Scientists to unveil new Earth-like planet

[May90]

then show me a bucket of dark matter. or a teaspoon full for that matter.

He-h, if I could show you a bucket of dark matter, it wouldn't be dark matter then.

[Kathandira]

It wont be anything like what most people would consider earth like. It will be a rocky planet that orbits at a distance that could allow liquid water to exist on the surface under certain conditions.... In reality its probably far less earth like (under most peoples definition) than Mars or even venus which would both be considered earth like undr these broad definitions. Headlines like this are basically science click bait.

Mars is also in the liquid water distance as well. So earth-like planets could be in range, but still be dry.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Don't get confused here folks, newtonian mechanics are not abandoned in a geocentric viewpoint of the universe.

What?

No, seriously, what?

How does referencing Newtonian mechanics validate your belief that earth currently has no satellites in geosynchronous orbit? Obviously if the earth was stationary it would still require math and physics to launch a satellite and keep it stationary. I'm not saying that. You're generating a false argument on my behalf. Stop it.

What I AM saying is that:
- There are currently hundreds of satellites in geosynchronous orbit around the earth. To achieve a geosynchronous position and still be in orbit, the object they are orbiting must also be moving. A stationary object can't have anything in geosynchronous orbit. It breaks the term itself. You deny the earth is in motion, therefore by default you deny these satellites exist, though you use them for things like cell and wireless communication and GPS services. You can say "Of course those satellites exist!", but as soon as you look up any information about them you will find the term "geosynchronous orbit" which is, on a stationary earth, impossible. So pick.
- Extensive math and physics work has been done to launch satellites into geosynchronous orbit. Because you believe the earth is stationary, all of this work and research would serve no purpose. It is therefore either fabricated to propagate some bizzare "the earth rotates!" conspiracy or was simply done for fun and is not actually used to launch satellites you don't believe exist.
- Similarly all the math and physics done to calculate launch windows must also factor in the rotation of the earth. As you do not believe this, all of this work is also either a fabricated hoax or being done for fun.

Mentioning "Newtonian mechanics" does not counter any of these statements. By denying the earth moves, all of the above is applicable, regardless of how you choose to apply physics or which physics you choose to mention.

[May90]

It does not state that at all, the copernican principle does however. (which is what i am proposing to be wrong). If you have been in this field for 9 years and have not had a teacher tell you to question everything in that period, well you just got unlucky and i feel bad for you.

The Copernican principle has nothing to do with there not being a center.

Oh... You are a lost cause, I fear.

[Fascinate]

He-h, if I could show you a bucket of dark matter, it wouldn't be dark matter then.

You probably don't even know why they are looking for dark matter, and the implications if they dont find it.

- - - Updated - - -

The Copernican principle has nothing to do with there not being a center.

Oh... You are a lost cause, I fear.

In your attempts to belittle my view point you have shown the world what you truly are, a troll.

Literally the entire basis of the copernican principle is that there is no center, no preferred spot. Please stop posting in this thread.

[Steelangel]

*sigh*

Actual Astrophysicist in the house.

The "axis of evil" in the CMB is a ha-ha funny name for a pattern that was noticed by some researchers who were looking at the WMAP data. The pattern seems to be there, but it is -not- aligned with the ecliptic in any meaningful sense. I'm sure this link has been posted before, but hey, why not link it again.

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/t...d-geocentrism/

With 92 references to actual scientific data and people who actually study this data and know what they are doing (as opposed to some guy who read a few websites and declared himself an expert) I feel that this is probably the best-researched rebuttal to anything that Fascinate has said in this thread.

[judgementofantonidas]

Can you see an atom with the naked eye? Can you see a molecule? Can you see a virus?

No, not without a tool such as a microscope.

Why would dark matter be any different? It has only been proven via tools, and not by simply "seeing" it, although further technological may make it possible.

Good argument. However with a virus, yes you can hold it in your hand. even though it takes a microscope to see it. it is tangible. Dark matter is a guess at best. If it is what they say it is then it should be massive and obtainable, not "oh we think we saw some because two galaxies collided".

[Fascinate]

*sigh*

Actual Astrophysicist in the house.

The "axis of evil" in the CMB is a ha-ha funny name for a pattern that was noticed by some researchers who were looking at the WMAP data. The pattern seems to be there, but it is -not- aligned with the ecliptic in any meaningful sense. I'm sure this link has been posted before, but hey, why not link it again.

