limiting method. For example I pose the question "Does Santa exist?" My assumption is "Yes". I present Christmas presents 'from Santa'. I take the testimony of numerous children that attest indeed presents are left every year from Santa and food and drink is taken by Santa. I will scrap any testimony from parents because they do not accept that my model must be right. In fact I won't even interview any of them as I am so sure that my assumptions are so right that they are almost factual because I have empirical evidence and first hand testimony.

BB has many concerns. However a model in opposition would not be given nearly the attention and consideration that is given to the current theory and the slightest hickup would take it off the table. This is another problem.

The very fact that so many opposing views can be supported and 'common thinking' boils down to 'the best fit', is a demonstration that there is something amiss and we should seek to do better. The 'best fit' may not even be close, it's just the best and does not mean much at all, really. I concede it may be the best we can do in theory. However if the 'best fit' is going to be found we need to search and perservere with many alternative views and maintain an open mind.

At the moment one must have an opinion/assumption to support. Which ever assumption gets the most funding is the assumption that will generate the most research and papers supporting this assumption as the 'best fit', hence supporting itself in circular fashion. Concurrently, other models that may be a better 'best fit' will never be worked on substantively to verify or falsify for a variety of reasons eg against the Copernican principle.

I suggest the scientific method is flawed but I cannot think of a better system of acquiring, or getting to, the scientific 'truth'.

[Teh]

Uniformity and Symmetry is what we, as humans, like to see. But we do not have uniformity and symmetry everywhere. Unfortunately... (?)

And it's also a profoundly important principle of nature, profoundly associated with conservation laws:

Time symmetry - conservation of energy.

Translational symmetry - conservation of momentum.

Rotational symmetry - conservation of angular momentum.

Then you've got, charge, parity and time symmetry in the Standard Model (which you pretend to know). There are also gauge symmetries and perhaps supersymmetry will be confirmed.

It's all very unfortunate that there are so few symmetries and they are so anthropogenic. But wait, there is the homogeneous and isotropic structure of the universe, confirmed by the Hubble telescope and the cosmic microwave background.

All so very unfortunate!

But there are other models of the Universe calling for Earth to be at the center. As I mentioned in my article, George Ellis proposed such a cosmological model. And this model deems the use of Dark Energy and Dark Matter useless. He could be wrong. But one cannot rule out the possibility of this model being "more correct" (what does this mean?!?) just on the grounds of authenticity...

All geocentric models are refuted by direct observation.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)

And it's also a profoundly important principle of nature, profoundly associated with conservation laws:

Time symmetry - conservation of energy.

Translational symmetry - conservation of momentum.

Rotational symmetry - conservation of angular momentum.

Then you've got, charge, parity and time symmetry in the Standard Model (which you pretend to know). There are also gauge symmetries and perhaps supersymmetry will be confirmed.

It's all very unfortunate that there are so few symmetries and they are so anthropogenic. But wait, there is the homogeneous and isotropic structure of the universe, confirmed by the Hubble telescope and the cosmic microwave background.

All so very unfortunate!


(Nested quote removed.)

All geocentric models are refuted by direct observation.

Your last comment is false and is a typical reflection of the closed mindedness of science and the thread topic. Intergalactic shadows as predicted are missing just for a start and that is besides a plethora of other concerns very well credtialled researchers have,

It is easy to refer to all the the biased data and the other biased data that supports it and hope it has some substance. It is based on a nonsense Teh. That means ALL of it may well be nonsense. So going over and over and over what a theory postulates all the more reinforces Skakos's comment to me and the flavour of the thread topic.

I have identified that MANY researchers do not accept the research that has hit the headlines that was a redress of the same researchers work that was falsified previously. These have their careers on the line. Of course they stand by their own work. Many researchers don't support dark matter because they think it sounds as crazy as I do and even some that support dark matter do not support this work you have placed all your hopes on.

There is NO observation that refutes the geocentric model. In actual fact, observation supports a geocentric model. Are you calling algoithmic magic based on ghosts an observation or are you talking about observation through a telescope?

This is the refute to you and you have not addressed it. What you call observation is not observation at all, it is algorithmic magic that requires a God like enitity to exist. If you ever credibly verify dark matter then I will allege researchers have mathematically touched on the physics that explain the essence of Gods active force.

For now dark energy has all the properties of a God being a powerful force that controls the universe that you cannot see nor explain that simply exists because some people need 'it' to be. I hope you never ridicule theists!!!!

The problem is Teh that I have supported my view with peer reviewed research from many sources that challenges all you said above and all that these researchers have claimed. All of this is algorithmic magic and there is tons of it coming out every year with conflicting views that are also published.

Of course, skeptics say the work is very preliminary, and much more research will be needed to confirm that dark energy actually exists. "Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time," says researcher Bob Nichol from the University of Portsmouth, "so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence."

http://theweek.com/article/index/233303 ... -to-expand

"Astronomers studying the brightness of distant supernovae over a decade ago won the 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics for their conclusion that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. But some scientists argue this is an illusion, caused by the relative movement of Earth in relation to the rest of the cosmos. Others suggest shortcomings in our understanding of gravity are more likely responsible than dark energy."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1 ... 5420120912

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/spac ... claim.html

Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance

http://journalofcosmology.com/Multiverse10.html

There are missing intergalactic shadows.

http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/po ... PIC_ID=894 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104549.htm

Many researchers are sick of quacking about dark energy and are off to find something they can actually explain that makes sense.


