R
ribozyme
Guest
Aether? Oh no, not another incarnation of the luminferous aether.
- Status
Z
zian
Guest
Looks like Neville has a presence on this web site.
N
noma
Guest
Appearantly.
Though certainly none of the papers on this site are peer-reviewed. And so there is no way to know whether this person can do legitimate science in the first place.
Furthermore, his writing on gravitation as exponential decay would violate Gauss’s Law for gravitation, which would mean that galaxies would not cluster as observed.
The mapped evolution of galaxies establishes a square-law force, and Stanford’s micrometer experiments of gravitation have established that the square law is valid to about 12 micrometers, which would require an exponential coefficient far smaller than the value suggested here.
H
hecd2
Guest
Sorry - no disrespect intended.
Yes, but that’s not the point. No-one disagrees with the proposition that one can, in principle, carry out co-ordinate transformations between any pair of arbitrary reference frames, even in Riemannian space using the general co-ordinate transformations of GR.
However, this does not correspond to any particular dynamic reality. Sungenis, and his acolyte, Mark, insist that the earth is actually the unmoving centre of the entire universe now and forever, and that this is far more meaningful than simply choosing an arbitrary reference frame in which to do our physics. But if one allows, for the sake of argument, that a single point on or in the earth, let us say its centre of mass, is, for a moment, the unmoving centre of the universe, whatever that means, then no point on the earth’s surface can, at that moment, be unmoving with respect to the universe (owing to elastic distortions in the earth itself and the action of tidal forces of the moon and sun), and the centre of mass itself cannot be unmoving indefinitely as the earth accretes mass from meteorites and meteors and is subject to tidal forces from the gravitational attraction of nearby stellar bodies. The point is that different points on the earth are moving with respect to one another, and over time, different points experience correlated accelerations as the earth as a whole is accelerated due to accretion and gravitational forces.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
There is no global inertial frame in GR, and there is no local inertial frame in which any point on the earth’s surface is at rest. No point on the earth’s surface satisfies the conditions for being at rest in a local inertial frame. If you ignore the earth’s rotation with respect to the stars and pretend the earth is very small, your statement is true, otherwise it is not.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Sungenis is caught in a logical cat’s cradle. He denies GR, but he absolutely relies on GR to attempt to explain coriolis and centripetal forces at the earth’s surface as a consequence of the Lense-Thirring effect (very unconvincingly, I should add).
Oh yes? Here’s a quote from Mr Sungenis: " In the end, Relativity and its cousins (Minkowski space, Friedmann-metric, Killing vectors) is [sic] just a desperate attempt to find an absolute when there is none available." If that is not an ignorant statement seeking to ridicule the underpinnings of GR, I don’t know what is.
I see - so Einstein developed special and general relativity because he thought the evidence was pointing to an absolute space with the earth at its centre? That is simply daft - pull the other one.
Look it up - a gyroscope consists of a single solid rotor not a collection of independently rotating bodies.
They absolutely rely on GR to explain the coriolis and centripetal forces at the earth’s surface.
If you comment on scientific matters it behoves you to get it right. Do you actually know what the CMB multipoles are? In fact, do you know anything about any subject that you are talking about? The dipole and quadrupole of the CMB anisotropy seem to have some alignment with one another and with the ecliptic plane (*not *the equatorial plane) but that has been explained as arising from imperfect cleaning of the foreground.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Mark, even though Catholic.com lost in a crash the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll, I not only REMEMBER it but saved the correspondence we had Mark on the Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll p. 2 from June 26, 2006 thu July 2006. I think it was Jimmy Atkins that said we could repost messages that were lost. Sounds like a good idea to me.
**Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll, June 28, 2006 06:48 PM by trth_skr:
***Robert is using General Relativity (GR) to explain that the stars can move >> c. Special Relativity does not apply here (not to an entire rotating universe).
In GR there is no problem with a relative motion >> c under certain circumstances. I explain this in my blog (and Robert expalins in more detail in his book) in Part III (you may want to read Part I first).
Also, the main reason for showing that GR allows it is to point out that modern cosmology depends on GR (expecially the big bang theory), and GR allows geocentrism as a possibility. He explains that SR and GR were part of a development to reconcile observations and experiments indicating that earth was at the center and not moving with presumptions opposite this (i.e., the presumption is that the earth moves and is not at the center). Science has consistently disregarded the simplest explanation for these observations and experiments (i.e., earth at center and not moving), and rather made its own theories more complex to explain them (the observations/experiments) away.