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/t...d-geocentrism/

With 92 references to actual scientific data and people who actually study this data and know what they are doing (as opposed to some guy who read a few websites and declared himself an expert) I feel that this is probably the best-researched rebuttal to anything that Fascinate has said in this thread.

To me it does not matter if it is aligned or not, the mere fact there is anisotropy should beg the question WHY. Copernican principle is going down, its just a matter of time. Here is another article i suggest you all read up:

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...n-the-universe

Prof Balazs comments: “If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don’t quite understand how it came to exist at all.”

[judgementofantonidas]

He-h, if I could show you a bucket of dark matter, it wouldn't be dark matter then.

Why wouldn't it? Because it is matter it has some form of mass correct?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

To me it does not matter if it is aligned or not, the mere fact there is anisotropy should beg the question WHY. Copernican principle is going down, its just a matter of time. Here is another article i suggest you all read up:

https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-pres...n-the-universe

Prof Balazs comments: “If we are right, this structure contradicts the current models of the universe. It was a huge surprise to find something this big – and we still don’t quite understand how it came to exist at all.”

Hey! You skipped me! Where's my dissertation on the non-existence of geosynchronous orbiting satellites? I demand proof no such satellites exist or you have conceded they do and therefore conceded the earth rotates/moves.

[May90]

You probably don't even know why they are looking for dark matter, and the implications if they dont find it.

Thanks, I've worked in a group looking for WIMPs for a bit. It was more exciting than your posts.

Literally the entire basis of the copernican principle is that there is no center, no preferred spot. Please stop posting in this thread.

No, it is that Earth and Sun are nothing special, it doesn't state that there isn't any special point in the Universe. Relativity states that, claiming that the laws of physics are the same in any reference system (including any given point in the Universe), which contradicts there being a special spot anywhere. Cosmology goes further and explains how such a situation came to be; it explains why there is no center by going into the nature of the space expansion.

I will be posting wherever I want whenever I want. You are nothing special of a poster. Well, you are kinda special in some regards, but that's okay! It doesn't violate the principle of relativity on forums.

[Adam Jensen]

Interesting read, but where is the PROOF? Who has held a chunk of "dark matter" in their hand? If it exists why have we not been able to gather some? Why if it exists does it only "exist" so far away that we cannot observe it first hand? This is why I have as hard a time believing in it as I do believing in an all powerful creator who happens to have been out of town for the last few hundred years.

- - - Updated - - -



then show me a bucket of dark matter. or a teaspoon full for that matter.

You can't look at dark matter because it only interacts through gravity. Light passes through it, all forms of light, so you'll never see it even if I showed you a bucket full of it. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not there. There are other ways of detecting it and we've been using those other methods in our hunt to pin down exactly what dark matter is.

And its something we don't yet fully understand. But we do know something with mass that can't be seen is affecting the movement of galaxies. Something so massive it actually outnumbers the regular mass we're use to.

[May90]

Why wouldn't it? Because it is matter it has some form of mass correct?

Historically, it was called dark matter, because we know it is there, but we don't know what it is exactly. If we could collect a bucket of it, then, I guess, it would not longer be "dark" as such.

It's just a wordplay, really. In reality, yes, we know that the mass is there (or, at least, something behaving exactly as a set of objects with mass), but we are yet to determine what constitutes it. There is a huge variety of theories, from macroscopic objects for some reason not emitting any detectable waves, to micro-particles that barely, if at all, interact with "normal" matter. Chances are, we can't even collect a bucket of dark matter, since it wouldn't sit in the bucket and leak away in a matter of femtoseconds.

[judgementofantonidas]

You can't look at dark matter because it only interacts through gravity. Light passes through it, all forms of light, so you'll never see it even if I showed you a bucket full of it. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not there. There are other ways of detecting it and we've been using those other methods in our hunt to pin down exactly what dark matter is.

And its something we don't yet fully understand. But we do know something with mass that can't be seen is affecting the movement of galaxies. Something so massive it actually outnumbers the regular mass we're use to.

and until it can be physically examined you are no more correct than someone who does not believe in it.

