Scientists to unveil new Earth-like planet

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Nothing i have said in the past 20 pages is "wrong" as you put, this is why the thread is still continuing.

You say there is no proof that earth moves. Geosynchronous orbital satellites exist. For these to exist earth must move. Mumbling "newtonian physics" has no effect on this statement. Disprove the existence of geosynchronous orbiting satellites of you concede that they exist and therefore earth must move, making your assertion that no proof exists "wrong".

[May90]

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?

Cosmological principle? What does it have to do with...

Ugh, just forget it. :/

[Tijuana]

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.

Trolling is allowed but pointing it out when it happens is against forum rules. Just sayin...

[Fascinate]

You say there is no proof that earth moves. Geosynchronous orbital satellites exist. For these to exist earth must move. Mumbling "newtonian physics" has no effect on this statement. Disprove the existence of geosynchronous orbiting satellites of you concede that they exist and therefore earth must move, making your assertion that no proof exists "wrong".

I truly cannot grasp how you (and others apparently) feel these satellites are proof that the earth is moving. Would really enjoy a clearer explanation if you would oblige.

[Steelangel]

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.

Yep, I am. And 'dealt with on a day to day basis' isn't exactly what happens in CMB cosmology. Please don't labor under the impression that professional scientists fret, fume and pace endlessly around mahogany-lined university offices staring at a blackboard full of incomprehensible equations waiting for the 'ah-ha' moment. That's Hollywood speaking. It's more like a bunch of graduate students sitting around in a lab drinking coffee and talking about board games in between stretches of data processing. The CMB has been known to have anisotropies for a long while, and we aren't without explanation for most of them. The effect of the Solar System's motion through space is detectable in the CMB, and is a much larger effect than what has been discussed in this thread.

That the CMB is not isotropic is an interesting subject to study; that there is one feature that seems aligned to the ecliptic is less indicative of the failure of the Copernican worldview and more of a failure to account for everything that could cause microKelvin fluctuations in the measured temperature beyond what has already been subtracted from the data set.

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.

Your hyperbole is showing.

There is no storm brewing in mainstream science. There are unknowns at the edges of what cutting edge human technology has allowed researchers to observe. Your response is no different than mapmakers in the Middle Ages stamping Prester John in the middle of Africa with some torso-faced natives for good measure and "here be dragons" across the Atlantic. Just because something is not well-understood does not immediately invalidate the corpus of scientific thought.

[Fascinate]

Yep, I am. And 'dealt with on a day to day basis' isn't exactly what happens in CMB cosmology. Please don't labor under the impression that professional scientists fret, fume and pace endlessly around mahogany-lined university offices staring at a blackboard full of incomprehensible equations waiting for the 'ah-ha' moment. That's Hollywood speaking. It's more like a bunch of graduate students sitting around in a lab drinking coffee and talking about board games in between stretches of data processing. The CMB has been known to have anisotropies for a long while, and we aren't without explanation for most of them. The effect of the Solar System's motion through space is detectable in the CMB, and is a much larger effect than what has been discussed in this thread.

That the CMB is not isotropic is an interesting subject to study; that there is one feature that seems aligned to the ecliptic is less indicative of the failure of the Copernican worldview and more of a failure to account for everything that could cause microKelvin fluctuations in the measured temperature beyond what has already been subtracted from the data set.



Your hyperbole is showing.

There is no storm brewing in mainstream science. There are unknowns at the edges of what cutting edge human technology has allowed researchers to observe. Your response is no different than mapmakers in the Middle Ages stamping Prester John in the middle of Africa with some torso-faced natives for good measure and "here be dragons" across the Atlantic. Just because something is not well-understood does not immediately invalidate the corpus of scientific thought.

A lot of chatter when you could have said "testing techniques". Why do we have these wrong, you are smart people and have been studying this for a long time how come you are having these types of problems?

Edit: my "day to day" comment was in regards to how the anisotropy of the CMB seems to contradict one of our fundamental views of our universe, being the cosmological principle. Everyone in the office is cool with that?

[Deleted]

A lot of chatter when you could have said "testing techniques". Why do we have these wrong, you are smart people and have been studying this for a long time how come you are having these types of problems?

Because you obviously have no idea how hard it is to actually do science.

[May90]

A lot of chatter when you could have said "testing techniques". Why do we have these wrong, you are smart people and have been studying this for a long time how come you are having these types of problems?

Because these smart people are not infallible and all knowing gods, because our current tech level is much lower than we need to answer even some of the questions that have been asked for decades already, because scientific progress is gradual and there will always be countless questions we won't know the answer for at a given point in time.

Heck, we only really started finding a large number of carbon-enhanced stars a couple of decades ago, and only in the last few months we started making some sense out of them and seeing some patterns. The amount of what we don't know yet is staggering. Doesn't mean every time we don't know how to explain something, we have to say, "That's it, we have been wrong all along, lets start from scratch and consider the creation theory".

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I truly cannot grasp how you (and others apparently) feel these satellites are proof that the earth is moving. Would really enjoy a clearer explanation if you would oblige.

What do you not understand? You can have an orbital satellite without the earth moving. You can not, however, have a geosynchronous satellite without the earth moving. A geosynchronous satellite by definition matches the sidereal rotation of the earth. So, to exist as a thing, the earth MUST rotate. The existence of a geosynchronous satellite REQUIRES motion by the earth. As geosynchronous satellites exist, the earth must move, or they are not geosynchronous satellites. Which part of this is confusing to you? Do you deny geosynchronous satellites exist?

[Steelangel]

A lot of chatter when you could have said "testing techniques". Why do we have these wrong, you are smart people and have been studying this for a long time how come you are having these types of problems?

Well, I suppose if you want to ignore everything I said and reduce it to "you people smart, why we no have moonbase yet like promised??!?!1?"...

Consider this:

I have a 52 card deck of well-shuffled cards. I tell you to pick three cards. These are the only three cards anyone can observe.

Ten years later, I say you can pick three more cards. Everyone can now look at 6 cards in total.

Ten years later, three more cards get picked out. Everyone has access to 9 cards.

Then on a video game forum, some guy named Fascinate wonders why, if we're so smart, why we only have 9 cards, and why we haven't figured out the ordering of the cards in the deck yet.

[Fascinate]

What do you not understand? You can have an orbital satellite without the earth moving. You can not, however, have a geosynchronous satellite without the earth moving. A geosynchronous satellite by definition matches the sidereal rotation of the earth. So, to exist as a thing, the earth MUST rotate. The existence of a geosynchronous satellite REQUIRES motion by the earth. As geosynchronous satellites exist, the earth must move, or they are not geosynchronous satellites. Which part of this is confusing to you? Do you deny geosynchronous satellites exist?

Again, not proof the earth moves. Misunderstandings of relativity are more and more common in this thread it seems, and i am a high school drop out with a GED heh. Are you incapable of imagining a universe rotating around a fixed earth? Take your hand out in front of your face and rotate it as if you were grabbing a bowling bal,l that is the universe and the center of mass is where the earth is located....this is what relativity allows.

[Azadina]

Well, I suppose if you want to ignore everything I said and reduce it to "you people smart, why we no have moonbase yet like promised??!?!1?"...

Consider this:

I have a 52 card deck of well-shuffled cards. I tell you to pick three cards. These are the only three cards anyone can observe.

Ten years later, I say you can pick three more cards. Everyone can now look at 6 cards in total.

Ten years later, three more cards get picked out. Everyone has access to 9 cards.

Then on a video game forum, some guy named Fascinate wonders why, if we're so smart, why we only have 9 cards, and why we haven't figured out the ordering of the cards in the deck yet.

He'll no doubt spin this analogy into "creator confirmed" with the part where only one being holds all the cards. Just watch

[Fascinate]

Well, I suppose if you want to ignore everything I said and reduce it to "you people smart, why we no have moonbase yet like promised??!?!1?"...

Consider this:

I have a 52 card deck of well-shuffled cards. I tell you to pick three cards. These are the only three cards anyone can observe.

Ten years later, I say you can pick three more cards. Everyone can now look at 6 cards in total.

Ten years later, three more cards get picked out. Everyone has access to 9 cards.

Then on a video game forum, some guy named Fascinate wonders why, if we're so smart, why we only have 9 cards, and why we haven't figured out the ordering of the cards in the deck yet.

I like how you decided to present me with a riddle rather than answering the question i proposed in my edit (honestly, i thought the "day to day" was obvious in what i meant).

[Steelangel]

Again, not proof the earth moves. Misunderstandings of relativity are more and more common in this thread it seems, and i am a high school drop out with a GED heh. Are you incapable of imagining a universe rotating around a fixed earth? Take your hand out in front of your face and rotate it as if you were grabbing a bowling bal,l that is the universe and the center of mass is where the earth is located....this is what relativity allows.

You know that face someone makes when they are rendered speechless by a posit so inconceivably wrong that it would take more energy to rebuild the worldview of the person to a level that they would understand that they were wrong that is currently available in the universe?

I just made that face.

I like how you decided to present me with a riddle rather than answering the question i proposed in my edit (honestly, i thought the "day to day" was obvious in what i meant).

You didn't ask a question, you placed a Kafkatrap. I dodged it just in time.

As for your edit above: Yes everyone is ok with it, because solving mysteries is what we do as scientists. If our worldview was shaken to its core every time something unexpected happened, we'd be posting on Tumblr about gender issues.

[Fascinate]

You know that face someone makes when they are rendered speechless by a posit so inconceivably wrong that it would take more energy to rebuild the worldview of the person to a level that they would understand that they were wrong that is currently available in the universe?

I just made that face.

What about the statement i made contradicts general relativity.

BTW, you still haven't answered my original question.

[May90]

Again, not proof the earth moves. Misunderstandings of relativity are more and more common in this thread it seems, and i am a high school drop out with a GED heh. Are you incapable of imagining a universe rotating around a fixed earth? Take your hand out in front of your face and rotate it as if you were grabbing a bowling bal,l that is the universe and the center of mass is where the earth is located....this is what relativity allows.

What you are saying is, "If we attach our reference frame to the Earth, then the Earth will be at the center of it". Who would have thunk! If we put the Earth at the center of our frame, then it will be at the center of our frame! Yaaaaaaaaay!!!

[Deleted]

I like how you decided to present me with a riddle rather than answering the question i proposed in my edit (honestly, i thought the "day to day" was obvious in what i meant).

Edit: my "day to day" comment was in regards to how the anisotropy of the CMB seems to contradict one of our fundamental views of our universe, being the cosmological principle. Everyone in the office is cool with that?

What exactly do you expect them to do? You think everyone should be in constant state of despair? I work in particle physics, you should see the amount of problems we have there currently. That doesn't mean we are all perpetually flipping out about them or disregarding every single piece of science we have learned. We all participate in the long grind required to advance the field.

[Steelangel]

What about the statement i made contradicts general relativity.

Like pissing into the wind, but hey...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...b-finally-pays

[Fascinate]

What exactly do you expect them to do? You think everyone should be in constant state of despair? I work in particle physics, you should see the amount of problems we have there currently. That doesn't mean we are all perpetually flipping out about them or disregarding every single piece of science we have learned. We all participate in the long grind required to advance the field.

I at least expect him to acknowledge it? My entire life is based off questioning EVERYTHING. It is due time science can swallow their pride and join me in this journey to find out how our universe truly works, because the evidence is right in front of them. Everything in my bones says the copernican and cosmological principles are wrong, it seems so obvious to me! Why is it so hard for science to even contemplate this thought!

[Fascinate]

Like pissing into the wind, but hey...

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...b-finally-pays

Dude you work in the industry that says literally nothing. Relativity states you cannot tell a rotating earth and stationary universe to a stationary earth and rotating universe. Have you not studied in depth the michaelson-morley experiements? This was one of the reasons that got me so interested in this subject, for nearly 80 years we have been doing inferometer experiments and literally none of them have without a doubt proven that the earth is moving. In fact one of the original experiments i mentioned were inspiration for relativity, no one could accpept lorent'z view that the actual appartus was shrinking so einstein was smart enough to change that to "time" as shrinking because time is far more vague, no one could accept an actual piece of machinery did that.