Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Transfinitum would you please anser me one question; and please keep the answer as short as you can.Why do structures this this one exist?
>>I am not sure I understand your question. It appears to be a metaphysical rather than scientific one. If this is the case my answer would be; to show forth the glory of the Creator. If it is a scientific question, please be more specific.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the thing is, if he just talks about relativity, he has a point. You could make any one point in the universe immovable and describe the movements around it relative to that point. There might be some physical oddities that can't be explained and there is no reason whatsoever why the earth should be that special place that actually is not moving and on top of that there's really no way I can see how such an "special place" could exist. But I doubt that is solely his point, and frankly I don't have the time to read through walls of babbling. Especially since I know they are absolutely unnecessary. So, if he could just give a brief description of his points and maybe his "unbeatable argument" then we could discuss. As it is no one will take the time to read through his shit.
frame of reference =/= centre of the universe. also, the thing that utterly destroyes his argument inspite of the amount of psuedo intellectual bullshit he is putting in, is the fact that he beleives that the earth is stationary and the entire cosmos revolves around it, which is refuted by everything we know of reletivity. he is turning into the new jia.
Originally posted by Transfinitumhystericalhystericalhystericalhysterical omg omg im dying of laughter. i dont think ive seen someone slammed so goddamn hard ROFL
>>None of this addresses the fact that JPL uses a navigational system in its DEEP SPACE as well as GPS satellite navigation systems, that incorporates a Sagnac-effect correction (a speed of light which is NOT CONSTANT WITH RESPECT TO ALL REFERENCE FRAMES, but is instead constant ONLY WITH RESPECT TO EARTH), as I have previously posted.This fact is devastating to the "just-so" stories non-scientists like to spoon feed other non-scientists, to get them to go to sleep and have sweet dreams that all is well in Standard Theory land.
We will, perhaps, have occasion to address this much more deeply, provided anyone with sufficient science background shows up to debate the issue.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>I am not sure I understand your question. It appears to be a metaphysical rather than scientific one. If this is the case my answer would be; to show forth the glory of the Creator. If it is a scientific question, please be more specific.
Do you know what the photo is of? It is a galaxy. It seems that there is another Earth out there in space. Why is there all of those galaxies out there spinning around something? Please keep your answer short.
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>Actually, now that you mention it, "we" do not. It has been shown that the so called "solar system barycentric frame" employed by JPL is actually dependent upon an Earth Centered Inertial Frame correction for the Sagnac effect. This shocking fact was brought to light by ION researchers Ruyong Wang and Ronald R, Hatch, who wrote in the proceedings of the ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting/CIGTF 21st Guidance Symposium 2002, p. 500, that:
*snip*
Wang and Hatch drop the bomb:quote:
"Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame..."In case your physics isn't quite up to understanding that, Sleepy, it means that the JPL "solar system barycenter frame" is actually corrected, to reflect the Sagnac effect in an Earth Centered frame. It also means that JPL puts a fix into their GPS software that makes the speed of light NON-RELATIVISTIC, because it is only constant with respect to the Earth Centered Inertial Frame Sagnac-effect correction.
Wang and Hatch drop the bigger bomb:
quote:
"The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame."Let me translate for you again Sleepy. The JPL software that tracks INTERPLANETARY SPACE PROBES, incorporates a NON-RELATIVISTIC speed of light which is constant ONLY with respect to the chosen reference frame!
In case you haven't figured out what this means yet, it means that JPL corrects its interplanetary space navigation software for a non-isotropic speed of light, which is corrected according to the EARTH CENTERED INERTIAL FRAME Sagnac effect.
So, JPL has decided that it needs to insert a bit of a fix in the "no preferred reference frame" dogma, in order to get their GPS and deep space satellite navigation to work.
JPL needs a geocentric reference frame in order to make its GPS and space probes work!!!!
Thanks so much for bringing this up.......I am sure we will have occasion to go into this much much more deeply :-)
*snip*
Oh looky here, i found Ruyong Wang's and Ronald Hatch study:
http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf
Upon reading it, you'll notice several things that are wrong about what our Knowlegeable Poser's said:
One, the study DOES NOT deal with deep space/interplanetary probes at all. It is concerned with GPS.
Second, the quote:
"The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame."
is actually a MISQUOTE by our Knowledgeable Poser.
