Space aliens – if we can see them they can see us

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 26, 2020

Exoplanets, Extraterrestrial life, Intelligent Design}

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

If they are even as advanced as we are, they could spot us using the methods we use to spot exoplanets. But if they are technologically advanced, wouldn’t they be here by now?

Let’s look at the possibility that the extraterrestrial intelligences could be alive and watching us right now, using the very same methods we use to spot exoplanets. A recent open-access astronomy paper tried to calculate which aliens could actually spot us by whether Earth dims the Sun when passing it …
But now, on the other side, let’s look at the Hart-Tipler Conjecture: “Extraterrestrial intelligent beings do not exist” (1980). If they did, within 300 million years, they would have developed advanced technology and be here by now.” Or maybe by 650,000 years. Either way, they have had enough time.
News, “Space aliens could in fact be watching us” at Mind Matters News

The Hart-Tipler conjecture (they don’t exist) is, of course, very unpopular in sci-fi. But let’s confront it, if only to move on to more promising (or maybe scarier) speculations. Here are some:

1.Are the Aliens We Never Find Obeying Star Trek’s Prime Directive? The Directive is, don’t interfere in the evolution of alien societies, even if you have good intentions. Assuming the aliens exist, perhaps it’s just as well, on the whole, if they do want to leave us alone. They could want to “fix” us instead…

2.How can we be sure we are not just an ET’s simulation? A number of books and films are based on the idea. Should we believe it? We make a faith-based decision that logic and evidence together are reasonable guides to what is true. Logical possibility alone does not make an idea true.

3.Did the smart machines destroy the aliens who invented them? That’s the Berserker hypothesis. A smart deadly weapon could well decide to do without its inventor and, lacking moral guidance, destroy everything in sight. Extinction of a highly advanced civilization by its own lethal technology may be more likely than extinction by natural disaster. They could control nature.

4.Researchers: The aliens exist but they are sleeping… And we wake them at our peril. The Aestivation hypothesis is that immensely powerful aliens are waiting in a digitized form for the universe to cool down from the heat their computers emit.

5.Maybe there are just very few aliens out there… The Rare Earth hypothesis offers science-based reasons that life in the universe is rare. Even if life is rare in the universe, Earth may be uniquely suited to space exploration, as the Privileged Planet hypothesis suggests.

Does science fiction hint that we are actually doomed? That’s the implication of an influential theory as to why we never see extraterrestrials. Depending how we read the Kardashev scale, civilizations disappear somewhere between where we are now and the advanced state needed for intergalactic travel.

Comments

BA77 No problem. I appreciate the time you and others invested in providing avenues of evidence and research, and again, I'm sorry for any inability of mine to process your information, evidence and argument in a more timely fashion.William J Murray_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

WJM,
The evidence is unambiguously on the side of the Earth-centric theory. Not because of the CMBR information, but that was definitely part of it. The most compelling part of the video was just understanding how the Earth-centric theory was hands down the more efficient theory and was a far better explanatory model for the experimental results.
WOW, I for one really do appreciate that. After years of debating diehard Darwinists, it certainly is VERY refreshing to see someone actually follow the evidence where it leads.bornagain77_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

