Jump to content


Photo

Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

geocentric heliocentric ptolemy copernicus center

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 April 2018 - 11:24 AM

This is an offshoot from the "is Natural Selection a Mechanism of Evolution" discussion.....

 

 

! Now i could suppose this 'Topic' in particular could have been better suited in the 'Christian Taboo's' thread. 

It's probably better to start a new topic on the matter....

 

 

Before i continue to utterly dismantle piasans argument about this supposed Heliocentric mentality that has somehow become the norm amoung most of the entirety of modern Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Physicist ect let alone the entire populous.

The "somehow" is that the heliocentric model provides a better explanation for a number of direct observations that geocentric models simply can't explain.  For example, retrograde motion of planets such as Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn isn't well explained by geocentric models.  

 

There is also the fact that the sun has virtually all the mass of the solar system.  This mandates that the center of the solar system will be much closer to the sun than the Earth.

 

It is worth note that the early version of Copernicus' model had these features (according to Wikipedia):

  1. Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
  2. The center of the universe is near the Sun.
  3. Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
  4. The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
  5. Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
  6. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.

 

 

1 should keep in mind we were indeed indoctrinated into this false assumption through our public school systems the WORLD over! 

The heliocentric model has been around for about 500 years.  Long before there were any public schools anywhere in the world.

 

i just wish in addition to say really quick, If as Niel deGrass Lyson and literally ALL others in regards to the 'Shape' of our 'GLOBE'. WHERE is this supposed quote 'OBLIQUE SPHEROID' ?? Have the entirety of man kind seen NO SUCH shape from N.A.S.A.??Could N.A.S.A. not turn around one of the many deep space telescopes around and snap merely just 1 singular picture that shows this 'MYTHICAL' 'Oblique Spheroid'? Where indeed are these long lost photos that are to have debunked the Biblical statement that indeed the Earth is ROUND? Are any other near Earth objects, eg. planets an 'Oblique Spheroid'?? Why then would modern scientist wish to tout such nonsense??

As Wibble has already pointed out, Earth's rotation on its axis creates centrifugal force which causes the Earth to "bulge" a bit at the equator and to "flatten" a bit at the poles.  The difference is fairly small with a diameter of some 7899 mi at the poles and 7926 mi at the equator ... a difference of about 0.3%.  This works out to an eccentricity of only 0.082.  You would not be able to detect such a small irregularity in a satellite picture.

 

NASA has done a lot of research on the precise shape of the planet using satellites and small orbital irregularities to measure the actual shape of the Earth down to a few centimeters.

 

From NASA:

With GPS and other satellites, scientists can measure Earth's size and shape to within a centimeter. Pictures from space also show Earth is round like the moon.Even though our planet is a sphere, it is not a perfect sphere. 

Because of the force caused when Earth rotates, the North and South Poles are slightly flat. Earth's rotation, wobbly motion and other forces are making the planet change shape very slowly, but it is still round.

 

Where indeed are these long lost photos that are to have debunked the Biblical statement that indeed the Earth is ROUND? Are any other near Earth objects, eg. planets an 'Oblique Spheroid'?? Why then would modern scientist wish to tout such nonsense??

As I understand it, Hebrew cosmology held that Earth is round, but flat.  More like a plate than a sphere. An oblate spheroid IS round.  It just isn't a PERFECT sphere.

 

 

 Come now i ask of you all, PROOF the Biblical position WRONG!!

From what I can tell, your position is like that of the creationist ministries .... ANY evidence in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This stance makes it impossible to objectively test biblical claims.

 

For that reason, I don't think there is any evidence you would accept that your position is wrong.

! Now i could suppose this 'Topic' in particular could have been better suited in the 'Christian Taboo's' thread. 

It's probably better to start a new topic on the matter....

 

 

Before i continue to utterly dismantle piasans argument about this supposed Heliocentric mentality that has somehow become the norm amoung most of the entirety of modern Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Physicist ect let alone the entire populous.

The "somehow" is that the heliocentric model provides a better explanation for a number of direct observations that geocentric models simply can't explain.  For example, retrograde motion of planets such as Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn isn't well explained by geocentric models.  

 

There is also the fact that the sun has virtually all the mass of the solar system.  This mandates that the center of the solar system will be much closer to the sun than the Earth.

 

It is worth note that the early version of Copernicus' model had these features (according to Wikipedia):

  1. Heavenly motions are uniform, eternal, and circular or compounded of several circles (epicycles).
  2. The center of the universe is near the Sun.
  3. Around the Sun, in order, are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars.
  4. The Earth has three motions: daily rotation, annual revolution, and annual tilting of its axis.
  5. Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion.
  6. The distance from the Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance to the stars.

 

 

1 should keep in mind we were indeed indoctrinated into this false assumption through our public school systems the WORLD over! 

The heliocentric model has been around for about 500 years.  Long before there were any public schools anywhere in the world.

 

i just wish in addition to say really quick, If as Niel deGrass Lyson and literally ALL others in regards to the 'Shape' of our 'GLOBE'. WHERE is this supposed quote 'OBLIQUE SPHEROID' ?? Have the entirety of man kind seen NO SUCH shape from N.A.S.A.??Could N.A.S.A. not turn around one of the many deep space telescopes around and snap merely just 1 singular picture that shows this 'MYTHICAL' 'Oblique Spheroid'? Where indeed are these long lost photos that are to have debunked the Biblical statement that indeed the Earth is ROUND? Are any other near Earth objects, eg. planets an 'Oblique Spheroid'?? Why then would modern scientist wish to tout such nonsense??

As Wibble has already pointed out, Earth's rotation on its axis creates centrifugal force which causes the Earth to "bulge" a bit at the equator and to "flatten" a bit at the poles.  The difference is fairly small with a diameter of some 7899 mi at the poles and 7926 mi at the equator ... a difference of about 0.3%.  This works out to an eccentricity of only 0.082.  You would not be able to detect such a small irregularity in a satellite picture.

 

NASA has done a lot of research on the precise shape of the planet using satellites and small orbital irregularities to measure the actual shape of the Earth down to a few centimeters.

 

From NASA:

With GPS and other satellites, scientists can measure Earth's size and shape to within a centimeter. Pictures from space also show Earth is round like the moon.Even though our planet is a sphere, it is not a perfect sphere. 

Because of the force caused when Earth rotates, the North and South Poles are slightly flat. Earth's rotation, wobbly motion and other forces are making the planet change shape very slowly, but it is still round.

 

Where indeed are these long lost photos that are to have debunked the Biblical statement that indeed the Earth is ROUND? Are any other near Earth objects, eg. planets an 'Oblique Spheroid'?? Why then would modern scientist wish to tout such nonsense??

As I understand it, Hebrew cosmology held that Earth is round, but flat.  More like a plate than a sphere. An oblate spheroid IS round.  It just isn't a PERFECT sphere.

 

 

 Come now i ask of you all, PROOF the Biblical position WRONG!!

From what I can tell, your position is like that of the creationist ministries .... ANY evidence in conflict with a literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION.  This stance makes it impossible to objectively test biblical claims.

 

For that reason, I don't think there is any evidence you would accept that your position is wrong.