[May90]

You can't look at dark matter because it only interacts through gravity. Light passes through it, all forms of light, so you'll never see it even if I showed you a bucket full of it. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean its not there. There are other ways of detecting it and we've been using those other methods in our hunt to pin down exactly what dark matter is.

And its something we don't yet fully understand. But we do know something with mass that can't be seen is affecting the movement of galaxies. Something so massive it actually outnumbers the regular mass we're use to.

Small correction: we haven't detected any interactions caused by it, except gravity. They could interact with regular matter through other interactions still, those interactions are just weak enough for us to not have detected them yet, despite a long search in countless experiments. We might get them eventually!

[Adam Jensen]

and until it can be physically examined you are no more correct than someone who does not believe in it.

It is just a theory (ironic, me using that phrase) but it matches our observations. We don't really know what dark matter is. We know it's there. We know something with mass is affecting these galaxies. And we can't find a something that works.

Maybe its wrong. That's the thing about science, we accept being wrong as a possibility. Right now however, the idea of "dark matter" is the best theory we have at the moment. Maybe 200 years from now (maybe 50 years from now) scientists will laugh at the idea like we laugh at the idea of aether.

[Steelangel]

To me it does not matter if it is aligned or not, the mere fact there is anisotropy should beg the question WHY. Copernican principle is going down, its just a matter of time. Here is another article i suggest you all read up

This, of course, is not what you said earlier in the thread when you made the claim that the anisotropy was aligned with the ecliptic. On the other hand, geocentrists, flat earthers, time cubers and Anjem Chowdhry are difficult to pin down to a specific belief when cornered.

Look, finding anisotropy in the CMB is interesting in that its unexpected. So was discovering that the speed of light was the same in all frames of reference. Just because something is not expected and not well understood does not open the door to the sudden validity of crackpots. When you can do more than wax philosophical on a variant of the strong anthropic principle via selective quotation, then you may have something worth listening to.

[Fascinate]

Thanks, I've worked in a group looking for WIMPs for a bit. It was more exciting than your posts.


No, it is that Earth and Sun are nothing special, it doesn't state that there isn't any special point in the Universe. Relativity states that, claiming that the laws of physics are the same in any reference system (including any given point in the Universe), which contradicts there being a special spot anywhere. Cosmology goes further and explains how such a situation came to be; it explains why there is no center by going into the nature of the space expansion.

I will be posting wherever I want whenever I want. You are nothing special of a poster. Well, you are kinda special in some regards, but that's okay! It doesn't violate the principle of relativity on forums.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you do not even have a grasp of the cosmological principle, which is the main thing i am arguing against in this thread?

- - - Updated - - -

This, of course, is not what you said earlier in the thread when you made the claim that the anisotropy was aligned with the ecliptic. On the other hand, geocentrists, flat earthers, time cubers and Anjem Chowdhry are difficult to pin down to a specific belief when cornered.

Look, finding anisotropy in the CMB is interesting in that its unexpected. So was discovering that the speed of light was the same in all frames of reference. Just because something is not expected and not well understood does not open the door to the sudden validity of crackpots. When you can do more than wax philosophical on a variant of the strong anthropic principle via selective quotation, then you may have something worth listening to.

I have had one guy say that it isnt aligned, but what about the people who say it was aligned? (including one of the people working on the project, max tegmark of MIT). To me the more important of the two is that there was anisotropy for sure, the possiblity some of these features were aligned with axis's of earth was just another layer of depth against the copernican principle for me.

[Gurluas]

Is this still going offtopic? Didn't a mod bring it back on track?
Fascinate you have been proven wrong for like 20 pages and you just keep going in circles with your blabbing and ignoring evidence provided to you.
I am hereby convinced that you are a troll.

[Fascinate]

Wait steelangel arent you the guy who was an actual astro physicist? Lets leave the alignment out altogether for a second, how do you deal with the anisotropy just by itself? I am not working in this field currently, i am just curious as to how these aberrations get dealt with on a day to day.

- - - Updated - - -

Is this still going offtopic? Didn't a mod bring it back on track?
Fascinate you have been proven wrong for like 20 pages and you just keep going in circles with your blabbing and ignoring evidence provided to you.
I am hereby convinced that you are a troll.

Mainstream science has a storm brewing, i am here to keep them honest. Nothing i have said in the past 20 pages is "wrong" as you put, this is why the thread is still continuing.