“So which is real, the Ptolemaic orCopernican system? Although it is not uncommon for peopleto say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is nottrue….one can use either picture as a model of the universe,for our observations of the heavens can be explained byassuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest." - Stephen Hawking1. all motion is relative2. all dynamics is relative3. all kinematics is relativehow do we prove (re: what are the experiments that have been/ can be done to prove) that the earth moves1. at all2. in relation to and around the sun3. in relation to the universe, whether it spinsif you go against the 3 postulates then explain it to me please thank youpicrel is the CMB anisotropy seemingly related to the ecliptic as seen from earthcaptcha GSJNnote: sun is the center because bigger and more gravity is not the right answer, because the solar system is not limited only to the earth and sun, there are innumerable factors involved
picrel is the grid of quasars situated around the earthhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF0064054948VP
>>16142004The universe itself is stationary, it's a smooth, boundaryless manifold with no beginning or end, thus you can use this as your v0 as it's not moving anywhere or in relation to anything else
>>16142004are you stupid?
>how do we prove (re: what are the experiments that have been/ can be done to prove) that the earth moves>1. at allYou start by saying all motion is relative, and then you say a stupid thing like this. >2. in relation to and around the sunYes, it is Doppler shifted and the Sun changes in apparent size as the earth gets closer and nearer. There is also the annual parallax.>3. in relation to the universeThe Sun is Doppler shifted with respect to most stars around it, nearby stars also move across the sky so cannot be fixed with respect to the Earth.We also sees the CMB Doppler shifted, because the Galaxy is not at rest with the local co-moving frame.https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5377.pdf
>>16142027thank you! so is there an explanation for the CMB temperature anisotropy anomaly of it being aligned to the ecliptic? SMGV
>>16142009Pic related is absolute bullshit. The paper cherrypicks 4 quasars out of sample of 57 and says it's crazy unlikely. But he's assuming they are uncorrelated, whereas real galaxies are clustered. The statistics is also just laughable.You might wonder why this was discovered in 1976 and never talked about since, that's because this whole discussion was based on tiny samples and shoddy statistics.My figure is a modem plot. Back then they had sample of 400 quasars in total. Now there are over 800,000 with spectroscopic redshifts. So it should be easy to see this giant wall of quasars at z=1.955. As you can see from my plot there is no shell at z=1.955. This grid of quasars does not exist. It was entirely spurious and based on tiny samples.You can see a broad peak at z=2.2, this is artifical. This is caused by the selection function, as the telescope prioritized observing high redshift quasars. A sample corrected for this shows no additional peaks.
>>16142004>one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at restAnd if you actually go out there you can see the earth orbiting the sun not vice versa
>>16142065thank you again! and what about the "fingers of god" phenomenon? is it also due to doppler shift?ADDY
>>16142065and, well, this figure shows there kind of is a lot more quasars near us than there are away from us, isnt it? is there already an explanation for this?22JM
>>16142062You picture is not the whole anisotropy. They have filtered out 99% of the interesting stuff. The real map looks like this. You cannot see any correlation with the solar system plane. What people are talking about is the 2 spherical harmonics (modes) which have a roughly aligned axis, the quadrupole and octopole moments. Why did people look at these in particular? No reason, they looked at lots of things. When you look at enough features eventually you will find something curious, it doesn't mean it's significant.And why should it be aligned with the solar system plane? No reason, people also would have tested the galactic plane, the Earth's equatorial plane. If you look at enough data eventually you will find coincidences. There is no alternative which predicted this. Geocentrists might point to this as evidence, but they are cherry picking to the extreme. As they cannot explain all the other structure in the CMB, throwing out thousands and modes (plus polarisation) to point at 2. Which big bang cosmology predicted very accurately.
>>16142082so the anisotropical dipole, quadrupole, octupoles which can be gotten from statistical smoothing out of the data, is not that big of a deal? i see2DNP
>>16142070Fingers of god are just caused by the fact that the depth in galaxy surveys in measured with redshift. Redshift is the combination of cosmological redshift (from expansion) and any velocity the galaxy has. Galaxies orbiting massive clusters have large velocity dispersion, and so the cluster gets smeared out in the redshift direction. Where there is a cluster there is a finger of god. They would point to any observer. >>16142077The telescope has an cutoff in apparent brightness. Further away quasars (higher redshift) appear fainter even at fixed intrinsic brightness (luminosity). Eventually you can't detect them any more. It's not a sharp cut off because there are a distribution of luminosities. But there is also the effect of galaxy evolution, quasars are not the same at all times. Higher redshift means earlier in time. Beyond redshift 3 they become more rare. And if you correct the histogram for volume and bias you find there are much fewer local quasars than at z=2. There are very few low redshift quasars. This fact is one of the things that killed steady state cosmology, because it's evidence the universe isn't always the same. Quasars peaked in activity around z=2, as did the rate at which galaxies form stars.
>>16142103thanks a lot! i skimmed thru robert sungenis' "galileo was wrong" (can be found on archive.org) which defended a geocentrist geostatist position. its refreshing to see a mainstream scientific defense. the universe is so cool. DVPS
>>16142089It's not smoothing, you decompose the map into spherical harmonics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonicsAnd the correlation is only the quadrupole and octupoles, not the dipole.It is curious that they are roughly aligned, but is it strange enough to throw out all of cosmology no? It also wasn't done blindingly, people looked at hundreds of different aspects, eventually you find something odd. It certainly isn't strange enough to reject relativity and everything else.The most interesting part of the CMB is that there are acoustic oscillations in the data, which look like waves in the spherical harmonic power spectrum. These oscillations were predicted decades before and there they are, it is a profound validation of the hot big bang. The people advocating geocentrism have no explanation for any of this, and never will.
>>16142009>>16142065Also the shitty statistics in that paper were refuted 2 years later. We didn't have to wait to see modern data. Of course these flatties spent more time making a stupid diagram than actually checking the shit they cite. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978Ap%26SS..53..265W/abstract
>>16142112https://ia800603.us.archive.org/18/items/GallileoWasWrong/Gallileo%20was%20wrong.pdfIt's total trash. It just hand-waves away Foucault's pendulum without explaining how it could possibly work. >In the geocentric system, the stars are centered on the sunIn the cope geocentric universe which was put forward by Tycho.
>>16142004Look faggot. Earth and Sun orbit their barycenter which is located very close to the Sun. That's it.
>>16142004For Copernicus, you only need Newton's three axioms, which are very complelling in their simplicity. In the case of the geocentric model, you have to make unmotivated and ad-hoc assumptions with epicycles, which reduces both predictive and explanatory power. On that note, you can predict the motion of stars in sky with Newton, which you obviously can't do with the geocentric model.
>>16142004>how do we prove (re: what are the experiments that have been/ can be done to prove) that the earth movesExperimentally? Foucault pendulum. Alternatively, any other effect relating to Coriolis, Euler and centrifugal force.
>>16142209From the retarded book.:>This particular logic, however, doesn’t prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an “unresolved” force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: “The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion – it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models.Which is nonsense. Rotation isn't relative according to Einstein. If you try to do physics in a rotating frame you will get a fictions force, the centrifugal force, which has no logical origin in that system. The origin is that your frame is rotating. The Earth is definitely rotating. Once you admit that, and that the planets orbit the Sun, then the rest of geocentrism is just retarded.
>>16142112>Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D.>In 2006 he received a Ph.D. in religious studies from the Calamus International University, an unaccredited distance-learning institution incorporated in the Republic of Vanuatu.
Na'qqq
>>16142232Fart in my mouf.