 

 



#2 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 09:39 AM

Great idea here piasan. May God Bless with all Power and Authority to all Christians everywhere. Been extremely occupied, but shall be back asap.



#3 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:26 PM

le,      As i have clearly stated in prior post, here at this most appreciated site, the Scientific Data received from the CoBe probe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP and the Planck Satellites all show 'The Copernicus' worldview is not accurate by any means. This is exactly why they called these scientific Data readings 'THE AXIS OF EVIL'. Because it showed beyond any and all doubt that we are in fact in the center of our known universe. The Copernican Cosmology is more a philosophical ideology of a particular metaphysical worldview that has forced the scientist to confirm this worldview as versed to merely doing research upon observations of the 'known data'  and not trying to conform the known Data into a particular worldview. Modern scientist in these particular fields of study would be absolutely jobless and mere court jesters of the modern atheistic worldview if the Copernican Principle could be uprooted, which in fact has been utterly crushed! That's clearly why they must fight tooth and nail to ridicule a 'Geocentric Cosmology'. Our Biblical narrative says God created us as a special creation and the Earth also our special environment. Seeing how i'm sure to differ from many of my Christian Brothers and Sisters in Yeshua Yahweh, of whom my comfort and soul surely rest, because of my most 'LITERAL' understanding of scripture. By no means am i attributing my ideologies upon them and should not be considered nor inferred. "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. We can also add Joshua 10:13 here also, and for that matter all other Biblical scriptures that read the Earth stays its ground, as far as i'm concerned. "The Biblical narrative STANDS its GROUND!" All supposed and outdated Cosmology suggestions from the likes of Neil deGrass Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc are ALL unproved assumptions which is based in their own ideological and metaphysical worldview! This is why it is called 'Theoretical Physics'. Modern Cosmologist and Astrophysicist must make up new and ever more elaborate metaphysical sciences such as 'The No Boundary Proposal', and the 'Quantum Entanglement' etc. ideas as to somehow connect what we actually observe and what those whom continue to postulate eg. the Copernican worldview, 'MUST' adhere to. The utter travesty of the never ending equations afforded to try and come up with an also never ending hypothetical means to discredit the Biblical narrative is expected.  By the way, all the 'New' Cosmology and Astrophysical presumptions typically violate the Einsteinian model. "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations"    George Ellis Quote "For instance, i can construct you spherically symmetrical universe with the Earth at it's center, and you can NOT disprove it based on any observations. You can only exclude that on philosophical grounds. In my view there is nothing wrong in that. What i want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that"    Sir Fred Hoyle Quote "We know that the difference between a Heliocentric Theory and a Geocentric Theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."  Albert Einstein Quote " The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'The sun is at rest and the earth moves.' or 'The sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."  Max Born Quote " .... Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth' ... One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einsteins's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hallow, thick-walled sphere and proved inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are right."   Lubos Motl Quote "Well, all the fictitious forces are still there, together with all of their conceivable general relativistic corrections that need us to use the complicated metric tensor field (all components)... Philosophically, the geocentric system is "equally good" in GR because in all coordinate systems, the Solar System and the Earth are given by some curved metric tensor field. Some quasi-inertial and heliocentric fields are still a bit simpler which makes the geocentric system "more true" from a pragmatic viewpoint. – Luboš Motl May 4 '12 at 18:08]   The now antiquated Copernican Principle started in 1543.  Lerner, Eric. (1993). The Case Against the Big Bang. 89-. 10.1007/978-1-4899-1225-1_7. Despite its widespread acceptance, the Big Bang theory is presently without any observational support. All of its quantitative predictions are contradicted by observation, and none are supported by the data. Its predictions of light element abundances are inconsistent with the latest data. It is impossible to produce a Big Bang “age of the universe†which is old enough to allow the development of the observed large scale structures, or even the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. The theory does not predict an isotropic cosmic microwave background without several additional ad hoc assumptions which are themselves clearly contradicted by observation. By contrast, plasma cosmology theories have provided explanations of the light element abundances, the origin of large scale structure and the cosmic microwave background that accord with observation. It is time to abandon the Big Bang and seek other explanations of the Hubble relationship.



#4 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:32 PM

piasan. "The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."                                                    My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown. As i have shown which all can go find is that even Einstein himself stated Albert Einstein Quote " The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'The sun is at rest and the earth moves.' or 'The sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."  Along with all my other cited quotes. I have stated nothing myself more than most all current Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist have a based ideology that promotes the current worldview that the Earth is nothing special in our universe. As they are continually chasing equation after equation pursuing a basis by which they can literally dismiss and defraud the Biblical account for the Creation of everything by God Almighty's spoken 'Word'. Irregardless of whatever increasingly sophisticated methodology of which they will chose to devise for a non Biblical worldview, the BIBLICAL narrative Shall Always Stand Correct! As i have stated in previous posting here and subsequent 'Topics' We Biblical Christians have NEVER changed our stance in accordance from 'Biblical Scripture'. We have NEVER tried to subject or adjust the Biblical narrative for an interpretation which fits our worldview. It is indeed rather the atheist and everybody else in the entire history of man that MUST and are indeed FORCED to adjust their world view to accommodate their ever changing assumptions and equations. This spans the ENTIRETY of the known sciences. All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

#154 icon_share.pngKillurBluff

Junior Member

  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 03 April 2018 - 05:42 PM

  The actual facts in regards to any and ALL scientific fields of inquiry can easily be boiled down to 2 things. 1st is indeed the observable as in the ability to use our God given '5 Senses'. The 2nd is where it always takes a sharp turn into actually a 'Theory' or 'Reason' as in the 'Grandiose' stories of which we tell our selves that could and could not be true based about our observations!  Now clearly these are rather different from each other. Now in our concerns for our universe both camps indeed have the exact same observations even tho many chose to bury their heads in the sand so to speak. And as such the end result has ALWAYS been that of 'Underdetermination', hence all given data NEVER nails down a theory eg, the Big Bang, Darwinian evolution the Heliocentric vs Geocentric etc. This by no means is to imply that everything and anything goes. Rather there is leeway. Which leads us to our God given ability to 'Reason' together, yes with him and ourselves. We can infer this logically to be 'The Law Of Rational Inference', but this is also dependent upon our given presuppositions. And may i be clear in stating that I indeed have them lol. Because i indeed base all things upon the 'Word'. No matter what may come! And everything and anything i have stated will not go against any Biblical scripture. As do atheist to a 'Natural' explanation of all things eg. time and chance. I often equate this, in my mind, as to Darwin's ideology around his time as believing the cell was nothing more than merely a glob of hemoglobin which was all so very simplistic. But oh how catastrophic this was to all whom believed in such. So, let us not believe for any moment that we all are oblivious to our presuppositions please. This being said do not come to me please, stating that we have any 100% proof as to the earth, sun and other planets racing through our universe at breakneck speeds. For what is indeed 'Known' is that there has NEVER been any experimental observations that we have ever done to 100% prove this inference or 'Theory'. Now as to us having the actual data from these CMBR satellites does show beyond any doubt is that Earth is at the center of our universe as they ALL point to our own 'Axis". Carl Sagan and all other atheist, to me, is best summed as to this quote  "We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. This perspective is a courageous continuation of our penchant for constructing and testing mental models of the skies; the Sun as a red-hot stone, the stars as a celestial flame, the Galaxy as the backbone of night." But indeed nay, i say, be gone!! On the 29th of March 1641, Galileo responded to a letter that he received from his colleague Francesco Rinuccini. Galileo wrote: “The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and the motion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God. He is able to bring about in different ways, indeed, in an infinite number of ways, things that, according to our opinion and observation, appear to happen in one particular way. We should not seek to shorten the hand of God and boldly insist on something beyond the limits of our competence…. D’Arcetri, March 29, 1641. I am writing the enclosed letter to Rev. Fr. Fulgenzio, from whom I have heard no news lately. I entrust it to Your Excellency to kindly make sure he receives it.” I find it rather intriguing that even as i type, this statement holds true. I'm not particularly endorsing Catholicism but merely the essence of this letter. I can do no more for today but will be back, God, Yeshua Yahweh Bless and permit me to do so



#5 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 06 April 2018 - 02:36 PM

piasan, on 04 Apr 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:snapback.png

 

piasan, on 03 Apr 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:snapback.png

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

KillurBluff, on 03 Apr 2018 - 2:20 PM, said:snapback.png

My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown.

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact.

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington “The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelson‐Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?” Physicist, Adolph Baker “….The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether….Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it.” Physicist, James Coleman “The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.” Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein “What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What’s the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth’s motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morley experiment? The implication is that the earth is not moving…” Physicist, Richard Wolfson“  This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenth century. One possibility was that...v would be zero and no fringe shift would be expected. But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; only with respect to the earth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe.” Physicist, Douglas C. Giancoli Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory.The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v 2 /c 3 . Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2 /(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.Length contraction wasn’t even contemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in this emergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the science establishment would have at least some hypothetical answer why Michelson’s experiment showed the Earth was motionless. Everyone could breathe a sigh of relief. The irony, as of this date, is that no one has ever detected a length contraction in a moving object. In fact, modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would be manifested!!! Here are what some Physicist have thought lol. So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.” Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed” (Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning” (Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical” (Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.” E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!” (Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.” Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow” (Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened” (Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes” (The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.” Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.” Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real” (Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.” Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun."  :gilligan:   :cry:   :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol



#6 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 07 April 2018 - 05:39 AM

The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun,” is that they insist on using a moving Earth (which they claim to “know intuitively”) as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment. Consequently, if one firmly believes the Earth is moving, but the experiments show it is not moving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way to make it appear as if the Earth is moving. Any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be math‐magically transformed into a moving Earth by the “transform” equation. The “transform” equation is like a magician waving his wand over the experiments so that the system one does not prefer is transformed into system one does prefer. Modern man does not prefer a fixed Earth. He is little more than a magician who has been feeding the world a steady diet of illusions. As can be shown in Einsteins preference as he magically blinds the world with the “transform” equation, which appears on page 7 of his 1905 paper as follows: β = 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2 This is the precise equation used by Lorentz to claim that the arm of Michelson’s apparatus had shrunk by 1 ൈ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2, with Einstein also adding time dilation by 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2!! As can be seen in Ensteins § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co‐ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. So we don’t need to go looking for it. Einstein tells us candidly what he is doing. He is “transforming” space and time from a “Stationary System” (e.g., a fixed Earth) to “another System,” one of “Relativity.” In fact, the word “transformation” appears twenty‐ four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space, motion, electricity, magnetism, the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, energy of light waves, electron acceleration, to mass increase. It became the quintessential means to “relativize” the whole universe and forever banish the thought of a motionless Earth!! As we  see, it is all done by mathematics. There is not one iota of physical, empirical proof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove their findings or to justify using the “transform.” Since everyone “knows” the Earth is moving around the sun, then everything is moving and there is no object at rest and thus the whole universe is “relative.” In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, the Relativist can wave his magic wand and change it into a relative result. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905.



#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 April 2018 - 02:50 PM

killurbluff: He says, "despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

He is the one living in fantasy land. All we need do is wait for the reality of things to come to light (i.e. T-Rex soft tissue/blood cells, deep space spiral galaxies, Mitochondria Eve, etc,) and evolution crumbles in the minds of the perceptive. But understand that sinning men who are in rebellion to God will force a neo-Darwinian interpretation on the evidence no matter what is found or where or how out-of-place it might be. They are committed to lies and they will stay with those lies all the way to the judgment throne of the Creator and God of the universe.

 

Time and age is what the Lord says it is. When He expanded our universe it was changed instantly (*perhaps in many steps) as was the time frame that Jesus moved the ship full of disciples to the shore in John 6:21 and in bringing the sun & moon to a complete halt for one whole day. Joshua 10:13. Our all powerful God can do anything His divine wisdom decrees. piasan's 'god' must follow piasans rules. 


  • KillurBluff likes this

#8 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 07 April 2018 - 03:54 PM

killurbluff: He says, "despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

He is the one living in fantasy land. All we need do is wait for the reality of things to come to light (i.e. T-Rex soft tissue/blood cells, deep space spiral galaxies, Mitochondria Eve, etc,) and evolution crumbles in the minds of the perceptive. But understand that sinning men who are in rebellion to God will force a neo-Darwinian interpretation on the evidence no matter what is found or where or how out-of-place it might be. They are committed to lies and they will stay with those lies all the way to the judgment throne of the Creator and God of the universe.

 

Time and age is what the Lord says it is. When He expanded our universe it was changed instantly (*perhaps in many steps) as was the time frame that Jesus moved the ship full of disciples to the shore in John 6:21 and in bringing the sun & moon to a complete halt for one whole day. Joshua 10:13. Our all powerful God can do anything His divine wisdom decrees. piasan's 'god' must follow piasans rules. 

Would it be wrong for me to admit a smile has emerged on my face while reading your post? :gotcha: Not because of the religion of scientism that has crept over the minds of people but rather because of the quote " (i.e. T-Rex soft tissue/blood cells, deep space spiral galaxies, Mitochondria Eve, etc,) and evolution crumbles in the minds of the perceptive.Time and age is what the Lord says it is. When He expanded our universe it was changed instantly (*perhaps in many steps) as was the time frame that Jesus moved the ship full of disciples to the shore in John 6:21 and in bringing the sun & moon to a complete halt for one whole day. Joshua 10:13. Our all powerful God can do anything His divine wisdom decrees.  AMEN!!



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 April 2018 - 04:24 PM

killurbluff: He says, "despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

Actually, that statement was a paraphrase from this exchange:

 

 But i do believe if these so called Far Superior Intellectuals such as Neil deGrass Lyson, Lawrence Crock of Krauss, Mitchio full of Kaku, Julian Barbour, Max Tegmark etc, etc, etc, would be as they should rightfully be, delegated to mere court jesters, whom prance around the earths stage regurgitating utter nonsense. They would be out of jobs!! They are nothing more other than High Priest of this Darwinian Delusion of Modern Mans lack of wisdom and knowledge. They MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview.

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

What I did was take the last phrase of Killur's invective filled rant and apply it to YEC.

