The Cosmic Inflation Controversy

a reply to: TarzanBeta

That implies inflation, but only as if we're actually the center of the universe... Which would seem ridiculous.

Only if we know that we can't see the exact same thing from any other point in the universe. Which we don't, yet.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That implies inflation, but only as if we're actually the center of the universe... Which would seem ridiculous.

Only if we know that we can't see the exact same thing from any other point in the universe. Which we don't, yet.

And that's why it's almost pointless to question until a proper experiment is designed... And that might be for a few years.

I have a few ideas, though it requires simulations and not reality - which means the results would produce data that might not at all coincide with reality; and the might not is what keeps us from having any darn clue.

a reply to: Astyanax

But there have always been problems with inflation, the main one being that we can’t really test whether it happened or not. In this it is different from the Big Bang itself:

What is the exact difference?

By the way, if anyone wants to drop by and inform us that the Big Bang is all nonsense, I urge them to reconsider. There are plenty of threads on that subject already, including this one, where I and others discuss the subject from many different angles.

if inflation is non existent then the Big Bang theory is in trouble itself.

a reply to: Astyanax

The way the observable universe is structured points to us being in the center. This has nothing to do with us being in the center of our observable universe, which would be a given, but the discovered structure of concentric rings shows that we truly are at the center. All based on the distribution of cosmic background radiation.

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: Astyanax

The way the observable universe is structured points to us being in the center. This has nothing to do with us being in the center of our observable universe, which would be a given, but the discovered structure of concentric rings shows that we truly are at the center. All based on the distribution of cosmic background radiation.

Cosmic Background Radiation has problems all on its own. It pretends to understand the energy coming from places that haven't existed in that particular space-time for thousands to millions of years. It wouldn't be wise to put much stock in that data because the further you go from this central point, the further back in time you go. Looking into the past to discern what's possible is good; but if you don't understand the present a thousand light-years away, but are only receiving radiation as old as the Vikings, then you can't really know what has transpired yet... Meaning, CBR will always seem relatively uniform because of c.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Cool anecdote bro, but I think I will stick to the repeated scientific research that has shown the background radiation to be distributed in a way that shows that we are at the center, instead of your personal musings.

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Cool anecdote bro, but I think I will stick to the repeated scientific research that has shown the background radiation to be distributed in a way that shows that we are at the center, instead of your personal musings.

We are at the center... Of everything that we receive. You're not the center of civilization just because you can draw a near perfect sphere under your feet - everyone is then, also, the center of civilization.

The really interesting thing about the universe is that everything seems to be at the center of it - not just us.

It's mind boggling, but that is completely unbiased perception... Not personal musings.

Using the CMB for anything other than determining a time-sphere is irresponsible at best. It means neglecting causality. To assume the CMB data should be interpreted as it has been actually implies that the universe has no cause!

a reply to: TarzanBeta

We are at the center... Of everything that we receive. You're not the center of civilization just because you can draw a near perfect sphere under your feet - everyone is then, also, the center of civilization.

I already told you it has nothing to do with being in the center because we are looking around us, making it automatically look like we are at the center.

It is because they discovered a structure that is formed in such at way that we can deduce that we are in the center.

Why don't you go do some actual research about the distribution of CMB, how it shows we are at the center and how this was corroborated again by the findings of the Planck satellite.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation signature presents a direct large-scale view of the universe that can be used to identify whether our position or movement has any particular significance. There has been much publicity about analysis of results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission that show both expected and unexpected anisotropies in the CMB.[1] The results appear to run counter to expectations from the Copernican Principle. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe

Lawrence Krauss,

"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."

They then tried to explain away the findings as being erronnous and hoped the Planck data would show something different. Alas.......

Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy.[16] "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.[17]

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

We are at the center... Of everything that we receive. You're not the center of civilization just because you can draw a near perfect sphere under your feet - everyone is then, also, the center of civilization.

I already told you it has nothing to do with being in the center because we are looking around us, making it automatically look like we are at the center.

It is because they discovered a structure that is formed in such at way that we can deduce that we are in the center.

Why don't you go do some actual research about the distribution of CMB, how it shows we are at the center and how this was corroborated again by the findings of the Planck satellite.

You're ten steps behind me. I was thinking like you years ago. I got over it.

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation signature presents a direct large-scale view of the universe that can be used to identify whether our position or movement has any particular significance. There has been much publicity about analysis of results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and Planck mission that show both expected and unexpected anisotropies in the CMB.[1] The results appear to run counter to expectations from the Copernican Principle. The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the ecliptic are aligned with features of the microwave sky, which on conventional thinking are caused by structure at the edge of the observable universe

Lawrence Krauss,

"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."

They then tried to explain away the findings as being erronnous and hoped the Planck data would show something different. Alas.......

Data from the Planck Telescope published in 2013 has since found stronger evidence for the anisotropy.[16] "For a long time, part of the community was hoping that this would go away, but it hasn’t," says Dominik Schwarz of the University of Bielefeld in Germany.[17]

en.wikipedia.org...

Quoting Lawrence Krauss is on par with quoting Bill Nye.

Use your discerning mind instead of your biased mind.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Actually, Krauss is a sceptic in this case.....

But way to "dismantle" the issue by shooting "the messenger".

Since the Planck data further corroborated these findings there has been nothing to dispute it. So what do you base your personal musings on?

You did not refute the findings, no matter how far ahead you imagine your beta self to be.


If you had any prior clue you wouldn't even have made that unrelated argument about being at the center of our vision, because you would have known what I was talking about.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I was thinking like you years ago.

Planck data was released in 2013. You may want to read up.

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I was thinking like you years ago.

Planck data was released in 2013. You may want to read up.

It's 2017. How many moons do you think since 2013?

That is years ago.

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Actually, Krauss is a sceptic in this case.....

But way to "dismantle" the issue by shooting "the messenger".

Since the Planck data further corroborated these findings there has been nothing to dispute it. So what do you base your personal musings on?

You did not refute the findings, no matter how far ahead you imagine your beta self to be.


If you had any prior clue you wouldn't even have made that unrelated argument about being at the center of our vision, because you would have known what I was talking about.

That was my point. Krauss is a poor skeptic.

I have a clue; the same clue you do. I'm simply interpreting differently than you.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

That was my point. Krauss is a poor skeptic.

That was not your point. your point was "Krauss supports this theory. Krauss is stupid. Therefore this theory is stupid".

That is the depth of your thought process.

Krauss doesn't support the theory there, but at least he is smart enough to admit that this is what the data implicates.

That's why he says "that's crazy". His point, like other scientists, was that there is something wrong with the data. This was pre Planck data. They all hoped the Planck data would make it "right".

It didn't, it corroborated the earlier "crazy" findings.

You obviously had no clue what i was talking about and still don't.

The Planck data was never refuted. The claim that we are at the center, based on this data, was never refuted. This is all new to you, and it shows.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Fair enough, I thought you said "ten years ago".

originally posted by: HeliocentricFantasy
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That was my point. Krauss is a poor skeptic.

That was not your point. your point was "Krauss supports this theory. Krauss is stupid. Therefore this theory is stupid".

That is the depth of your thought process.

Krauss doesn't support the theory there, but at least he is smart enough to admit that this is what the data implicates.

That's why he says "that's crazy". His point, like other scientists, was that there is something wrong with the data. This was pre Planck data. They all hoped the Planck data would make it "right".

It didn't, it corroborated the earlier "crazy" findings.

You obviously had no clue what i was talking about and still don't.

The Planck data was never refuted. The claim that we are at the center, based on this data, was never refuted. This is all new to you, and it shows.

No, that's also not what I said or meant. My thought process was equivalent to thinking, "Bill Nye says that the sky is blue, so then therefore it's true."

So what if Bill Nye said it. So what if Lawrence Krauss said it. Just because they hit the bullseye once in a blue moon, it doesn't make them less ignorant.

Why didn't you see what I meant?

And why are otherwise intelligent people telling me I am so ignorant in multiple threads?

Because you all do not see what I see. You might even be better off for it.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

But it doesn't matter who said what. The implication of the data is that we are at the center. First they thought the data must be wrong. It was then corroborated by another source. Then it got quiet because there were no more excuses to be made.

The fact that you are talking about persons and completely ignoring the point, which was obviously new to you, says enough.

So either debunk the data, of which the scientific community agrees it implicates us being at the center, or stop posting. The only rebuttal by the scientific community was that the data must have been wrong. It was shown to be correct.

Crickets.

a reply to: HeliocentricFantasy

What is the exact difference?

You don't know?

Then, permit me to recommend one of the many other Big Bang threads on this site for your attention.