The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It doesn't.

Miscellaneous news and views...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

The star field isn't fixed. They appear fixed because we're so far away from them. It's a convention to say "against the fixed background of stars" but in reality they aren't fixed, and astrophysicists account for their motion.
From the starfield's perspective , our solar system would appear fixed. It's provable that the galaxies are accelerating, including the Milky Way. Go back to sleep Tiger.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

I am on vacation and am wide awake. It would be nice if people would read. When I said "universal expansion" that is the same thing as saying the galaxies are accelerating. And I was talking about a rotating starfield being the cause of the outward expansion. It was Hubble who first noticed this phenomenon, indicated by red shift. Edwin Hubble made the first observations that for the first time challenged the Copernican Principle. To Hubble it looked like a velocity factor which would imply that the universe was moving uniformly away from a center point...Earth. He stated that if this expansion of space were a velocity factor, then "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable..."

Basically, since we see red shift in every direction rather than more blue, then the galaxies are moving away from us. If earth were part of this expansion, we would see a lot less red.

Of course, Alexander Friedmann disagreed with the nature of the observations altogether and said that space was simply homogeneous and isotropic in form and thus would look the same...as if it were moving away from us no matter where we are in the universe. He used this basis to describe his expansion models, which still provided an extremely weak argument and explanation for Hubble's observations.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Also, once again, dark matter and dark energy were fictions that were invented ad-hoc, on-the-spot, to patch up the holes in the Copernican Principle. And they don't work. They don't exist. They have never been observed nor detected nor quantified. Moreover, when an attempt is made to unify the cosmological with the quantum, experimentation shows that they are off by a factor 10E120 in error! Just for reference, if you're off by 2,3, or 10, it is considered bad. Now string along 120 zeros behind those numbers.

But, when we remove the Copernican Principle and establish the earth at a fixed point in space that also just so happens to occupy the center of mass of a rotating universe, ALL DATA fits the model and unifies the fields. Nothing else explains why galaxies rotate ten times faster than what is expected with the measurable amounts of gravity within the still accepted Copernican system.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

You added the rotating star field part after I posted my reply.
Astrophysics has learned a lot since Hubble and Friedman.
Dark energy and matter are theories to explain the observable universe. We can't observe them because we don't have instruments that can duplicate the energies required to prove their existence.
We're still waiting for any experiments , articles, etc. that show the earth is at the center of the universe. I haven't looked for any, yet.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

My last edit from the last post on page three was at 7:21 pm. You're post was at 7:59 pm. And we already HAVE the experiments, articles, etc. that show the earth is at the center of the universe. I have been sharing them the entire time.

Edit: Look at the results of the WMAP and the Planck. Both their data say the same exact thing about the CMB. That we are in a unique position at the center in which there would be no other way for these axial alignments with our ecliptic plane and equinox plane to exist if we were at any other place and in motion in the universe. Like I said..."parking spot."

Also, once again, when the Copernican Principle was removed and Earth was established at the center of a rotating and expanding starfield, ALL of the data finally fit and dark matter and dark energy were finally removed since they never existed to begin with!

And also, observation of scans of the quarter of the universe that we can look at that is not obstructed by the Milky Way shows us that the shape of the universe is spherical and that its form is that of an onion with concentric shells occupied by galaxies that are precisely spaced by voids (shell sheaths) of a approximately 250 lighty years, and that, as well, this is yet another aspect of our universe which can only be observed from being at the exact center of it and at no other location therein. These observations were made by John Hartnett, Professor, Physics, U. of Adelaide, Australia.
Last edited by Silvertiger on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

As of March 21st, 2013, telemetry from the Planck Satellite was released to the public and the data confirmed our position at the center of mass of the universe. Max Tegmark, Professor, Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was the first to write a program to map the CMB using spherical harmonics and get an accurate picture as a spherical model, and on March 21st, 2013, confirmed his findings after looking at the first images released by Planck, which matched in perfect correlation to his findings in confirmation with the WMAP team.

At first, before all of this, it had initially been thought that the WMAP team responsible for the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe had possibly made some kind of error in their analysis or that there was some kind of error with the instrumentation itself or some kind of scanning anomaly. The data from Planck resolved this issue as well. Max officially changed his position on...his position in the universe after this lol.
Last edited by Silvertiger on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Art
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1019
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Australia

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Art »

Since the Cosmic Microwave Background is a pattern of radiation that we're observing where the radiation is radiating from every point in the Universe (presumably ) , then that puts us and our solar system in the same position as a raisin in a universal pudding of interfering waves .

A three dimensional wave interference system is a hologram .

I think it is a probability that the fine structure pattern that we observe in the Universal background will appear to be aligned with us no matter what direction we look out because we are looking out into a hologram .

My bet is that light patterns do confusing things , even when they are tired photons like microwaves .

The odds that we are the center of the Universe must be astronomical ! : )
Have had the solution to Bessler's Wheel approximately monthly for over 30 years ! But next month is "The One" !
User avatar
TGM
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:39 pm
Location: Florida, USA

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by TGM »

You know ST, the onus is on YOU to provide accurate data on this, not us. You have only spewed speculation and no links to real data.

Until you do, I think you're "off base" and I'll avoid spending my valuable time looking for data to support your religious theory.
"Orffyreus commented that when the secret is revealed, he is afraid that people will complain that the idea is so simple it is not worth the asking price."
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Umm...I thought I already did provide accurate data. Also, I'm having some difficulty understanding that last statement. What makes the theory mine? If it were do you think I would be working third shift at a die casting plant lol? And what, exactly, makes scientific data religious? How does any burden of proof rest on me since the most recent data has been available for four years to anyone who wants to look it up? Mach's principle alone is enough to mathematically explain Coriolis and the equatorial bulge, and it too has been around for quite some time. Of course you have still avoided discussing it.

I am not your personal waiter. If you want a sandwich then go make it yourself. If you want to discuss this further then bring your own food to the table instead of dishing out ultimatums. Don't be a ninny baby about it. I'm simply sharing research. I have already cited several physicists and the names of the satellites that yielded this data as well as the latest released data. You can try to contact them if you wish. It is not on me to hold your hand while crossing the road and teach you how to look things up. Your turn.
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

Every point in the universe will look like the center when you look "out" from that point. That's what the CMB data tells us. There isn't a center. Black holes are theorized to be at the centers of galaxies. If there is a center to the universe, logic would say it's a supermassive black hole, or several.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

re: The Earth Doesn't Rotate or Move - No...seriously. It do

Post by Silvertiger »

Art wrote:Since the Cosmic Microwave Background is a pattern of radiation that we're observing where the radiation is radiating from every point in the Universe (presumably ) , then that puts us and our solar system in the same position as a raisin in a universal pudding of interfering waves .
Art wrote:I think it is a probability that the fine structure pattern that we observe in the Universal background will appear to be aligned with us no matter what direction we look out because we are looking out into a hologram .
eccentrically1 wrote:Every point in the universe will look like the center when you look "out" from that point. That's what the CMB data tells us. There isn't a center. Black holes are theorized to be at the centers of galaxies. If there is a center to the universe, logic would say it's a supermassive black hole, or several.
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, 5May2016


Art wrote:The odds that we are the center of the Universe must be astronomical ! : )
But 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
Last edited by Silvertiger on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:03 am, edited 3 times in total.
Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Also, to reiterate, if we were anywhere other than where we are, we would see less redshift and more blue. Redshift is not an isotropic property. If we were accelerating in the Milky Way along with other galaxies moving in the same direction, we would see less red in those galaxies than in the galaxies moving away from us. As we see from Hubble's Law, redshift is extremely direction-dependent.


Hubble's Law:

1. Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth;
2. This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.



Eccentrically1, I also forgot to reiterate for your last post:
eccentrically1 wrote:If there is a center to the universe, logic would say it's a supermassive black hole, or several.
Silvertiger wrote:If you recall, it was Isaac Newton who proposed, based on observation and experimentation, that all masses in the universe did not necessarily have to orbit larger or smaller masses, but that they would be tethered to a center of mass. This case would allow for rotation to occur as well as orbits, allowing for the possibility of larger objects to go around smaller objects, or around no object at all, such as would be just the case in a rotating starfield.
User avatar
TGM
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:39 pm
Location: Florida, USA

Post by TGM »

Silvertiger wrote:Your turn.
This is the only crap worth quoting.

You post a link to a YouTube video and your own spewings. Some data.

I see the smart people have left your discussion and I'm joining them!
"Orffyreus commented that when the secret is revealed, he is afraid that people will complain that the idea is so simple it is not worth the asking price."
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

OK. I'm not your momma. I can't force you to stay. I understand completely. We can't reason with unreasonable people now...can we? People get angry when they run out of wits. I understand that too...poor thing. Well have fun! :D
User avatar
eccentrically1
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3133
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm

Post by eccentrically1 »

@all
Here is where the info is referenced from

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipti ... anisotropy

I haven't had time to read it all.
Post Reply