The actual quote (the entire paragraph) reads like so:
The JPL equations [10], used to track signals from
interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light
is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations,
the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame.
The motion of receivers during the signal transit time from
earth to probe and from probe to earth is taken into
account. Even the motion of the earth around the
moon/earth center of mass is taken into account. Clearly,
the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with
respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the
receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac
effect must be accounted for on all signal paths.
What do we learn from the stuff that was omitted out, one is that NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory uses the solar system's barycenter (usually expressed between the Sun and Jupiter) and NOT the Earth to track our inter planetary space/ deep space probes. Two, the JPL and the two authors of the study are NOT supporting a geocentric solar system since they believe that the Earth is in motion within the Earth/Moon barycentre, much less a geocentric universe.
Yet another example of geocentrists misquoting,misinterpreting and being deceitful with the truth.
Here is a sample of NASA using a heliocentric reference frame (Heliographic Inertial Coordinate System (HGI) or the Heliographic (rotating) Coordinate System (HG)) when using deep space probes:
http://cohoweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/helios/
And before you you start blurbing about ECI, i suggest you take a look at this quite awesome explanation:
http://www.bautforum.com/834598-post101.html
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*
The DIFFERENCE between the NON-BARYCENTRIC EARTH ROTATING (Newtonian) and BARYCENTRIC EARTH STATIONARY (geocentric) derivations of the forces is this: in the Newtonian model, there is NO DIRECT PHYSICAL EXPLANATION for the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces. They must be attributed tio a "fictitious" effect of acceleration, based upon an UNPROVEN (and UNPROVABLE) assumption- that any departure from straight-line motion involves an acceleration. In the Newtonian bucket experiment, there is NO ACCELERATION involved at all, with reference to the body in motion, or with respect to the parts of that body, since there is a time when the bucket, the handle, and the water are all rotating AT THE SAME SPEED, and yet the water rises up the side of the bucket. Why?The geocentric model is SUPERIOR, in that it provides a PHYSICAL, non-"fictitious" derivation of the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces, and at the same time refutes all arguments that would claim the Earth could not have these forces unless it were rotating.
*snip*
>>For exactly the same reason JPL has to introduce a Sagnac correction based on an Earth Centered Frame for its interplanetary space probe navigation to work. For the same reason that the Universe exhibits large-scale non-random periodic structures which are oriented to the Earth. Because the Earth is in fact the "preferred reference frame", and it is necessary therefore to be able to show how all of these forces can be derived with SUPERIOR physics, given an Earth which is NOT rotating.
*snip*
Bwahaha.
Youre still using youre misquoted "JPL stuff" that was debunked earlier. How sad.
Providing non-fictitious explanation to the Coriolis, centrifugal, and Euler forces to the Earth like your supposed "massive rotating shell" is unimportant as there no observable difference between that and the Coriolis, centrifugal, and Euler forces emanating from a rotating Earth instead.
Postulating a "massive rotating shell" just to describe the Coriolis effect et. al on the Earth is still an UNNECESSARYcomplication and breaks Occam's razor since it could be explained more simply by having the Earth rotate on its axis just like the rest of the planets in the Solar System. The "massive rotating shell" CANNOT reproduce the Coriolis effect of the other planets since they are not supposed to be in the center of the Universe like Earth. Come to think of it where is your proof that there is a "massive rotating shell" out there? Before you answer, try reading through my debunkings first.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*
. . . . The simple fact that we are here today having this debate, shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that this was not the case. There is more matter in the Universe than there is antimatter, and hence the "Dirac sea" is much more likely to be a subsistent, electropon lattice, the components of which are brought into observation by the application of a suitable discharge of 1.022 MeV. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with observations, and is SUPERIOR to the absurd "matter is simultaneously created and annihilated" ruse which is, after all, invented specifically to avoid the obvious alternative that the electropon lattice behaves in a manner highly reminiscent of the dreaded ETHER in earlier theories.*snip*
Once again dissing new information just to prop up your retarded pet theories. The electron lattice with the positron as the "hole" in this lattice explanation was discarded because it could not explain the positron's ability to combine with electrons to produce positronium atoms. Positron's as particles are SUPERIOR and have more explanatory power than being merely just a "hole".
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*
>>Umm, pardon me, I was asking you to explain the EQUATION OF GEODESIC MOTION you referred to. You had indicated that "inertia was implicit in the equation of geodesic motion". Please:1.Post this equation
2. Show us exactly which term is the "implicit inertia", and how this term expresses, "implicitly" the actual inertial motions you claim it does.
"and mass guides spacetime how to curve itself"
Sleepy, you are not entitled to any more fairy tales. You have claimed an "equation of geodesic motion". Now either post this equation, and show us which term equates to the inertial force, or else we will have no choice to conclude that once again you have posted somebody else's material, without bothering to attribute it, or what is much worse, without bothering even to understand it.
In other words, you are BLUFFING AGAIN.
*snip*
Bwahaha.
To avoid infinite regress into boring physics equations which i already happily forgot, i'll try to make things easier to understand. In short, inertia is implicit to spacetime because gravitational mass and inertial mass are equal according to Einstein and the Weak Equivalency Principle. Gravity by the way, is not a force in Einstein's relativity rather the curvature of spacetime around an object.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Again, you simply don't understand what the issue is here. Burbidge and Napier are arguing for a non-cosmological DISTANCE for quasars, and Hawkins is attempting to refute THIS. Nothing to do with the Varshni paper on the GEOCENTRIC implications of the "concentric shells centered on Earth". This is clearly shown by the fact that Hawkins, et al, specifically STATE that they have selected only a tiny fraction of QUASAR/GALAXY PAIRS for their study.This issue is thoroughly covered By Sungenis and Bennett in "Galileo Was Wrong":
quote:
"This study was specifically designed to test Arp's theory that various galaxies and quasars occupy the same vicinity; the former producing the latter when material from the galaxy is ejected…….. Out of 250,000 galaxies and 30,000 quasars, the Hawkins team limited their study to 1647 quasars, the quasar pairs for the purpose of ‘quality control.’ Of these pairs they state:'No periodicity leaps off the page, but since the effect is likely to be quite subtle, one would not necessarily expect to be able to pick it out from the raw data, so it is important to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis.'[2]
This, of course, opens the door for disagreements over the statistical data. At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The Hawkins team determines that: ‘one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as 'carpentry,’ and they conclude that ‘…the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window [statistical] function.’[3]
Followers of the Arp team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge asserts that the entire work of the Hawkins team ‘is a real piece of dishonesty,’ since Burbidge's colleague, William Napier, had already pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins' analysis before he published his paper."(I got this excerpt from bautforums but i forgot the link).
>>Let us pause here to note that the Wikipedia source FAILS to cite the RESPONSE, by Napier and Burbidge, which absolutely devastates the entire Hawkings "statistical analysis".
How?
Why, the same way scientists always demolish "statistical analysis."
With hard, observational FACTS.
Again, quoting Sungenis and Bennett:
quote:
"Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins' flaw, as well as citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to the quasar!"[4]
Typical stock answer from your average geocentrist. Omitting the rest of the details just to suit their needs.
Here is the work of Hawkins et. al.. I traced it from the reference links in Wikipedia:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0208/0208117v1.pdf
. . . .data from the 2dF Galaxy redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and
the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) means that for the
first time there exists a large homogeneous sample of data
to carry out this kind of study. Furthermore, Napier recognized
the importance of the study being carried out independent
from any of the researchers with vested interests one
way or the other. He therefore gave clear instructions as to
what analysis should be performed and what periodic e ect
should be seen if the phenomenon is real, but chose to take
no part in the subsequent analysis. We have attempted to
carry out this analysis without prejudice. Indeed, we would
have been happy with either outcome: if the periodicity were
detected, then there would be some fascinating new astrophysics
for us to explore; if it were not detected, then we
would have the reassurance that our existing work on redshift
surveys, etc, has not been based on false premises.
In short, Napier and Burbridge are just sour-graping on Hawkins et. al.. Too bad the instructions they gave didnt show the results they wanted to see.
There is also this No Quantized Redshifts article by Alan MacRobert from the December (2002?) issue of Sky & Telescope:
"A leading version of the hypothesis, advanced by Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier, is that quasars seen near a foreground galaxy show a particular periodicity in their redshifts with respect to the galaxy. At Napier's urging, Edward Hawkins and two colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England, recently sifted through the massive new 2dF redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars to test this idea. These surveys provide, "by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study," writes Hawkins in the October 11th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. All parties agreed on the procedures for the test."
Among the 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any quantized redshifts appears."
Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, and William Napier and all those fringe astronomers you geocentrists cite are a bunch of sore losers (although, i dont think they are geocentrists).
So yes, Hawkins et, al. shows NO redshift quantization and disproves your so-called geocentric proof.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
quote:
In 2005, Tang and Zhang:".. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. " - Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data", in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005) "
>> Again, two different issues. The Tang and Zhang studies are, like Hawkins, strictly examining the quasar/galaxy pairings proposed by Arp, NOT the "concentric shells" (geocentric) evidence published by Varshni (and never refuted to this day in any scientific paper).
Oh please! You just dont have anything to debunk Tang and Zhang's study from that twisted source of yours GWW.
Traced from the reference link in Wikipedia: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506366v1.pdf
From the Abstract:
"The debate on whether QSOs are ejected from the nuclei of low redshift galaxies with a periodic non-cosmological “intrinsic” redshift has been going on for many years. Some evidence has been claimed to suggest such an intrinsic redshift hypothesis, in which QSOs have redshifts that are much larger than their parent galaxies and the excess of redshift is assumed to represent an always redshifted intrinsic component (Burbidge & Burbidge 1967; Arp et al. 1990; Karlsson 1990; Chu et al. 1998; Burbidge & Napier 2001; Bell 2004b; Arp et al. 2005)."
The conclusion:
"In summary, using samples from SDSS and 2QZ, we demonstrate that not only thereis no periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z) and z, or at any other frequency,but also there is no strong connection between foreground active galaxies and high redshift QSOs. These results are against the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies or have periodic intrinsic non-cosmological redshifts."
Yet another study debunking quantization of redshifts as espoused by Arp, Burbridge, Napier.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
quote:
"A 2006 historical review of study of the redshift periodicity of galaxies by Bajan, et al, concludes that "in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established."
- Bajan, K.; Flin, P.; Godlowski, W.; Pervushin, V. P., "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity>>Now we see a real example of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
Dr. Sungenis addresses the findings of the Bajan paper which Wiikipedia elected NOT to include:
quote:
"First, in the abstract, the authors admit: ‘We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist’ (p. 16). Obviously, then, they admit it is not from the imagination or prejudice of their opponents…..Later in the article, Bajan, et al, show the various possibilities of how to analyze the data. Their chief complaint against people like Tifft, et al, is that they didn't get a big enough sample in order to make their conclusions. Yet, even when they examine a bigger sample, Bajan et al, admit that periodization, although not as prominent as Tifft believed, is still a legitimate interpretation of the data.
First they admit the following:
‘We applied the power spectrum analysis using the Hann function as a weighting together with the jackknife error estimation. We perform the detailed analysis of this approach. The distribution of galaxy redshift seems to be nonrandom" (p. 22). Well, if it's ‘nonrandom’ that means it has a distribution pattern to it, whether weak or strong makes no difference.
They then say: ‘For galactocentric reduction at the 2sigma confidence level the peaks around 73 and 24 km/sec are observed’ (p. 23). Well, that's about the same peak levels that Tifft observed as late as 1996, which Bajan admits on page 21 was ‘72 and 36 km/sec’!
From this Bajan concludes: ‘…the probability that they are coming from nonrandom distribution is 95%’! Well, that speaks pretty highly of quantized distribution patterns, doesn't it?"---Dr. Robert Sungenis, private email response to question about the Wikipedia citation, April 11, 2008 (thanks Doc!)
So, contrary to the Wikipedia entry, Bajan, et al, have not discredited periodization or solved the problem, by their own admission.
Bwhahaha.
Why rely on Sungenis to do the interpretation when you could take a look on the study itself, traced from the reference links from Wikipedia: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0606/0606294v1.pdf
Last Part of the abstract:
. . . . In both the structures we found weak effects of redshift periodisation.
The conclusion:
"In our opinion the existence of red shift periodicity among galaxies is not well established. The earlier results are based on a very small fraction of objects extracted from the large databases. At the early stage of investigations such an approach was the correct one, errors of individual measurements were great. Presently, the radial velocities of galaxies are determined in an industrial manner. The accuracy of radial velocity determination is good enough for considering all galaxies. Therefore, we chose this manner of data treatment. As we considered all galaxies, our samples are greater. Measurements with lower accuracy could smear out the regularities, but the regularities are not introduced artificially.
