Just because you were taught something doesn't in and of itself make it true. That would be accepting such a thing to be "self-evident," which is a fallacy. For example, it is a fallacy to make the claim that the "earth moves because we already know that it does." That is the trap that is "self-evident," or more aptly as Bessler's words, "putting the cart before the horse."Fletcher wrote:The point being that when the cosmic microwave background maps are analysed they show a consistency in ANY direction from ANY POINT. Meaning there is no center, or all points are the center. Because it looks the same in ANY direction from ANYWHERE.
Silvertiger wrote:The CMB alignment with earth's ecliptic plane has revealed the anisotropic qualities of the CMB. While much of the CMB is isotropic, these temperature gradients contain enough anisotropic data to map out earth's location in the cosmos using the direction and coordinates established by this anisotropic data itself - a map with a two-axis coordinate system if you will. Any anisotropy inherent in the CMB can be, and already has been, utilized to establish direction in the universe, which has been shown to be nonhomogeneous.
The foundation of modern cosmology relies on the so-called cosmological principle which states an homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter in the universe on large scales. However, recent observations, such as the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, the motion of galaxies in the universe, the polarization of quasars and the acceleration of the cosmic expansion, indicate preferred directions in the sky. If these directions have a cosmological origin, the cosmological principle would be violated, and modern cosmology should be reconsidered.
- Paper, Preferred Axis in Cosmology, 5May2016But when you look at the CMB map, you also see that the structure that is 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? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
- Lawrence Krauss, Threoretical Physicist, Cosmologist, Director Origins Project, Arizona State University
WMAP proved nothing of the sort. In fact, it showed the very opposite of what they were expecting...that's WHY Planck was launched, and Planck confirmed the exact same thing that WMAP was showing! NASA scientists already had predetermined that a flat Euclidean space was needed for the Big Bang to "work." Why? Because they cannot get it to work with the two other Friedmann models available (e.g., an “open� universe that expands forever, or a “closed� universe that expands but eventually collapses in on itself). As physicist Andrei Linde admits:Fletcher wrote:However we were told there was no center of the universe per se, like you might expect for a chemical explosion. Proved by WMAP etc in that the universe appears flat at local level but could be spherical and closed in its entirety.
A second trouble spot [for the Big Bang] is the flatness of space. General Relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10-33 centimeters. We see, however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 1028 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude.
I also find it most interesting that light can travel at whatever speed they deem necessary in order to force their model to work, but to claim that light is constant whenever a contradiction arises. That's most convenient...wouldn't you say? Even for an "opinion"? WMAP never did determine the age of the universe as certain claims state. It is merely an instrument that collects data. When that data passes through the hands of NASA, however, their scientists “determine� the results of WMAP data, and they do so only through their biased presuppositions that accord with the Big Bang theory, a failed theory that is dependent on invented props such as Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Inflation; a theory which fails to provide answers for anomalies such as disparate redshift values for quasar-connected galaxies; shifting Hubble, Omega and Lambda values; and the incongruity of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Despite these anomalies, NASA systematically excludes all other interpretations of WMAP’s data.Fletcher wrote:And you don't have to be a genius to quickly work out that a 14.8 billion year old universe does not fit into a 93 billion light year diameter for the known (observable) universe. Fortunately IIRC scientists came to the rescue and said initial rapid inflation was faster than light (one theory). The take-away is that the universe is 93 billion light years across from ANY position in the universe IINM. Because we can only see light traveling to us from 14.8 billion years ago and no further.
But in REALITY here on earth, NASA chooses an age close to 13 billion years because its scientists naively believe that “carbon scattering� from supernovas created biological life; and they estimate that such a process would take at least 10 billion years. However, it cannot be much more than 10 billion years because by then all the stars would have used up their fuel and would cease to exist. So, 13.75 billion years is their safest bet LOL!!! XD
Also...shocker...WMAP showed a huge amount of empty space in the universe and consequently did not provide NASA with the matter and energy it needed for the Big Bang!
You continue to make the claim that space is "expanding" in the magic balloon world, but the reality is that, while NASA’s theory (based on its interpretation of 1a supernovas) claims that the universe is accelerating, they cannot find ANY matter or energy in deep space to propel the acceleration. They never have and they never will...because it doesn't exist.
And, since it is directly related to the vast distances proposed by balloon expansion...what about the "Horizon Problem"? Did you know that the Big Bang was threatened in the 1970's by this problem, and that it was one of the reasons for the ad-hoc-on-the-spot "creation" of modern inflation theory that was later "added" to the Big Bang?