BA77 et al, I would like you to keep this debate in mind in future discussions when you start thinking I'm ideologically committed to a perspective. That is not the case; I was trying to collect and understand evidence and information. It was never my position either way; I had no dog in the fight. If anyone attempted to point me to "The Principle" before, I take full responsibility for, for whatever reason, not following up on it. I did not deliberately "not look" at it beforehand. I either didn't see it or saw it and forgot about it after having my attention here distracted. These things happen. I always argue in good faith and am willing to check out information. Perhaps, BA'77, you were talking about the same information but I was unable to understand it or process it correctly. My apologies if that was the case. This video laid it all out in a way I could understand it. The evidence provided by "The Principle" was what I was asking for. This is why I found your information about the Earth-centric theory exciting and was actually going to look more into it. The evidence is unambiguously on the side of the Earth-centric theory. Not because of the CMBR information, but that was definitely part of it. The most compelling part of the video was just understanding how the Earth-centric theory was hands down the more efficient theory and was a far better explanatory model for the experimental results. I think it may be that the specific gravitational dynamics that come with being at the "center of mass" location plays a huge factor in the development of life, but I don't know if that's the case. Perhaps there is additional information that would make the scientific case that life either cannot, or probably cannot, develop elsewhere in the universe. While the evidence so far supports the Earth centric view, so far I'm not sure how that would scientifically preclude the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Can that case be made?William J Murray_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, Good points all! It seems that William J Murray simply waves off the data falsifying his position. The fact that "the fingers of God" are likely the result of a gross error in theory, which astronomers were unwilling to admit, assumes that hypothetical astronomers everywhere in the universe would also be that stubborn. Halton Arp unfortunately fell between the data and the academic arrogance. He also pointed out a visible interaction between two stars that were supposedly only apparently close, which was prominently discernible on the cover of an issue of (IIRC) Astronomy magazine. But the editors and their supporters waved that off as well to protect their narrative. The ability for God creating some really interesting worlds elsewhere is actually fine with me. Pluto and Charon are particularly interesting. As to the Goldilocks Effect, which he also waves off, none of the observability factors cited by Guillermo Gonzalez is necessary for life on Earth. The fact that Earth is ideally placed is wildly improbable considering all the stars and their planets that aren't! That this data was unimpressive should also be illuminating to you. Jesus termed this behavior willful blindness. In that day, the pharisees willfully ignored the hundreds of years prior prophecies in Daniel that specified the year of Messiah's coming and the fact that it would have to occur before Jerusalem and the Temple were going to be destroyed. And not only that, the Christians in the first few centuries noted that the pharisees had gone and changed various prophecies about Messiah in the Tanakh, which is now demonstrable in the Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. -QQuerius_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, - per quantum phy
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: In this Letter, we present a cosmic Bell experiment with polarization-entangled photons, in which measurement settings were determined based on real-time measurements of the wavelength of photons from high-redshift quasars, whose light was emitted billions of years ago; the experiment simultaneously ensures locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons and that the wavelength of the quasar photons had not been selectively altered or previewed between emission and detection, we observe statistically significant violation of Bell’s inequality by 9.3 standard deviations, corresponding to an estimated p value of ? 7.4 × 10^21. This experiment pushes back to at least ? 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, it is empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” Moreover, the validation of free will in quantum mechanics differentiates WJM's generic 'universal mind' version of Intelligent Design from Christianity's version of Intelligent Design in a profound way. Namely
In short, if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, for the infinite mathematical divide between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
(August - 2020) Yet we do not have just one mathematical ‘theory of everything’ that describes the universe. We have two theories, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that simply refuse to be unified into a single overarching ‘theory of everything’. In fact, there is an infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/god-and-mathematics-why-does-mathematics-work/#comment-710479 September 2020 - despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-edition-of-inference-review-features-richard-buggs-james-shapiro-and-larry-krauss/#comment-713367 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Thus in conclusion, I find WJM arguments against the 'preferred' position of the Earth in the universe to not hold up to scrutiny. In fact, I find that he assumes a 'non-design' perspective in order to try to maintain his belief that the earth is not to be 'preferred'. Moreover, even when we granted WJM that the 'fingers of God' anomaly, in particular, was due to distortions that any observer would see, even there, when looking at 'observers' themselves in particular, we find that Christianity offers us something that WJM 'mental reality theory' cannot offer. Namely, we find that the 'observer' of Jesus Christ Himself provides us with a very plausible, even empirically backed, reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into the much sought after 'theory of everything. I would hold that to be a rather dramatic differentiation between WJM's generic 'mental reality theory' which holds that there is nothing special about earth or humanity in the universe in particular, and Christianity which holds both the earth and humanity to be very significant in the universe.bornagain77_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

WJMs argument appears to be something like this. "I agree that the universe is intelligently designed but I hold that the earth is not unique because God, (and/or what WJM might call ' “universal mind"), could have created as many worlds with intelligent life as He wanted to." As has been pointed out several times now to WJM, the anomalies in the CMBR, and the large scale structures of the universe give the earth in particular a 'preferred position' in the universe. WJM has countered that it is only on a single plane that the earth is given a preferred position, and that other planets on that plane would also see themselves as having a preferred position. (As well WJM assumes that life could also be possible on other planets in the universe that are not on the CMB plane, i.e. he assumes the plane to not be essential for enabling intelligent life, i.e. he philosophically, not scientifically, assumes 'non-design' for the CMB plane in particular.) If it was just the CMB plane in particular, WJM might have a point. But as I have pointed out to WJM several times now, specifically pointed out with the Ashok K. Singal paper, it is the large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe. As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
"Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an 'exact center' in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth "at or near the center of the universe." For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
“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.” - Ashok K. Singal
4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Welcome%20to%20Catholic%20Star%20Wars.pdf
Thus again, it is not just a single plane from the CMB that WJM has to account for. The large scale structures of the universe are indeed arrayed about the earth in order to give it its 'Z axis" and there 'true centrality' in the universe. WJM may still hold that that still does not mean that God could not have created intelligent life in other places of the universe that are not at its center, but as I pointed out in post 77,
I would be willing to bet that there are unknown reasons, pertaining to maintaining life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. After all, the list for life enabling characteristics is fairly long as it is right now (i.e. 816 known parameters thus far),,,
In other words, I hold that our ignorance of any life enabling characteristics that may be associated with out 'preferred' position in the universe is not an argument that a Design proponent should be making. Obviously, a design proponent, if he is to be consistent, should presuppose a design perspective and not presuppose non-design perspective, in any situation where our knowledge of the situation is incomplete. As to the 'fingers of God' paper that Querius brought up, WJM comments that.
I looked up the fingers of God phenomena. As far as I can tell, the phenomena has a red shift explanation where any observer in any location would see the same thing.
But as Querius pointed out in post 78,
"He (Arp) used the sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us as an argument that current distance calculations are flawed, namely that these clusters should actually be globular. He caught the academic community in a quandary: Either their distance calculations were seriously off or there are massive sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us–i.e. “the fingers of God.” It’s been many years since the controversy was smothered so I don’t know whether the distances were quietly corrected now that Halton Arp is safely dead or not."
But let's give WJM the benefit of a doubt and assume that this 'embarrassing situation', as Arp termed it, has been worked out and is merely a distortion "where any observer in any location would see the same thing." Let's concentrate on 'observers' in particular. When Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,, per wikipedia The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html
Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “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.”
“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, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.” Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
bornagain77_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

BA77 said:
So again, as it has pointed out to WJM several times now, it is these large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe.
I looked up the fingers of God phenomena. As far as I can tell, the phenomena has a red shift explanation where any observer in any location would see the same thing. The information about the solar system being a delicate balancing act is irrelevant after one has agreed that we live in a designed habitat. Querius asks:
What did you think of “the Goldilocks zone” in the book or movie?
As far as I can tell, it was well documented and a great argument that the situation Earth is in was designed. As I've said, we're well past the point where we understand that the universe is designed for the existence of intelligent life. That's where probability arguments end. The only science-based arguments that are useful now in establishing Earth as "unique" are non-probabilistic arguments based on evidence and theoretical models that explain, from a design perspective, what that evidence means (other than God winking at us.)William J Murray_{November 1, 2020
November
11
Nov
1
01
2020
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, What did you think of "the Goldilocks zone" in the book or movie? -QQuerius_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77, What's interesting is that Halton Arp wrote a book called Seeing Red many years ago, for which he was shunned--disinvited from conferences and prevented from accessing major telescopes. His crime? He used the sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us as an argument that current distance calculations are flawed, namely that these clusters should actually be globular. He caught the academic community in a quandary: Either their distance calculations were seriously off or there are massive sausage shaped clusters all pointing to us--i.e. "the fingers of God." It's been many years since the controversy was smothered so I don't know whether the distances were quietly corrected now that Halton Arp is safely dead or not. -QQuerius_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

Thanks for the link Querius. It is a keeper.
Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe - Halton C. Arp Excerpt: they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.,,, These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed "Fingers of God". The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican. https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe
So again, as it has pointed out to WJM several times now, it is these large scale structures of the universe, on top of the CMBR anomalies, which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a ‘preferred’ position in the universe. I bet there are even reasons, pertaining to being able to maintain life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. For instance, maintaining a stable solar system, that contains a world which is able to host intelligent life, is a far more delicate balancing act than most people realize:
“You might also think that these disparate bodies are scattered across the solar system without rhyme or reason. But move any piece of the solar system today, or try to add anything more, and the whole construction would be thrown fatally out of kilter. So how exactly did this delicate architecture come to be?” R. Webb - Unknown solar system 1: How was the solar system built? - New Scientist – 2009 Is the Solar System Stable? By Scott Tremaine - 2011 Excerpt: So what are the results? Most of the calculations agree that eight billion years from now, just before the Sun swallows the inner planets and incinerates the outer ones, all of the planets will still be in orbits very similar to their present ones. In this limited sense, the solar system is stable. However, a closer look at the orbit histories reveals that the story is more nuanced. After a few tens of millions of years, calculations using slightly different parameters (e.g., different planetary masses or initial positions within the small ranges allowed by current observations) or different numerical algorithms begin to diverge at an alarming rate. More precisely, the growth of small differences changes from linear to exponential:,,, As an example, shifting your pencil from one side of your desk to the other today could change the gravitational forces on Jupiter enough to shift its position from one side of the Sun to the other a billion years from now. The unpredictability of the solar system over very long times is of course ironic since this was the prototypical system that inspired Laplacian determinism. Fortunately, most of this unpredictability is in the orbital phases of the planets, not the shapes and sizes of their orbits, so the chaotic nature of the solar system does not normally lead to collisions between planets. However, the presence of chaos implies that we can only study the long-term fate of the solar system in a statistical sense, by launching in our computers an armada of solar systems with slightly different parameters at the present time—typically, each planet is shifted by a random amount of about a millimeter—and following their evolution. When this is done, it turns out that in about 1 percent of these systems, Mercury’s orbit becomes sufficiently eccentric so that it collides with Venus before the death of the Sun. Thus, the answer to the question of the stability of the solar system—more precisely, will all the planets survive until the death of the Sun—is neither “yes” nor “no” but “yes, with 99 percent probability.” https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2011-summer/solar-system-tremaine
So again, I would be willing to bet that there are unknown reasons, pertaining to maintaining life on earth for long periods of time, for why the universe is structured around us the way it is. After all, the list for life enabling characteristics is fairly long as it is right now,,,
Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is';?Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms: Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life: Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324 longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfront.net/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf - with bibliography of references
bornagain77_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT}

Q, I watched the Privileged Planet. Unfortunately, as I explained to BA77, once it is established that we live in a designed universe, probabilities are no longer meaningful in establishing Earth as the focus of creation. Feel free to join in and share if you think there is evidence that indicates Earth, specifically Earth, is unique. Remember, if intelligence can design one privileged planet, it can design any number of them. Probabilities no long matter.William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

William J Murray,
In order for Earth’s (or our solar system’s) particular position on that plane to be unique wrt the rest of the universe, the entire universe would literally have to have Earth at its functional center.
If you want to see the “fingers of God” that point to the Earth, read this article by the late cosmologist Halton Arp: https://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe Actually, according to the inflationary model, the Earth is indeed at the universe’s functional center--and so is every other location. Furthermore, I believe galactic environment is more important than geometric centricity. Similarly, I would speculate that you don’t consider your bellybutton as the most important feature in your body. The special coincidences of the location of the Earth are presented in this book (and also a video): The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/1684510775 by the astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez -QQuerius_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Sandy, thanks for the link to the entire video, I only had a link to the clip of the video that I have referenced. It is nice to have a link to the entire video:
The Principle https://www.bitchute.com/video/5MZhT865KVom/
bornagain77_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

WJM, I'm very satisfied that the unbiased readers, with the information provided thus far, can judge for themselves .bornagain77_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