Robert shows a direct relation between the observations and experiments indicating earth at center and not moving, and the development and increased, unneeded complexity (and counter intuitivity) of science (i.e., matter shrinking in the direction of motion, complex 4-D hypercube space, etc.) as it developed since Copernicus.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
www.geocentrism.com*
Part I : Isn’t showing up on his blog any longer.
but I do have the link if anyone is interested.Part III :veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html
W
wildleafblower
Guest
wildleafblower, June 30, 2006 07:30 PM, Re: Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll
Quote:Originally Posted by buffalo
One always has to remember that science by its own definition has a limited say as to what it says about the universe. We are limited by our own five senses. Our observations are only one piece of the puzzle and not absolute.
*My [Wildleafblower] message #112 and 114 seem to support the Vatican Observatory’s pursuit in scientific discovery as they explore the universe (1) while the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee pursue scientific research into evolutionary biology. "The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.” (2)
“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)*
Quote:Originally Posted by wildleafblower
…“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)
*Yes, except even with observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicating the earth is at center and not moving, scientists fail to apply Occam’s razor and consider that maybe the earth is at center and not moving. This is because their philosophy comes first.
As Edwin Hubble said (of Hubble constant fame) when he discovered the earth appeared to be in the center:
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.
Thus general relativity became the accepted standard (special relativity was accepted to avoid the conclusion that the earth stood still). Science gets more and more complicated the more scientists ignore the evidence that their presuppositions are wrong.
Galileo Was Wrong goes through many many such “observations” and the conclusions drawn by the scientists. Not once do they consider the simplest possible interpertation- the earth stands still in the center of the universe. No, this would lead to the conclusion that
THERE ACTUALLY IS A GOD.
Not acceptable.
Mark Wyatt*
There’s more but my time is short today. I want to thank and give Jimmy Atkins a big hug. luv ya oodles!
Quote:Originally Posted by buffalo
One always has to remember that science by its own definition has a limited say as to what it says about the universe. We are limited by our own five senses. Our observations are only one piece of the puzzle and not absolute.
*My [Wildleafblower] message #112 and 114 seem to support the Vatican Observatory’s pursuit in scientific discovery as they explore the universe (1) while the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee pursue scientific research into evolutionary biology. "The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.” (2)
“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)*
- acfnewsource.org/science…an_science.html
- msnbc.msn.com/id/10932031
- batesville.k12.in.us/phy…bservation.html
Quote:Originally Posted by wildleafblower
…“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)
*Yes, except even with observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicating the earth is at center and not moving, scientists fail to apply Occam’s razor and consider that maybe the earth is at center and not moving. This is because their philosophy comes first.
As Edwin Hubble said (of Hubble constant fame) when he discovered the earth appeared to be in the center:
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.
Thus general relativity became the accepted standard (special relativity was accepted to avoid the conclusion that the earth stood still). Science gets more and more complicated the more scientists ignore the evidence that their presuppositions are wrong.
Galileo Was Wrong goes through many many such “observations” and the conclusions drawn by the scientists. Not once do they consider the simplest possible interpertation- the earth stands still in the center of the universe. No, this would lead to the conclusion that
THERE ACTUALLY IS A GOD.
Not acceptable.
Mark Wyatt*
There’s more but my time is short today. I want to thank and give Jimmy Atkins a big hug. luv ya oodles!
W
wildleafblower
Guest
It appears that two of “my” links aren’t working correctly. Let me fix them.wildleafblower, June 30, 2006 07:30 PM, Re: Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll
Quote:Originally Posted by buffalo
One always has to remember that science by its own definition has a limited say as to what it says about the universe. We are limited by our own five senses. Our observations are only one piece of the puzzle and not absolute.