The other thing, and most important point you have not addressed is that the OBSERVATIONS I spoke to are valid. Researchers identify nothing of all this above at all through their telescopes.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 2/48/full/

Now tell me Teh, how is it that 'primitive galaxies' are identified through a telescope at 13 billion years old, but there is no identified void in any direction. What has been observed is galaxies all around and about us right back to the earliest galaxies, IF that is what they are.

Where is this void these researchers are talking about? Why do we not see galaxies-huge void-galaxies-primitive galaxies one way; and then galaxies primitive galaxies, in another direction? There is no ridiculously large void anywhere in the middle of the universe, as described by some models. Why don't we see it?

I am very interested in your reply, that is if you have one of substance that does not confuse fact with fiction.

Skakos's point is again reflected in Tehs reply whom appears unable to accept that peer review and publication is only offering assumptions that support the same underlying assumption. Skakos said, "And yes, as Marina has implied, "peer review" is really more an obstacle than something good when it comes to paradigm shifts in science. Peer review only tries to verify what we already consider as "correct". Not a good path if you want to discover new things..."

-- Updated December 30th, 2012, 2:46 pm to add the following --

I'll post one more comment here.

So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.

http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy

[Teh]

-- Updated December 30th, 2012, 2:46 pm to add the following --

I'll post one more comment here.

So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.

http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy

"The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry" - you've got to be joking!

Oh, and it turns out we are moving relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background! That simply is the end for the "geocentric model"!

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


"The Christian Apologetics Research Ministry" - you've got to be joking!

Oh, and it turns out we are moving relative to the Cosmic Microwave Background! That simply is the end for the "geocentric model"!

Teh, once again you demonstrate the mind of one that has made up their mind as have I. However I appear to have the upper hand despite the majority thinking. Many researchers have had enough of this Big Bang nonsense and are after a model that actually makes sense.

Uniformity is a much sought after myth that appears to becoming more and more out of reach, much the same as dark matter.......


"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept ... le3_2.html

"This asymmetrical expansion is referred to as anisotropy, which is the property of being directionally dependent, and differs from isotropy, which implies identical properties in all directions.

The result is inconsistent with the standard cosmological model, which is based on the cosmological principle that requires the universe to be isotropic and homogeneous, namely: that it is assumed to have the same underlying structure and principles operating throughout, and looks identical in every direction.

In late 2010, two cosmologists from the University of Ioannina in Greece published a challenge to the cosmological principle in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, providing statistical evidence to support the notion of a preferred axis of expansion.

Earlier this month another such challenge was posted on the physics website arXiv by Rong-Gen Cai and Zhong-Liang Tuoy, cosmologists from the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Their paper also explores the non-uniform accelerated expansion of the cosmos."

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4781 ... page=0%2C0

Either way, with or without the mystery of dark energy, the most parsinomous explanation is the earth is the centre of the universe.

In fact, these researchers can spend the next millenium trying to hammer square pegs into round holes and still, with or without mysteries, the earth appears to be centre of the universe.

It appears Hubble was also ignorant in preference of a philosophy and at the expense of 'truth'. Viva la philosophy.

There is however one other hypothesis. That would be that none of these researchers have any clue what they are talking about.

Hence the thread topic highlights that if one is deluded sufficiently, then one can certainly continue to hammer square pegs into round holes, call that science and support ones own delusion.

-- Updated January 8th, 2013, 12:37 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)


The above statement is not true. All observations are consistent with the solution to the equations of general relativity of a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe in the presence of dark energy and dark matter. The cosmic microwave background contains a direct signal of dark energy. Dark energy has thus been observed, which was confirmed this year.

The paper that "Marina000" keeps citing as evidence for geocentricism is inconsistent with observation. It is inconsistent with the structure of the universe, and is refuted by the physical fact of the existence of dark energy.

The universe has no centre.

You are actually inconsistent with observation!!!!

I publish therefore I exist say the heliocentrics, even if I have no clue what I am saying!

Observation demonstrates there is an obvious answer to the heliocentric vs geocentric view. However, the truth is much too overwhelming for the majority to accept. Hence those that prefer the comfort of atheism in particular will ignore all that feels uncomfortable, regardless of the overwhelming evidence that challenges their view.

The geocentric model will come. This is unavoidable!!!.

[Teh]

And yet it moves.

[Skakos]

(Nested quote removed.)


The above statement is not true. All observations are consistent with the solution to the equations of general relativity of a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe in the presence of dark energy and dark matter. The cosmic microwave background contains a direct signal of dark energy. Dark energy has thus been observed, which was confirmed this year.

The paper that "Marina000" keeps citing as evidence for geocentricism is inconsistent with observation. It is inconsistent with the structure of the universe, and is refuted by the physical fact of the existence of dark energy.

The universe has no centre.

I really liked the "in the presence of dark energy and dark matter" quote. It is like a universal disclaimer: whatever we observe, there will always be something "weird" and we - as "true" scientists, will discard it by just giving it a name...