The previous result, based on selected samples showed the existence of the periodicity in the galaxy redshift distribution at a very high significance level. We found that at the 2ò significance level some effect was observed. We think that the solution of this curious phenomenon can be solved in near future using large database, which together with such correct method as PSA will allow one to estimate the significance of the effect at a sufficiently convincing level. We think also that after clear and convincing demonstrating of the existence of the effect, theoretical explanations of this phenomenon can be performed.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
quote:
"In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".[26]>>Umm, in case you didn't catch that, Sleepy, the title means they HAVE found evidence of PREFERRED REDSHIFTS predicted by the Burbidge/Napier/Arp model.
quote:
"The pair acknowledged that selection effects were already reported to cause the most prominent of the peaks[6]. Nevertheless, these peaks were included in their analysis anyway with Bell and McDiarmid questioning whether selection effects could account for the periodicity, but not including any analysis of this beyond cursory cross-survey comparisons in the discussion section of their paper.>>The above is a grotesquely self-serving distortion of the actual paper referenced, and is a perfect example of the kind of bias that has led to the Wiki being challenged. Here is what the paper actually SAYS:
quote:
"Six Peaks that fall within the redshift window below z = 4, are visible. ">>Peaks= NON RANDOM distributions in the data points.
quote:
"Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, even though this model was derived using completely independent evidence.">>In other words, the model proposed by Burbidge, Napier, et al, correctly PREDICTED the values of non-random distribution, even though that model did not have access to the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey).
quote:
" A power spectrum analysis of the full dataset confirms the presence of a single, significant power peak at the expected redshift period. Power peaks with the predicted period are also obtained when the upper and lower halves of the redshift distribution are examined separately. The periodicity detected is in linear z, as opposed to log(1+z). Because the peaks in the SDSS quasar redshift distribution agree well with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift relation, we conclude that this relation, and the peaks in the redshift distribution, likely both have the same origin, and this may be intrinsic redshifts, or a common selection effect. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both. "So we see that the paper is specifically contradicting your position, even though the Wikipedia dishonestly attempts to twist its findings as evidence AGAINST the very NON-RANDOM distributions the paper reports!!!
BWAHAHA.
How about reading the actual studies presented next time. Again traced from the reference links from Wikipedia:
M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid study:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0603/0603169v1.pdf
Schneider et. al (and about 40+ more astronomers that im too lazy to write their names):
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0806v1.pdf
One thing that you'll quickly notice is that Schneider et. al analyzes 77,429 quasars from the Fourth Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, an increase of 31,009 quasars over the 46,420 quasars in the Third Edition of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog that M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid studied. The Schneider et. al study means its more up to date.
According to Schneider et. al:
"Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006)."
The same "selection effects" that Bell and McDiarmid dismissed in their study turned out to be the big reason for the supposed redshift quantization they found in their study. Maybe the fact that they have a pet theory to prove (decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model) clouded their judgements.
And why do i keep hearing geocentrists harping this crackpot Y.P Varshni. He is the same nutcase who proposed that quasars are actually laser-emitting stars found within our galaxy. Maybe that's plausible back when astronomers were still crawling in the dark in the 1970's-1980's but it certainly isnt believable right now given more accurate instruments.
Here is the start of some serious Varshni debunking (coming from modern astronomers no less):
http://www.bautforum.com/43389-post109.html
http://www.bautforum.com/43615-post114.html
(I think it was in this thread where i got the quote from my previous post about the NO Quantization article in Sky and Telescope)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>>Well, Sleepy, you have said a lot of things in our debate. What you have certainly not DONE, is refute one iota of the evidence reported from Varshni, from Katz, or from Bell, all of which specifically refute you, and all of which stand to this day in the peer-reviewed scientific literature as scientific evidence of a universe that is NOT in keeping with the "isotropic and homogeneous" predictions of Standard Theory, but is EXACTLY inkeeping with the predictions of geocentrism.
