Endorsements for Galileo Was Wrong

[trth_skr]

Some additional quotes from the book:

Copernicus realized that we are not at
the center of the Universe. A universe
made finite by topological
identifications introduces a new
Copernican consideration: while we
may not be at the geometric centre of
the Universe, some galaxy could be.
A finite universe also picks out a
preferred frame: the frame in which
the universe is smallest. Although we
are not likely to be at the centre of the
Universe, we must live in the
preferred frame (if we are at rest with
respect to the cosmological
expansion).
J. D. Barrow and J. Levin, “The Copernican principle in
compact space–times,” Monthly Notices of the Royal
*Astronomical Society *, December 2003, vol. 346, no. 2, pp.
615-618(4).

I.e., we must live near the center [according to this evidence]… Spoken in relativistic terms, of course.

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.

Difficult to imagine? Why? ‘I will not consider the alternative’?

WMAP may have no knowledge of the inclanation of the earth’s AXIS, but maybe the universe does! SINCE THEY MAY IN FACT SHARE THAT AXIS.

*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.

I.e., ‘I will not consider the alternative’…

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative
I will not consider the alternative

 

[pgoings]

Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center.

Well… yeah. But that doesn’t tell us anything. If I stand in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean then I’m going to be at the center of everything I can see, which is approximately seventy miles in all directions, IIRC. So if I’m 100 miles off the coast of New York, and can see equidistantly in each direction, so that I’m at the center of what I can observe, does that mean I’m at the center of the ocean? No, of course it doesn’t.

It’s not like Dr Tegmark is asserting that he can see some sort of boundary or border at the 13.3 G light-year mark in all directions, and we’re at the center of the “shell.” No he’s just saying that we can see a certain distance, at least with the technology is available to us currently.

Is this a serious part of the argument for geocentrism?

 

[trth_skr]

Well… yeah. But that doesn’t tell us anything. If I stand in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean then I’m going to be at the center of everything I can see, which is approximately seventy miles in all directions, IIRC. So if I’m 100 miles off the coast of New York, and can see equidistantly in each direction, so that I’m at the center of what I can observe, does that mean I’m at the center of the ocean? No, of course it doesn’t.

It’s not like Dr Tegmark is asserting that he can see some sort of boundary or border at the 13.3 G light-year mark in all directions, and we’re at the center of the “shell.” No he’s just saying that we can see a certain distance, at least with the technology is available to us currently.

Is this a serious part of the argument for geocentrism?

Actually, he is saying it is near the temporal limit on our observation due to the finite speed of light. He goes on to say “… Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view…”. How does he know that? Well it is called faith. He cannot see what is beyond it , but assumes from theory. The theory could be wrong, but the observation remains.

Also, a row boat on the ocean is [simplistically] an object on a 2D surface of a 3D sphere. I know that we are told that space is a 3D section of a 4D geometry, but, that is an assumption (related to the isotropic principle). Remove the assumptions, we are left with the observations. Granted a lot of processing and assumptions went into creating the sphere. Still it appears to be the “edge” of our observations.

Proof no. Supporting evidence, sure. Disqualifying evidence, no way.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hecd2]

A few blips from Galileo Was Wrong:

These ‘few blips’ are entirely irrelevant to the points I made. If you want a dialogue, you need to respond to the specific argument, not copy and paste some totally irrelevant and worthless nonsense from the ‘blessed’ book. This is what you need to respond to:

'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.’

Max Tegmark of the University of Pennsylvania… noted, “Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center.”

    I have reprimanded you for this misrepresentation before.  Now you show that Sungenis and Bennett share your inadvertant or deliberate distortion of Tegmark's meaning in a way that makes real physicists quite contemptuous of your misunderstanding. How do YOU think that Tegmark et al know that the surface of last scattering lies on a sphere with us at its centre.  What do YOU think leads to that conclusion? Parallax perhaps?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

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

I don’t remember getting a reply to this. To make it easy, let me list this and a few other basic questions that Sungenis et al will need to answer to begin to be taken seriously:

• How does Sungenis explain the centripetal and coriolois forces at the earth’s surface?
• How does he explain the monopole of the CMB
• How does he explain the dipole of the CMB
• How does he explain the CMB anisotropy for l>3. For example how does he explain the peak at l=220?
• How, precisely, does geocentrism explain the low power in the CMB quadrupole?
• How, precisely, does geocentrism explain the alignment between the l=2 and l=3 multipoles?
• Why is the universe and the CMB rushing by the earth at 368km/s
  Of course, geocentrism cannot begin to explain these phenomena which are very well explained by the concordance model. Which is why Sungenis’s geocentrism will never be taken seriously by professional physicists - not because these scientists are close-minded (as Mark says that I am) but because they demand a standard of logic and evidence that Sungenis, Bennett and Mark fall way below.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Tah_Dah_Man]

Memorable Quotes:

“From the Divine Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed…” –Galileo Galilei, Galileo’s letters of 1613-15.
The Italian physicist and astronomer, who stood for freedom of inquiry.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord overall, and on account of His dominion: He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” -Sir Isaac Newton* (1686).

“When I wrote my treatise *Mathmatica Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (1692).
–Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, astronomer, inventor of the Calculus (1666), and considered one of the most outstanding scientists of all time.

“I give thanks to thee, O Lord Creator, Who has delighted me with thy makings and…the works of thy hands.” -Johannes Kepler, Astronomer (1619).

:bible1:
“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle.
1st Corinthians 2:14. The 1st Century A.D.

:bible1:

“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle.
1st Corinthians 2:14. The 1st Century A.D.

And, He really gets down to Earth:

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe;
how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
–Jesus, the Christ, the KING. John 3:12.

