It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Cosmic Inflation Controversy

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy


The way the observable universe is structured points to us being in the center. This has nothing to do with us being in the center of our observable universe, which would be a given, but the discovered structure of concentric rings shows that we truly are at the center. All based on the distribution of cosmic background radiation.

The ones 'discovered' by Roger Penrose?

Hahaha!




posted on May, 19 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


The really interesting thing about the universe is that everything seems to be at the center of it - not just us.

Exactly.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Don't you realize that if inflation doesn't occur then the Copernican Principle is no longer in doubt and Krauss's concerns vanish?



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Don't you realize that if inflation doesn't occur then the Copernican Principle is no longer in doubt and Krauss's concerns vanish?


On top of that, we will have to recognize a well-oiled machine... The very thing that geocentrists/flatearthers (although wrong), want so badly to be proven.

Although, a well-oiled machine doesn't need to be a snowglobe.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
So any of you going to debunk the data from both the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Planck mission that shows we are at the center.





Exactly.


No, not at all. As I explained already, the data shows an allignment of the observable universe with the ecliptic plane. You simply ignore, or don't understand this perhaps, maybe you should start with reading the Wikipedia link I posted.

Once more, it has nothing to do with being at the center of our field of vision. The point is that the way the universe is structured, points to a center that we happen to be in.

The scientific community agreed that the data does in fact suggest that we are at the center of this structure, but most argued that the data was not correct. Again, this has nothing to do with being at the center of your field of view, and off course, had this been the argument, it would have never gotten any attention in the first place, since that would be obvious to anyone.

Funny how you guys think that you can simply debunk this thing with such an argument, it shows that you are completely missing the point here.

So they awaited the data from the Planck mission but it showed the same thing only in more detail.......



Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy.[16] "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.[17]


Are you guys going to make it go away once you have catched on?


edit on 19-5-2017 by HeliocentricFantasy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
So any of you going to debunk the data from both the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Planck mission that shows we are at the center.





Exactly.


No, not at all. As I explained already, the data shows an allignment of the observable universe with the ecliptic plane. You simply ignore, or don't understand this perhaps, maybe you should start with reading the Wikipedia link I posted.

Once more, it has nothing to do with being at the center of our field of vision. The point is that the way the universe is structured, points to a center that we happen to be in.

The scientific community agreed that the data does in fact suggest that we are at the center of this structure, but most argued that the data was not correct. Again, this has nothing to do with being at the center of your field of view, and off course, had this been the argument, it would have never gotten any attention in the first place, since that would be obvious to anyone.

Funny how you guys think that you can simply debunk this thing with such an argument, it shows that you are completely missing the point here.

So they awaited the data from the Planck mission but it showed the same thing only in more detail.......



Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy.[16] "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.[17]


Are you guys going to make it go away once you have catched on?



The scientific community ignored c.

I don't know why... But I do know that collectives are usually more foolish than individuals.

The irony is that you want to use what you claim the scientific community thinks to back up your ideas that the scientific community doesn't think....!

Just like some of us.

The difference here is that you are not seeing the universe - you're seeing information. Use your mind, Luke.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta

So Betaboy is not going to debunk the data. Thought so.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

So Betaboy is not going to debunk the data. Thought so.



The data cannot be debunked.

It's the interpretation of the data we should be considering.

And, please, don't mistake me for a beta wolf.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta




It's the interpretation of the data we should be considering.


Let me hear your interpretation. Sofar actual scientists could only come up with the excuse that the data must have been inaccurate. The new data showed the same thing, but in more detail.

So what is your expert interpretation.





And, please, don't mistake me for a beta wolf.


I will not mistake you for a wolf.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta




It's the interpretation of the data we should be considering.


Let me hear your interpretation. Sofar actual scientists could only come up with the excuse that the data must have been inaccurate. The new data showed the same thing, but in more detail.

So what is your expert interpretation.





And, please, don't mistake me for a beta wolf.


I will not mistake you for a wolf.


Read the thread.

You're right; I'm a lion.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta




Read the thread.


Wow, nice cop out.




You're right; I'm a lion.


Sure Peter Parker.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta




Read the thread.


Wow, nice cop out.




You're right; I'm a lion.


Sure Peter Parker.