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. By the way, Jonathan I. Katz's book' The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts is actually a for the masses, HISTORICAL account of the study of GRBs. No new revelations about GRBs inside. Included in the book are the old crackpot theories that try to explain GRBs and that geocentrists would love to trump and quote (among which is Kantz's own retarded 1992 study) as well as the more level-headed, and accurate post-1997 discoveries concerning GRBs where afterglow distance measurements finally proved the cosmological distances of GRBs which provided the illusion that the Earth is at the center of distribution of gamma ray bursts. GRBs are explainanble by the Standard Model of the Cosmology and is still superior than your retarded Geocentric wet dreams.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
NEXT: Sleepy blunders again, this time on gamma ray bursts: he says gamma ray bursts are not as energetic as quasars!!!quote:
"Now a couple of things:
- There is no such thing "as little shells of gamma ray sources" because, as noted above, there is no such thing as redshift quantization.">>But we have seen you fail utterly to support this assertion, and Katz' concentric shells of gamma ray bursters remain staring you in the face---the Earth remains directly at the center of the gamma ray distribution, just as we started off this thread by reporting. This is completely consistent with the geocentric theory, and utterly inconsistent with the "acentric" assumptions of Standard Theory, since your "cosmological expansion" assumption still leaves the EARTH at the center of your EXPANSION!
quote:
"- I dont know what Trans mean when he say "specific, precisely coordinated moments" but gamma rays emanate from seemingly random places in deep space and at random times.
- Gamma ray Burst are caused only by supernova-level or hypernova events. They are NOT "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies." Youre confusing quasars with GRB's. Just search Wikipedia and you'll get a gist.">>> You really need to expand your horizons beyond Wikipoodia. Here, for example, we have Penn State University to assist you in coming to understand these things better:
quote:
"Even at those distances they appear so bright that their energy output during its brief peak period has to be larger than that of any other type of source, of the order of a solar rest-mass if isotropic, or some percent of that if collimated. This energy output rate is comparable to burning up the entire mass-energy of the sun in a few tens of seconds, or to emit over that same period of time as much energy as our entire Milky Way does in a hundred years."-------http://www.astro.psu.edu/users/nnp/grbphys.html
>>OK Sleepy. As usual, you make up in determination what you lack in knowledge, and I am honestly grateful to you for raising these issues. It allows me to bring up so much more evidence than I would otherwise have been able to J
quote:
"It has been a real pleasure in a slapstick comedy kind of way to debate this issue with you. ">>I couldn't imagine putting it more appropriately, chum.
NEXT: THE SMOKING GUN! THE MOST ASTONISHING NEW OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE GOR GEOCENTRISM--THE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND
Cheers!
What you said in the previous post was this: "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies.", which is stupidly energetic. You need galactic-size objects to account for that kind of energy output like quasars with supermassive black holes. Gamma ray bursts are only stellar-sized objects/phenomenon. They are not that powerful. The GRB description from the link you posted does not agree with what youre trying to say. The phrase "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies." describes a much, MUCH larger energy output than the simple "burning up the entire mass-energy of the sun in a few tens of seconds" or "emit over that same period of time as much energy as our entire Milky Way does in a hundred years.". Yes, i do believe that you dont know what youre talking about.
Now where is that smoking -gun bullsh!t proof of yours. We need another good laugh. Jeers 😆
Originally posted by leonheartmmread his posts before you bullshit. psuedoscientific i doubt. he is crushing(or appears to be) relativity. read his arguments i found them interesting and i definitely await a GOOD response. please crush his anti relativity claims instead of blindly saying something hes already covered 90 times
frame of reference =/= centre of the universe. also, the thing that utterly destroyes his argument inspite of the amount of psuedo intellectual bullshit he is putting in, is the fact that he beleives that the earth is stationary and the entire cosmos revolves around it, which is refuted by everything we know of reletivity. he is turning into the new jia.
Originally posted by Templareshysterical this is better than ****ing cable. more, more!
Yeah, just keep telling yourself that. By the way, Jonathan I. Katz's book' The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts is actually a for the masses, HISTORICAL account of the study of GRBs. No new revelations about GRBs inside. Included in the book are the old crackpot theories that try to explain GRBs and that geocentrists would love to trump and quote (among which is Kantz's own retarded 1992 study) as well as the more level-headed, and accurate post-1997 discoveries concerning GRBs where afterglow distance measurements finally proved the cosmological distances of GRBs which provided the illusion that the Earth is at the center of distribution of gamma ray bursts. GRBs are explainanble by the Standard Model of the Cosmology and is still superior than your retarded Geocentric wet dreams.What you said in the previous post was this: "putting out energies far in excess of [b]thousands of Milky Way Galaxies.
