There you Go,YECs...biblical "evidence" of "flat earth beliefs"

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:

​

b)Correct, yet that CBR, in traveling to us across the universe is affected by the universe so evenly that our measurements of it never vary by more than one part in ten thousand. Thus some have assumed that the universe looks basically the same regardless of the direction or even the locality from which it is viewed. Please notice that I do not agree with this assumption.

---

You seem to be ingnoring the overall anisotropy of the CBR. Conklin in 1969 described the dipole variation in the CBR due to the proper motion of the solar system at a velocity of 370km/sec. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmoall.htm#LSS

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl:
You seem to be ingnoring the overall anisotropy of the CBR. Conklin in 1969 described the dipole variation in the CBR due to the proper motion of the solar system at a velocity of 370km/sec.

​

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmoall.htm#LSS

---

Please notice the paranthetical statement under subpoint "ii" of letter "d." Please also notice the intentional differentiation between the terms, "homogeneous CBR" and "consistent CBR."I have not gone into a great amount of detail regarding the anisotropy of the CBR because it has yet to be presented as an individual argument. It has so far only been mentioned as a side note or a paranthetical statement to other arguments. I have therefore focused on the stated arguments and replied to the parantheticals with a paranthetical.

But I think you will agree that anything that is measured as moving relative to the universe cannot be at the center of that universe....Bye bye geocentricity and even Heliocentricity/milkywaycentricity of the universe....Feel free to show mathmaticaly how you feel nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane...Oh by the way are you the same fella as Littlejimberry and Thmsberry? or related in any way?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
But I think you will agree that anything that is measured as moving relative to the universe cannot be at the center of that universe....

​

Bye bye geocentricity and even Heliocentricity/milkywaycentricity of the universe....

​

Feel free to show mathmaticaly how you feel nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane...

---

Smoots in 1977 presents a much better detection of the first order anisotropy. http://prola.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v39/i14/p898_1Sorry, just realized this link doesn't work outside the firewall. The reference is: {Smoots, et. al., 1977, Physical Review Letters, 39, 898}

​

[This message has been edited by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl, 05-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)But I think you will agree that anything that is measured as moving relative to the universe cannot be at the center of that universe....

​

Bye bye geocentricity and even Heliocentricity/milkywaycentricity of the universe....

​

b)Feel free to show mathmaticaly how you feel nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane...

​

c)Oh by the way are you the same fella as Littlejimberry and Thmsberry? or related in any way?

---

a)No, I would not agree; for in any system containing two or more objects with at least one of those objects in motion, the motion of any object within that system can be measured relative to any other object within that system. The classic illustration of this principle is that of a ball being thrown from the front of a moving vehicle to the back. The motion of the ball can be meassured relative to either the vehicle or the planet on which the vehicle is moving or any other object within the universe. If measured relative to the vehicle, the ball can be said to be in motion. If measured relative to the planet, there exists the possibility that the ball can be said to be static. When every object in the universe is considered, one will find a great probability for the existence of one object from which measurements of the ball will show that ball to be static. Applying this principle to your claim, if the earth were the center of the universe and thus static while the entire universe is in motion, one can eualy produce measurements in which the earth is viewed as static and in which the earth is viewed as being in motion depending on the perspective from which those measurements are taken. Therefore, I would dissagree with your claim that relativistic measurements disprove geocentricity.b)You will please notice that I have not claimed that nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane. I have in fact stated that the existence of our universe as such is an impossibility. Why then should I attempt to provide mathematical proof of the existence of something which I have claimed cannot exist?c)Not that it matters any in a scientific debate, but no, I am not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
a)No, I would not agree; for in any system containing two or more objects with at least one of those objects in motion, the motion of any object within that system can be measured relative to any other object within that system. The classic illustration of this principle is that of a ball being thrown from the front of a moving vehicle to the back. The motion of the ball can be meassured relative to either the vehicle or the planet on which the vehicle is moving or any other object within the universe.

​

b)You will please notice that I have not claimed that nearly homogenous CBR suggests a spherical plane. I have in fact stated that the existence of our universe as such is an impossibility. Why then should I attempt to provide mathematical proof of the existence of something which I have claimed cannot exist?

​

c)Not that it matters any in a scientific debate, but no, I am not.

---

a)But in this case the car in the analogy is the universe...Do you think that a ball trown from one end to another of a car is the centre of the car?The anisotropy measurement yeilds our speed relative to the universe itself rather than any single constituent part...b)This whole discussion was started by your statement that

quote:

---

In 1965, Arno Pezias and Robert Wilson discovered that the microwave radiation we recieve from the universe is basically the same no matter in which direction we look. This discovery can lead to only three possible conclusions. First, the universe is infinite. Second, the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it was viewed from. And third, the earth is at the center of the universe.

​

The first two possibilities are easily disproven. The former is voided by the physical expansion of the universe and is seldom now considered a viable theory. The latter is nullified mathematically, since it requires the existence of a three-dimensional plane.

​

However, even if these two possibilities were valid they both lead to the conclusion that every point within the universe is the center, thus allowing for a geocentric perception.

---

So you were saying that CBR is homogenous and thus the universe is geocentric, you also later referred to 3D plane as spherical plane. Basing your claim for geocentricity on the lack of viability of a model that the observed evidence (NON-homogenous CBR) doesn`t suggest is a questionable tactic at best outright dishonest or ignorant at worst...Your dodging and weaving and moving goalposts left right and centre bud....c)Just checking it struck me as an odd coincidence that 3 creationists chose names ending in Berry....

Eratosthenes was Director of the Great Library at Alexandria. One day while perusing the scrolls he noticed a report that in the southern frontier outpost of Syene, at noon on June 21 (the summer solistice), vertical sticks cast no shadows, and the sun shone directly down deep wells (i.e. it was directly overhead).Because he was a scientist Eratosthenes decide to do an experiment - would sticks cast a shadow at midday on june 21 in Alexandria ? He found out that they do. How, then, is it possible that on June 21 the sun is directly overhead at Syene, but not at Alexendria. If the world was flat there would be no shadows at either location. Eratosthenes then conluded that the only possible explanation for this effect is that the surface of the earth is curved, like a sphere. Well with a few more obsrevations you can imagine what he finally ended up with, a sphereical model of the earth. So you see he did deduce the spherical nature of the earth after all.Then again this could all be just a nice story that Carl Sagan made up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Other than radiation discrepancies? Might there be any evidence of 'space-time-curvature' telescopically (other than black-holes) in diverse stellar regions?

---

There is something called 'gravitational lensing.' Close to home, the effect can be noticed with our own sun under the right conditions. Imagine looking at the sun, and imagine a star just out of sight-- blocked by the sun. Under the right conditions that star can be seen from earth. That is, where we know the star should be does not match where we observe it to be. This discrepancy is equal to that predicted by Einstein's relativity equations. This in fact, was the first confirmation of his theories if I'm not mistaken.

quote:

---

If minimal asymmetry exists, perhaps a homogenous centralized expansion (centering near earth’s galaxy) may be supported, no?

---

In the early universe everything was pretty much in the same spot-- infinitely dense and small. And not only stuff, but space and time as well. Asking what was the center doesn't make much sense.

quote:

---

Are the Doppler red-shifts regionalized or symmetrically distributed? (I confess ignorance.) If somewhat symmetrically distributed, would not this lend support to the argument of the earth’s centralization?

---

For the most part, the more distant galaxies are redshifted more than the nearer ones; but this would be the case no matter were you are in the universe.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
a)But in this case the car in the analogy is the universe...
Do you think that a ball trown from one end to another of a car is the centre of the car?
The anisotropy measurement yeilds our speed relative to the universe itself rather than any single constituent part...

---

The example given was not presented as an analogy. It is simply an illustration of the relativity of measurements.

quote:

---

b)So you were saying that CBR is homogenous and thus the universe is geocentric, you also later referred to 3D plane as spherical plane. Basing your claim for geocentricity on the lack of viability of a model that the observed evidence (NON-homogenous CBR) doesn`t suggest is a questionable tactic at best outright dishonest or ignorant at worst...

​

Your dodging and weaving and moving goalposts left right and centre bud....

---

There seem to be many things in my postings that you have misunderstood. (The illustration above, for example, and the distinction between a spherical plane and a three-dimensional plane, as well as several others.) Please allow me to attempt to simplify my explanation of my position.To my knowledge, there are only three models which agree with the CBR measurements. First that the universe is infinite; second that the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it is viewed from yet is not infinite; third that the earth is the center of the universe.I would like to focus on two points of observation. First that while scientific arguments can be brought against the first two models, there are, as yet, no scientific arguments against the geocentric model. Second that regardless of which model is correct all three allow for a geocentric interpretation.Thank you for your replies. I apologize for any misunderstanding that I may have caused and will attempt to present all future argumentation with better clarity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
To my knowledge, there are only three models which agree with the CBR measurements. First that the universe is infinite; second that the universe looks the same regardless of which planet, solar system, or galaxy it is viewed from yet is not infinite; third that the earth is the center of the universe.

​

I would like to focus on two points of observation. First that while scientific arguments can be brought against the first two models...

---

I am aware of arguments against the first but what are the arguments against the second?

quote:

---

...there are, as yet, no scientific arguments against the geocentric model.

---

Meaning that the Earth is stationary and the entire universe revolves around it?

quote:

---

Second that regardless of which model is correct all three allow for a geocentric interpretation.

---

So? All three allow for a non-geocentric interpretation as well-- oh, except for the one that is geocentric by definition. 'By definition' is a terrible argument. The geocentric model resolves to the second model.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I am aware of arguments against the first but what are the arguments against the second?