 

The reason is that, in terms of astronomy and their efforts to explain the light travel time problem of YEC I've seen the progression go from:

1)  Claim distances are wrong .... refuted by many orders of magnitude.

2)  Claim huge changes in the speed of light.  Setterfield is usually the one cited here. .... refuted.

3)  Challenge the passage of time.  Humphreys' "White hole" cosmology is the poster child .... abandoned by Humphreys.

4)  Varying light speed .... infinite toward the observer, half of "c" on the return trip. .... Refuted by the fact GPS works.

Notice the progression from simple explanations to increasingly "fanciful" ones?

 

Killur seems to think that astronomy and cosmology have some kind of stake in the "Darwinian" game.  They don't.  Astronomy, cosmology, and physics are branches of science that are completely independent of Darwin and/or evolution.  They operate in an entirely different realm working with a totally different data set and are dedicated to a completely separate line of inquiry.

 

For that reason, let's settle this here and now .... this topic is about astronomy and Earth's place in the universe.  References to Darwinism and/or evolution and/or biology are strictly .....

 

:off_topic:

 

All we need do is wait for the reality of things to come to light (i.e. T-Rex soft tissue/blood cells, deep space spiral galaxies, Mitochondria Eve, etc,) and evolution crumbles in the minds of the perceptive. But understand that sinning men who are in rebellion to God will force a neo-Darwinian interpretation on the evidence no matter what is found or where or how out-of-place it might be.

T-rex blood cells .... start your own topic.

Deep space spiral galaxies .... explain how we can see them.  Do that and you may well change my entire "worldview."

Mitochondrial Eve .... off topic.

Evolution .... off topic.

neo-Darwin Interpretation .... We're discussing the center of the universe.  Ptolemy, Copernicus, Einstein, and Newton are relevant.  Darwin is not.

 

 Our all powerful God can do anything His divine wisdom decrees. piasan's 'god' must follow piasans rules. 

Same God.  In my view God is fully capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it with no more effort than a single thought.  By way of analogy .....

 

In your view, God is the pool player who walks around the table picking each ball up and putting it in a pocket. 

 

In my view, God is the pool player who racks the balls and without glancing at them calls every ball, combination, and bank.  Then, with a single stroke of the cue He sinks all 15 balls exactly as described.

 

I keep trying to point this out .... we disagree over how and when.  Not Who.

 

Now, let's get back on-on topic.



#10 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 963 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 April 2018 - 05:14 PM

In my view God is fully capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it with no more effort than a single thought.


A quick question, considering you do prefer to back up statements with evidence, does a single thought by a presumed entity sit with you comfortably as an 'explanation' for the existence of our Universe ? We don't know how it began and adding an omnipotent God of your particular choosing seems to be adding an extra layer of complexity to explain, which in the end, doesn't actually explain anything.



#11 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 07 April 2018 - 06:00 PM

We must indeed be concise please. As is it not told that Yeshua Yahweh literally "SPOKE" all things into being?? Not merely the 'thought' but indeed an action in association to our knowledge of thought.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 April 2018 - 06:03 AM

 

Wibble: A quick question, considering you do prefer to back up statements with evidence, does a single thought by a presumed entity sit with you comfortably as an 'explanation' for the existence of our Universe ? We don't know how it began and adding an omnipotent God of your particular choosing seems to be adding an extra layer of complexity to explain, which in the end, doesn't actually explain anything.

 

 

But this reasoning is actually not sound, but is actually sophistry. The argument that God doesn't explain anything is a misconception about the God-of-the-gaps fallacy where dull-witted atheists think they can BLANKET-COVER all theistic claims with the "gaps" complaint. Which is unintelligent, because logical notation does not state that any argument involving theism is automatically a god-of-the-gaps. Please present where logical teachings tell us this. In other words, it is 100% possible logically, to argue that God exists without arguing from gaps in knowledge. Not all theist arguments are based on no explanation or gaps, like dull wits think they are, having never delineated the difference themselves because they need to be baby-walked through them by mike. :P

 

Piasan isn't arguing that he has a scientific explanation which is that God created the world, he is believing by faith that God created the world because he sees what the world actually is, and it doesn't fit with materialism. From your claim of atheism, why would we expect a designed, fine-tuned universe? I would expect something that looked like it belonged in a toilet, not elegant mathematics, formulas of physics and logic, and scientific law, and designer features. (Whereas we KNOW from evidence, that we should expect design, order and creativity from Creators, from our knowledge that those features are always found in things which have a designer/creator) You however, know nothing, so materialism is really the argument without any explanation for what is it based on?

 

We have to break it down and look at the truth about what we're claiming. No offence but your position seems to be a bit black and white, because you don't use acute reasoning.

 

If we were to conclude that because there exists something, therefore God is the cause because there is no explanation, that would be a true absence of one, but if we break it down into what we are actually arguing, OFFICIALLY, so to speak, then to argue an intelligent designer/Creator, as explaining the features of creation/design we see, this isn't to argue from a gap.

 

Philosophically at least, and logically, can't you see that even if we don't call what we see in nature, "intelligent design" nevertheless the same features we find in nature are the features we usually find in intelligently designed, created things. That means to infer the usual cause of specified complexity, information, contingency planning, order, correct materials, innovative solutions to obscure problems, etc, etc, etc...is an intelligent designer, is not to argue from a gap because our argument depends on data we do understand. So then this argument is also backed up by an induction of evidence where everything we look at, outside of life, which contains such features, is an intelligently designed thing. In other words, our evidence is that in 100% of all things outside of life with designer features, ALL of those features together are only ever found in things we know to be designed, such as buildings, vehicles, computers, planes, ovens, TVs, etc...

 

So the popular atheist argument that inferring God doesn't explain anything, is basically an argument based on your own ignorance in studying anatomy, because when we look at anatomical features and just can't explain for example, why they are so precisely correct, with the correct solutions, materials and contingency plans, indeed the very best explanation, is that it was done on purpose. (teleology) That is a proper explanation, where we find DELIBERATE arrangement of parts. It is the very same explanation you would usually use in ordinary life if you found such teleology such as a watch in a field. So we as theists, are merely consistent, whereas you employ a double standard. One rule for God "produce Him in a test tube", and another rule for usual design, "show me the specified complexity and purposeful features". In other words, you would believe sand castles were designed but wouldn't believe far more sophisticated designs like the eyeball, were designed but you would instead say, "eyes are only designed if you produce God in a test tube, you're arguing a gap."  :gotcha:

 

Again, teleology is also backed by an induction of evidence.. That is to say, we can calculate the stage when something is done on purpose, by saying "beyond X amount of evidence of deliberate intent, this is now beyond what chance would allow." For example, would you believe a car's brakes are positioned so as to stop a car, that they weren't so positioned on purpose? Would you believe it was not on purpose that cars have headlights so you can drive in the dark?

 

So then the obvious evidence for teleology, is if we find identical things in life. For example, would you say it is not on purpose that an eyeball is supposed to see, even if millions of parts are all directed at that goal? Would you believe legs don't walk on purpose? That ears don't hear on purpose?

 

In other words Wibble, you are only stating your case.