", which is stupidly energetic. You need galactic-size objects to account for that kind of energy output like quasars with supermassive black holes. Gamma ray bursts are only stellar-sized objects/phenomenon. They are not that powerful. The GRB description from the link you posted does not agree with what youre trying to say. The phrase "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies." describes a much, MUCH larger energy output than the simple "burning up the entire mass-energy of the sun in a few tens of seconds" or "emit over that same period of time as much energy as our entire Milky Way does in a hundred years.". Yes, i do believe that you dont know what youre talking about.Now where is that smoking -gun bullsh!t proof of yours. We need another good laugh. Jeers 😆 [/B]
Originally posted by chickenlover98
read his posts before you bullshit. psuedoscientific i doubt. he is crushing(or appears to be) relativity. read his arguments i found them interesting and i definitely await a GOOD response. please crush his anti relativity claims instead of blindly saying something hes already covered 90 times
I fail to see why you continue to cheerlead for mr. Trans...
I've personally explained to you why it is bullshit and why "crushing his claims" is a practice in futility.
I mean, look at the 3-4 post response he made to me. He actually never presented anything close to the evidence that was requested. He insulted me a lot, showed a total misunderstanding of the scientific method, and then presented the same evidence which a) has been refuted on a factual, methodological and integrity basis b) is not mutually exclusive with modern astronomy or c) fails to provide any predictions by which future and novel research programmes can be created.
The reason crushing it would be a exercise in futility is because he has protected his views in a non-falsifiable armor of nonsense. There is a conspiracy of scientists, so any data can simply be them trying to fool you. Not to mention the post hoc nature of his data (which he never contends, only argues that post hoc is valid science) allows any new or conflicting evidence to be incorporated into the theory of geocentricism. For instance, he goes on at length about Kepler's diagrams. The data from Tycho that Kepler used for both his geocentric and heliocentric models was post hoc. Taking data, coming up with a theory, then saying that theory is correct is not proper science, and thus, it is easy to say NONE of Kepler's models, as they were 200 years ago, would stand up to modern science. Unfortunately for mr. trans, data and data collection has changed and improved, as has our understanding of scientific methodology. For these reasons, and I could get into a whole falsifiability thing, it is actually logically impossible to assail what trans is saying. Now, that might sound impressive, but, scientifically, something must be falsifiable before it can even be considered. Concepts like God and unicorns are also non-falsifiable, and there existence is immune to logic. To me, that is actually more damning of the concept than empirical data. The inability to gather data that could possibly prove a theory wrong means the theory isn't worth the time.
Not to mention the quotations point, which shows one or more of the following:
1) He didn't read the material and is only quoting what others have told him (something he criticizes 'scientists' for doing, re: he is a hypocrite)
2) He has read what he sources and failed to understand the material, re: He only has highschool training and is not learned in how to interpret science
3) He read what he sources only looking for selective quotations, while uninterested in the remaining content, re: he has fallen victim to conformation bias
4) He has read what he sources, both understands the conclusions and paid attention to the content, and thus deliberately lies about the results, re: he is purposely manipulating data
hence my comparison to high school scholarship, where any of these things are both accepted and rewarded. In any real academic sense, these are unacceptable and intellectually dishonest, with the exception of 2, which is indicative of problems in reading comprehension.
look, believe what you want, but I cannot stress this enough, Trans is NOT making a scientific argument.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you know what the photo is of? It is a galaxy.
>> I had assumed we both already knew that.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It seems that there is another Earth out there in space.
>> There is no evidence whatsoever of "another Earth out there in space". All hypothesized planetary systems, discovered thus far, by measuring perturbations in stellar objects, have shown "exoplanets" and related systems which are dramatically different from both earth and our solar system. Furthermore, none of these systems are oriented in space so as to place them at the center of regular, spherical distributions of objects including:
1. Galaxies
2. Quasars
3. Gamma-Ray Bursts
4. Bl Lac Objects
5. X-Ray Sources
6. As we shall soon see, the utterly astonishing orientation of the Cosmic Microwave Background to Earth.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is there all of those galaxies out there spinning around something? Please keep your answer short.
