lol easy. according to the European space agency, the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) doesn't match the results preposed by the current model.
A direct quote from physicist Lawrence Krauss - " when you look at the CMB map, you also see that the structure 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? thats crazy. were looking out at the WHOLE UNIVERSE.... that would say we truly the center of the universe".
again i never said he worked for ESA, nor made a single claim about the shape of the earth. What your doing now is called a red Herring Fallacy. I'm simply pointing out the discrepancies of the model based on "expert" testimony from the ones promoting it.
just take a deep breath, your letting your emotions over ride logic. iv seen your posts, your more intelligent then that.
Redshift and expansion are intrinsically linked, yes?
Is that not a theoretical explanation, failing to meet the most basic requirements of science like repeatability, control, and the observation point is insufficient for anything more than a guess?
Sincere questions, which I've never researched properly. These skepticisms kept into my mind shortly after hearing these ideas ...
I don't fault scientists for working, especially if they do their best. That they can be wrong by either a little or a LOT is an important part of the science method. It seems to me that the set of assumptions involved here has an enormous affect on ... everything else, or at least this field. I'm habitually unafraid to ask "what if it's wrong?" We can look at the info, strip away the assumptions, and look anew for a better explanation.
Considering the vast amount of "stuff" discovered to be woefully wrong in this field, I think this set of assumptions is overly ripe to be re-examined.
You claim that there is no working model for heliocentrism and your evidence is an article that makes no mention of heliocentrism.
Name one thing about the shape of the earth and the solar system that cannot be explained by the heliocentric model.
Only one thing.
You won't because you can't.
lol easy. according to the European space agency, the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) doesn't match the results preposed by the current model.
A direct quote from physicist Lawrence Krauss - " when you look at the CMB map, you also see that the structure 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? thats crazy. were looking out at the WHOLE UNIVERSE.... that would say we truly the center of the universe".
Lawrence Krauss never worked for ESA.
Provide a source for your claims.
Krauss' quote doesn't dispute a round Earth and heliocentric model of the solar system.
Failed again.
again i never said he worked for ESA, nor made a single claim about the shape of the earth. What your doing now is called a red Herring Fallacy. I'm simply pointing out the discrepancies of the model based on "expert" testimony from the ones promoting it.
just take a deep breath, your letting your emotions over ride logic. iv seen your posts, your more intelligent then that.
So who from ESA said what you claim?
Then why quote him as reply to my question? If it's not relevant to my question, what's the point?
Here's my question again. Of course you will not answer it.
Actually, universal redshift does support, as one of its two main interpretations, a geocentric universe:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251737550_On_the_Geocentric_Nature_of_Hubble's_Law#:~:text=The%20isotropic%20nature%20of%20the,Big%20Bang%20Theory%20(BBT).
The other obviously being spacetime expansion.
Redshift and expansion are intrinsically linked, yes?
Is that not a theoretical explanation, failing to meet the most basic requirements of science like repeatability, control, and the observation point is insufficient for anything more than a guess?
Sincere questions, which I've never researched properly. These skepticisms kept into my mind shortly after hearing these ideas ...
I don't fault scientists for working, especially if they do their best. That they can be wrong by either a little or a LOT is an important part of the science method. It seems to me that the set of assumptions involved here has an enormous affect on ... everything else, or at least this field. I'm habitually unafraid to ask "what if it's wrong?" We can look at the info, strip away the assumptions, and look anew for a better explanation.
Considering the vast amount of "stuff" discovered to be woefully wrong in this field, I think this set of assumptions is overly ripe to be re-examined.
Has NOTHING to do with FE.
Duh
Use words you actually understand.