 

What is your evidence/argument that all of these features come about by accident, and that a tornado ripping through a junkyard stands a better chance of constructing a plane than a designer? Evolution? But can mathematics and logic and formulas evolve? So then you can only break it down into pieces and pretend the design is caused by many different causes. (not very parsimonious is it? And depends on credulity).

 

 

(so your allusion that only theistic evolutionists argue based on evidence, is CODSWALLOP, you don't even know how evidence is qualified by the consequent in the modus ponen, and the falsification evidence through the modus tollens.)



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 11:29 AM

Killur's formatting style is extremely difficult to follow

As i have clearly stated in prior post, here at this most appreciated site, the Scientific Data received from the CoBe probe, Sloan Digital Sky Survey, WMAP and the Planck Satellites all show 'The Copernicus' worldview is not accurate by any means. This is exactly why they called these scientific Data readings 'THE AXIS OF EVIL'. Because it showed beyond any and all doubt that we are in fact in the center of our known universe. 

Yes, you have stated it.  You have not shown it. 

 

Short summaries and links would be greatly appreciated as it's extremely difficult to follow your formatting.

 

I can agree that Copernicus' worldview is not accurate by any means .... but not for the same reason.  Copernicus view was a heliocentric universe.  That view is almost as wrong as Ptolemy's .... but was a huge step in the right direction.

 

COBE, WMAP, et. al. have measurement errors.  Their estimates for the size of the universe is something like +/- 1%.  That would be about 138 million light years.  The very best you can do is claim we might be within that distance from the center of the universe.

 

You still have not addressed the fact that in an expanding universe, all points will appear to be the center from their point of view.

 

You have also not addressed the fact that simple Newtonian mechanics demonstrates we can not be at the center of either the solar system or the galaxy .... let alone the universe.

 

You could also explain planetary regression in your geo-centric view of things.

 

The Copernican Cosmology is more a philosophical ideology of a particular metaphysical worldview that has forced the scientist to confirm this worldview as versed to merely doing research upon observations of the 'known data'  and not trying to conform the known Data into a particular worldview.

Absurd.

 

Copernicus cosmology was an effort to better explain a number of things that Ptolemy's geocentric model couldn't.  Copernicus explained phases of Mercury and Venus; their behavior as morning and evening stars; and retrograde motions of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

 

Newton's laws of motion later confirmed and explained Copernicus claims .... at least in terms of a heliocentric solar system.  The Copernican model was a great leap forward in mankind's understanding of God's creation.

 

Creationists are notorious for "trying to conform the known Data into a particular worldview."  This is shown by the Statements of Faith by all of the creation ministries and creation science organizations.  All of whom say, in one way or another, that any evidence not in keeping with their literal understanding of Scripture is INVALID BY DEFINITION.  This discussion itself is just another example.

 

Modern scientist in these particular fields of study would be absolutely jobless and mere court jesters of the modern atheistic worldview if the Copernican Principle could be uprooted, which in fact has been utterly crushed! That's clearly why they must fight tooth and nail to ridicule a 'Geocentric Cosmology'.

 Atheism has nothing at all to do with it.  Simple Newtonian mechanics demonstrates this.  Orbiting systems will rotate around their center of mass  Period.  High school physics students do labs confirming this simple fact.  The equation is: m1r1 = m2r2.  

 

With over 99.8% of the mass of the solar system in the sun.  It is 330,000x the mass of the Earth.  The center of mass for the solar system will be much, much closer to the Sun than the Earth.

 

We ridicule a "Geocentric Cosmology" because it has about the same credibility as a Flat Earth.

 

 

Our Biblical narrative says God created us as a special creation and the Earth also our special environment.

That's all you have? 

 

We are special, and the Earth is special.  You and I absolutely agree on that much.  But, to get from "special" to the "center" is a huge leap that is not justified by the facts.  Nor, I dare say, by Scripture.

 

 

 Seeing how i'm sure to differ from many of my Christian Brothers and Sisters in Yeshua Yahweh, of whom my comfort and soul surely rest, because of my most 'LITERAL' understanding of scripture. By no means am i attributing my ideologies upon them and should not be considered nor inferred. "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. We can also add Joshua 10:13 here also, and for that matter all other Biblical scriptures that read the Earth stays its ground, as far as i'm concerned. "The Biblical narrative STANDS its GROUND!"

Are you seriously proposing that sunrise and sunset are not the result of Earth rotating on its axis?

 

The last part of your comment makes it pretty clear your position is in line with that of the creation science proponents.... anything in conflict with your worldview is INVALID BY DEFINITION.

 

 

 All supposed and outdated Cosmology suggestions from the likes of Neil deGrass Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, etc are ALL unproved assumptions which is based in their own ideological and metaphysical worldview!

There goes another irony meter ! ! !    Killur is presenting the 4000+ year old cosmology of ancient Hebrews, refuted 500 years ago, to argue that modern cosmology is "outdated."  And the foundation of Killur's complaint?   You guessed it ..... His metaphysical worldview.

 

Forget Tyson, Krauss, Kaku, etc.  We can settle this with a bit of Newton.

 

Rotating objects (or systems) ALWAYS rotate about their center of mass.  The Sun is 330,000x the mass of the Earth. This means the center of mass of the Earth-Sun system will be 330,000x closer to the center of the Sun than to the center of the Earth.  The Earth-Sun distance is about 93 million miles.  This would place the Earth-Sun center of mass about 281 miles from the center of the Sun.   The Earth is not the center of the solar system.

 

In spiral galaxies, the vast majority of the stars are in the galactic bulge.  The Milky Way has hundreds of billions of stars with their mass concentrated in the bulge.  The Sun is well away from the bulge in one of the arms.  The billions of stars in the bulge will not orbit the Sun for the same reason the Sun does not orbit the Earth.  The solar system is not the center of the Milky Way.

 

This has nothing at all to do with "worldview."  It's based on Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitational attraction and has been used for decades to navigate space missions all over the solar system with very high precision, accuracy and efficiency.  In a geocentric solar system, the navigation calculations wouldn't work.

 

Earth is not the center of the solar system.  The solar system is not the center of the galaxy. It is not possible for Earth to be the center of the universe.

 

 

 This is why it is called 'Theoretical Physics'. Modern Cosmologist and Astrophysicist must make up new and ever more elaborate metaphysical sciences such as 'The No Boundary Proposal', and the 'Quantum Entanglement' etc. ideas as to somehow connect what we actually observe and what those whom continue to postulate eg. the Copernican worldview, 'MUST' adhere to.  The utter travesty of the never ending equations afforded to try and come up with an also never ending hypothetical means to discredit the Biblical narrative is expected. 

They call it "theoretical" physics because it's exactly that... theoretical.  In his time, Einstein was a theoretical physicist who used "never ending equations" to explain a number of things that have since been confirmed.

 

Whether or not the findings fit with the Biblical narrative is not a consideration.

 

 

By the way, all the 'New' Cosmology and Astrophysical presumptions typically violate the Einsteinian model. 

Einstein disproved Newton, but we still use Newton because for practical applications Newton works just fine.  Someone will disprove Einstein, but we'll still use Einstein for the same reason.

