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.
IkNOwSTuff
amraks
Australia is upside down then
Disappointing to hear such ignorance from a fellow Aussie,
Its not upside down..... Its on top
ChesterJohn
I recently heard a professor of Physics say, "that in relation to all other planets in our solar system the earth is upside down."
I tried to google this but was unable to verify the statement.
Does anyone agree with this and if so where can I find confirmation of this upside down earth?
edit on 30-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)
So what is your idea on this whole thing.
I think that is what helio and geo centricity is all about what rotates around what and how. The why in science is not as simple as many dont agree but all do agree the earth seems to be rotating.
That's not precisely true, if you look at the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background), which is the "afterglow" from the big bang. We can and have determined our velocity relative to that, as well as the velocity of the Milky way relative to that. So to put it another way, if we had more advanced rocket technology, we could launch a rocket that would be stationary with respect to the CMB. We would know that it was stationary by observing that there's not any red shift or blue shift in any direction.
ChesterJohn
absolute stillness in space (basically he says there is not way to determine it)
The raw data returned by the COBE mission shows the red and blue shifts in the background spectrum due to the Sun and the Milky Way's motions through space
This radiation is the highly redshifted (z~1000) remnant of photons emitted ~500,000 years after the Big Bang. The radiation results from the Universe cooling sufficiently that electrons can be captured by protons to form neutral atoms. Before this time, the Universe was filled with electrically charged particles which prevented the free motion of photons. The Universe was opaque before recombination. The temperature at this time was 3000° K, similar to the outer layers of a cool star. (Note that "recombination" is a bit of a mis-nomer as neutral atoms never existed in the Universe before this point in time!).
The existence of some type of evolution is widely considered to be scientific fact, but few other things are, and the big bang theory is not considered fact. It is however a well supported theory.
ChesterJohn
I am still curious how they proved any of this to be fact?
Are you familiar with spectroscopy? If not, that's what you need to research, because it really is amazing how we are fairly certain we know the composition of distant stars, without actually sampling them. The spectroscopic signatures are also what allow us to determine red shifts (or, in rare cases, like with the Andromeda galaxy, blue shifts).
Are not these statements preconceived ideas being interpreted into the data without actually sampling the physical matter at the location?
It was taken from the COBE satellite. We can certainly question the scientific principle which states that we no longer think the Earth is the center of the universe. But there are scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers which still consider that possibility, and yes if the Earth was the center of the universe and it was still and everything else was moving, we could see something similar, I suppose.
3n19m470
But wouldn't the picture show the same thing if everything else was moving except the Earth or wherever that picture was taken from?
Arbitrageur
The existence of some type of evolution is widely considered to be scientific fact, but few other things are, and the big bang theory is not considered fact. It is however a well supported theory.
ChesterJohn
I am still curious how they proved any of this to be fact?
Are you familiar with spectroscopy? If not, that's what you need to research, because it really is amazing how we are fairly certain we know the composition of distant stars, without actually sampling them. The spectroscopic signatures are also what allow us to determine red shifts (or, in rare cases, like with the Andromeda galaxy, blue shifts).
Are not these statements preconceived ideas being interpreted into the data without actually sampling the physical matter at the location?
Also, the further back in time we go (closer to the big bang), the less well-supported theories become, and the more speculative. But, what makes the CMB compelling as evidence is that it was predicted from theory, before it was actually discovered. So when you have a theory with a lot of evidence already, that makes a prediction, then you discover something the theory predicted, it does seem to validate the theory. However, the existence of the CMB and the measurements of it are observational and therefore can be considered factual. So, if one wanted to, as you seem to be considering, ponder the possibility that the CMB is not stationary and that it has another origin, then you could think about an alternative theory to explain it in other terms...do you have one?
It was taken from the COBE satellite. We can certainly question the scientific principle which states that we no longer think the Earth is the center of the universe. But there are scientists who have published peer-reviewed papers which still consider that possibility, and yes if the Earth was the center of the universe and it was still and everything else was moving, we could see something similar, I suppose.
3n19m470
But wouldn't the picture show the same thing if everything else was moving except the Earth or wherever that picture was taken from?
This notion is considered archaic by most, but the paper I saw not too long ago said that if the Earth was at the center of the universe, then there could be a mathematical explanation for why we think we see "dark energy" even if there's no such thing. And mathematically, the paper is probably correct, which is why it passed peer review, however, I doubt most scientists seriously consider that the Earth is really the center of the universe. But to really keep an open mind, I suppose we can't rule it out; it's just that there are lots of reasons to consider that pretty unlikely, including cosmological observations that show our place in the universe looks pretty much like many other places in the universe, as far as we can tell. So there aren't really any observations that indicate we have a special place in the universe.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not scientifically well-founded.
ChesterJohn
But just because they are calculated to our earth does not mean that they are existing in the other parts of the universe. You could in fact be looking at the computer program of the closest match to the coded system of elements and not at what it really is. In order to prove that the spectroscopy is correct you would have to go to the location and gather the material and verify it is exactly the sames as it is here.
Arbitrageur
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it's not scientifically well-founded.
ChesterJohn
But just because they are calculated to our earth does not mean that they are existing in the other parts of the universe. You could in fact be looking at the computer program of the closest match to the coded system of elements and not at what it really is. In order to prove that the spectroscopy is correct you would have to go to the location and gather the material and verify it is exactly the sames as it is here.
We already know that the spectroscopic analysis of hydrogen in a distant star looks different from the analysis of the hydrogen on Earth, and by how much (in fact we use this difference to calculate red shift).
There would have to be something really bizarre going on for us to think we understand spectroscopy if we really don't, since spectroscopy is not an isolated analysis but it's linked with many other physical observations relating to well supported observations in chemistry and quantum mechanics. From your comments, I don't think you really appreciate how unique spectroscopic signatures are.
Yes you could hypothetically fake something in a computer program if the movie "The Matrix" was not science fiction, but do I really have to say it's science fiction? Apparently so. It's science fiction.
When something is hot enough to glow (like a star), it gives you information about what it is made of, because different substances give off a different spectrum of light when they vaporize. Each substance produces a unique spectrum, almost like a fingerprint.
Arbitrageur
reply to post by ChesterJohn
Spectroscopy
When something is hot enough to glow (like a star), it gives you information about what it is made of, because different substances give off a different spectrum of light when they vaporize. Each substance produces a unique spectrum, almost like a fingerprint.
Now imagine a suspect who has no alibi at the time of the murder. They find his fingerprints at the scene of the crime. He denies he was ever at the scene and pleads that those must be the fingerprints of someone else who happens to have the same fingerprints he does. He can say that, but nobody will believe him, just as I think no scientists would believe your assertion that something else may have the exact same spectroscopic signature or "fingerprint" as hydrogen, unless of course you have some evidence for this and we both know you don't. You saying "maybe it could happen" is not evidence.
So I can see how you might think you can argue the case, like the guy who argues it's not impossible for another person to have identical fingerprints, but these arguments are not really very plausible or credible, given the amount of knowledge we have which contradicts them, so I don't think you or the suspect will get many supporters of your "maybe something else has the same fingerprints" ideas. There are plenty of things which are truly unknown in science which are a more prudent use of our pondering what is really going on with our observations.
The larger assumption is that all matter and light are the same every where in the whole universe.
Chamberf=6
reply to post by ChesterJohn
The larger assumption is that all matter and light are the same every where in the whole universe.
Does that mean you are suggesting that there are varying and multiple sets of laws of physics just running willy-nilly around the universe?