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.
I did give you one point, the CMB doesn't match what the preposed model claims.
Maybe I should clarify my position. I'm not arguing the shape of the earth, nor am i "flat earther". I'm a person who doesn't "believe" in things that I cant prove with my own research or logical deduction. Im more then ok saying im not certain or convinced of either.
To me saying things like a closed in realm with a loving god are just as silly as saying an infinite nothingness powered by random chaos.
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.
Redshift and expansion are intrinsically linked, yes?
Yeah, our best evidence for the inflation/expansion of spacetime is the fact that we observe every galaxy receding away from our respective (as I’m sure you know, things travelling “away” from you are redshifted, things travelling toward you are blueshifted) indicating that either the Milky Way galaxy really is in the center of the universe (basically geocentrism ) or that perhaps there’s “no such thing” as the center of the universe, and everything is receding from everything else which is the standard interpretation of the data, so-called cosmic inflation or expansion
And I agree, it’s one thing to believe something strongly based on evidence, but so much of science is strong belief based on philosophy, which is to say, people rule things out which fit the evidence but don’t fit their preconceived bullshit way too readily.
I was reading about this yesterday and came across a great comment:
The cosmological models are based off two assumptions, that the universe is homogeneous at large scales and that the universe is isotropic at at least a single point. These assumptions essentially mean that the universe looks the same wherever you are. These assumptions are supported primarily by observation of the CMB. However, the evidence does not rule out a geocentric universe. Indeed, the evidence certainly seems to imply that Earth occupies some special place in the universe. When we combine the CMB observations with the observation that other galaxies seem to be receding from us, there is a lot of support for a geocentric model. It is very easy to think that the geocentric model is the only possible model. However, of course, there is a perfectly good alternate explanation, the one I gave initially, that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. In particular, as implied by this model, any other galaxy also sees all other galaxies receding from it.
So what makes us choose the current model over geocentrism? We appeal to the so-called Copernican principle, which states that Earth is not in some special, preferred position in space. Earth is not the center of the universe. You will also read this principle as "humans are not privileged observers". This principle rules out the geocentric theory entirely.
It is crucial to understand that there is no evidence for or against the Copernican principle. (That is not to say that there is not evidence that supports the principle, but the geocentric model is an alternate model which is also consistent with the evidence.) Of course, there is good reason to believe it. A principle of modesty is also often invoked, since it would be incredibly remarkable if the Copernican principle were not true. But there is no way to decide based on observed evidence. We are using a fundamentally philosophical criterion to choose our cosmological model. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it certainly does lead to many interesting questions in the philosophy of science.
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.
I did give you one point, the CMB doesn't match what the preposed model claims.
Maybe I should clarify my position. I'm not arguing the shape of the earth, nor am i "flat earther". I'm a person who doesn't "believe" in things that I cant prove with my own research or logical deduction. Im more then ok saying im not certain or convinced of either.
To me saying things like a closed in realm with a loving god are just as silly as saying an infinite nothingness powered by random chaos.
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.
Hey duder,
Yeah, our best evidence for the inflation/expansion of spacetime is the fact that we observe every galaxy receding away from our respective (as I’m sure you know, things travelling “away” from you are redshifted, things travelling toward you are blueshifted) indicating that either the Milky Way galaxy really is in the center of the universe (basically geocentrism ) or that perhaps there’s “no such thing” as the center of the universe, and everything is receding from everything else which is the standard interpretation of the data, so-called cosmic inflation or expansion
And I agree, it’s one thing to believe something strongly based on evidence, but so much of science is strong belief based on philosophy, which is to say, people rule things out which fit the evidence but don’t fit their preconceived bullshit way too readily.
I was reading about this yesterday and came across a great comment:
Has NOTHING to do with FE.
Duh
Use words you actually understand.