*My [Wildleafblower] message #112 and 114 seem to support the Vatican Observatory’s pursuit in scientific discovery as they explore the universe (1) while the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee pursue scientific research into evolutionary biology. "The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution “represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth.” (2)
“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)*
trth_skr , June 30, 2006 08:55 PM, Re: Geocentric vs. Heliocentric Poll
- acfnewsource.org/science…an_science.html
- msnbc.msn.com/id/10932031
- batesville.k12.in.us/phy…bservation.html
Quote:Originally Posted by wildleafblower
…“The importance of observation (experiment) in science would be difficult to exaggerate. Every statement or idea in science must be checked and rechecked by observations of nature, and if the idea conflicts with the observation, the idea must yield and be modified or cast aside. No appeal to “common sense”, authority, or anything else can save an idea that conflicts with observation.”(3)
*Yes, except even with observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicating the earth is at center and not moving, scientists fail to apply Occam’s razor and consider that maybe the earth is at center and not moving. This is because their philosophy comes first.
As Edwin Hubble said (of Hubble constant fame) when he discovered the earth appeared to be in the center:
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.
Thus general relativity became the accepted standard (special relativity was accepted to avoid the conclusion that the earth stood still). Science gets more and more complicated the more scientists ignore the evidence that their presuppositions are wrong.
Galileo Was Wrong goes through many many such “observations” and the conclusions drawn by the scientists. Not once do they consider the simplest possible interpertation- the earth stands still in the center of the universe. No, this would lead to the conclusion that
THERE ACTUALLY IS A GOD.
Not acceptable.
Mark Wyatt*
T
trth_skr
Guest
It is still on my blog. Here’s the link:…Part I : Isn’t showing up on his blog any longer.
…
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
No he does not. Read the book. Sure, he points to where GR supports geocentrism, but in end he takes a different tack. In fact in terms of relativity it spends a lot of time explaining the relationship (both scientifically and historically) between the failed attempts to establish the movement of the earth and the development of relativity. I.e., in the early 19th century, Fitzgerald, still scratching his head from the failure of Michelson-Morley, developed his Fitzgerald contraction. In some nice quotes from letters between Fitzgerald and Lorentz, Lorentz refers to this contraction as a solution to the delimna. Of course we all know that Einstein picked up the Lorentz (read Fitzgerald-Lorentz) contraction, and applied it to his new theory- Special Relativity: the first Einsteinian attempt to explain the failure of Michelson-Morley (and other experiments).
Galileo Was Wrong is a very unique book in this regards. You will find many books and articles which dispute Einstein, but then fall back to Lorentz (i.e., Lorentzian relativity), and thusly are able to keep their earth moving around the sun; though still accepting the tautological proposition that rulers shrink in the direction of motion, etc. Once the Lorentz contraction hypothesis is dropped [having also dropped GR, but wanting to keeprelativity], then we are back to a motionless earth.
I do not find this in Galileo Was Wrong. Page please.
There is a clear history starting before Einstein.
Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler talk about a gyroscopic analogy, and use it to model the solar system. Is the solar system a solid body or a collection of objects?
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
Not explained, Alec, just brushed off.
The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave
background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies
compared to the standard inflationary cosmology….the
quadrupole-octopole correlation is excluded from being a
chance occurrence in a gaussian random statistically isotropic
sky at >99.87%….The correlation of the normals with the
ecliptic poles suggest an unknown source or sink of CMB
radiation or an unrecognized systematic. If it is a physical
sources or sink in the inner solar system it would cause an
annual modulation in the time-ordered data….Physical
correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to
imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the
inclination of the Earth’s spin axis.
Dominik J. Schwarz, Glenn D. Starkman, Dragan Huterer and Craig J. Copi, “Is the Low-
l Microwave Background Cosmic?” Physical Review Letters, November 26, 2004,
pp. 221301-1 to 4.
What they found contradicted the
standard inflationary cosmology – the
hemispheres often had very different
amounts of power. But what was most
surprising was that the pair of
hemispheres that were the most
different were the ones lying above
and below the ecliptic, the plane of
the earth’s orbit around the sun. This
result was the first sign that the CMB
fluctuations, which were supposed to
be cosmological in origin…have a
solar system signal in them – that is, a
type of observational artifact.
CONTINUED
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
CONTINUED
Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe
Out of Tune,”
Scientific American, August 2005, p. 52
Yet the WMAP team has been
exceedingly careful and has done
numerous cross-checks of its
instruments and its analysis
procedure. It is difficult to see how
spurious correlations could
accidentally be introduced. Moreover,
we have found similar correlations in
the map produced by the COBE
satellite….The results could send us
back to the drawing board about the
early universe.
Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe
Out of Tune,”
Scientific American, August 2005, p. 55.
*So upsetting is this evidence to the scientific status quo that another magazine, New Scientist, labeled the same universal orientation around Earth’s equatorial plane as, “THE AXIS OF EVIL,” since this geocentric picture virtually destroys its cherished Copernican **principle. *
Marcus Chown, “Axis of Evil Warps Cosmic
Background,”
New Scientist, October 22, 2005, p. 19ff.
(as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong)
The precise directional coincidences with solar system alignments are certainly thought-provoking. It may look like a smoking gun…but I’m going with the fluke hypothesis for now.
Dan Falk quoting Craig Hogan of the University of
Washington in Seattle,
Astronomy Magazine, December 8,
2004, p. 1-2.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe
Out of Tune,”
Scientific American, August 2005, p. 52
Yet the WMAP team has been
exceedingly careful and has done
numerous cross-checks of its
instruments and its analysis
procedure. It is difficult to see how
spurious correlations could
accidentally be introduced. Moreover,
we have found similar correlations in
the map produced by the COBE
satellite….The results could send us
back to the drawing board about the
early universe.
Glenn Starkman and Dominik Schwarz, “Is the Universe
Out of Tune,”
Scientific American, August 2005, p. 55.
*So upsetting is this evidence to the scientific status quo that another magazine, New Scientist, labeled the same universal orientation around Earth’s equatorial plane as, “THE AXIS OF EVIL,” since this geocentric picture virtually destroys its cherished Copernican **principle. *
Marcus Chown, “Axis of Evil Warps Cosmic
Background,”
New Scientist, October 22, 2005, p. 19ff.
(as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong)
The precise directional coincidences with solar system alignments are certainly thought-provoking. It may look like a smoking gun…but I’m going with the fluke hypothesis for now.
Dan Falk quoting Craig Hogan of the University of
Washington in Seattle,
Astronomy Magazine, December 8,
2004, p. 1-2.
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
H
hecd2
Guest
OK - let me take you at your word. You say that Sungenis does NOT use GR to explain the centrifugal and centripetal forces at the earth’s surface. You say he takes a different tack. What is it?
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
(This is with regard to the quadrupole (l=2) - octopole (l=3) alignment and alignment to the ecliptic. I am sure you are dying to explain why this alignment supports geocentrism. Tell us.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
Liberian
Guest
OK, thank you.
You may want to avoid dissing Mark, too. It looks bad and may be against forum rules, and speaking ill of people is just plain bad for the soul. Certainly you disagree with him–so do I–and you probably know more physics than he does, but one can disagree without calling names.
Actually, I went over this in some detail with Mark a while ago. What he insists on–or insisted on at the time–is that the center of mass of the Earth is in a stable equilibrium about a fixed point at the center of the universe. When something happens, like a meteorite impact, that moves the center of the earth away from this fixed point, the effects of the rest of the mass in the universe tend to push it back towards that point. He didn’t give any dynamical equations to show how this would happen, and I didn’t press the matter, figuring that it was not worth an argument. (I am far more interested in people getting to Heaven than I am about a proper description of the dynamics of the universe.) I don’t think he’s right, but the “stable equilibrium” is a lot more respectable of an idea than the “absolutely stationary center of mass.” It takes minutes or hours to shoot down rather than merely seconds.
- Liberian
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Alec (hecd2) msg. 24, “Sungenis, and his acolyte, Mark, insist that the earth is actually the unmoving centre of the entire universe now and forever, and that this is far more meaningful than simply choosing an arbitrary reference frame in which to do our physics.”
Liberian msg. 36, “You [Alec] may want to avoid dissing Mark, too. It looks bad and may be against forum rules, and speaking ill of people is just plain bad for the soul. Certainly you disagree with him–so do I–and you probably know more physics than he does, but one can disagree without calling names.”
Hi Liberian, I’m sure Alec was using definition #2 for the word “acolyte”
.
acolyte
One entry found for acolyte.
Main Entry: ac•o•lyte
Pronunciation: 'a-k&-"lIt, -kO-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, acolit, from Medieval Latin acoluthus, from Middle Greek akolouthos, from Greek, adjective, following, from a-, ha- together (akin to Greek homos same) + keleuthos path
1 : one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties
**2 : one who attends or assists : FOLLOWER **
m-w.com/dictionary/acolyte.
Liberian msg. 36, “You [Alec] may want to avoid dissing Mark, too. It looks bad and may be against forum rules, and speaking ill of people is just plain bad for the soul. Certainly you disagree with him–so do I–and you probably know more physics than he does, but one can disagree without calling names.”
Hi Liberian, I’m sure Alec was using definition #2 for the word “acolyte”
.acolyte
One entry found for acolyte.
Main Entry: ac•o•lyte
Pronunciation: 'a-k&-"lIt, -kO-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French, acolit, from Medieval Latin acoluthus, from Middle Greek akolouthos, from Greek, adjective, following, from a-, ha- together (akin to Greek homos same) + keleuthos path
1 : one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties
**2 : one who attends or assists : FOLLOWER **
m-w.com/dictionary/acolyte.
T
trth_skr
Guest
An explanation from Chapter 12 (by Dr. Bennett), after a few pages of scientific explanation of the dipole/multipoles and their [26] discrepancies with the standard [read inflationary big bang] model:
The cosmological principle assumes that the
universe is the same in all places and directions;
otherwise, it would be impossible to solve Einstein’s
equations. If this assumption is wrong, the standard
Big Bang model of cosmology would be unusable.
The Cosmic Microwave Background octupole
and quadrupole components were expected to form no
pattern at all, but the results were anything but
random. If the multipole vectors of the quadrupole and
the octopole are correlated with the ecliptic poles, the
axis at 90° to the solar system plane and with the
dipole direction, then this suggests that the large
wavelengths/low frequencies are missing because we
are seeing the influence of the solar system
environment, not the global properties of space. And
we see these missing features because of our
privileged position in the center of space. As might be
expected from past history, despite these totally
unpredicted and unexplained anomalies, the Cosmic
Microwave Background data is regarded as a dramatic
confirmation of standard inflationary cosmology! In
fact, the axial correlation between multipole
harmonics has been dubbed the “Axis of Evil.” The
combination of a complete lack of any known
systematic error, and long odds against random
alignment that has earned the low-alignment anomaly
this nickname. Why is the axis called “evil”? Because
it represents a return to the forbidden days of five
centuries ago, when all science was
geocentric/geostatic. It is the plain indication of an
inherently inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe.
If its causes are of both deep space and local
origin, the explanation might be found in an
interaction of local structures with the deep space
source(s) of the ether. Conventional physicists assume
the dipole comes from the solar system motion
through the Cosmic Microwave Background rest
frame. Not being of cosmic origin, they subtract the
Cosmic Microwave Background dipole moment from
computations of all other multipoles. This throws the
baby out with the bathwater. The dipole is 1000 times
stronger than any other pole; it points to the source of
the Cosmic Microwave Background energy.
The largest signal in the Cosmic Microwave
Background anisotropy is the dipole, 3.346 mK in the
direction (l = 264, b = 48) in galactic coordinates. This
is attributed to the motion of the sun at 370 km/s with
respect to the rest frame defined by the Cosmic
Microwave Background. The solar motion implies the
presence of a kinematically induced Doppler
quadrupole. This is an artifact of the antigeocentric
premise: if the multipole hot spots indicate the ether
source(s) in the cosmos then the multipoles have
nothing to do with the kinematics of matter. Doesn’t
anyone realize that the universal Cosmic Microwave
Background has local axial and planar symmetries
only when viewed from Earth? Doesn’t any scientist
on this planet realize that it isn’t a planet? When will
our stiff-necked scientists bow their heads and
acknowledge the elephant in the living room, the
emperor with no clothes?
The tiny and tall,
The big and the small,
The Lord God Almighty
(Dr. Robert Bennett)
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blgspot.com
H
hecd2
Guest
I am afraid this quote doesn’t explain why either the multipole alignment, or the unexpected lack of power on large scales should support the geocentric idea. That was what I asked you to explain and this doesn’t begin to explain it.