 

Cutting to the chase on most of the rest of Killur's post....

Yes, we can place the reference point of a coordinate system wherever we want.  We often select it simply to make the calculations easier.  I've done it myself when working some kind of calculation.  From that standpoint all coordinate positions are equal and all motion is relative to the reference point in use.

 

Einstein often comments on what an observer outside the system will observe.  That observer will observe the Copernican model at work, not the Sun orbiting the Earth.  The Voyager 1 spacecraft was sent on a trajectory above the solar system and was able to take this "portrait" 

400px-Family_portrait_%28Voyager_1%29.pn

 
The Family Portrait of the Solar System acquired by Voyager 1

 

 

Closing ....

 It is time to abandon the Big Bang and seek other explanations of the Hubble relationship.

OK .... but the evidence is still that the creative event took place billions of years ago, not thousands.



#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 11:55 AM

 

In my view God is fully capable of creating the entire universe and everything in it with no more effort than a single thought.

A quick question, considering you do prefer to back up statements with evidence, does a single thought by a presumed entity sit with you comfortably as an 'explanation' for the existence of our Universe ? We don't know how it began and adding an omnipotent God of your particular choosing seems to be adding an extra layer of complexity to explain, which in the end, doesn't actually explain anything.

A quick answer....

 

Far from adding an extra layer of complexity, I see an omnipotent God as a simpler answer to a number of philosophical issues that are much more suited to a TE discussion.

 

Science will never be able to answer the questions about the origin of either life or the universe because the evidence science needs has long since been destroyed. 

 

Besides that, religious beliefs are a matter of (personal) faith.  IMHO, science must reach a much higher standard of proof than faith.



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 12:20 PM

The first part of Killur's post #4 is a repost of his post #153 in the "Is Natural Selection a Mechanism of Evolution" discussion.   My response was in post #155 of that same discussion.  It is cross-posted below for the convenience of readers:

 

 

The evidence of astronomy without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc., is the the Earth is NOT the center of the universe.  The jobs of astronomers have nothing at all to do with evolution or anything "Darwinian."  The findings of astronomy and physics are totally independent of evolution.

 

The evidence is STILL the universe is billions of years old, not thousands ..... despite the constant efforts of YEC who "MUST constantly seek out new, fanciful fairytales to support their consistently and ever crumbling worldview."

 

My statement stands as a fact. You cleverly say 'without reference to COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.' I say why would any wish to discount this Data? Clearly for the reasons i have shown.

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact.

 

There was nothing "clever" about my discounting of COBE, Sloan, WMAP, Planck, etc.  The reason was explained in my preceding comment where I pointed out: 

"The Earth is clearly not the center of the solar system.  The solar system is not the center of the Milky Way.  The Milky Way is not the center of the local (Virgo) cluster of galaxies.   How can you possibly justify the Earth is the center of the universe?"

 

The simple fact is we don't need to go to the edges of the universe with multi-billion dollar space missions to show the Earth isn't the center of the universe.  It can be shown that the Earth is not the center of the universe without looking at anything beyond our local "neighborhood."

 

I ask again .... if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 

BTW, in terms of exactness, the precision of the measurements taken by those experiments (+/-1%) is greater than the size of the local group (about 10 million light years).  In other words, those instruments wouldn't be able to determine if the Earth is actually the center of the universe anyway.

 

 

As i have shown which all can go find is that even Einstein himself stated Albert Einstein Quote " The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'The sun is at rest and the earth moves.' or 'The sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."  

Yes, we can place the reference point of a coordinate system wherever we wish.  It makes no difference to the relevant calculations and conversion from one reference point to another is a simple matter.  That does not mean that we can simply place the earth at rest in our coordinate system, and therefore the sun (with more than 99.8% of the mass in the solar system) ACTUALLY moves around the Earth.

 

So, from that perspective, you can place the Earth at the center of your coordinate system if you so desire.  But whether we choose the views of Ptolemy or Copernicus is irrelevant to the results of the light-travel time problem.  Either way, it takes light a specific time to travel from point A to point B.

 

 

Along with all my other cited quotes. I have stated nothing myself more than most all current Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist have a based ideology that promotes the current worldview that the Earth is nothing special in our universe. 

OK.... I concur that all those experts will agree you can place your coordinate system wherever you wish.  I'm absolutely certain they will state with equal emphasis that regardless if you prefer Ptolemy or Copernicus it STILL takes light billions (not thousands) of years to reach us from the more distant objects.

 

 

As they are continually chasing equation after equation pursuing a basis by which they can literally dismiss and defraud the Biblical account for the Creation of everything by God Almighty's spoken 'Word'.

Do you really think the goal of these scientists is to "literally dismiss ... the Biblical account...?"  My wager is that they don't even consider the Bible (either way) in their work.  Frankly, I doubt they could care any less whether their findings confirm or refute Biblical claims.

 

 

 Irregardless of whatever increasingly sophisticated methodology of which they will chose to devise for a non Biblical worldview, the BIBLICAL narrative Shall Always Stand Correct!   As i have stated in previous posting here and subsequent 'Topics' We Biblical Christians have NEVER changed our stance in accordance from 'Biblical Scripture'. We have NEVER tried to subject or adjust the Biblical narrative for an interpretation which fits our worldview.

Right .... "The Bible says it, I believe it, end of discussion."  The Bible is not to be subjected to any kind of test.  It MUST be believed without question of any kind.   Got it.

 

 

 It is indeed rather the atheist and everybody else in the entire history of man that MUST and are indeed FORCED to adjust their world view to accommodate their ever changing assumptions and equations. This spans the ENTIRETY of the known sciences. 

Right .... those who work in the sciences are open to changing their position based on new evidence/data.    It is ONLY the YEC who claim to already possess absolute truth in all things.....

 

 

All those antiquated atheist whom have pasted have indeed pasted in utter ignorance, Distinctly opposite of all Christians that have relied upon the word of GOD for their worldview and salvation. Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not sure how you can justify those who change their position based on new information hold an "antiquated" position compared YEC who base their conclusions on writings that date back thousands of years.

 

 

Just think of it, piasan, absolutely NO Christian has had to adjust their basic Fundamental Foundation in the 'WORD' to accommodate any of mans sciences! Now Christians may 'Chose' to change their worldview but indeed it is NEVER REQUIRED!

I'm not so certain an absolute unquestioning refusal to "accommodate" that which we can know from experience and direct observation is a good thing.

 



#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 12:25 PM

Killur's post #5 is a repost of his post #156 in the "Is Natural Selection a Mechanism of Evolution" topic.  My response was in post #157 of that same discussion.  Again, it is reproduced below for the convenience of readers.

 

 

 

Your statement that we are at the center of the universe stands refuted.  As I pointed out, in an expanding universe, ALL points on which you stand will seem to be the center.  I again provide a link that demonstrates this fact

 

piasan,  OH on the contrary you have refuted absolutely NADA, nothing at all other than proving my exact point lol. 1st let us recall the Michelson Morley experiment that, ummm what do you KNOW that the Earth did NOT MOVE!! Many Well know Physicist at the time had this following reaction lol.“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Physicist, Arthur Eddington “The data [of Michelson‐Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.” Physicist, Bernard Jaffe  “Thus, failure [of Michelson‐Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space.....“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light.