“…I am with you always…” –Jesus, in Matthew 28:18-20.

“Follow Me.” –Matthew 9:9. John 8:12; 10:27.

“…for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…” –John 12:47.

“I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies.
And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
Do you believe this?” -John 11:25-26.

“Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” –John 5:24.

“…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” –John 3:15.

“…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” -Paul, in Romans 10:13.

“He who is not with Me is against Me…” –Jesus. Matthew 12:30. 1st John 5:10-20.

:bowdown2:

(Jeremiah 32:17. Psalms 14 and 139. Colossians 1:1-29. Galatians 3:1-29.)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Looks like Neville has a presence on this web site.

At this very page - or two: geocentricuniverse.com/page65.htm​

This says all that needs to be said:

• (My position in this and other research is that the Hebrew Scriptures - referred to as the Tenach - have absolute precedence. If science is involved at all, then it is secondary and is adjusted as necessary to harmonize with the Scriptures. This point needs to be clarified at the outset, such that the reader may comprehend the rationale employed in this and similar articles.)
  geocentricperspective.com/page18.htm

[my emphasis]

“Adjusted…to harmonise with the Scriptures” ? :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

There is no more place for the Bible in physics, than there is for Chicken-Licken, Cocky-Locky,etc. If anything, Chicken-Licken is of marginally greater scientific relevance:

• As Chicken-licken was going one day to the wood, whack! an acorn fell from a tree on to his head.
• “Gracious goodness me!” said Chicken-licken, “the sky must have fallen; I must go and tell the King.”
  More fairy-tale (with optional music) @ http://www.ongoing-tales.com/SERIALS/oldtime/FAIRYTALES/chicklicken.html

& here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sky_is_Falling

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Memorable Quotes:

“From the Divine Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed…” –Galileo Galilei, Galileo’s letters of 1613-15.
The Italian physicist and astronomer, who stood for freedom of inquiry.

True (provided one accepts the Christian assumptions of the speaker) - but non-specific​

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord overall, and on account of His dominion: He is wont to be called Lord God, Universal Ruler.” -Sir Isaac Newton* (1686).

The argument from design came under criticism from Hume - who was later than Newton. We are no long living in Newton’s intellectual world, or even that of Hume. So science cannot proceed as though we are; just as no branch of theology can either.​

In any case, quoting 17th century science & cosmological ideas does not take account of 20th-century science & cosmological ideas.

“When I wrote my treatise *Mathmatica Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” (1692).
–Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), English physicist, astronomer, inventor of the Calculus (1666), and considered one of the most outstanding scientists of all time.

“I give thanks to thee, O Lord Creator, Who has delighted me with thy makings and…the works of thy hands.” -Johannes Kepler, Astronomer (1619).

Quoting 17th century science & cosmological ideas does not take account of 20th-century science & cosmological ideas​

:bible1:
“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle.
1st Corinthians 2:14. The 1st Century A.D.

:bible1:

“The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit (of God)…” -Paul, the Apostle.
1st Corinthians 2:14. The 1st Century A.D.

And, He really gets down to Earth:

“I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe;
how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?”
–Jesus, the Christ, the KING. John 3:12.

“…I am with you always…” –Jesus, in Matthew 28:18-20.

“Follow Me.” –Matthew 9:9. John 8:12; 10:27.

“…for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world…” –John 12:47.

“I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in Me will live, even though he dies.
And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.
Do you believe this?” -John 11:25-26.

“Most assuredly, I say unto you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” –John 5:24.

“…that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” –John 3:15.

“…for whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” -Paul, in Romans 10:13.

“He who is not with Me is against Me…” –Jesus. Matthew 12:30. 1st John 5:10-20.

:bowdown2:

(Jeremiah 32:17. Psalms 14 and 139. Colossians 1:1-29. Galatians 3:1-29.)

Religious authority cannot be used to support or refute scientific theses or conclusions; unless they are science-related. These are not.​

Besides, why should non-Christian scientists be impressed by the quotation of Christian religious texts in support of scientific positions ?

 

[Rick09]

Sungenis is not a physicist and he makes high school errors. His ignorance of the meaning of an inertial frame is a matter of record.

You are bound to lose the argument if you indulge in argument by headcount. 99% of PhD physicists will tell you that GGW is nonsense. Mark’s list is self-selecting (and includes ‘PhDs in physics’ who believe that NASA staged the moon-landing in a sound studio - and Elvis has risen from the dead). [Flogging a Pink Unicorn

](http://www.evolutionpages.com)

Did you mention that by accident? Or did you remember when Sungenis himself was into the idea that the moon landing was a hoax? It’s things like that and his odd fascination with conspiracy theories and an inability to weed out horrid sources that make it hard to believe anything he says. I admit I can’t follow the math and the science to prove one way or the other vis a vis geocentrism. He comes off as a smart, well-informed layman…who knows enough to be dangerous. I wouldn’t ever dream of recommending that a person learn about science from him.

You can still find an article or two on the internet where other people reference his ideas about the moon landing “hoax”:

atleticorules.blogspot.com/2002_10_27_atleticorules_archive.html

Apparently, NASA has heard of Robert Sungenis

NASA commissions book to prove moon landing really happened:
More than 33 years after the United States landed men on the moon, NASA is spending more than $15,000 to convince people that it really did happen and that the space agency didn’t make it all up…Stubborn conspiracy theorists claim that NASA’s six Apollo-program moon landings were faked. After decades of belittling and ignoring them, NASA has decided to fight back. It hired James Oberg, a Houston-based former aerospace engineer and award-winning author of 10 books on space, to confront skeptics point by point. Many scientists already have done that on the Internet, but skeptics remain unconvinced.

November 01, 2002