Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are We at the Center of the Universe? (new solution to Einstein's field equations may put us there!)
CEH ^ | August 23, 2009

Posted on 08/24/2009 9:23:30 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

What distortion of knowledge are you going to use to explain the velocity of the Milky Way compared to the CMB?


41 posted on 08/24/2009 9:55:00 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


42 posted on 08/24/2009 9:57:32 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

I agree wholeheartedly. However, many of those who take the Genesis account of creation as literally true state unequivocally that one cannot be a Christian without sharing that belief. I am sure, though, that you would disagree with them.


43 posted on 08/24/2009 9:57:39 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: angkor
"In other words...."

....he velocity of light is relative to itself, not relative to a point against which it is measured. In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known.

44 posted on 08/24/2009 10:00:05 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Actually you want to phrase the question just slightly differnt ——light speed is NOT constant depending upon the medium through which it tracels. In VACCUO the theory ( and most everything we can measure) says that the speend of light is a constant, represented in several different equations as “c”


45 posted on 08/24/2009 10:00:07 AM PDT by the long march
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“What distortion of knowledge are you going to use to explain the velocity of the Milky Way compared to the CMB?”

Human “scientists” conceived of “red shift” after the Fall with inspiration from satan.


46 posted on 08/24/2009 10:01:21 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“Genesis described creation for a scientifically ignorant audience...”

Yes, and many of them still read Answers in Genesis!

(Sorry—that was a slowpitch softball!)


47 posted on 08/24/2009 10:04:45 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Here's an inconvenient quote from Space.com that CEH failed to note.

To convince other cosmologists, the new model will have to pass muster with further inquiry.

"There are many observational tests of the standard cosmological model that the proposed model must pass, aside from the late phase of accelerated expansion," said Avi Loeb, director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "These include big bang nucleosynthesis, the quantitative details of the microwave background anisotropies, the Lyman-alpha forest, and galaxy surveys. The authors do not discuss how their model compares to these tests, and whether the number of free parameters they require in order to fit these observational constraints is smaller than in the standard model. Until they do so, it is not clear why this alternative model should be regarded as advantageous."

Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist Mario Livio agreed that to be seriously considered, the model must be able to predict properties of the universe that astronomers can measure.

He said the real test "is in whether they are able to reproduce all the observed cosmological parameters (as determined, e.g. by a combination of the Hubble Constant and the parameters determined by the CMB observations). To only produce an apparent acceleration is in itself interesting, but not particularly meaningful."

In other words, this theory is at the proposal stage now and has never been tested.

48 posted on 08/24/2009 10:06:09 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Evidence wise, there has never been the slightest doubt!


49 posted on 08/24/2009 10:06:53 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Genesis described creation for a scientifically ignorant audience and was to answer the social question of how and why.

Thanks, Tenacious 1. I continue to be amazed at how much nonsense people have claimed to be in the very, very short story of creation.


50 posted on 08/24/2009 10:09:48 AM PDT by DallasMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1
Does motion affect the speed of light relative to a static point in space?

It is my understanding that a 'static point in space' is not a possibility. A 'point in space' would be an acceptable argument.

51 posted on 08/24/2009 10:10:10 AM PDT by whodathunkit (Shrugging as I leave for the Gulch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: angkor

The proof lies in the fact that the Great Sundial has not been accurate for the past thousand years.


52 posted on 08/24/2009 10:10:38 AM PDT by UScbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I’ve always felt the copernican principle was a crutch. The simplest most intuitive understanding is that there has to be a center of the universe but the question is where. To say that since we don’t know therefore we’re going to come up with this complicated scheme involving dark energy and hyperspheres so that there is no center (or everything is the center, depending on how you look at it) seems to me a path to madness, just like Ptolemy’s contrivances of epicyclces to show that the earth must be at the center of the solar system.

It’s not about whether the geo’s are right or not or whether the Milky Way (or some other spot) is close enough. It’s about Keep It Simple Stupid and not making our understanding of the universe more complicated than Obamacare.


53 posted on 08/24/2009 10:13:46 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Obama acted stupidly...and that's after knowing all the facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PugetSoundSoldier

I love that guy. Is he from Monty Python?


54 posted on 08/24/2009 10:18:22 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Actually, it’s the lunatic Temple of Darwin fanatics who are now flirting with a cosmic center.

Darwinian evolution is a biological concept. Why would biologists care about the cosmos or cosmic centers?

The idea is patently ridiculous. It's not their field.

Of course when you talk about "Darwinists" (or "Temple of Darwin fanatics") you're not referring just to evolutionary biologists and the others who study evolution and evolutionary processes on a daily basis. Instead, your attack is on all scientists everywhere. "Darwinist" is what you say, but you really mean "scientist."

An astronomer may not have taken Biology 101, may not have any opinions whatsoever about biology, yet you'll still lump him in "The Temple of Darwin" because he holds scientific theories and doesn't adhere to your 12th century religious orthodoxy. Frankly, it's sad enough that people like you still exist 9 centuries after your sell-by date.

55 posted on 08/24/2009 10:20:51 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

That’s Donald Sutherland from the remake of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”.


56 posted on 08/24/2009 10:22:31 AM PDT by Buck W. (The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
This was the “waves” in space idea or similar that didn't need dark matter and energy?
57 posted on 08/24/2009 10:29:48 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.
I do emphatically believe that the bible represents the word of God. But, as with other literature scribed by man, it was, and is, an enduring message written for all times to a specific audience. The meaning and message is tireless. But acute understanding of the delivery often leads to confounding absolutes.

An eye for an eye conflicts with turn the other cheek if the context is not understood. When Jesus suggests that a man that causes a child to sin should have a millstone cast around his neck and thrown into the deepest sea, certain, otherwise, absolutionists want to interpret the meaning while emphatically stating that a man named Adam procreated with a woman named Eve and we are all descendants of them both (or of Abraham which includes some genealogical gaps).

In short, the bible is the word of God and includes all of the rules, regulations, hints, advice, expectations, etc. of how we are to hone our souls during this short 80 year existence to be excepted into the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to update the message to a more advanced crowd and place emphasis through activism on the eventual wealth of the “least of his people.”

I believe David killed Goliath. I believe Moses led the Egyptians out of Captivity. I do not believe that Moses lived to be 1,000 years old. But to a culture whose life expectancy was about 35, a 105 year old man outlived several generations. The Jews were slaves and I doubt their math acumen was very high. But all knew that 1000 years old was a very long life. Back then, even living to be 100 would be a miracle. Did he actually part the Red Sea? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I believe he acted at the behest of God with divine influence and guidance to lead the Jews into the desert.

58 posted on 08/24/2009 10:32:39 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (Government For the People - an obviously concealed oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

The light would be infinitely redshifted


59 posted on 08/24/2009 10:33:40 AM PDT by jesseam (G)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
The current evo-atheist Big Bang cosmology was specifically designed to demote our position in the Universe. All the observations suggested that our galaxy was at or near the center. But instead, Hawkings et al ignored the data and covered up the evidence pointing to our galaxy being at or near the center, and they did so for explicitly ideological reasons. As for evolution being a strictly biological concept, nothing could be further from the truth. Ever hear of Cosmic Evolution?
60 posted on 08/24/2009 10:36:45 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 321 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson