I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
(06-13-2019, 11:49 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-13-2019, 07:11 AM)cassini Wrote: The evidence that the Earth lies at the centre of the universe can be know by way of the COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND (CMB). This Sungenis has shown.

In answer to this you put up a load of codswallop from a professor and Sungenis based on a THEORY of Isaac Newton used to 'prove' the credibility or not of a solar-system. Now anything based on a theory is WORTHLESS as true science and two can argue until the cows come home.

But Sungenis has not been 'proven' wrong in his CMB evidence. So why not give that a go Magister.

I deny the premise, but for now, let's assume you're right and Bob did accurately show Geocentrism could be demonstrated through CMB radition.

How did Sungenis try to show that? Did he not employ those "worthless theories" of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics ...

If you reject the theories on which the science is based, then you can't then appeal to those same theories as proof of your case.

In summary, if Sungenis proved or even attempted to prove CMB showed Geocentrism, then the theories you deride are not so worthless. If they are worthless, then so are his attempts to show this. So either way, the theories are not useless.

You keep backing yourself into these corners, cassini, and I'm just amazed that you never think that maybe that's because your assumptions are off.

I give up, I cannot argue with anyone who thinks that Newton and Einstein's theories HAVE ANYTHING to do with the CMB providing evidence that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe..
Reply
On a different note, a professor of neuroscience talks about the immateriality of the mind.

"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

"But thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has transported us out of darkness into his marvelous light when through these lights exteriorly given we are disposed to reenter the mirror of our mind in which divine realities shine forth."
-St. Bonaventure, Itinerarium
Reply
(06-16-2019, 03:06 PM)cassini Wrote: I give up, I cannot argue with anyone who thinks that Newton and Einstein's theories HAVE ANYTHING to do with the CMB providing evidence that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe..

I've read Bob's book and his work on arguing that CMB suggests that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

He uses Newtonian mechanics, and the very theories of particle physics, EM radiation, etc. which depend on Newton's work and theories, and well as Einstein's.

In fact, CMB was predicted and discovered on account of the predictions of Lemaître's corrections to Einstein, which themselves depend on those "unreliable" theories you suggest.

I don't think Sungenis's ideas work, but you can't claim that Newton and Einstein and modern physical theories are junk and then use those theories to justify your position.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo, jovan66102
Reply
(06-16-2019, 05:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I've read Bob's book and his work on arguing that CMB suggests that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

What is this argument?

I'm guessing he claims the CMB quadrupole "proves" our solar system is special?
Reply
(06-17-2019, 08:34 AM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-16-2019, 05:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I've read Bob's book and his work on arguing that CMB suggests that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

What is this argument?

I'm guessing he claims the CMB quadrupole "proves" our solar system is special?

He has a few different arguments, some where the claim is clear, others where it is more just an assertion that the CMB shows the central place of the Earth, but ill-defined, so hard to figure out the reason for the argument. He also has changed his arguments as critics have disproved others.

The more well-defined arguments involve the multipoles (dipole, quadrapole, octopole, etc.) and alignment.

His earliest argument is that the multipoles all align with earth itself at the very center, and that all vectors derivable from the CMB point directly towards earth, meaning that earth is the focus of all of these, and thus a special frame of reference, as opposed to Einstein's relativistic notion that one can equally take any frame of reference but that none of necessarily preferential.

Once critics pointed out a deviation of as much as 16 degrees, he changed the argument to say that the misalignment did not matter because the origin of the vectors was always earth (but that's a tautology, since the place of measurement will always, by definition, be the origin (much like my standing on top of a mountain and seeing various things does not make my position the center of measurement, but not the center in any absolute way). 

He then claimed that a 16 degree misalignment was an incorrect calculation, but never showed how.

Then he claimed that the misalignment was not significant, because an error of 5-10 degrees over the course of 45 billion light years (the estimated radius of the universe) is amazingly close (it's not, as one might be 8 billion light years off and still be within this margin). At that range, one could miss earth by 2500 times the distance to the Andromeda galaxy and be "aligned".

Then he changed the argument to say that misalignment would be expected in a geocentric universe. (Yes, that the alignment showed geocentrism, but in fact misalignment would be predicted if geocentrism were true).

Hence, why I wrote to cassini that I rejected the premise that Sungenis had shown CMB points to a geocentric universe.

Critics, like Dr MacAndrew have challenged Sungenis and Rick DeLano to demonstrate their claim after critiquing their early arguments, and have failed several times in their replies, which Dr MacAndrew has picked apart for mathematical blunders and a failure to understand the physics behind their calculations.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Melkite
Reply
(06-17-2019, 08:34 AM)Stanis Wrote:
(06-16-2019, 05:00 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I've read Bob's book and his work on arguing that CMB suggests that the Earth is at the center of the universe.

What is this argument?

I'm guessing he claims the CMB quadrupole "proves" our solar system is special?

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)
 
In the summer of 1937 Grote Reber decided to build his own radio telescope in his back yard in Wheaton and uncovered a mystery that was not explained until the 1950s.’ Reber was not a believer of the Big Bang theory; he believed that red shift [seen in the light of stars] was due to repeated absorption and re-emission or interaction of light and other electromagnetic radiations by low density dark matter, over intergalactic distances, and he published an article called “Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe,” which outlined his theory.’ --- Wikipedia
 
In 1965, two American radio astronomers, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, working on their project since the 1940s, listening on their microwave horn antenna built for satellite communication, heard a continual hissing sound. At first they thought the sizzling noise they heard was caused by pigeon faeces dropped on the antenna. Wilson and Penzias received the Nobel Prize for their find. It seems Reber did not get the million dollar prize because he was not playing the Big Bang game. Instead they gave it to the pair above who first thought the noise they heard was pigeon excrement before allowing the Big Bangers to claim it as theirs.
 
‘The CMB is the thermal radiation assumed [yes, assumed] to be left over from the “Big Bang” of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or “relic radiation.” The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum.’ --- Wikipedia
 
Then in 1989 a spacecraft called COBE was launched with a more complicated mechanism to measure the ‘hissing’ out there. It proved very successful and measured many other different wavelengths. Moreover, the instruments could actually measure the difference in temperature between two points in space, they say.
 
‘In April 1992, after more than two years of data collecting and analysis, Smoot and his team made a dramatic announcement. The COBE satellite had detected tiny temperature variations of the order of about one-hundred-thousandth of a degree in the background radiation. According to computer generated plots of the entire sky, the temperature was minutely higher in the direction of the large galactic clusters and slightly lower in the great cosmic voids.’ --- J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: Introducing Stephen Hawking, Icon Books UK, 1998, pp.170-171.
 
‘The Universe is incredibly regular. The variation of the cosmos’ temperature across the entire sky is tiny: a few millionths of a degree, no matter which direction you look. Yet the same light from the very early cosmos that reveals the Universe’s evenness also tells astronomers a great deal about the conditions that gave rise to irregularities like stars, galaxies, and (incidentally) us.’ --- Ars Technica website.
 
Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PLANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the CMB in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known.
 
‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’--- R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5.
 
‘The light is the CMB, and it provides some of the best knowledge we have about the structure, content, and history of the Universe. But it also contains a few mysteries: on very large scales, the cosmos seems to have a certain lopsidedness. That slight asymmetry is reflected in temperature fluctuations much larger than any galaxy, aligned on the sky in a pattern facetiously dubbed “the axis of evil.” The lopsidedness is real, but cosmologists are divided over whether it reveals anything meaningful about the fundamental laws of physics.’ --- Ars Technica website.
 
During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.
 
‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the Earth‐Sun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very centre of the known universe.’----Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.
 
Such were the accolades from the scientific community for the CMR/CMB and its Nobel prizes that Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano felt confident in the discoveries involved. Accordingly they decided to make a movie and a CD out of it they called The Principle. Their team first contracted a few prominent physicists like Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, George Ellisto, and Julian Barbour to comment on the CMB’s findings in this documentary, including the fact that it clearly shows the Earth to be the centre of the universe. In their movie, they claim that the CMB evidence does indeed seem to point to an Earth-centred universe. Shortly after that, when news came out that the two directors were biblical creationists totally opposed to the Big Bang evolutionary tale, and that the movie was made to debunk the long held ‘Copernican Principle,’ some of the above physicists tried to wriggle out of their dilemma saying they were ‘tricked’ into making their comments.
 
By mid March, 2017, The Principle’s website announced further evidence for a geocentric Earth has been discovered. Go look at it for yourself.
 
‘Beginning with the Axis of Evil, and now including similar anti-Copernican Principle alignments with the ecliptic and equinoxes of Earth involving quasars, galaxies, distributions of supernovae and other phenomena, [the evidence surely shows us] that the Earth seems to occupy a special, even a central position with respect to the largest visible structures in the universe.’

Reply
Is cassini Mr. Sungenis himself?
Reply
(06-18-2019, 09:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Is cassini Mr. Sungenis himself?

I've had plenty of interactions with Bob over the years. Cassini is tame by comparison.
Reply
Cassini, you retort (apparently having not read the intervening summary, which I provided), with quotes from
  • Wikipedia -- an unreliable source that you or I could have edited before posting it
  • Ars Technica -- a popular amateur technologist website without any reference to where they get their information in what you quote
  • A Protestant Creationist's book
  • An allusion to Bob Sungenis without any quotation of his actual work.
None of which actually address the already made critique of the CMB arguments that Bob had made and the failure of his case, or even establish the case.

Clearly you know of to quote text, but you don't understand the actual science and calculus behind what is being said, and so what you quote is pretty meaningless.

(06-18-2019, 06:16 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]… In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’--- R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp.284-5.

Point one, the origin is important, because to claim it is from the Big Bang or to claim it is from some other source has pretty significant implications.

Point two, the idea of a preferential reference frame only makes sense when one has asserted there is none and we can shift reference frames, which is only done in Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics, both of which you have dismissed as junk. You can't say, "preferred reference frame" and then say that the science that would use this is junk. It's like saying, that "everything Bill Clinton says is a lie, but you should trust him when he says X."

Point three, a background radiation which has no direction cannot be a reference frame, anymore than you could say that we will take the outside of a balloon as the reference frame for what is inside. A reference frame requires a scale and a origin, it cannot be defined by an indefinite radiation signature lacking any definite position.

Point four, CMB has no position, but only direction, but that direction is defined by the point of measurement. As pointed out above, if you're standing on a mountain and looking around, the direction towards the sea and the other mountains is meaningful, but has nothing to do with you being the center of the continent. You are the center of your field of observation, always. The photons which enter your eye always point towards you, but that says nothing about the actual source or the rest of your surroundings. A detector on earth, in orbit or 1 billion lights years away for CMB would always be the center of its own measurements (if using a omni-directional sensor. Were you on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy and making this measurement, it would also appear to be the center. This is why Einstein says that there is no preferential reference frame, and one can choose any.


(06-18-2019, 06:16 AM)cassini Wrote:
During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Richard Delano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, interpretation of the data shows the Earth sits at the centre of the universe.

:rofl:

If by scholar you mean plagiarists who have never studied the subject on which they write ... but that kinda guts the meaning of "scholar."

By that definition my remedial English students who like to copy Cliff's and Spark Notes as if it were their own, having never read the book itself, asserting than Mr Darcy decided to murder Oberon because of his love for Ophelia who he earlier suggested should go to a monastery, are "scholars".

(06-18-2019, 06:16 AM)cassini Wrote: ‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the Earth‐Sun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very centre of the known universe.’----Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014.

The multipoles do not "align" as Sungenis claims, and even if they did, it would be a meaningless coincidence.

The multipoles are higher-order derivatives. Their directions are not entirely meaningless, but cannot be added or subtracted as if we were in the same set of units or dimensions. Basic vector mathematics shows this. The derivative of a vector evaluated at the same point might have a X,Y or Z direction, but is not directly related to position or direction of the original object. A car traveling down a road to the West has a directional vector westward. The first-order derivative is velocity, which has an orthogonal vector (which is therefore pretty meaningless as regards direction itself), acceleration is the second-order derivative and its vector will be orthogonal to the velocity, so again, not a direct relation. Go to higher-orders like jerk or jounce, and these even become difficult to relate to physical concepts, even if they are useful quantities.

But even were the case that somehow these were meaningful comparisons, they are not aligned as Sungenis or you suggest. The quadrupole, far from being aligned to the ecliptic (which is a plane, not a vector as Sungenis suggests) is 16.0°, as discussed above. That means if we presume the 45 billion light-year radius that Bob does, "alignment" is missing the Earth by over 2500 times the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. The octopole to the ecliptic plane is 8.6°, also non-zero.

Finally, something cannot be both aligned with the earth's equator and north pole. They are orthogonal. That is like saying that the bottom and side of a right triangle are parallel. By definition they are exactly not parallel, but perpendicular.

Sungenis has been disproved over and over again, and his basic math and physics understanding has been gutted again and again. He is simply not trustworthy.

Dr Alec MacAndrew in dissecting Bob's attempts to demonstrate that the CMB proves his claims, here, here, here, and here, points out Bob's massive flaws including :

Quote:
  • He produced an earlier response to the challenge with entirely different but equally erroneous analyses.
  • He defines the ecliptic as a single direction or vector, whereas it is a plane that cannot be defined by a single direction.
  • The direction he assigns to the ecliptic does not even lie in the ecliptic plane.
  • His suggested expression for calculating the angle between two directions depends on how the directions are labelled and is not co-ordinate system invariant.
  • He inexplicably uses the wrong component separation algorithm (SEVEM instead of SMICA) to specify quadrupole and octopole directions, even though the original CMB Challenge was very clear that SMICA should be used.
  • He claims that a probability of 0.009 is “about 1 in 10,000” when actually it is about 1 in 100, an error on his part of a factor of 100, yet another elementary arithmetical blunder.
  • Based on the direction of the Axis of Evil quoted in Kate Land’s presentation, he makes a bogus estimate of the quadrupole to equinox angle.
  • He does a nonsensical calculation to get the quadrupole to dipole angle, by simply subtracting angles between non-planar directions that lie in 3D space.
  • He calculates (incorrectly) and presents (proudly) hugely discordant angles between the quadrupole and equinox, and between the quadrupole and dipole, without recognising the absurd degree of discrepancy.
  • He calculates angles to the ecliptic plane incorrectly: he does so by calculating the angle to the erroneous vector he assigned to the ecliptic earlier on, and he clearly has no idea how to calculate the angle between a vector and a plane.
  • He confuses longitude and latitude.
  • He plots the angles between directions on a diagram that shows only the component of latitude of each direction.

Not exactly stellar proof (pun heavily intended).
Reply
(06-18-2019, 09:33 AM)Melkite Wrote: Is cassini Mr. Sungenis himself?



[-] The following 3 users Like Alphonse il Segundo's post:
  • cassini, jovan66102, Melkite
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)