I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
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.


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 :

  • 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).

Messages In This Thread
RE: I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution - by MagisterMusicae - 06-18-2019, 04:58 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)