---

According to the second model, the Earth only appears to be the center of the universe because every point in the universe appears to be the center. The only geometric shape that allows for all points to appear as the center is that of the spherical plane. The classic example of this is the surface of a balloon. However, the spherical plane can only have two dimensions. Our universe can be measured in three dimensions. Therefore our universe can not exist as a spherical plane. The near evenness of the CBR over all three dimensions suggests a spherical universe more like a solid ball. In which case the center is not on the surface as this model predicts but in the interior.

quote:

---

Meaning that the Earth is stationary and the entire universe revolves around it?

---

Meaning that the Earth is at the center of the universe

quote:

---

So? All three allow for a non-geocentric interpretation as well-- oh, except for the one that is geocentric by definition. 'By definition' is a terrible argument. The geocentric model resolves to the second model.

---

If all three allow for a geocentric perception, then there is no reason to assume that the Bible is incorrect in utilizing that perspective regardless of the allowance of a non-geocentric perspective. However, my main point still stands in that there is no scientific evidence against a geocentric universe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
The only geometric shape that allows for all points to appear as the center is that of the spherical plane.

---

Actually, a torus also works. As does a Klein bottle. But both of these shapes are two dimensional and so this doesn't get around your objection.The surface of a balloon is a very common metaphor for the shape of the universe, but remember, it is only a metaphor. When dealing the universe itself we are dealing with something that is nearly impossible to visualize. It is outside or points of reference. Metaphors help but can't be taken at face value.You are right that the universe isn't two dimensional. It isn't three dimensional either, and perhaps has seven, eight or more dimensions. It does have at least four though, and a four dimensional shape that meets your criteria is called a hypersphere. http://www.bright.net/~mrf/hierarchy(1).htmlhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypersphere.htmlTake care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

{Duplicate message deleted}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-25-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
You are right that the universe isn't two dimensional. It isn't three dimensional either, and perhaps has seven, eight or more dimensions. It does have at least four though, and a four dimensional shape that meets your criteria is called a hypersphere.

---

While the hypersphere is certainly a mathematical possibility, it is not necessarily a physical reality. Allow me present a few questions regarding the existence of this shape.First of all, what evidence can you present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?Second, my position is based solely on observational data, while yours adds theoretical data to that of observation. Why then should the hypersphere model be accepted over the geocentric model?Third, The hypersphere and the geocentric sphere are both mathematical possibilities. Why should one be preferred above the other?Fifth, how did this hypersphere develop?Sixth, is there any scientific or mathematical reason why the geocentric view of our universe should not be accepted as accurate?Finally, I would like to point out once again that even if the physical existence of the hypersphere were to be proven, it would still allow for a geocentric perception. If it permits a geocentric perception, then there is no reason to assume that the Bible is incorrect in utilizing that perspective regardless of the allowance of a non-geocentric perspective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
First of all, what evidence can you present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?

---

Time. In three dimensions you have up/down, right/left, forward/backward, but you can't move. Movement implies that what was once at point A is now at point B. We automatically have time. Relativity shows that time behaves similar to the other three dimensions, hence, perhaps for lack of a better word, we call it another dimension. [QUOTE][b]Second, my position is based solely on observational data, while yours adds theoretical data to that of observation.[/QUOTE][/b]I beg to differ. Your position also adds much that is theoretical. We can know very little about the cosmos at large without interpretting data within theoretical frameworks. If you walk out side at night, you see a 'shell' of little lights, apparently all at the same distance. I don't think this is what you are basing your argument upon. The distances are inferred via the measurement of angles, redshifts, intensity or brightness inferred from spectral analysis and so on (many in combination)As far as my theory: Don't take my mention of a hypersphere as a theory. I was responding to your claim that a sphere, with the earth at the center, was the only shape that fit the data. I pointed out that there was at least one shape that you had not mentioned.

quote:

---

Why then should the hypersphere model be accepted over the geocentric model?

---

A priori, no reason. But, we obviously inhabit at least three deminsions of space. Relativity describes the warping of space due to the presence of mass. Relativity can also predicts observable phenomena, hence for now it is the best we've got. Now, it seems to me that the warping of spacetime requires our being on the surface of something like a hypersphere. (I'm admittingly sticking my neck out here. Corrections are appreciated.)

quote:

---

Fifth, how did this hypersphere develop?

---

Same as the other dimensions, whatever that process may be.

quote:

---

Sixth, is there any scientific or mathematical reason why the geocentric view of our universe should not be accepted as accurate?

---

Well, assuming that everything started at a singularity, or very close, calling anything the center is hard to justify. We aren't talking about an explosion within a space. We are talking about the expansion of space itself.Secondly, the Earth moves around the Sun, the Sun moves around the Galaxy, the Galaxy around the universe. To support a Geocentric view you have to imagine that within all this motion the Earth is dead still. It violates everything we know about celestial mechanics-- gravity, orbits, mass, inertia, etc.(ahhhh.... now that's a post that ought to draw some fire!!!!! )------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com