Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)

AN (status) :

Someone at the Geocentricity group just posted this: "Just finished reading an excellent post where Rick DeLano takes Ethan Seigal to task on his own blog. Scroll down the page to find where Rick jumps into the discussion. I haven't finished following all the links he posted but I'm looking forward to reading further about such a fascinating topic - The CMB showing that Earth clearly has a preferred location in the universe."

Starts with a Bang : So… the Earth is 6,001 years old now?
Posted by Ethan Siegal on January 3, 2011
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/01/03/so-the-earth-is-6001-years-old/

I notice that pre-Planck (this discussion was in 2011), opponents had a standard list of explanations for the 'axis of evil'. I think they assumed that Planck would help them to explain it away. BTW- Mark Wyatt updates the thread in March 2013 with the Planck data confirming the WMAP & COBE observations. As usual, the opponents at this point are reduced to ad hominems.

HGL

"Because the only way the Cosmic Microwave Background is meaningful in any way is if you accept the Big Bang picture of the Universe, where it’s many billions of years (13.7, to be precise) old!"

He meant the only way he could make it meaningful.

St Augustine said something somewhere of heat generated by movements of stars or planets and about waters of heaven being there to cool it ... Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be generated by the movement of stars.

[From link above, just one of several images.]

If red stuff = more intensity of radiation, then this could be because we are dealing with stars generating more heat because moving faster. Or?

Rick DeLano

The CMB is either the left over radiation from the Big Bang, or else it is the ambient radiation of the total emissions of stars, quasars, BlLac's, X-ray emitters, etc. Under *either* assumption, the astonishing alignments with the equinox and ecliptic are simply devastating- undereither assumption, there should be no discernible pattern in the CMB at all. And *certainly* not one pointing our a special direction which would lead any observer in the universe smart enough to build telescopes to…well. To the one place in the universe we *know* there are observers smart enough to build telescopes.

CB

Thanks for posting this. I really enjoyed/appreciated Rick's responses to the article's author in the comment section and think it's significant that between 2011 and now, he was not able to refute Rick's explanations which poked significant holes in the article.

Rick DeLano

I bet the film on the Axis. 95% of the cosmological community was sure Planck would debunk it. The smartest guys said it wouldn't.

It didn't.

Which is one very important reason why "The Principle" has been subjected to the hysterical disinformation campaign we have seen, and this is only the beginning. We are the most important film out there right now, because the most dangerous- by far.

CB

It's ironic that so many people who supposedly respect science are exhibiting the most anti-scientific behavior when it comes to this movie. I bet all the negative press will greatly increase the number of people who see it. All the hand wringing and ad hominems have made me curious enough that I just bought Robert Sungenis' book. I look forward to the film's release!!

Rick DeLano

BINGO^

RM

and a few months and counting; believe it or not since we are accustomed to hear from the NWO's religion that the earth is billions years old it become difficult to accept the real age of the earth. Added to this, we are bombarded day and night with the same data so, when some one comes with young earth it is very hard to believe it. PS not for me. God bless

As for the universe' size, we don't know because as I stated above "we do not know what is light," it follow that light cannot be used to measure distances and sizes. The numbers of the stars are known to God alone. So it follows that the size of the universe is, also, too known by God alone. God bless

HGL

There is quite a more humdrum reason why we cannot know that the size of the universe is as big as purported:

a) Heliocentrics use the halfyearly movement observed as 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri as a PARALLAX

b) if that is not the case, stars being moved by angels are moved in time with the sun but not necessarily at same pace of movement, so triangulation tells us nothing: you cannot triangulate the remaining quantities from one known angle and no known distance.

Hence, the greatest size we may truly be certain of is the distance to the furthestmost objects reflecting sunlight at a visible angle.

And even there I am not quite sure if objects moving faster than light (supposing it has the speed calculated) are not wrongly triangulated, since six hours earlier they were at 90° angles from where now, and if so there comes a speed of angular movement at which these angles may be relevant for correct assessment of planetary distance.

SM

The universe is a little less than a light day in size. Hope that helped you guys.

Rick DeLano

All due respect, it helps us not at all, Steve, unless you can prove it.

HGL

He need not prove it. One needs only prove that the opposite cannot be proven. Like that 13.5 billion lightyears from only one end to earth cannot be proven.

There are TWO proofs of very big universe.

Category A starts off with parallax, stating α Centauri must be - oh yeah? - 4 light years away, because it is really not moving - oh no? - because it is really earth that is moving - quoth the heresy that Galileo renounced.

Category B is that stars have minimum sizes. How so, minimum sizes? A Chihuahua size is probably minimum for a dog. We know that because we have seen Chihuahuas at very close hand and other dogs as well. We have NOT seen stars that close at hand.

The reason given is that stars smaller than Jupiter in mass would imply that Jupiter could not exist as having that mass of mainly hydrogen, since otherwise it would have, like the stars, self ignited. Because, you know, self ignition through stars having a critical mass which self ignites, is the ONLY way in which stars could POSSIBLY have come to shine. Tell that to CERN before they waste more money in trying to produce fusion energy in mcuh smaller masses than that of earth!

Rick DeLano

"He need not prove it. One needs only prove that the opposite cannot be proven."-- the opposite can be, and has been proven.

Parallax is an observational fact. The question of whether it is the earth or the firmament that is moving is a legitimate scientific question, but the fact is that Alpha Centauri shows a parallax, and, therefore, the universe is larger than a single light-day.

HGL

Eh, no. The question is not whether α Centauri shows a movement or not, it does. The question is whether that movement is wysiwig or parallactic behind the appearance. What is more behoving to an almighty creator who is also honest?

If it is wysiwig (off my beat !), it is not parallactic and thus tells us nada about alpha Centauri's distance.

Rick DeLano

To the contrary. It is certainly parallactic. The only question is whether the cosmos is moving about a fixed Earth, or the Earth is moving in a fixed cosmos. The trigonometry is precisely the same in either case; that is, a parallax is observed.

HGL

Obviously, if it is wysiwyg - sorry for wisiwig spelling mistake - it means someone or something is moving alpha Centauri for aesthetic purposes. Like an angel in the Biblical world view - unless you think St Thomas was mistaken and that stars really have angelic souls.

The triginometry (sic - as said!) is NOT the same if the known distance is or is NOT involved in the triangle.

Trigonometry.

Rick DeLano

The trigonometry is exactly the same, if we indeed employ the term light day, which the original post did.

Given: the concept "light day". Given: observed parallax of Alpha Centauri. Trigonometric certainty follows: the universe is larger than one light day.

HGL

I have made a few diagrams over trigonometry:

hglwrites : Geo vs Helio http://hglwrites.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/geo-vs-helio/ In the one case, the distance of the yearly movement IS involved in triangle because that of the earth. In the other case the distance of the yearly movement is NOT involved in the triangle because that of the sun.

Rick DeLano

Sorry, Hans George. (sic !) This is not correct. The geometry is precisely identical whether the Earth is taken as fixed, or the star is taken as fixed.

HGL

It is not - unless you can PROVE (how?) that the star is making the "parallax" in exactly the same distance as well as same time with the Sun.

Do. Your. Homework.

SM

Rick, sorry I took so long from last post to respond. (Had to sleep) I actually can prove that the universe is less than 1 light day in size. But the format here does not allow for that type of depth . I can use God's Holy Word to easily prove the size of the Universe. (From a believers point of view)(A Christian point of view) Without a true belief in God's Word, without the Holy spirit inside you, my proof texts will be meaningless. So non-Christian will just block at what I have to present.

To add to my last statement. A geocentric universe has to be small in order to work from our observable perspective. If people keep talking about light years, then nothing makes sense from a geocentric perspective or a Biblical perspective.

HGL

I would say the Universe would not be many light days across, if Adam and Eve saw all the stars on Friday evening which had been created on Wednesday. However, it suffices they could see Sun, Moon and two planets, they might have seen the fixed stars later in their stay in Eden.

I would say the minimum might be one light day from here to Heaven. The maximum would be 3 and a 1/2 light years (Christ rising up from His throne and getting on horse if riding at speed of light for Harmageddon and doing this when challenged by Mr or Mrs 18*37).

Harmageddon - heard the battle itself is not there, just the troop mustering before - but you know what I mean, and that statement could be wrong.

Speaking of which - wasn't Wagner and weren't Odinists in some way prophetic about that ride of Apocalypse 19 in this context:

Wagner - RIDE OF THE VALKYRIES - Furtwangler
Mimameior
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V92OBNsQgxU

Of course, the Odinists were probably just plagiarising the Apocalypse or such content of it as they got by word of mouth - or their Sibyl was forced to tell truth by God's overruling her demons.

Rick DeLano @SM

"A geocentric universe has to be small in order to work from our observable perspective."

No it doesn't.

"If people keep talking about light years, then nothing makes sense from a geocentric perspective or a Biblical perspective"

Yes it does

"I actually can prove that the universe is less than 1 light day in size. But the format here does not allow for that type of depth . I can use God's Holy Word to easily prove the size of the Universe."

Then do so.

Rick DeLano @me/HGL

@Hans:

"t is not - unless you can PROVE (how?) that the star is making the "parallax" in exactly the same distance as well as same time with the Sun"

it is not the same "distance".

It is the same angular relationship. This requires no proof. It is self-evident; in other words, it is what we *observe*, apart from any assumption. The angular relationships between Sun, Earth, and Alpha Centauri are exactly the same regardless of whether we take the Earth as fixed, and the cosmos in motion, or whether we take the cosmos fixed, and the earth in motion. Guaranteed.

CB

Rick, isn't this exactly the point Einstein was trying to make?

Einstein's quote: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolomy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could 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 to different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, p.212.)

I appreciate the intellectual honesty of this heliocentrist.

Subversive Thinking : Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Robert Sungenis on the debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism: Reflections on the importance of philosophical pressupositions in science
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.fr/2013/12/albert-einstein-stephen-hawking-and.html

SM

I will try and get you my proof texts . It's hard to put them on this kind of forum. I will do my best...

Rick DeLano @CB

Yes! I saw the same article and liked it so much I put it up on my blog:

Magisterial Fundies : How A Heliocentrist Views "The Principle"
http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.fr/2014/01/how-heliocentrist-views-principle.html

CB

Thank you Rick, there are some great comments under your blog post as well,

SM

Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky. If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth .

The universe is small.

All the stars are the same distance from us. If the stars were separated by millions of light years from each other and US, then everything would be different every night, the constellations would not stay together or keep there place in the sky. The universe is extremely smaller than we have been taught. Real observable science shows us that light years are imagination of secular scientists who don't believe in a uniquely created earth and universe with us at the center. They believe in a Hugh universe that was a cosmic accident. We are not an accident.

God separated the water below from the waters above. The place between the waters is the firmament. God placed the Sun, Moon, And stars in the firmament. The are for lights, signs, appointed times. The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system. Then the waters that are above, then we have what Paul in Corinthians called the 3rd Heaven. Where God is.

LC

^^ agent provocateur?

Rick DeLano @LC

I think he's just trying to work things through, Larry. After all, the Scriptures say, it is the glory of God to hide a matter, and the glory of kings to search it out

Rick DeLano @SM

"Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky."

no, it is the firmament that is moving, and carrying them along with it.

"If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth"

Where is that in the Bible, SM? It seems to me you are introducing the secular notion of a constant speed of light, which is limited according to the Special Theory of relativity. You need to know that SR applies only to inertial frames, and rotating frames (such as the firmament) are *non-inertial*. General Relativity applies to non-inertial frames, and under GR, the centrifugal forces involved allow objects to move at much higher than "c". Check this:

Rick DeLano’s quote/reference :

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

Rick DeLano @SM again

So there is absolutely no biblical or scientific evidence to support your theory, Steve

SM

I understand that the speed of light is not a constant. That was exactly my point. But, since STARS are all at the same distance from us, They all need to be moving at speeds that would not cause an altering of our visual perception of them. They are all moving at exactly the same speed. Since they are less than a light day from us, there speed can easily be L

Less than light speed. I don't believe we have gravitation. I believe we live in a universe that is electromagneticly connected. Also, the theory of relativity has been proven false multiple times, in a variety of different repeatable experiments.

The makeup of our universe is clearly layed out in scripture. As I pointed out before. Since I have no way of measuring the distance to the furthest planet out, we can use secular measurements, which still puts our universe at less than a light day, given the biblical model of our universe.

HGL (ignoring for now relativity and sticking with more basic stuff, perhaps) @Rick DeLano

"it is not the same 'distance'. It is the same angular relationship. This requires no proof. It is self-evident; in other words, it is what we observe, apart from any assumption."

Rick, ONE ANGLE is NOT enough to triangulate.

To triangulate, you need:

• out of the three sides and three angles
• at least three of the quantities
  
  AND
  
  
• to get a length you need among the three at least ONE known length.

To have one known length, either that is the distance between earth and earth. You and I agree it is NOT. OR, you assume star is moving same length as the sun is. Which is the precise assumption I am challenging, how do you pretend to know that?

"The angular relationships between Sun, Earth, and Alpha Centauri are exactly the same regardless of whether we take the Earth as fixed, and the cosmos in motion, or whether we take the cosmos fixed, and the earth in motion."

Even if you could guarantee that the movement of alpha Centari was parallel to that of the sun, so that the angles were the same but in opposite direction, you would still have only three angles and no distance. UNLESS you assume it is not just same plane but also same distance as sun.

In this tirade [CB will challenge this word, see below] you smuggled in an assumption: that the movement of alpha Centauri was part of the movement of the Cosmos. And how do you know THAT?

HGL @SM

"If the stars were separated by millions of light years from each other and US, then everything would be different every night, the constellations would not stay together or keep there place in the sky"

SM, why?

Because they would fall apart?

EVEN at a distance beyond furthest distance triangulated "in solar system" it would at the great speeds fall apart unless God kept it together in a marvellous way.

"The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system."

Agreed, basically. With two provisos.

1) Exoplanets (I think a few have actually been seen, not as most of them just concluded) must have an explanation why they reflect no sunlight.

2) Solar system may even be an accurate description, provided one says, like Tycho Brahe, that Earth is within it, but not moving with it. In but not of.

"Time lapse video shows us that the Sun,Moon,and Stars rotate around us once every 24hours. Their moving at the same pace across the sky. If the stars are more than 1/2 to 1 light day from us, then the speed that stars would need to be moving would be beyond clear observations from earth ."

If a star is moving around us and is exactly one light day away from us, then its light would reach us from same angle as where it is right now, but the light was emitted when it was there yesterday.

Same if it is two light days away. [The light being then emitted 48 h. ago, etc.]

"The stars are just beyond what people incorrectly call our solar system. Then the waters that are above, then we have what Paul in Corinthians called the 3rd Heaven."

You are assuming that the firmament above which the waters are is the same as the firmament of the stars. I think "waters above the firmament" mean above the earth atmoshphere or perhaps even solar system (within which we are but of which we are not). They are observed by spectrography as water molecules and hydrogen molecules in interstellar matter.

CB

If I may, using words like "tirade" is counterproductive to maintaining civil discourse.

HGL @CB

… you may not have noted, but Rick was a bit less than civil to me, and I did not just call it a tirade, I also answered it as an argument.

I have been pointing this trigonometric fact out to Rick DeLano's colleague Robert Sungenis some while ago.

deretour : But, Mr. Sungenis!
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/but-mr-sungenis.html

CB

Hans, I've followed this thread closely and have not found Rick DeLano to be anything but respectful. I could be wrong though, maybe you could copy and paste something he said to prove me wrong. All I was pointing out is that using words like tirade are disrespectful and dismissive and should be avoided, especially in light of Philippians 2:3 and other passages.

HGL @CB

what I took as a tirade was his nagging about an argument of his that he thought I had not grasped, when in fact I had ALREADY refuted it.

Of course, if you did not understand my refutation, you would probably agree with him and find it stupid and disrespectful of me to call his nagging nagging.

CB

Again you become disrespectful and dismissive by suggesting that my agreeing with Rick's argument could only be because I don't understand your refutation. You may be convinced by your own arguments, but please don't assume that those who aren't as equally convinced are unintelligent.

You appear frustrated that he doesn't find your "refutation" satisfying but that's no reason for disrespect. Telling someone to "Do. You. Homework" while also referring to their responses as "tirades" and "nagging" are not appropriate for a Catholic group, or anywhere respectful discussions are held.
Peace in Christ

HGL

OK, I am not and was not assuming you were stupid.

I was and am basically assuming you prefer "understanding" Relativity to understanding a real science like Geoemtry or specifically its part Trigonometry.

If you do not like my attitude, fine, I was not precisely asking for your internvention.

I will not give you "peace", I think you come recently from something like Pentecostals and have too much left of their manners and are treating Rick DeLano as if he were our pastor. Newsflash, he is not, neither mine nor yours. We were having a discussion as equals, same as he was with you. Your reading of - was it Philippians - is severly Puritanical. I am not buying into it. Can that close off OUR little side track now, please?

Back to the main theme:

SM

I like your response HANS,. So maybe I will have to recalculate to just a few light hours... LOL

HGL

I think one even number of light days would be somewhat in line with God's veracity.

SM

I read what you said about the waters above. I'm not going to say either of us is right or wrong. But I tend to think that there is water above the Stars also, and this is why when observed through a telescope it gives astronomers a warped view of things and they come to wrong conclusions like parallax. Just a thought...

HGL

SM, thank you! I like the attitude.

SM

I thought this group was geocentrict who love God's Word and the discussion of these beliefs. I have found many (not all) who claim to be geocentric, and yet they use pseudo science and secular scientific mathematical gobbletigook to back up their opinions. If you believe we live in a geocentric universe great. We know that secular scientists have lied about heliocentricism. Why would you use their fake math and positions about the size of the universe, light years, galaxies, etc... to back your position of a geocentric universe. You can easily use the Bible and what God Has said, real math, and true observable science to PROVE your position about a geocentric universe.

HGL

There is a bunch of maths which does add up with the Word of God. Like trigonometry requiring three magnitudes of which at least one length to make a distance measure. And from earth what we have is an angle, no more (speaking of α Centauri and such).