It turns out that the reason Michelson-Morley's 1887 experiment failed to detect the motion of Earth thru the ether is that the ether doesn't exist.  The end result was that they did scrap the ether theory ... over a hundred years ago.

 

From the American Physical Society:

In the 19th century, physicists generally believed that just as water waves must have a medium to move across (water), and audible sound waves require a medium to move through (air), so also light waves require a medium, which was called the "luminiferous” (i.e. light-bearing) “ether”.

The Michelson-Morley experiment became what might be regarded as the most famous failed experiment to date and is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the existence of the luminiferous ether. ....

Other versions of the experiment were carried out with increasing sophistication, but the Michelson-Morley measurements were the first with sufficient accuracy to challenge the existence of the ether. The explanation of their null result awaited the insights provided by Einstein’s theory of special relativity in 1905

 

 

Oh but of course NOBODY would except that FACT so he wrote to some 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang'. Pop comes a new theory lol. 1st they said ummm OH I KNOW his apparatus shrunk by some unknown force of mystical thing a magigger, even with a supplied mathematical wizardry equation LOL!! This equation was called the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction Theory lol. Mind you this was indeed merely an ad-hoc theory

It was until Einstein's theory of Special Relativity.  I'm going to be lazy and cite Wikipedia on this one:

Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified,[3] including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity

 

 

 

But then ole Einstein came about and Einstein says "I have come to believe the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by ANY optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun." :gilligan:  :cry:  :kaffeetrinker: WHAT!!! LOL Here good ole Einstein flat says um........ well although we can devise NO plan to prove any observable method to tell the Earth moves we MUST at ALL COST BELIEVE!!! 

Well, it would be pretty hard to observe.  But it is a consequence of Newtonian mechanics.   It's really pretty simple.  Any system will rotate around it's center of balance.  There are gozillions of lab experiments demonstrating this.  The sun has about 99.8% of the mass in the solar system and most of the rest is Jupiter.  The center of mass of the solar system will be very near the sun.... not the Earth.

 

 

Do you even recall why Hubble was so shocked at what he found?? Well let me tell everyone for us both. Hubble found that indeed all the red shifts of far space if taken backwards, pointed directly to EARTH!! LOL And of course ole Hubble could NOT accept that finding because indeed if the earth was in a perfectly preferred place then we all know what that meant lol, so he wrote to 'Friends' and 'Shazaam Wamboozal Bang! Pop comes a new theory lol. 

Did you even look at that link showing how every point in an expanding universe will see itself as the center?

 

 

 

I ask again .... if the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?

 

 You are doing Nada Piasan

 

I'm tired lol but will follow up on this nonsense from you.

Well, you tried an idea that was discarded a century ago partly because of the experiment you used as an example. 

 

What's next? 

 

Phlogiston?

 

Once again.... If the Earth isn't the center of the solar system; the solar system isn't the center of the galaxy; and the galaxy is not the center of the cluster, how can you possibly justify that the Earth is at the center of the universe?



#17 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 01:38 PM

Planck Satellite Confirms WMAP Findings: Universe is not Copernican The Modern World is Faced with the Breach of a Far Reaching Paradigm

Most cosmologists will not admit it publicly, but perhaps over a beer they would tell you what is happening. Observations over the last 50 years, culminating with the Planck satellite results (March 2013) set modern science on a counter revolution leading closer to ideas formed 500 years ago. Today’s cosmology is based on two broad principles: The Copernican Principle (we are not in a special place in the universe) and the Cosmological Principle (The Copernican Principle, plus isotropy- the view from anywhere in the universe looks about the same). Starting with early studies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), and in recent years culminating with results from the COBE then the WMAP satellites, scientists were faced with a signal at the largest scales of the universe- a signal that pointed right back at us, indicating that we are in a special place in the universe.

Without getting overly technical, the Copernican and cosmological principles require that any variation in the radiation from the CMB be more or less randomly distributed throughout the universe, especially on large scales. Results from the WMAP satellite (early 2000s) indicated that when looking at large scales of the universe, the noise could be partitioned into “hot” and “cold” sections, and this partitioning is aligned with our ecliptic plane and equinoxes. This partitioning and alignment resulted in an axis through the universe, which scientists dubbed “the axis of evil”, because of the damage it does to their theories. This axis is aligned to us. Lawrence 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.

Most scientists brushed the observation off as a fluke of some type, and many theories were created to explain it away. Many awaited the Planck mission. The Planck satellite was looked upon as a referee for these unexpected (and unwelcome) results. The Planck satellite used different sensor technology, and an improved scanning pattern to map the CMB. In March 2013, Planck reported back, and in fact verified the presence of the signal in even higher definition than before!

There are cosmologists and scientists who recognize the signal for what it is, and recent articles have started talking about the need for some “new physics” to explain the results. Even on the Planck mission website Professor Efstathiou states:

“Our ultimate goal would be to construct a new model that predicts the anomalies and links them together. But these are early days; so far, we don’t know whether this is possible and what type of new physics might be needed. And that’s exciting”

Other observations have independently validated the “axis of evil” in recent years, and this adds credibility to the CMB observations. These observations include galaxy rotation alignments to our tiny part of the universe . Very recent reports include observations of alignment between “sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies” and “a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP)”. Also anisotropy of cosmic acceleration in Union2 Type Ia supernovaappear to be aligning with the CMB features. All this supports the contention that the Copernican Principle (and cosmological) have effectively been invalidated without even discussing the quantization of various astronomical features about us, which further support the contention.

The question is ‘what will modern science do now’? Will they invent additional parameters to keep the current theories alive (in addition to those already added: dark matter, dark energy, redshift as expansion, big bang inflation, etc.) or will they consider the possibility that we are in a special place as observations clearly indicate?

 
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?


#18 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 08 April 2018 - 01:49 PM

The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth is revolving around the Sun,” is that they insist on using a moving Earth (which they claim to “know intuitively”)

No, we know it based on Newtonian mechanics as has been explained numerous times.

 

 

....as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment. Consequently, if one firmly believes the Earth is moving, but the experiments show it is not moving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way to make it appear as if the Earth is moving.

Michaelson's 1887 experiment has already been addressed (in post #16).   It was conducted because physicists of the time thought light needs a medium to transmit its energy, just as sound does.  The purpose of the experiment was to detect the "ether" thru which light travels.  It failed to detect motion because the "ether" doesn't exist.  We now know that electromagnetic energy does not need a medium and is fully capable of crossing the vacuum of space.

 

Any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be math‐magically transformed into a moving Earth by the “transform” equation. The “transform” equation is like a magician waving his wand over the experiments so that the system one does not prefer is transformed into system one does prefer. Modern man does not prefer a fixed Earth. He is little more than a magician who has been feeding the world a steady diet of illusions. As can be shown in Einsteins preference as he magically blinds the world with the “transform” equation, which appears on page 7 of his 1905 paper as follows: β = 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2 This is the precise equation used by Lorentz to claim that the arm of Michelson’s apparatus had shrunk by 1 ൈ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2, with Einstein also adding time dilation by 1 ÷ (1 ̶ v 2 /c 2 ) -1/2!! As can be seen in Ensteins § 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co‐ordinates and Times from a Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to the Former. So we don’t need to go looking for it. Einstein tells us candidly what he is doing. He is “transforming” space and time from a “Stationary System” (e.g., a fixed Earth) to “another System,” one of “Relativity.”

Yes, Einstein does tell us candidly what he is doing.  He also frequently "transforms" things from one coordinate system to another.  There is nothing "mathemagical" about it.  It's all straightforward and he spelled it out in detail more than 100 years ago.  But your (or my) inability to understand the mathematics doesn't mean there is anything "magical" about them.  Transform simply means we are changing coordinate systems.  Something university physics students do with some regularity.

 

 

In fact, the word “transformation” appears twenty‐ four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space, motion, electricity, magnetism, the Doppler effect, stellar aberration, energy of light waves, electron acceleration, to mass increase. It became the quintessential means to “relativize” the whole universe and forever banish the thought of a motionless Earth!! As we  see, it is all done by mathematics. There is not one iota of physical, empirical proof to the theory.   In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove their findings or to justify using the “transform.” Since everyone “knows” the Earth is moving around the sun, then everything is moving and there is no object at rest and thus the whole universe is “relative.” In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, the Relativist can wave his magic wand and change it into a relative result. This is the essence of the Special Relativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905.

Seriously?

 

Prediction of relativity .... gravity will bend light and by how much.  Direct observation of the 1919 solar eclipse confirmed Einstein's calculations.

Prediction of relativity .... time will be dilated by velocity.  Numerous experiments have confirmed this.  The GPS system requires time synchronization within billionths of a second between transmitter and receiver.  Clocks on GPS satellites are modified to account for this factor.

Prediction of relativity .... time will be dilated by gravity.   Same as above.

 

And let's not forget the biggie ..... e = mc2.   If you don't think there is "physical, empirical proof" of that one, I suggest you ask the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki about confirmation.

 

Each and every one of these was mathematical theoretical physics when Einstein proposed them.

 

Geocenterism can't even explain the phases of Venus and Mercury or the retrograde motion of the outer planets.... 

 

If I were you, I wouldn't even begin to compare them in terms of "physical empirical proof."



#19 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 01:49 PM

Cosmologists can’t pack up and go home just yet though, as Planck’s map has also confirmed the presence of a mysterious alignment of the universe. The “axis of evil” was identified by Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).

The pattern of hot and cold variations in the CMB should be randomly distributed – and they are when comparing small patches of the universe. At larger scales, however, Planck reveals that one half of the universe has bigger variations than the other. Planck’s detectors are over 10 times more sensitive and have about 2.5 times the angular resolution of WMAP’s, giving cosmologists a much better look at this alignment. “We can be extremely confident that these anomalies are not caused by galactic emissions and not caused by instrumental effects, because our two instruments see very similar features,” said Efstathiou. One observation that will leave many particle physicists disappointed is the lack of any evidence for a fourth variety of neutrino. We know there are three kinds of these ghostly particles, which barely interact with ordinary matter – the electron, muon and tau neutrinos. Measurements from WMAP allowed for the existence of either three or four types of neutrinos, but Planck’s more detailed data places the number firmly in the three camp.

The spacecraft’s revelations aren’t over yet though. Today’s results are based on the first 15½ months of Planck’s scans, and there is a similar amount of data to follow in the future. ESA has also yet to release information about the polarisation of the CMB, which will provide an additional view of the cosmic pattern. “To paraphrase Arnold Schwarzanegger, we’ll be back,” said Efstathiou.

Finally, in case you were wondering: After the WMAP team pointed out that Stephen Hawking’s initials were visible in their map – we took a look at the new Planck map, and can reveal that the distinctive “SH” is still therePlanck has also confirmed WMAP’s detection of a large unexplained cold spot in the CMB, which some cosmologists took as a sign that there are universes beyond our own. One model of inflation, called eternal inflation, suggests that new universes are continually popping into existence and expanding. This expansion could cause another universe to collide with ours, creating a “bruise” that would show up as a cold spot in the sky.

These anomalies are sure to be debated for many years to come now that cosmologists have a new source of data. Planck scientists have already used their measurements to refine the speed at which the universe is expanding, described by a parameter called the Hubble constant. The new value means that a galaxy roughly 1 million light years away is moving away from us at 20.59 kilometres per second – less than the current value. The result in turn puts the age of the universe at around 13.82 billion years, roughly 80 million years older than previously thought.dn23301-1_800.jpg



#20 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 08 April 2018 - 02:11 PM

Charles Lawrence, the U.S. project scientist for Planck at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "The Planck map reveals not only the very young universe, but also matter, including dark matter, everywhere in the universe." The age, contents and other fundamental traits of our universe are described in a simple model developed by scientists, called the standard model of cosmology. These new data have allowed scientists to test and improve the accuracy of this model with the greatest precision yet. At the same time, some curious features are observed that don't quite fit with the simple picture. For example, the model assumes the sky is the same everywhere, but the light patterns are asymmetrical on two halves of the sky, and there is a spot extending over a patch of sky that is larger than expected."On one hand, we have a simple model that fits our observations extremely well, but on the other hand, we see some strange features which force us to rethink some of our basic assumptions," said Jan Tauber, the European Space Agency's Planck project scientist based in the Netherlands. "This is the beginning of a new journey, and we expect our continued analysis of Planck data will help shed light on this conundrum. The data from the Planck probe's observations are in, and according to the European Space Agency they show a "hemispheric asymmetry in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)". Quote:

an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the sky [...] with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look.

How unexpected is this variance from the Standard Model and can it be quantified?

How certain is it that the data are accurate? For the recent discovery of the Higgs boson at the LHC, a five sigma result was considered sufficient to make the announcement. What is the sigma for the reported hemispherical asymmetry?

Yet the report of faster-than-light neutrinos, subsequently withdrawn due to equipment failures, was based on six sigma evidence. And in one of the backwaters of Wikipedia, we learn that:

Some anomalies in the background radiation have been reported which are aligned with the plane of the solar system, which contradicts the Copernican principle by suggesting that the solar system's alignment is special.[10] Land and Magueijo dubbed this alignment the "axis of evil" owing to the implications for current models of the cosmos,[11] although several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of that data and the way it is processed.[12][13][14] Various studies of the CMB anisotropy data either confirm the Copernican principle,[15] model the alignments in a non-homogeneous universe still consistent with the principle,[16] or attempt to explain them as local phenomena.[17] Some of these alternate explanations were discussed by Copi, et. al., who looked at data from the Planck satellite to resolve whether the preferred direction and alignments were spurious.[18][19]

(Wikipedia's main Planck probe article makes no mention of the hemispherical asymmetry.)

When can we expect this controversy to be resolved, and are more outcomes possible than (1) the Planck probe data are found to be in error or (2) the Standard Model must undergo major revision? What are we now to make of this??? That the Copernican Worldview along with Carl Sagans is indeed crashing into the annals of yet another man madeup Delusion!! 






2 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Blitzking