First – what are the facts? I volunteered the apparent lack of power in l=2 according to the lambda CDM model in an earlier post and have done so prominently on my website since the publication of the first year results, and it certainly is a puzzle, although there are some reasonable hypotheses to explain it, for example as proposed by Luminet or Baumann or Niarchou, associated either with closed universe, the influence of the late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, or models other than lambda CDM. It also seems improbable that the alignment in the quadrupole and the octopole to the ecliptic can be explained by chance. The sky maps do depend very heavily on the foreground cleaning and the dipole removal (see for example the difference between the cleaned maps published first by the WMAP team and subsequently by Tegmark), and these harmonics have extremely low power; so many astrophysicists put it down to these considerations, but, conceivably, the alignment could presage some new physics and Planck will be very informative in this respect. There are already some suggested explanations such as weak lensing of the dipole by local large scale structures causing dipole leakage into other modes (Vale at astro-ph/0509039)
Having said all that, Bennett’s argument is a logically muddled non sequitur that might impress laymen but won’t impress physicists. In order to make sense to physicists Bennett would have to a) put forward new physics to explain the CMB, b) show how that his physics explains the details in the temperature and polarisation power spectra of the CMB at least as well as the mainstream explanation and c) show how the anomalies that he is discussing are explained in his physics by a geocentric cosmology. He doesn’t begin to do any of this. In order to be taken seriously, it’s no good just pointing to unexplained phenomena (of which, thankfully there are many in science, how else would we get our fun?) and then leaping to the unwarranted conclusion that these support his argument – but this is precisely what he does.
Let’s look in more detail at what he says – he claims that the dipole is not a consequence of peculiar motion between the CMB and the solar system and puts it down to some grotesque notion that it points at the source of the CMB energy (and that CMB hotspots indicate ‘sources’ of aether) – this is pure hooey that he seems to have invented out of whole cloth without empirical or theoretical support. He fails to acknowledge that the dipole is aligned with the observed motion of the solar system with respect to the star field, which explains it perfectly – why reject that in favour of some bizarre notion? His suggestion that a geocentric model explains the unexpectedly low power in l=2 makes no sense at all – why should geocentrism explain lack of power in the quadrupole, since only l=1 is affected by peculiar motion? The alignment of the l=2 and l=3 multipoles to the ecliptic is no better an argument – if the universe is rotating about a fixed earth, on an axis running through the terrestrial poles, as he claims, why in heaven’s name should we expect the large scale multipoles to be aligned to the ecliptic? Furthermore, Bennett’s model doesn’t attempt to explain the bulk of the CMB power spectrum from l=4 up to l=800 which is exquisitely predicted by the consensus physics of the early universe. How for example, does he explain the first peak at l=220, a feature that the concordance physics explains perfectly as the scale of the fundamental acoustic mode at decoupling? Finally, his statement that *The solar motion implies the presence of a kinematically induced Doppler **quadrupole *makes no sense and is, perhaps, an error of understanding on his part. The fact is that Bennett is engaging in pseudoscience in support of his theology and you, knowing no better, are being being dragged along in his wake.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
T
trth_skr
Guest
A few blips from Galileo Was Wrong:
Max Tegmark of the University of Pennsylvania, processed a computer image of his findings. Tegmark, even though he is an avowed Big Bang cosmologist, said something that probably even he didn’t realize at the time. In remarking on the giant sphere the probe produced, he noted, “Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center.” Added to this was the interpretation of his wife, Angélica de Oliveira-Costa, who stated that the cosmic quadrupole and octopole are both very planar and aligned, which according to the CERN correspondent reporting the interview means that the points “happen to fall on a great circle on the sky,” and we are in the center of that great circle. In their original paper, Tegmark and Oliveira-Costa noted that “the quadrupole…and the octopole have almost all their power perpendicular to a common axis in space, as if some process has suppressed large scale power in the direction of the axis.”358 From a geocentric perspective, this evidence would naturally be understood as defining the axis upon which the universe rotates.
Tegmark, et al., allow such an interpretation, since they add: How significant is this quadrupoleoctopole alignment?
As a simple definition of preferred axis [it]
denotes the spherical harmonic
coefficients of the map in a rotated
coordinate system….if the CMB is an
isotropic Gaussian random field, then
a chance alignment this good requires
a 1-in-62 fluke.
Perhaps just as important is the following remark by the Tegmark team:
What does this all mean?…it is
difficult not to be intrigued by the
similarities [of our findings] with
what is expected in some nonstandard
- models,
for instance, ones involving a flat
“small Universe” with a compact
topology and one of the three
dimensions being relatively small.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
**“Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center.” **
CONTINUED
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
- Status