I want you to know that I love you as a human being.

I am sorry for being in a contest with you. Truth isn't a contest: its a necessity.

I'm not doing well and I want to make sure people know that I don't look down upon anyone at all.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta




I want you to know that I love you as a human being.


What? Am I not attractive enough for ya?




I am sorry for being in a contest with you.


Don't sweat it.




I'm not doing well and I want to make sure people know that I don't look down upon anyone at all.


We all have issues bro. Just know that you are at the center of my universe.






posted on May, 19 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's only speeding up in certain places. Those are really really far away from us now -- as in -- the distant 'past.'


Still, the idea that the universe is cyclic is a golden oldie, and nowhere near as incompatible with the basic premise of inflation as you might think. From the perspective of 3-D beings inside an inflation volume, what does it matter if our energy is manifest here, or there? Over a long enough time frame, all energy will manifest everywhere.

You are here: (((0))) but other big bangs might be occurring outside the perception bubble of our Hubble telescope, like this: (0) (*) ((*))

((((0)))) -- and so on.

I suspect that our experience of inflation is an artifact of limited perception within a particular expansion/inflation volume. I can't prove it either, but I do enjoy the thought-experiment regardless.



posted on May, 19 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta




I want you to know that I love you as a human being.


What? Am I not attractive enough for ya?




I am sorry for being in a contest with you.


Don't sweat it.




I'm not doing well and I want to make sure people know that I don't look down upon anyone at all.


We all have issues bro. Just know that you are at the center of my universe.





Thank you, friend.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Arthur Eddington in 1926 estimated that solar radiation from all stars in the universe would warm interstellar space to 3.18K. Given that we know today that CMB temperature is 2.725K that was a mighty fine estimate for 1926. So CMB might not have anything to do with cosmic inflation at all but a warming of space from solar radiation itself.

Whereas contradictory proof to todays cosmic Inflation model appears robust. For instance, cosmologists have estimated the
Great Walls of our Universe needed 80 to 150 billion years to form. Thats kinda difficult in a universe that is only 13.82 billion years old.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy


So any of you going to debunk the data from both the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the Planck mission that shows we are at the center.

It does not show that we are at the centre. That’s a conspiracy-theorist’s fantasy.

You posted this quote from Krauss,


But when you look at 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.

But you neglected to post what he said next, in the same conversation:


The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, msaybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

Lawrence Kraus, not being a drooling Anticopernicist, doesn’t think Earth is at the centre of the universe. He thinks there’s something wrong with cosmic inflation theory.

And that is what this thread about. If you won’t stay on topic, go away.


edit on 20/5/17 by Astyanax because: of inflation.



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: glend


Cosmologists have estimated the Great Walls of our Universe needed 80 to 150 billion years to form.

The kind of cosmologists who contribute to the Daily Galaxy?

That article is absolute rubbish. How is the claim that galactic filaments (what you call ‘great walls’) took 80-150bn years to form justified? The article doesn’t say. Do you know?



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax




Lawrence Kraus, not being a drooling Anticopernicist, doesn’t think Earth is at the centre of the universe. He thinks there’s something wrong with cosmic inflation theory.


I already said myself that Krauss is a sceptic........I never presented him as a supporter of the theory. I said that he admitted that the data shows that we are at the center. The consensus was that it does, but that the data was wrong.




It does not show that we are at the centre. That’s a conspiracy-theorist’s fantasy.


BS, it does show that, you even just quoted Krauss, who is a skeptic, saying exactly that.......what's wrong with you.




But you neglected to post what he said next, in the same conversation:


The same conversation that took place in 2006?

This was 7 years before the Planck mission data was released. The data that confirmed the earlier findings, only in more detail.

Any doubts about the accuracy of the findings at the time of that interview have been eliminated by the Planck mission.

This is the third time I explained this but it doesn't register with you, does it.


So you were wrong about what the data shows, repeating arguments that were already adressed several times, and you don't have a clue, posting outdated information and arguments.


Also, Tarzanbeta was the one who mentioned the possibility of being at the center, several times, and you responded to it. Now that it got real it's suddenly off topic........

edit on 20-5-2017 by HeliocentricFantasy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

Why don’t you just read the article? Talk later. Over and out.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join