According to standard theory, each of these galaxies is rotating about its own barycenter. However, there are, within these larger structures, smaller structures, including binary star systems, comets, asteroids, and even planetary systems each and all of which are themselves ALSO rotating about LOCAL barycenters, within the larger galactic structure. ST more recently proposes that even these larger, galactic structures are themselves in motion around or with reference to even larger, newly discovered "super-structures", such as galactic superclusters. Since NONE of these structures, no matter how vast, is oriented at the center of a spherical distribution out to the farthest edges of the visible universe-as Earth is- we are required to confront the following:
since the universe we see is not the universe predicted by relativity, isotropic, homogeneous, and since regular, periodic distributions are centered upon Earth, and not upon ANY of these other structures, then ALL arguments which have ever been advanced against the geocentric hypothesis are essentially refuted by the observational evidence itself. Back to you.
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses-wikipedias definition of the scientific method.
now since pretty much EVERYONE except trans accepts wikipedia as a generally correct source lets use that as the running definition. now upon closer examination it appears that is exactly what trans is doing! 😱 omg it looks like you were wrong ini!
actually, no
look up what is incorporated in hypothesis testing, which is a far more important aspect of science than theory generation
Hypothesis testing requires testing the null hypothesis (the hypothesis that would prove you wrong). If there is no null, there can be no test, and all you are doing is post hoc-ing the initial hypothesis and fitting it with new data.
Unfortunately, I do not think wiki is a credible source, especially in this regard, as they have not included the importance of a theory to generate new predictions for novel research programmes, which, if you want me to source, you can find in Lakatos' book which has been mentioned many times in this thread.
So, while even the wiki definition includes hypothesis testing as an important measure, it is limited. However, even according to the Wiki definition, trans isn't doing anything close to a hypothesis test.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> I had assumed we both already knew that.
Please don’t assume.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> There is no evidence whatsoever of "another Earth out there in space". All hypothesized planetary systems, discovered thus far, by measuring perturbations in stellar objects, have shown "exoplanets" and related systems which are dramatically different from both earth and our solar system. Furthermore, none of these systems are oriented in space so as to place them at the center of regular, spherical distributions of objects including:
1. Galaxies
2. Quasars
3. Gamma-Ray Bursts
4. Bl Lac Objects
5. X-Ray Sources
6. As we shall soon see, the utterly astonishing orientation of the Cosmic Microwave Background to Earth.
There would have to be another Earth out there. After all only something as special as an Earth could attract as mush stuff around it. After all, everything orbits the Earth here in this galaxy, why would another galaxy orbit nothing?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>The short answer is, the Laws of Physics.According to standard theory, each of these galaxies is rotating about its own barycenter. However, there are, within these larger structures, smaller structures, including binary star systems, comets, asteroids, and even planetary systems each and all of which are themselves ALSO rotating about LOCAL barycenters, within the larger galactic structure. ST more recently proposes that even these larger, galactic structures are themselves in motion around or with reference to even larger, newly discovered "super-structures", such as galactic superclusters. Since NONE of these structures, no matter how vast, is oriented at the center of a spherical distribution out to the farthest edges of the visible universe-as Earth is- we are required to confront the following:
since the universe we see is not the universe predicted by relativity, isotropic, homogeneous, and since regular, periodic distributions are centered upon Earth, and not upon ANY of these other structures, then ALL arguments which have ever been advanced against the geocentric hypothesis are essentially refuted by the observational evidence itself. Back to you.
What does relativity mean?
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, nolook up what is incorporated in hypothesis testing, which is a far more important aspect of science than theory generation
Hypothesis testing requires testing the null hypothesis (the hypothesis that would prove you wrong). If there is no null, there can be no test, and all you are doing is post hoc-ing the initial hypothesis and fitting it with new data.
Unfortunately, I do not think wiki is a credible source, especially in this regard, as they have not included the importance of a theory to generate new predictions for novel research programmes, which, if you want me to source, you can find in Lakatos' book which has been mentioned many times in this thread.
So, while even the wiki definition includes hypothesis testing as an important measure, it is limited. However, even according to the Wiki definition, trans isn't doing anything close to a hypothesis test.
not to just quote myself (how dumb is that?) but I wanted to add this, but not in an edit.
All of this presumes that the person doing the hypothesis test is being honest. Trans is not being honest. Trans cannot be doing science.
hmm... I just thought of this, if earth is teh centaur of the universe, then why doth our own galaxy that surroundeth us formeth a spiral around a point which is conveniently located where a suspected supermassive black hole layeth? If yon galaxy doth rotate around terra, then how doth yon way of the milk maintain its rotational shape around thine mystery supermass? Or doth thee hole of blackness rotate thine earth while yon milky way spiral round thine hole?