BA77, as I said before, I have no philosophical belief in a mediocre Earth. I am honestly trying to understand how the evidence you've provided indicates a preferential point (Earth) on the CMBR plane (or Axis of Evil). I've watched several videos on it, one from the perspective that the CMBR plane was evidence Earth was in a special location; but the only evidence it provided (and all of the others) was that Earth was special because of it's alignment with the plane. And, it showed that the plane doesn't go through our equator, but close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades. The plane shown nearly dissecting the Earth closely matches the plane of the elliptic. Equinox axis is just in alignment with the dipole positions, so that doesn't add anything as far as the physical location of the Earth within the CMBR plane. The videos state flatly that the CMBR doesn't show a center of the universe, but rather axes that corresponds with our elliptic and equinox. It would only be "pointing at Earth" in the same way it would be pointing at any planet with an elliptic that was similarly close to the CBMR plane and aligned with it and which had an elliptic with a tilt that matched ours in relation to the dipoles. Apparently, the idea that it specifically "pointed at Earth" was an assumptive result of the same inapplicable use of non-design probabilities being wrongfully imported into a design perspective. So I was right, apparently: the CMBR only reveals a preferred plane, not a preferred position on that plane. Unless there is other universal architecture indicating we are in a preferred position on that plane, then the most we can say is that any planet with a similar elliptic and axis tilt near that plane seem to be preferred planets. However, unless one comes up with a functional reason why that plane and that tilt axis would be more conducive to intelligent life, then it really is of no value other than in religious ideological terms. (I think there is evidence that the axis tilt is beneficial to, perhaps even necessary for, life.) I think I've provided one (admittedly, rough and from only a general understanding of the concepts it employs) using an entropy explanation. I do appreciate the detailed information about how all the celestial mechanics can be used to equally support both Ptolemic and Copernican perspectives. That's very exciting information!!William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT}

WJM continued to push his 'single plane' model though he was corrected on it and was specifically asked by Querius "What did you think of “the Axis of Evil” in the video?" Go figure. Then WJM goes off on a highly speculative tangent about entropy with no reference to any actual empirical evidence that I could see But in the midst of all his smoke and heat, WJM did make this statement,
If one solar system can be moving along that plane so perfectly that one of it’s planets has an equator that is always dissected by it, any number of such planetary systems and dynamics can exist. Unless Earth is literally the motionless (wrt motion through space) center of all celestial mechanics and motion. Is that the case you are attempting to make, BA77?
Although the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Christians, hold the Copernican principle to be unquestionably true, and hold that it is a undeniable fact that the earth is in, very rapid, motion through space, the fact of the matter is that no one has ever scientifically proven that the earth is actually in motion and that the earth is not the still center of the universe. In other words, contrary to popular belief, Copernicus never did prove that the heliocentric model was true and the geocentric model was wrong, (and no one even tries to argue that the sun is the center of the universe anymore)
The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016 Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,, It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe. As Einstein himself noted,
“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921 “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*” –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545. “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)
Here are a few more notes backing up the claim that there is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
“…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’… One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right.” Born, Max. “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: “In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force such that the equation of motion takes the form of equation (8.47). Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface in the form –2mgvme ´ ?Ue, where vme is the velocity of the test body relative to the earth and ?Ue is the angular rotation of the distant masses around the earth. The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars.” (Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, pp. 190-191). Could 80-year-old ether experiments have detected a cosmological temperature gradient? – February 8, 2016 Excerpt: the 20 or so experiments performed since 1887 seem to have steadily improved the precision in support of the view that there is no ether and no preferred reference frame. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-year-old-ether-cosmological-temperature-gradient.html
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: 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. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality// How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018 Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where. The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,, The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,, as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/
As the preceding articles made clear, General Relativity itself does not care if we choose the earth, or the sun, or any other place in the universe, as the central point for our model of the universe. As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010
And as George Ellis stated, “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…”
“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
And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
“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.
And even Einstein himself stated, 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 [coordinate systems].”
“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.);
Again, there simply is no empirical, nor mathematical, reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe, (save for making the equations of motion easier for us to calculate). Moreover, as the the anomalies in the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe make clear, (as referenced in post 60), we now do have empirical evidence that strongly suggest that we should, at the very least, consider the earth to be a viable candidate for centrality in our, (arbitrarily chosen), model of the universe. In other words, we have no empirical reason to prefer any other place in the universe as being central over and above the earth in our model of the universe, whereas, on the other hand, we now do have empirical evidence that strongly suggest we should, at the very least, consider the earth as being a very viable candidate for centrality in our, (arbitrarily chosen), model of the universe. To repeat what George Ellis stated prior to the discovery of the anomalies in the CMBR by the WMAP and PLANCK satellites,,
“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
Might it be to obvious to point out, (given the 'philosophical hoops' that WJM himself has tried to jump through in order to maintain his philosophical belief in a mediocre earth in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary), that the 'philosophical criteria' for ignoring the apparent centrality of the earth in the universe is becoming far harder to maintain?
Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.
bornagain77_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

Now I'll explain why the CMBR data, rather than indicating that the Earth is unique, actually indicates the opposite - that it is not unique - from a design perspective. If the Earth was unique, the CMBR data would reveal a spherical, not hemispherical, difference in structure and temperature distribution. It would point at Earth from all directions, not just at the universal-width plane the Earth occupies. Under the 3-chamber entropy model, the "import" zone would be represented by the direction we are going, spatially speaking. The export zone would be trailing after us. This would be the most efficient set-up. Our past would be high entropy, our future lower-entropy. That directly conflicts with observations. What we observe is more in line with a universe that began with maximally low entropy, with half the universe earmarked for information import and the other half earmarked for waste export, set up for the purpose of creating the largest intelligent life zone possible under a maximum efficiency 3-chamber Maxwell Demon system. You don't do that to create one planet with intelligent life, otherwise the system could be more efficiently constructed and would reveal different observations - at least with our current information. So here we also see the difference between a generic-ID perspective and any particular religious or spiritual ID perspective; the generic ID perspective doesn't stop at "the evidence shows we are in a preferred location." "Hey look, we're in a special location" isn't a scientific explanation for the CMBR data from a design perspective; it's the creator making itself known from a religious perspective. This is the big problem with mixing ID theory and religion. I've offered a rough model that attempts to explain the CMBR data as functional and efficient design. I think I've also offered a general argument why that design indicates there is likely more than one planet housing intelligent life; what we see would look different if Earth was unique because the design would indicate a preferred point - Earth - wherever it traveled in the universe and not a universe-wide plane that would only be efficient design if there are a number of worlds with intelligent life on them distributed (probably in an efficient pattern) along the CMBR plane.William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

From a generic design perspective, this CMBR-revealed arrangement doesn't make sense unless it serves a functional purpose. In other words, it can't just be a "hello, I did this so you'll know you're special" purpose. It would be how a functional, high-efficiency system would be set up. Take a typical home (at least in the USA) for example. You put your air conditioning unit where it has the most shade or relief from the heat. You want it to be drawing in the coolest air possible. Work done in the house that generates heat, like the hot water heater, the bathroom where heat collects due to hot water baths and showers, and the stove are vented away from the AC unit. The maximal use of the three-chamber Maxwell's Demon arrangement would not only place intelligent life-sustaining planets between an import source and an export area (the CMBR plane,) it might also very precisely align that planet's equator with the plane for maximum efficiency. And here's the thing; over time the entropic disparity between the import source and the export area would necessarily show observable differences, not only in relative temperature, but in other features as well - which is what the CMBR data reveals.William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

I wonder if the CMBR data is revealing a 3-chamber Maxwell's Demon situation wrt entropy, where intelligence is managing incoming organized (useful) information/energy and outgoing (non-useful) information/energy, and the CMBR plane is the middle chamber? It seems like that would account for the three zones and why extremely low entropic systems like intelligent life would necessarily exist in the CMBR plane. Seems like a good setup for preserving the source supply of low-entropy information/energy if you're also "pumping out" used, high entropy information/energy into a separate "waste" area.William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

Since I've given BA77 ample opportunities to argue that the Earth is in a preferred position compared to other positions on the CMBR plane (I don't refer to it as "Axis of Evil, Q, because that's too confusing for God's sake,) I'll explain why that perspective is problematic. In order for Earth's (or our solar system's) particular position on that plane to be unique wrt the rest of the universe, the entire universe would literally have to have Earth at its functional center. The apparent motion of our planet around the sun, our solar system through space according to the gravity center of the galaxy and the motion of the galaxy itself through space, would all have to be an illusion. Earth would have to be fixed in a 3-axis location and everything else be revolving around it. I'm not saying that's not the case; I'm saying that for the Earth to exist in a unique 3D or 3-axis location, it means everything in the universe is moving through space but Earth is not. We would literally have to be in the same spot since the beginning in order for the Earth to be in a privileged 3-axis spatial location. The only alternative to this is that the Earth, solar system and galaxy have been moving in a coordinated fashion that keeps the Earth's equator fixed on the CMBR plane. Any location on the plane, with the Earth's equator dissected by it, would reveal the same kind of CMBR data, so as we move along the plane the CMBR data stays consistent. This necessarily would mean that there could be any number of planets on that universal-width plane that would see the same kind of CMBR data. We would have found it 100 years ago 1000, years ago, etc. as we are moving horizontally across that plane. Unless the entire universe is literally revolving around a motionless Earth, our previous locations on the plane would have revealed the same data. Once we establish that the universe is designed, probabilistic arguments are no longer applicable. If one solar system can be moving along that plane so perfectly that one of it's planets has an equator that is always dissected by it, any number of such planetary systems and dynamics can exist.d Unless Earth is literally the motionless (wrt motion through space) center of all celestial mechanics and motion. Is that the case you are attempting to make, BA77?William J Murray_{October 31, 2020
October
10
Oct
31
31
2020
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

BA77 said:
Whatever WJM, I explained the evidence to the best of my ability. The ‘preference’ for the earth’s position from the large scale structures of the universe is not transferable to other positions in the universe as you are erroneously assuming in your ‘single plane’ model. That is exactly why the various studies say it is a challenge to the Copernican principle.
If by "explaining it to the best of your ability" you mean copy-pasting the exact same thing 4 times in a row, only adding you saying almost the exact same thing as what you quoted between quotes, then okay. You wouldn't answer the questions I asked in order to help me understand your point. I didn't assume anything. I asked you if the CMBR info revealed a preferred plane because I didn't know if I was interpreting it correctly. You said yes. I asked you repeatedly, in different ways, if any particular location on that plane was preferred by that data, and if so, how? You kept referring to the flatness, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with our spatial location, and then you kept copy-pasting the CMBR data, which you already agreed only showed preference for a particular plane. Until you can tell me specifically what would make one particular location on that plane unique compared to any other particular location on that plane, you haven't made your case. I have no ideological dog in this fight. It doesn't make me any difference if humans and earth are unique in this universe. It doesn't make me any difference if ETs exist or not. That's not something I care about in any way.William J Murray_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

@Bornagain77 Thanks, I didn't know about this movie from 2014. Wow! https://www.bitchute.com/video/5MZhT865KVom/Sandy_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT}

William J Murray, What did you think of "the Axis of Evil" in the video? -QQuerius_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

There are references to UFOs in the Bible. So I don't understand the issue.ET_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

Whatever WJM, I explained the evidence to the best of my ability. The 'preference' for the earth's position from the large scale structures of the universe is not transferable to other positions in the universe as you are erroneously assuming in your 'single plane' model. That is exactly why the various studies say it is a challenge to the Copernican principle. I don't know how to make it any clearer for you. I am fairly confident that others, who are not so philosophically committed to the earth being mediocre in the universe, will be able to, relatively easily, understand the evidence. Of related interest to 'philosophical biases', I just remembered this quote from George Ellis,
“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
bornagain77_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

BA77, Repeating the same information in the same way "slower" isn't a good plan to aid in my understanding of what you're trying to tell me. As far as I can tell, the CMBR shows a preferred plane, nothing else. The "flatness" of the universe has, as far as I can tell, nothing whatsoever to contribute to the claim that the Earth is in a preferred position, spatially speaking. Absent "preference" information that actually narrows Earth's location to something considerably smaller than a universe-wide plane, there is no good scientific design argument that the Earth and human intelligence is likely unique.William J Murray_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

To go over the evidence one more time, more slowly. The way in which they were originally able to detect the anomalies in the CMBR, (anomalies which 'strangely' line up with the earth and solar system), is that they 'smeared' and/or 'averaged out' the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR. Here is an excellent clip from the documentary "The Principle" that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, via 'averaging out', in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
And here is an article, by one of the producers of the preceding video, which states, "Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle."
What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? - February 17, 2015 The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations. When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking. Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea. (Youtube clip on site) In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles. The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle. http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/
And while that is certainly bad enough for anyone who wants to 'philosophically' believe that the earth is not that special in the universe, the problem gets worse when we don't 'average out' the small temperature fluctuations in the CMBR. As mentioned previously, due to the 'insane coincidence' of the universe being flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts, we now know that "These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across."
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
And it is these large scale structures of the universe, (which were not derived via averaging out the tiny temperature fluctuations of the CMBR), which drive the final nail in the coffin for the belief that the earth does not have a 'preferred' position in the universe. As the following article stated, "why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies 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 seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes."
A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies - Ashok K. Singal Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015) Abstract We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies 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 seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that 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 the standard cosmological model is based upon? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2
As to, "implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle", that is for the author to say that these findings are a direct challenge to the belief that the earth is not special in this universe. In other words, the distribution of quasars and radio galaxies, "in the universe at very large scales", are arrayed about the earth in such a way as to give the earth a 'preferred' position in the universe. And it is this 'preferred position', (that is found by looking at the large scale structures of the universe themselves, i.e. quasar and radio galaxy distribution), which is definitely not transferable to other positions in the universe. Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose, the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variation in the CMBR and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 flatness. Atheists simply have no clue why the universe should be 'insanely' flat, whereas the Bible predicted the universe to be flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern astronomy.
Job 38 4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
In fact, the Bible also predicted God to 'draw a circle on the face of the deep' thousands of years before the CMBR was discovered:
Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Job 26:10? He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
Shoot, even the scientists who discovered the CMBR stated that,
“My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000),
And indeed, the evidence for a 'Biblical creation" has only gotten stronger since they made those statements. As I have outlined in this post, The "tiny temperature variations" in the CMBR, to the largest scale structures in the universe itself, reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth from the start. And again, the Bible alone, among all holy books of the world, uniquely predicted the earth to be 'intended' from the beginning of creation:
Genesis 1:1-3 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0
bornagain77_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

One thing you'll find in the Bible is that God created angelic beings in their own "domain" that apparently can cross into ours. Their manifestations include intelligence, physicality, and immense power. They can appear as ordinary humans or clothed in bright light. In the book of Revelation there are angelic beings in strange hybrid forms as well. Some prophetic representations seem like they are intended to be symbolic, both in the Tanakh and in the New Testament. -QQuerius_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

:) I bet if ETs would appear on TV station and would say christianity is true, people who now believe in ETs existence would became skeptics and would say must be a hoax, and they will change their mind about ETs existence. :) :) :)Sandy_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

BA77 said:
If ETs really exist, it should be overwhelming evidence that no one could doubt.
Isn't this a version of the fallacious "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument? No, evidence for ETs have no more of an evidential burden than anything else, much less the impossible standard of "no one can doubt it." Humans can doubt anything. There is an enormous amount of evidence for the existence of non-human intelligences that do not seem to come from this planet. There is evidence at least some of them come from other star systems. Other evidence seems to indicate a transdimensional nature for some. Like evidence for the afterlife, unless you put your attention on it and do some open-minded research, you'll never even see it.William J Murray_{October 30, 2020
October
10
Oct
30
30
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply