Mathematician: Planck data disappoints multiverse claims

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 13, 2015

Culture, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

But the dream can’t be allowed to die.

From one of our math favourites, Peter Woit of Columbia U (who is not a creationist), re the recent data from the Planck Space Telescope, here:

For about as long as I can remember, string theorists and multiverse fans have been pointing to Planck data as the test of their ideas. For cosmic strings, the last Planck data release had a paper ruling them out. I don’t see a paper on this topic out or projected for the new data, it seems that this is now something not even worth looking for.

We’ve also been hearing for years that Planck will test supposed evidence of bubble collisions indicating other universes, see for instance this article about this paper, where the article states that

Data from the Planck telescope should resolve the question once and for all.

I don’t see anything in the new data even looking for this. Has it already been ruled out, without any publicity, or did the Planck people think it was something not worth even looking for?

And check out the comments too, for example, despite the negative findings, the BBC report was

… “Multiverse, multiverse, multiverse.”

The multiverse is a classic in a problem we’ve noted before: In a culture dominated by naturalism, the cultural needs of naturalism submerge science as traditionally understood.

The fact that there is no evidence for the multiverse means far less than a science or math rigorist might hope. The goal becomes not assessing the evidence but producing what looks like evidence—or, when all else fails, continuing to promise to provide evidence.

See also: In search of a road to reality

How we got at your to this point (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

and you read this how? "the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied" I read it as all 3 maps achieved greater than 3-sigma level for the geocentric alignments. Moreover, even If I have misread it, the paper still unambiguously states that geocentric anomalies are present in both WMAP and Planck: "The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases." Moreover, I note that you are ignoring the much more problematic fact that your preferred model of inflation has now been brought into severe question with such anomalies, Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe - video Quote at 2:00 minute mark: "What's surprising in Planck's latest findings and is inconsistent with prevailing theories, is the presence of unexpected large scale anomalies in the sky. Including a large cold region. Stronger fluctuations in one half of the sky than the other. And less light signals than expected across the entire sky." Planck spokesman: "When we look at only the large features on this (CMBR) map you find that our find that our best fitting theory (inflation) has a problem fitting the data." "Planck launched in 2009,, is the 3rd mission to study the Cosmic Microwave Background to date. While these unusual features in the sky were hinted at the two previous US missions, COBE and WMAP, Planck's ability to measure the tiniest of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background has made these so called anomalies impossible to ignore." Planck spokesman: "Because of these features that we are finding in the sky, people really are in a situation now where they cannot ignore them any more. ,,, We've established them (the anomalies) as fact!". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMIbornagain77_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

BA77, Do you even understand what these guys are talking about? They find agreement between measurements of Planck and WMAP. This is not even controversial.skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Well skram, I certainly take his credentials over yours any day, especially since you are the one trying to toot your own horn by tearing other people down.,,, Pooh Poohing other people doesn't address the empirical evidence, moreover, I have yet to see anything remotely impressive in your thinking about these matters. (much less any cites supporting your position) "statistical significance?" Duh! Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck – 2013 We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments — the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) — are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe. In particular, the p-values for the mutual alignment between the quadrupole and octopole, and the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied. We also calculate conditional statistics on the various alignments and find that it is currently difficult to unambiguously identify a leading anomaly that causes the others or even to distinguish correlation from causation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562bornagain77_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

BA77, If you wanted to impress me with Singal's credentials, you have failed. Try answering my question about the statistical significance of CMB fluctuations.skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

You are right skram, perhaps he is just a 'random' member of the lower (i.e. not as evolved) caste in India that has to clean sewers to boot besides his work in cosmology :) Ashok K. Singal http://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/425/ Organization website: http://www.prl.res.in/ Dragan Huterer http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/ Large-scale alignments from WMAP and Planck - 2013 We revisit the alignments of the largest structures observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) using the seven and nine-year WMAP and first-year Planck data releases. The observed alignments -- the quadrupole with the octopole and their joint alignment with the direction of our motion with respect to the CMB (the dipole direction) and the geometry of the Solar System (defined by the Ecliptic plane) -- are generally in good agreement with results from the previous WMAP data releases.,,, both the WMAP and Planck data confirm the alignments of the largest observable CMB modes in the Universe. In particular, the p-values for the mutual alignment between the quadrupole and octopole, and the alignment of the plane defined by the two with the dipole direction, are both at the greater than 3-sigma level for all three Planck maps studied. We also calculate conditional statistics on the various alignments and find that it is currently difficult to unambiguously identify a leading anomaly that causes the others or even to distinguish correlation from causation. http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.4562bornagain77_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Anyway, whatever. I find it hilarious that multiple participants of this forum promote the geocentric principle. Young Earth, geocentrism... What else, guys? How about flat earth?skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

BA77, You got a random guy in India trying to discern a meaningful pattern in CMB fluctuations. That is literally reading tea leaves. Can you show that the fluctuations are statistically significant?skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

as to: "There are no “geocentric anomalies” in CMB radiation." That is not what I got:
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned? BY Dragan Huterer – 2007 The solar system seems to line up with the largest cosmic features. Is this mere coincidence or a signpost to deeper insights? Caption under figure on page 43: ODD ALIGNMENTS hide within the multipoles of the cosmic microwave background. In this combination of the quadrupole and octopole, a plane bisects the sphere between the largest warm and cool lobes. The ecliptic — the plane of Earth’s orbit projected onto the celestial sphere — is aligned parallel to the plane between the lobes. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf let’s not forget this too: Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013 Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the eclipticcite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropiescite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sourcescite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon. http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134
as to: "Quantum mechanics allows you to work with whatever frame of reference." again, that is not what I got:
"If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded." Asher Peres, Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J. Mod. Opt. 47, 139-143 (2000). You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained - 2014 video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4 Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
bornagain77_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

The Principle looks like an interesting movie. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/Silver Asiatic_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

BA77:
But if, according to Einstein, ‘any place will do’ as a frame of reference, then that is exactly why the Geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation are so interesting!
There are no "geocentric anomalies" in CMB radiation. The latest data for CMB anisotropy were taken not from the Earth but from Lagrange 2 point in the solar system. The anisotropy distribution looks pretty much the same from the Sun as it does from the Earth.
Moreover, Einstein said one could ‘arbitrarily’ chose one’s frame of reference, yet quantum mechanics allows no such flexibility. In quantum mechanics, the observer’s frame of reference is always fixed with the observer himself.
Baloney. Quantum mechanics allows you to work with whatever frame of reference.skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Once again Einstein stated:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
But if, according to Einstein, 'any place will do' as a frame of reference, then that is exactly why the Geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation are so interesting! i.e. why do the anomalies line up with the earth's rotation and not the sun's? Moreover, Einstein said one could 'arbitrarily' chose one's frame of reference, yet quantum mechanics allows no such flexibility. In quantum mechanics, the observer's frame of reference is always fixed with the observer himself.
"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries' "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays";
Here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
Eugene Wigner Excerpt: When I returned to Berlin, the excellent crystallographer Weissenberg asked me to study: why is it that in a crystal the atoms like to sit in a symmetry plane or symmetry axis. After a short time of thinking I understood:,,,, To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm
i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”bornagain77_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43:
Your claim that he never took a physics class is wrong though. He was a physics major in college before changing course and focusing more on theology.
Read what I posted carefully. I said that even if he took some physics classes, those would be in general physics, which doesn't cover general relativity. I know what physics majors study. Some may take general relativity in their senior year, if at all (more likely they do so in grad school). If this guy switched his major, there is no way in hell he had the time to study general relativity. Not a chance. Again, I could be wrong. The guy could be a crook and a genius. Go ahead, explain what his theory is and why you think it is worth my time. I don't have time to wade through every crackpot's ruminations, but if you make a convincing case, I could look into it.
I guarantee you dude you don’t wanna go there with me on the shroud .
Bite me.skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

"" the burden is on you "" Is the hallmark of an intellectually lazy person . Skram let me guess, your an atheist right ? Getting easier and easier to spot .wallstreeter43_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

Sk ram like I said I didn't say he believed him simply because I haven't had time to study this yet. Your claim that he never took a physics class is wrong though. He was a physics major in college before changing course and focusing more on theology. Your excuse for not watching the videos is that I haven't watched the videos yet ? Would u also eat your dinner at 3pm since I also eat dinner at 3pm ? Talk about not having a mind if your own lol Since I have researched the shroud of turin skram, that means that by your wannabee standards you also should be researching the shroud of turin. I guarantee you dude you don't wanna go there with me on the shroud . But generally people watch these types of videos to gain knowledge about what people of different views believe , not because someone else didn't watch that video . Maybe u should learn the definition if non conformity or you will be having people who have their own agendas spoon feeding you ur beliefs for the rest if your life.wallstreeter43_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the Richard conn henry link BA, it was what convinced me of the strong case for idealism. Atheist physicists counter with the many worlds interpretation which not only violates Occam's razor but makes a completely mess of it with pieces flying every where . Atheists accuse us of having faith but I don't know of anything that requires more faith then the many worlds theory . The evidence is strong from fine. Tuning you say ? Lets debunk it by creating a trillion times a trillion times a trillion universe lolwallstreeter43_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43, You haven't even watched the videos yet and you want me to debunk them? Not a chance. How about this? You go ahead and watch the videos, then you come here and explain what Sungenis's "science" is. Then I will discuss it with you. I'll tell you why I have low expectations. Sungenis has no degree in science. It's a sure bet that he never took a physics course in college. And if he did, it would be general physics that covers special relativity at a very superficial level and does not even touch general relativity. It's a virtual certainty that the guy does not understand Einstein's theory. Add to this his "doctoral" degree from a known diploma mill and you have a recipe for a garden-variety crackpot. I could be wrong. The guy could be a genius. His theory may overturn science as we know it. So go ahead and make a case for it. You're the one suggesting there is something worthwhile in there. The burden is on you.skram_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

Here is the PDF article by sungenis on how the pontifical academy of science is over run by atbeists . Even though it's a non binding group on Catholics and we are not obliged to believe them (and I agree since I don't believe them myself and I'm a catholic ) it's very important to know this and how they treat intelligent design advocates . They won't even let an is advocate have the floor there . http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Proof-the-Pontifical-Academy-of-Science-is-Run-by-Avowed-Atheists.pdfwallstreeter43_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

Skram, like I said I haven't yet studied this fully, but how about going through it and actually debunking the science ? When lawrence krauss was asked about this he simply responded by saying its junk , but yet hasn't debunked the science behind it. BA, to say that this theory is dating in the scientific community would be an understatement . Sungenis is definetly a guy that isn't afraid to speak his mind. I definately don't agree with him on everything he says. For instance he is a catholic that is a young earth creationist (very rare) , but I do agree with him on the pontifical academy of sciences being overun with atheists (took some guts to come out and say it )He's been reprimanded by the church many times . Like I said he isnt afraid to speak his mind lolwallstreeter43_{February 15, 2015
February
02
Feb
15
15
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

skram, while I find the geocentric anomalies in the Cosmic Bachground Radiation, and the overturning of the Copernican Principle entailed by that, interesting, I'm with you in that I find 'another' frame of reference to be more useful scientifically. I find, due to advances in quantum mechanics, that the 'observer-centric' view of reality is the 'frame of reference' that more satisfactorily achieves a certain consistency across General Relativity, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Specifically, quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe (i.e. Leggett's Inequality), whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. Verse:
Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.
here are a very few notes in that regards:
"There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell." Philip Gibbs Centrality of The Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video https://vimeo.com/98189061 Einstein - General Relativity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/95417559 Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - Thought Experiment - video https://vimeo.com/93101738 "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Quantum Enigma:Physics Encounters Consciousness - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics - John Hopkins University Excerpt: It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial… https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-quantum-enigma-of-consciousness-and-the-identity-of-the-designer/ Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (Leggett’s Inequality verified to 120 standard deviations as of 2011) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system - Zeilinger 2011 Excerpt: Page 491: "This represents a violation of (Leggett's) inequality (3) by more than 120 standard deviations, demonstrating that no joint probability distribution is capable of describing our results." The violation also excludes any non-contextual hidden-variable model. The result does, however, agree well with quantum mechanical predictions, as we will show now.,,, https://vcq.quantum.at/fileadmin/Publications/Experimental%20non-classicality%20of%20an%20indivisible.pdf The preceding experiment, and the mathematics behind it, are discussed beginning at the 24:15 minute mark of the following video: Quantum Weirdness and God 8-9-2014 by Paul Giem - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N7HHz14tS1c#t=1449
bornagain77_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

BA77, General relativity indeed makes it possible to write down the equations of motion in any reference frame in the same formal way. (In Newtonian mechanics and in special relativity, inertial frames were better than others.) And if you take that general principle then what is the point of advocating geocentrism? It makes no sense whatsoever.skram_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

I'm glad you like my endorsement, BA77! With a bachelor's and master's degrees in religious studies, and with a doctorate from a diploma mill in Vanuatu, Sungenis surely looks like an expert in YEC cosmology. Have fun! :)skram_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Thanks for the link, Scram. The bio reads like the script of a surreal comedy. A PhD thesis vindicating geocentrism from a university in the Republic of Vanuatu is something out of a Monty Python sketch.Piotr_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

skram, thanks for the link, quite the controversial figure and film. That Lawrence Krauss opposes "The Principle" so strongly is practically a 5 star endorsement in my book! :)
In 2014, Sungenis funded the production of a film called The Principle, which features interviews with Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Max Tegmark, Julian Barbour, and George F. R. Ellis.[1][22][26][27] Krauss has since stated that he was featured in the film without permission and agrees with the scientific community that geocentrism has been thoroughly debunked. Krauss said of the film that if people ignore it, “Maybe then it will quickly disappear into the dustbin of history, where it belongs.”[28] Kate Mulgrew, who narrated the trailer, released a public statement on her Facebook page disavowing the film, saying that she does not subscribe to Sungenis' views on history or science and would not have gotten involved in the documentary had she known of his involvement in it. She stated that she was "a voice for hire, and a misinformed one, at that."[29][30] Several other scientists featured in the film came forward to say that they had been misled about its true agenda, and that they would never have taken part in it had they known its aim.[31] Co-producer Rick DeLano responded to these allegations, insisting that the documentary is an examination of the Copernican Principle and does not explicitly promote the geocentric point of view, adding that he is in possession of signed releases from Krauss and Mulgrew, neither being misled about the content of the documentary or its intention to "explore controversial aspects of cosmology, even highly controversial ideas and theories."[32] Sungenis and DeLano suspect that the criticisms and complaints against their movie are part of a coordinated campaign to keep people from concentrating on the evidence presented in it.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism
Same for Mr. Multiverse, Tegmark. As to the other complaint from Ellis, Ellis himself stated:
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” - George Ellis - W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
Einstein weighs in here:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
Further note:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
bornagain77_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

BA77, You will be delighted to know that these videos feature one "Dr." Robert Sungenis, whose brief biography is available on Wikipedia.skram_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

wallstreeter43. Thanks for the tip. Before I watch them, How do you personally rate the quality? i.e. How pleased were you?,,, never mind I see you have edited your opinion inbornagain77_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Geocentrism geocentric cosmology http://youtu.be/cnLYIbpNst4 Here is a series of lectures (2 videos and one audio) by one of the main proponents of geocentrism Robert sungenis which basically explains the science behind it. Altogether about 4-5 hours worth so it's not light listening . Geocentrism the coming revolution part 2 http://youtu.be/U49_IzLeEo4 Geocentrism the coming revolution part 3 http://youtu.be/EMr8lb2tYvo I am on the fence here on this one simply because I don't have the time right now to research it , but the science seems pretty sound and the only comebacks from atheists are comments like "it's so crazy how can anyone believe it" in ither words I haven't seen any of them attack the science behind it. Fascinating lectures with info most don't know about .wallstreeter43_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

ppolish: the following paper confirmed that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is 'maximized' for discoverability: The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability - Robin Collins - March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near - optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated). In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine - structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ...the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti - matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near - optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists -- to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon - baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf Greer Heard Forum: Robin Collins – “God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWmMU7BXGEbornagain77_{February 14, 2015
February
02
Feb
14
14
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

News: Diogenes' main point is that there are multiple versions of the "multiverse" view of things. There are suggestions that "if" we are part of a 'multiverse' then there are certain things we "may" see. I'm no cognoscenti of the multiverse theory, however, roughly speaking, they're but an extension of "inflation" theory, which is, itself, a way of dealing with the tremendous homogeneity found in the universe. Here you'll find an article that talks about how the new Planck data have ruled out a number of simple "inflation" models. They're careful to say that the entire idea of 'inflation' has not been ruled out; however, this is a big setback for the "multiverse" way of thinking. So, Diogenes, "inflation" IS falsifiable, and, because most every "multiverse" theory rests upon it, by extension, the "multiverse" theory would be ruled out if the day comes when "inflation" is completely ruled out. Multiverse ideas may continue, but they will then be completely "unfalsifiable." So, "News", the inconsistency Diogenes wants to hammer at, is really non-existent.PaV_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

I confess not to know what Diogenes is talking about. If there were evidence for a multiverse, it would presumably be testable and falsifiable, at least in principle. If there is no evidence, it is not testable or falsifiable in principle. We are informed that the Planck data did not provide any evidence. In the absence of any evidence anywhere, it is not testable or falsifiable. Are there readers other than Diogenes who find this proposition hard to grasp?News_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Diogenes
Is that statement falsifiable or just speculation? Why should I believe it?
You reference all of these things: What is ... an hypothesis? a theory? a speculation? a falsification? evidence? a claim? a multiverse? However you answer those, none of them can be falsified.Silver Asiatic_{February 13, 2015
February
02
Feb
13
13
2015
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply