This has got to be JQP's favorite all time thread.
Printable View
This has got to be JQP's favorite all time thread.
Sandy Hook and Fukushima are close seconds ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Horn
The Producer of the Principle will be joining Flat Earther Jeranism on Monday the 28th Sept on Globebusters. 6PM PST.
Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBU0rxA6_j8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBU0rxA6_j8
Jeranism Channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCS_...t1D_ExQ/videos
...and argues against flat earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass
well yeah, thats the pont.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
The thing about flat earth is that it's geocentric in concept. They just don't like the ball. They'd rather live on a plane or maybe in a bowl. All I know is, things are round and things move around but my perspective doesn't enable me to determine which around what.
The principle is a good doco. Well worth watching for anyone who hasn't already.
Another nail in the coffin of acentrism:
"Unless the Local Universe has a significant anisotropic distribution of galaxy morphologies aligned with the orientation or the orbit of the Earth (which would be a challenge for the Cosmological Principle), our results show that there seems to be a systematic bias in the classification of galaxy morphological types between the data from the Northern and the Southern Equatorial sky. Further studies are absolutely needed to find out the exact source of this anisotropy."
"We can clearly see a region in the south of the Celestial Equator occupied mostly with early type galaxies and the northern sky is more populated by late type galaxies."
"Interestingly, the hemispherical asymmetry that we found in the distribution of the morphological types of galaxies is aligned with both the Ecliptic and the Celestial Equator planes."
"If this significant deviation from isotropy is real and not due to issues with the catalog and the classifications, it could mean that the galaxies in these two opposite directions have had different evolution and/or formation history which wouldbe a major challenge for the Cosmological Principle..."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06719v1.pdf
Compare quotes:
Lawrence Krauss commenting on anisotropy of the CMB
https://www.edge.org/conversation/la...that-isnt-zero
" But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe."
Javanmardi and Kroupa
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06719v1.pdf
"Unless the Local Universe has a significant anisotropic distribution of galaxy morphologies aligned with the orientation or the orbit of the Earth (which would be a challenge for the Cosmological Principle), our results show that there seems to be a systematic bias in the classification of galaxy morphological types between the data from the Northern and the Southern Equatorial sky. Further studies are absolutely needed to find out the exact source of this anisotropy."
I don't have the ability to question the observation, but is it possible that the difference is due to observation bias? As the magnetic poles would distort the observation in terms of charged particles...Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
Not likely. The authors are attempting to claim some type of bias, such as different telescopes being used in the southern and northern hemispheres.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
Do they even mention the bias of magnetic polarity? One side of earth would get more negatively charged particles, the other more positive....,Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnQPublic
Doesn't the polarity flip on a regular basis? Or is that the Sun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
I'm not sure I grasp the issue they have raised. Are they saying that the star systems behind us are older when in fact they should be younger because they are traveling behind us, meaning they came out of the big bang after us, making them younger?
or is it a rotational direction bias? Systems rotating predominately in one direction when there should be a mix of directions?
"more later galaxies" sounds like a 50/50 statement.
probably observed on the debatable "redshift notion", if that is the case, then it certainly is a 50 percent correct statement... light bending in the direction you're heading does not seem too very improbable.
Polarity of earth magnetism flips every 10 or 100,000 years or so, sun flips every 11 years or so... give or take two-three... No they haven't measured a shift in earths magnetism since we started to be able to think rationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass