Thread: Copernican Principle Invalidated?

When first COBE then [especially] WMAP results were processed, the anisotropies indicated a preferred direction in space (the "axis of evil"). A lot of people tried to dismiss it as an anomaly, but Hutterer and his colleagues, plus others were able to dismiss a lot of the proposed explanations as not tenable. A few possible causes of the anomaly remained. The ESA made sure that the Planck satellite was configured in such a way as to not suffer form these issues, and a lot of scientists believed that after Planck, the anomalies would be revealed as such. Unfortunately, when Planck reported back, the anomalies were shown in even greater detail. Even Lawrence Krauss in 2005 (based on WMAP) had this to say:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO

(I cannot post links yet, so Google it)


"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."

Presumably from here: THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO | Edge.org

More background here: Backreaction: Anomalous Alignments in the Cosmic Microwave Background

But it could just be measurement error: MPA :: Current Research Highlight :: October 2013

From MPA :: Current Research Highlight :: October 2013 linked to above by Strange

After removing the effects of Planck's asymmetric beams and of the Galactic foreground emission, we find no evidence for any rotational asymmetry in our early Universe, which would be predicted by anisotropic inflation models. Our limit (less than 2%) provides the most stringent test of rotational symmetry during inflation so far.

I would be very careful of this claim. Because of this statement:

"However, there is another effect which causes asymmetry. The Planck beams at 143 GHz are not circular; the orientation of their semi-major axes is parallel to Planck's scan direction, which lies approximately along the Ecliptic longitudes. This means that the beams are "fatter" along the Ecliptic longitudes, and thus the Planck satellite measures less power along the Ecliptic north-south direction than in the east-west direction. In the data, this yields a quadrupolar power modulation (with g_* < 0)."

When the WMAP results first came out, some researchers tried to blame the anisotropies on a non-circular beam in WMAP. For that reason, Planck was designed to have a circular beam pattern (apparently not at 143 GHz, though). Yet the anisotropies still showed up, and in even greater detail. So, to choose a frequency for analysis where it isn known that the beam is non-circular is really setting yourself up for failure. Why not choose other frequencies? Their excuse is that 143 GHz is less sensitive to other contamination, but if it contains one of the few known defects in the WMAP result, I would say this was a big mistake.

Granted, it did not make a difference in the case of Planck, but it was shown to have a mathematical effect that could distort the signal (obviously the magnitude was not enough to mask the WMAP signal). It sounds like the researchers just ignored past issues.

Herer is one study on non-circular beams: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0405406.pdf

Also, this rotation measurement is different than the spherical harmonics determined anisotropies (though related) reported for WMAP and Planck. It never hurts to look at the same data in different ways, but this is a different approach.

Here is the original release from Planck: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html#.U2562CiJnfM

"Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil"

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?

Ashok K. Singal
(Submitted on 17 May 2013)
[1305.4134] Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions.

The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth's rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?{snip}

The short answer is none has been verified. The observed "anomaly" in the higher-order moments can be due to numerous factors (e.g., small distortions in the CMB by our local cluster). Because those have not yet been looked at in sufficient detail, it is premature to declare invalid the Copernican principle.

The larger story is that Sungenis' strategy is taken from the IDiots' playbook: Use the wedge. Make a lot of noise to cast doubt (in the lay public's mind) on bad ol' materialistic science, and allow religious dogma to take hold. Add a lot of dust to that noise, to obscure the many experimental falsifications of geocentrism. Here are just a few (although just one suffices):

1) Orbital speed boosts enjoyed by rockets launched near the equator, and heading east, show that the earth rotates. This is why the US chose Florida for its launches, and why the ESA chose French Guiana. The ~1500kph boost makes a significant difference in supportable payload for a given fuel budget. Sungenis' claim that the earth is a stationary center is in direct contradiction to the observed boost (and there's the slight oblate shape of the earth, and the differing preferential rotations of storms in the two hemispheres, and...)

2) Foucault's pendulum. Foucault's classic experiment clearly demonstrates the diurnal rotation of the earth.

3) GR! GR has passed all experimental tests. One of its earliest successes was an explanation for the observed perihelion advance of Mercury. GR would not successfully predict the observed precession with the earth as a fixed frame.

Frame dragging, too, is confirmed (look up "Gravity Probe B" and "Lense-Thirring Effect").

4) The much-vaunted quadrupole moment should be vastly greater if the earth were the center. Instead, it is so far down in the noise that considerable filtering of the data is needed for it to pop up above the noise floor. The amount of correction applied is very, very, very, quite sensitive to small unknowns.

5) Etc. (If you want more, I can provide it, but as I pointed out, one of these is all it takes to falsify Sungenis' geocentrism.)

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?{snip}

The short answer is none has been verified. The observed "anomaly" in the higher-order moments can be due to numerous factors (e.g., small distortions in the CMB by our local cluster). Because those have not yet been looked at in sufficient detail, it is premature to declare invalid the Copernican principle.

The larger story is that Sungenis' strategy is taken from the IDiots' playbook: Use the wedge. Make a lot of noise to cast doubt (in the lay public's mind) on bad ol' materialistic science, and allow religious dogma to take hold. Add a lot of dust to that noise, to obscure the many experimental falsifications of geocentrism. Here are just a few (although just one suffices):

1) Orbital speed boosts enjoyed by rockets launched near the equator, and heading east, show that the earth rotates. This is why the US chose Florida for its launches, and why the ESA chose French Guiana. The ~1500kph boost makes a significant difference in supportable payload for a given fuel budget. Sungenis' claim that the earth is a stationary center is in direct contradiction to the observed boost (and there's the slight oblate shape of the earth, and the differing preferential rotations of storms in the two hemispheres, and...)

2) Foucault's pendulum. Foucault's classic experiment clearly demonstrates the diurnal rotation of the earth.

3) GR! GR has passed all experimental tests. One of its earliest successes was an explanation for the observed perihelion advance of Mercury. GR would not successfully predict the observed precession with the earth as a fixed frame.

Frame dragging, too, is confirmed (look up "Gravity Probe B" and "Lense-Thirring Effect").

4) The much-vaunted quadrupole moment should be vastly greater if the earth were the center. Instead, it is so far down in the noise that considerable filtering of the data is needed for it to pop up above the noise floor. The amount of correction applied is very, very, very, quite sensitive to small unknowns.

5) Etc. (If you want more, I can provide it, but as I pointed out, one of these is all it takes to falsify Sungenis' geocentrism.)

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

tk421 I confess to being a bit lost here. Where has Sungenis (I had to look this fellow up - indeed a full, eight cylinder, nutcase) come into the story? Surely all that is being talked about here is the Copernican Principle, i.e. the postulate that the Earth does not occupy any special position in the cosmos. I do not think anyone on the thread is advocating a geocentric solar system, are they?

P.S. And surely, isn't Sungenis a bit weird, even for IDers?

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?{snip}

The short answer is none has been verified. The observed "anomaly" in the higher-order moments can be due to numerous factors (e.g., small distortions in the CMB by our local cluster). Because those have not yet been looked at in sufficient detail, it is premature to declare invalid the Copernican principle.

The larger story is that Sungenis' strategy is taken from the IDiots' playbook: Use the wedge. Make a lot of noise to cast doubt (in the lay public's mind) on bad ol' materialistic science, and allow religious dogma to take hold. Add a lot of dust to that noise, to obscure the many experimental falsifications of geocentrism. Here are just a few (although just one suffices):

1) Orbital speed boosts enjoyed by rockets launched near the equator, and heading east, show that the earth rotates. This is why the US chose Florida for its launches, and why the ESA chose French Guiana. The ~1500kph boost makes a significant difference in supportable payload for a given fuel budget. Sungenis' claim that the earth is a stationary center is in direct contradiction to the observed boost (and there's the slight oblate shape of the earth, and the differing preferential rotations of storms in the two hemispheres, and...)

2) Foucault's pendulum. Foucault's classic experiment clearly demonstrates the diurnal rotation of the earth.

3) GR! GR has passed all experimental tests. One of its earliest successes was an explanation for the observed perihelion advance of Mercury. GR would not successfully predict the observed precession with the earth as a fixed frame.

Frame dragging, too, is confirmed (look up "Gravity Probe B" and "Lense-Thirring Effect").

4) The much-vaunted quadrupole moment should be vastly greater if the earth were the center. Instead, it is so far down in the noise that considerable filtering of the data is needed for it to pop up above the noise floor. The amount of correction applied is very, very, very, quite sensitive to small unknowns.

5) Etc. (If you want more, I can provide it, but as I pointed out, one of these is all it takes to falsify Sungenis' geocentrism.)

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

tk421 I confess to being a bit lost here. Where has Sungenis (I had to look this fellow up - indeed a full, eight cylinder, nutcase) come into the story? Surely all that is being talked about here is the Copernican Principle, i.e. the postulate that the Earth does not occupy any special position in the cosmos. I do not think anyone on the thread is advocating a geocentric solar system, are they?

P.S. And surely, isn't Sungenis a bit weird, even for IDers?

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, but I purposely kept the documentary (The Principle) out of this thread so we could discuss challenges to the Copernican Principle. I may have to start one on geocentrism (which is what he is alluding to, and yes there is a relation between the CP and geocentrism) so we can discuss that separately.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?{snip}

The short answer is none has been verified. The observed "anomaly" in the higher-order moments can be due to numerous factors (e.g., small distortions in the CMB by our local cluster). Because those have not yet been looked at in sufficient detail, it is premature to declare invalid the Copernican principle.

The larger story is that Sungenis' strategy is taken from the IDiots' playbook: Use the wedge. Make a lot of noise to cast doubt (in the lay public's mind) on bad ol' materialistic science, and allow religious dogma to take hold. Add a lot of dust to that noise, to obscure the many experimental falsifications of geocentrism. Here are just a few (although just one suffices):

1) Orbital speed boosts enjoyed by rockets launched near the equator, and heading east, show that the earth rotates. This is why the US chose Florida for its launches, and why the ESA chose French Guiana. The ~1500kph boost makes a significant difference in supportable payload for a given fuel budget. Sungenis' claim that the earth is a stationary center is in direct contradiction to the observed boost (and there's the slight oblate shape of the earth, and the differing preferential rotations of storms in the two hemispheres, and...)

2) Foucault's pendulum. Foucault's classic experiment clearly demonstrates the diurnal rotation of the earth.

3) GR! GR has passed all experimental tests. One of its earliest successes was an explanation for the observed perihelion advance of Mercury. GR would not successfully predict the observed precession with the earth as a fixed frame.

Frame dragging, too, is confirmed (look up "Gravity Probe B" and "Lense-Thirring Effect").

4) The much-vaunted quadrupole moment should be vastly greater if the earth were the center. Instead, it is so far down in the noise that considerable filtering of the data is needed for it to pop up above the noise floor. The amount of correction applied is very, very, very, quite sensitive to small unknowns.

5) Etc. (If you want more, I can provide it, but as I pointed out, one of these is all it takes to falsify Sungenis' geocentrism.)

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

tk421 I confess to being a bit lost here. Where has Sungenis (I had to look this fellow up - indeed a full, eight cylinder, nutcase) come into the story? Surely all that is being talked about here is the Copernican Principle, i.e. the postulate that the Earth does not occupy any special position in the cosmos. I do not think anyone on the thread is advocating a geocentric solar system, are they?

P.S. And surely, isn't Sungenis a bit weird, even for IDers?

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, but I purposely kept the documentary (The Principle) out of this thread so we could discuss challenges to the Copernican Principle. I may have to start one on geocentrism (which is what he is alluding to, and yes there is a relation between the CP and geocentrism) so we can discuss that separately.

OK thanks. Now I understand why tk421's reply was a bit twitchy. It seems clear that Sungenis (who, I now see, produced the film "The Principle" that you refer to) is as mad as a hatter.

I agree it seems like a very good idea to keep all that out of this thread, or it will degenerate very quickly. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world who would call themselves Christian, I doubt there is more than a handful who would be prepared to spend even the time to watch a film on that subject!

Why is the Solar System Cosmically Aligned?
Dragan Huterer
Astronomy, December, 2007

Armed with multipole vectors, and joined by Dominik J. Schwarz of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), we have discovered unexpected patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map The likelihood of these alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent. Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes are also perpendicular with the CMB dipole, which points to the direction of motion of the solar system. Why CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all understood at this time. Other researchers found similarly unlikely alignments. For example, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College in London found that temperature anisotropies in multipoles 4 through 7 also align with a particular axis close to the CMB dipole, and to the Sun’s motion through space. They have humorously dubbed this odd alignment — apparently the same one we found — the “axis of evil.”

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, {snip}

I commingled them, but not out of confusion. Call it pre-emptive, predictive replying -- I'm using an alpha version of Google's AI Big Data Deep Learning Precognitive Engine.

Your first posts to this forum announced to all that you have come here with a strong religious (and perhaps commercial) agenda. You did not seem at all interested in actual scientific discussion there, so your starting of a second thread on essentially the same topic, but with a less overt agenda, does nothing to allay my suspicions of an ulterior motive. Nonetheless, I have provided you with a science-based answer, in addition to which I have addressed the ultimate steps in the discussion, as limned by Sungenis' thesis (which you are representing by proxy).

The existence of a quadrupole (and higher-order) moment in the CMB is certainly interesting. However, it hardly presents the threat to science that Sungenis et al. falsely claim. As I said, the magnitudes are vanishingly small. It feels very much like a replay of the Pioneer Anomaly affair, where a tiny putative effect got some people overly excited about the possibility of a Paradigm Shift(tm), only to have those hopes dashed when detailed scientific work uncovered a previously overlooked and wholly pedestrian explanation for the observations. As with that episode's early years, it is premature to declare a Paradigm Shift on the basis of the data we have today.

And, engaging the Precognitive Engine yet again, I note that even if subsequent observations were to confirm the higher-order moments, that confirmation would not then lead directly to goddidit. That facile leap omits many intermediate possibilities. Sungenis is grasping at straws.

Large-Angle Anomalies in the CMB
Craig J. Copi, Dragan Huterer, Dominik J. Schwarz, and Glenn D. Starkman
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huter...cmb_review.pdf
i) the four area vectors of the quadrupole and octopole are mutually close (i.e., the quadrupole and octopole planes are aligned) at the 99.6% C.L.;
(ii) the quadrupole and octopole planes are orthogonal to the ecliptic at the 95.9% C.L.; this alignment was at 98.5% C.L. in our analysis of the WMAP 1 year maps. The reduction of alignment was due to WMAP’s adaption of a new radiometer gain model for the 3 year data analysis, that took seasonal variations of the receiver box temperature into account—a systematic that is indeed correlated with the ecliptic plane. We regard that as clear evidence that multipole vectors are a sensitive probe of alignments;
(iii) the normals to these four planes are aligned with the direction of the cosmological dipole (and with the equinoxes) at a level inconsistent with Gaussian random, statistically isotropic skies at 99.7% C.L.;
(iv) the ecliptic threads between a hot and a cold spot of the combined quadrupole and octopole map, following a node line across about 1/3 of the sky and separating the three strong extrema from the three weak extrema of the map; this is unlikely at about the 95% C.L.

THE ODDLY QUIET UNIVERSE: HOW THE CMB CHALLENGES COSMOLOGY’S STANDARD MODEL
GLENN D. STARKMAN, CRAIG J. COPI, DRAGAN HUTERER, DOMINIK SCHWARZ
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf

January 13, 2012

Examining the lowest interesting multipoles (the quadrupole and octopole)
of the best full sky CMB map, we find that they appear unexpectedly correlated with
each other. The plane defined by the quadrupole and the three planes defined by the
octopole are nearly parallel to each other. They are nearly perpendicular to the plane
of the Solar System (ecliptic). They point essentially at the dipole – the direction of
our motion through the CMB. Finally, they are oriented (with respect to their shared
axis) such that the ecliptic carefully separates the strongest extrema in the north from
the weaker extrema of the south. (Any review of CMB anomalies would include
multiple other examples, some of which may well be connected to the above.)

These deviations from statistical isotropy in our CMB sky have yet to be ex-
plained, and there are significant challenges to doing so. ...
Arguably one should not trust the part of the sky behind the Galaxy. Examining
the two-point angular correlation on the sky outside the Galaxy we find that there is a
marked absence of correlations above 60 angular separation. ...
This anomaly too has, so far, found no satisfactory explanation. ...
Future results from the Planck satellite may show these large-angle/low-angle/low l anoma-
lies to be nothing more than systematic errors in the measurements or analysis of the
WMAP (and the COBE) team, but unless and until they do these anomalies remain
the outstanding point of disagreement between the standard cosmological model and
observations.

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos--plus-axis-of-evil.html#.U3DwrSiJnfM

"...Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil", as well as an inexplicably cold spot that could be evidence for universes beyond our own (see image, right)..."

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

THE ODDLY QUIET UNIVERSE: HOW THE CMB CHALLENGES COSMOLOGY’S STANDARD MODEL
GLENN D. STARKMAN, CRAIG J. COPI, DRAGAN HUTERER, DOMINIK SCHWARZ
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2459v1.pdf

January 13, 2012

Examining the lowest interesting multipoles (the quadrupole and octopole)
of the best full sky CMB map, we find that they appear unexpectedly correlated with
each other. The plane defined by the quadrupole and the three planes defined by the
octopole are nearly parallel to each other. They are nearly perpendicular to the plane
of the Solar System (ecliptic). They point essentially at the dipole – the direction of
our motion through the CMB. Finally, they are oriented (with respect to their shared
axis) such that the ecliptic carefully separates the strongest extrema in the north from
the weaker extrema of the south. (Any review of CMB anomalies would include
multiple other examples, some of which may well be connected to the above.)

These deviations from statistical isotropy in our CMB sky have yet to be ex-
plained, and there are significant challenges to doing so. ...
Arguably one should not trust the part of the sky behind the Galaxy. Examining
the two-point angular correlation on the sky outside the Galaxy we find that there is a
marked absence of correlations above 60 angular separation. ...
This anomaly too has, so far, found no satisfactory explanation. ...
Future results from the Planck satellite may show these large-angle/low-angle/low l anoma-
lies to be nothing more than systematic errors in the measurements or analysis of the
WMAP (and the COBE) team, but unless and until they do these anomalies remain
the outstanding point of disagreement between the standard cosmological model and
observations.

Joe, what has any of this to do with my post?

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos

"...Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil", as well as an inexplicably cold spot that could be evidence for universes beyond our own (see image, right)..."

Joe, what has any of this to do with my post?

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos – plus axis of evil

Planck shows almost perfect cosmos

"...Planck's map greatly improves cosmologists' understanding of the universe, but it does not solve lingering mysteries over unusual patterns in the CMB. These include a "preferred" direction in the way the temperature of the light varies, dubbed the cosmic "axis of evil", as well as an inexplicably cold spot that could be evidence for universes beyond our own (see image, right)..."

Joe, what has any of this to do with my post?

I am continuing the topic of the thread. As to your post, I thought we agreed that this thread should concentrate on the Copernican Principle? If tk wants to talk about the documentary there is a thread on that elsewhere.

Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck


21 March 2013
ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck



"The lack of power at large angular scale is convincingly revealed by Planck for the first time, but the hemispheric asymmetry and the cold spot had already been found in the data of Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). However, there were lingering doubts about their cosmic origin. With WMAP, in fact, it was not possible to confirm that the anomalies were genuine features in the CMB, rather than the imprint of either data processing or foreground emissions. The fact that these anomalies are also present in the more precise Planck data clears up any doubt about their cosmic origin."

"Cosmologists are now facing an interesting dilemma: on the one hand, the standard model of cosmology is still the best way to describe the CMB data, although it includes elements that still lack solid theoretical understanding such as dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. On the other hand, the anomalies seen by Planck highlight that the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified."

This is a shocking statement: "although it includes elements that still lack solid theoretical understanding such as dark matter, dark energy, and inflation"! Those elements were added to keep the theory alive against contradictory observations. It shows how packed full of metaphysical entities that the big bang theory is. At the end, they propose adding more metaphysical entities to keep the models alive "the anomalies seen by Planck highlight that the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified".

Maybe it is long past time to consider alternate models?

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck


21 March 2013
ESA Science & Technology: Simple but challenging: the Universe according to Planck



"The lack of power at large angular scale is convincingly revealed by Planck for the first time, but the hemispheric asymmetry and the cold spot had already been found in the data of Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). However, there were lingering doubts about their cosmic origin. With WMAP, in fact, it was not possible to confirm that the anomalies were genuine features in the CMB, rather than the imprint of either data processing or foreground emissions. The fact that these anomalies are also present in the more precise Planck data clears up any doubt about their cosmic origin."

"Cosmologists are now facing an interesting dilemma: on the one hand, the standard model of cosmology is still the best way to describe the CMB data, although it includes elements that still lack solid theoretical understanding such as dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. On the other hand, the anomalies seen by Planck highlight that the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified."

This is a shocking statement: "although it includes elements that still lack solid theoretical understanding such as dark matter, dark energy, and inflation"! Those elements were added to keep the theory alive against contradictory observations. It shows how packed full of metaphysical entities that the big bang theory is. At the end, they propose adding more metaphysical entities to keep the models alive "the anomalies seen by Planck highlight that the model should be at the very least extended, if not radically modified".

Maybe it is long past time to consider alternate models?

Well the conclusion of the article is that the standard cosmological model does a very good job of accounting for the observations, but it appears there maybe something missing from it, as it cannot account for the anisotropy that the data indicate is present. So, no case for chucking out the baby, but maybe a bit of fresh bathwater is needed. Which is all good, interesting science.

But unless I've missed it, there does not seem to be one word in this article at variance with the Copernican Principle. Do you think there is?

Originally Posted by exchemist

...

But unless I've missed it, there does not seem to be one word in this article at variance with the Copernican Principle. Do you think there is?

The other articles I posted do relate the anisotropies with the Copernican Principle.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

The other articles I posted do relate the anisotropies with the Copernican Principle.

Which you claim scientists are ignoring. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

When first COBE then [especially] WMAP results were processed, the anisotropies indicated a preferred direction in space (the "axis of evil"). A lot of people tried to dismiss it as an anomaly, but Hutterer and his colleagues, plus others were able to dismiss a lot of the proposed explanations as not tenable. A few possible causes of the anomaly remained. The ESA made sure that the Planck satellite was configured in such a way as to not suffer form these issues, and a lot of scientists believed that after Planck, the anomalies would be revealed as such. Unfortunately, when Planck reported back, the anomalies were shown in even greater detail. Even Lawrence Krauss in 2005 (based on WMAP) had this to say:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO

(I cannot post links yet, so Google it)


"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."

Since you are pushing a personal theory again, I have asked the moderators to move it where it belongs.

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

When first COBE then [especially] WMAP results were processed, the anisotropies indicated a preferred direction in space (the "axis of evil"). A lot of people tried to dismiss it as an anomaly, but Hutterer and his colleagues, plus others were able to dismiss a lot of the proposed explanations as not tenable. A few possible causes of the anomaly remained. The ESA made sure that the Planck satellite was configured in such a way as to not suffer form these issues, and a lot of scientists believed that after Planck, the anomalies would be revealed as such. Unfortunately, when Planck reported back, the anomalies were shown in even greater detail. Even Lawrence Krauss in 2005 (based on WMAP) had this to say:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO

(I cannot post links yet, so Google it)


"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."

Since you are pushing a personal theory again, I have asked the moderators to move it where it belongs.

Hear, hear.

Originally Posted by xyzt

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

When first COBE then [especially] WMAP results were processed, the anisotropies indicated a preferred direction in space (the "axis of evil"). A lot of people tried to dismiss it as an anomaly, but Hutterer and his colleagues, plus others were able to dismiss a lot of the proposed explanations as not tenable. A few possible causes of the anomaly remained. The ESA made sure that the Planck satellite was configured in such a way as to not suffer form these issues, and a lot of scientists believed that after Planck, the anomalies would be revealed as such. Unfortunately, when Planck reported back, the anomalies were shown in even greater detail. Even Lawrence Krauss in 2005 (based on WMAP) had this to say:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO

(I cannot post links yet, so Google it)


"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."

Since you are pushing a personal theory again, I have asked the moderators to move it where it belongs.

In this thread, I am documenting scientific progress.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

In this thread, I am documenting scientific progress.

Nope, you are continuing your shill.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

The other articles I posted do relate the anisotropies with the Copernican Principle.

Which you claim scientists are ignoring. Brilliant.

I am not claiming that. I may have said they are ignoring something in another thread and another context, but I do feel that they are aware of the implications of these observations for the Copernican (and Cosmological) Principle.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

In this thread, I am documenting scientific progress.

….combined with wildly exaggerated assertions that are clearly rooted in a misguided religious conviction………...

Originally Posted by tk421

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

There is no need to be that mean. This is an interesting anomaly. The fact some religious morons take it to be proof of god is a side issue.

If the anomaly bears out, it will more likely be due to some newly found principle of physics, rather than because the "Earth is the center of the universe".

If we took the results of the Michelson-Morley Interferrometry experiment at face value, we would have been forced to conclude that the Earth wasn't in motion. Instead, some really good physics came out of it.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by tk421

In summary, Sungenis is an archetypal crank (as others have pointed out, he's also a Holocaust denier). He has no scientific credentials, so he doesn't recognize (or chooses not to recognize) the laughably self-inconsistent and wholly counterfactual position that he advocates. To compound his transgressions, he deliberately cherry-picks from the science literature in an effort to deceive.

If you are an innocent dupe, the best cure is a real education. Quit looking for confirmation of a geocentric universe. Look at the totality of the scientific evidence, rather than cherry picking in a desperate act of confirmation bias.

If you are a shill for the film, just go away.

There is no need to be that mean. This is an interesting anomaly. The fact some religious morons take it to be proof of god is a side issue.

If the anomaly bears out, it will more likely be due to some newly found principle of physics, rather than because the "Earth is the center of the universe".

If we took the results of the Michelson-Morley Interferrometry experiment at face value, we would have been forced to conclude that the Earth wasn't in motion. Instead, some really good physics came out of it.

It is and no doubt one day there will be an interesting hypothesis to account for it. But it does not justify meanwhile jumping to the hysterical conclusion that the Earth is the centre of the cosmos, which is what this poster is doing.

Originally Posted by kojax

There is no need to be that mean.

Don't jump to conclusions, kojax. You have apparently not read his first thread here. It was a clear declaration of his agenda. He is not interested in any actual discussion. His mind is made up, and there is no point in attempting to engage him. You are free to try, of course, but do not presume to tell me how to act.

This is an interesting anomaly. The fact some religious morons take it to be proof of god is a side issue.

It is an interesting anomaly, and unfortunately the OP is apparently one of those RMs you refer to. I am going easy on him, truth be told.

If the anomaly bears out, it will more likely be due to some newly found principle of physics, rather than because the "Earth is the center of the universe".

Exactly my point, kojax. However, the wedge strategy that Sungenis (and, by proxy, the OP) has appropriated doesn't allow for any intermediate possibilities. If any anomaly is demonstrated, then goddiditandputtheearthinthecenterjustasthebiblesay s.

If we took the results of the Michelson-Morley Interferrometry experiment at face value, we would have been forced to conclude that the Earth wasn't in motion.

That is utter nonsense, kojax. "At face value," the MMX simply tells us that there is no aether wind. That does not force anyone to conclude that the earth is not in motion. Don't be silly.

Instead, some really good physics came out of it.

Yes; that's sort of the whole idea behind the scientific method, kojax. I don't see why it's necessary to point that out, but thank you, Mr. Obvious.

No one is saying that the anomaly shouldn't be studied. I certainly never said so, and I challenge you to find any language to that effect. What I am saying is that there are many unexplored possibilities that can explain the higher-order CMB moments. Leaping to one biblical interpretation as the explanation is more than a bit premature, and certainly more than a little bit absurd.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, but I purposely kept the documentary (The Principle) out of this thread so we could discuss challenges to the Copernican Principle. I may have to start one on geocentrism (which is what he is alluding to, and yes there is a relation between the CP and geocentrism) so we can discuss that separately.

A third pseudoscience thread will not be welcome and get you some time off.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, but I purposely kept the documentary (The Principle) out of this thread so we could discuss challenges to the Copernican Principle. I may have to start one on geocentrism (which is what he is alluding to, and yes there is a relation between the CP and geocentrism) so we can discuss that separately.

A third pseudoscience thread will not be welcome and get you some time off.

Does the warning come with an explanation? We cannot mention other threads or potential new threads in existing threads?

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

He is mixing this thread up with another. The topics are similar, but I purposely kept the documentary (The Principle) out of this thread so we could discuss challenges to the Copernican Principle. I may have to start one on geocentrism (which is what he is alluding to, and yes there is a relation between the CP and geocentrism) so we can discuss that separately.

A third pseudoscience thread will not be welcome and get you some time off.

Does the warning come with an explanation? We cannot mention other threads or potential new threads in existing threads?

I don't know for sure but I imagine he means if you post pseudoscience in the categories other than pseudoscience you are asking for trouble.

If you start a 3rd pseudoscience thread here (i.e in Pseudoscience, where this thread has been moved to by the moderators), I would think that might be OK.

What none of us in the community likes is for the good science in the science threads to be contaminated with pseudoscience. Quality control is very important in science.

I took it to mean that Lynx_Fox would not welcome yet another thread of the same religious proselytising, even in Pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Strange

I took it to mean that Lynx_Fox would not welcome yet another thread of the same religious proselytising, even in Pseudoscience.

Nah. Lynx_Fox is just another hidebound defender of the orthodoxy. We can't handle the truth. Teach the controversy!

Or something.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

There is no need to be that mean.

Don't jump to conclusions, kojax. You have apparently not read his first thread here. It was a clear declaration of his agenda. He is not interested in any actual discussion. His mind is made up, and there is no point in attempting to engage him. You are free to try, of course, but do not presume to tell me how to act.

I may have misread the last line of that post. Where you said "If you are a shill for the film, just go away." I misread that and thought you accusing him of being a shill, but in fact you were not saying that. You were saying "if", and really just questioning his intentions, which is totally fine.

I try to treat religious nuts with respect because I know that for every one of him that posts, there is likely going to be 20 or 30 more who find that post from a google search.

If we do a good job of explaining the error of his perception, that might be useful to the lurkers, who likely are merely googling something their pastor told them, and just plain don't know any better.

This is an interesting anomaly. The fact some religious morons take it to be proof of god is a side issue.

It is an interesting anomaly, and unfortunately the OP is apparently one of those RMs you refer to. I am going easy on him, truth be told.

Yeah. I can see that on second reading of your post.

If the anomaly bears out, it will more likely be due to some newly found principle of physics, rather than because the "Earth is the center of the universe".

Exactly my point, kojax. However, the wedge strategy that Sungenis (and, by proxy, the OP) has appropriated doesn't allow for any intermediate possibilities. If any anomaly is demonstrated, then goddiditandputtheearthinthecenterjustasthebiblesay s.

If we took the results of the Michelson-Morley Interferrometry experiment at face value, we would have been forced to conclude that the Earth wasn't in motion.

That is utter nonsense, kojax. "At face value," the MMX simply tells us that there is no aether wind. That does not force anyone to conclude that the earth is not in motion. Don't be silly.

In other words, we abandoned the notion of "Aether". But the Aether was a theory that had been in place for a long while and was almost universally accepted by the people living at the time.

A religious zealot living at the time could have taken the results to mean the Earth was stationary in the universe.

It was only later that scientists, looking for an explanation, determined that the absence of an Aether was the explanation for the anomaly, and there were lots of stop gaps attempted along the way, such as "Aether Drag" theories.

Today we know there is no Aether because a number of additional experiments have been conducted to prove that. But back then they didn't have what we have.

Instead, some really good physics came out of it.

Yes; that's sort of the whole idea behind the scientific method, kojax. I don't see why it's necessary to point that out, but thank you, Mr. Obvious.

No one is saying that the anomaly shouldn't be studied. I certainly never said so, and I challenge you to find any language to that effect. What I am saying is that there are many unexplored possibilities that can explain the higher-order CMB moments. Leaping to one biblical interpretation as the explanation is more than a bit premature, and certainly more than a little bit absurd.

Whether accidentally or on purpose (and probably accidentally), JoeSixPack is doing a good job of laying out the question for us. He is describing the problem to be solved.

If we took all of current physics at face value, and accept the results of the experiment as accurate, we would indeed be forced to conclude that we are in the center of the universe in some way.

Fortunately the laws of physics, as they are currently understood, are not a "bible" to scientists. They're just our best guess, which we adhere to for now. Unlike religion, our "book of laws" can be edited.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by kojax

There is no need to be that mean.

Don't jump to conclusions, kojax. You have apparently not read his first thread here. It was a clear declaration of his agenda. He is not interested in any actual discussion. His mind is made up, and there is no point in attempting to engage him. You are free to try, of course, but do not presume to tell me how to act.

I may have misread the last line of that post. Where you said "If you are a shill for the film, just go away." I misread that and thought you accusing him of being a shill, but in fact you were not saying that. You were saying "if", and really just questioning his intentions, which is totally fine.

I try to treat religious nuts with respect because I know that for every one of him that posts, there is likely going to be 20 or 30 more who find that post from a google search.

If we do a good job of explaining the error of his perception, that might be useful to the lurkers, who likely are merely googling something their pastor told them, and just plain don't know any better.

This is an interesting anomaly. The fact some religious morons take it to be proof of god is a side issue.

It is an interesting anomaly, and unfortunately the OP is apparently one of those RMs you refer to. I am going easy on him, truth be told.

Yeah. I can see that on second reading of your post.

If the anomaly bears out, it will more likely be due to some newly found principle of physics, rather than because the "Earth is the center of the universe".

Exactly my point, kojax. However, the wedge strategy that Sungenis (and, by proxy, the OP) has appropriated doesn't allow for any intermediate possibilities. If any anomaly is demonstrated, then goddiditandputtheearthinthecenterjustasthebiblesay s.

If we took the results of the Michelson-Morley Interferrometry experiment at face value, we would have been forced to conclude that the Earth wasn't in motion.

That is utter nonsense, kojax. "At face value," the MMX simply tells us that there is no aether wind. That does not force anyone to conclude that the earth is not in motion. Don't be silly.

In other words, we abandoned the notion of "Aether". But the Aether was a theory that had been in place for a long while and was almost universally accepted by the people living at the time.

A religious zealot living at the time could have taken the results to mean the Earth was stationary in the universe.

It was only later that scientists, looking for an explanation, determined that the absence of an Aether was the explanation for the anomaly, and there were lots of stop gaps attempted along the way, such as "Aether Drag" theories.

Today we know there is no Aether because a number of additional experiments have been conducted to prove that. But back then they didn't have what we have.

Instead, some really good physics came out of it.

Yes; that's sort of the whole idea behind the scientific method, kojax. I don't see why it's necessary to point that out, but thank you, Mr. Obvious.

No one is saying that the anomaly shouldn't be studied. I certainly never said so, and I challenge you to find any language to that effect. What I am saying is that there are many unexplored possibilities that can explain the higher-order CMB moments. Leaping to one biblical interpretation as the explanation is more than a bit premature, and certainly more than a little bit absurd.

Whether accidentally or on purpose (and probably accidentally), JoeSixPack is doing a good job of laying out the question for us. He is describing the problem to be solved.

If we took all of current physics at face value, and accept the results of the experiment as accurate, we would indeed be forced to conclude that we are in the center of the universe in some way.

Fortunately the laws of physics, as they are currently understood, are not a "bible" to scientists. They're just our best guess, which we adhere to for now. Unlike religion, our "book of laws" can be edited.

Many fair points and your caveat about threads being read by creationists looking for prejudice in science is a good one that had not occurred to me. We are probably on parade more than we realise.

On one detail, are you sure the aether theory had been in place for a long while? My understanding is there was never any real consensus as to what it was, if indeed it existed at all. Newton rejected it and Maxwell seemed to be fairly ambivalent about it. And if I recall correctly, his equations for EM radiation contained the "problem" of a single speed, c, rather than the reference frame - dependent one that would be associated with a medium. So I think everyone knew there was something somewhere that did not stack up, regarding any postulated aether.

Originally Posted by kojax

I may have misread the last line of that post. Where you said "If you are a shill for the film, just go away." I misread that and thought you accusing him of being a shill, but in fact you were not saying that. You were saying "if", and really just questioning his intentions, which is totally fine.

Thanks, kojax. I appreciate the clarification.

I try to treat religious nuts with respect because I know that for every one of him that posts, there is likely going to be 20 or 30 more who find that post from a google search.

That's a fair point. We differ on what constitutes respect, though. I tried to address his thesis, while at the same time conveying that his thesis doesn't hold water. Also, given his attitude in his first thread, it seemed quite likely that he is associated in some way with the film production/marketing team; that fact needed to be brought out as it colours all of his posts.

In other words, we abandoned the notion of "Aether". But the Aether was a theory that had been in place for a long while and was almost universally accepted by the people living at the time.

A religious zealot living at the time could have taken the results to mean the Earth was stationary in the universe.

As does exchemist, I question your assertion that aether theory was almost universally accepted at the time. But even if we were provisionally to agree, it does not logically follow that one would be forced to conclude that the earth were stationary. I am surprised that you continue to maintain this position, for it is wholly untenable. Scientists of the day -- including adherents of the aether -- knew full well the implications of Foucault's experiment, of the Coriolis pseudoforce, of Newtonian physics... A null result from the MMX did not compel these folks to abandon all of that and conclude that the earth was stationary.

Now that you've amended your claim to "religious zealots," you've softened the assertion to one with which I may agree. But zealotry being what it is, scientific experiments have little to do with altering beliefs. Results that are in conflict with dogma are simply ignored, and those that are consonant are embraced. No change in world-view follows in consequence.

It was only later that scientists, looking for an explanation, determined that the absence of an Aether was the explanation for the anomaly, and there were lots of stop gaps attempted along the way, such as "Aether Drag" theories.

Today we know there is no Aether because a number of additional experiments have been conducted to prove that. But back then they didn't have what we have.

You've truncated and interpolated the history to the point of misrepresentation.

If we took all of current physics at face value, and accept the results of the experiment as accurate, we would indeed be forced to conclude that we are in the center of the universe in some way.

That's not quite correct as worded. You are bit too quick to declare that such-and-such would force this or that; there is a danger of committing the same logical error that JoeSixPack is making. It is critically important to consider the many possibilities that have not been explored (but which are being explored by science).

If we accept the results as accurate, all that means is that one has established that one measures a quadrupole moment (say). Two independent, well-designed surveys of the CMB have measured higher-order moments. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that these measurements are wrong. So does accepting those experimental results imply that the Copernican principle is wrong? Absolutely not; they do not force us to do anything except to consider the next set of questions that science logically asks: Why do we measure what we see?

As I mentioned in an earlier exchange with JSP, CMB measurements are quite delicate; that we can achieve the required sensitivities and resolution is astonishing. The higher-order moments are exceedingly tiny deviations around that exceedingly tiny background. As such, a similarly tiny confounding effect can perturb the measurement. The Copernican principle is all about large-scale isotropy and homogeneity. Obviously, the universe is not homogeneous on local scales -- we have lumps in the form of planets and galaxies. That local inhomogeneity introduces artefacts in the data that are corrected to the best of our ability. The magnitude of the observed higher-order moments is smaller than the magnitude of the corrections applied. The measurements may be accurate, but what they imply spans a large range of possibilities. Perhaps the most likely is that local conditions are different from what has been modeled -- that itself would excite the scientific community.

I also pointed out to JSP that these measurements can't be a source of comfort to him or other geocentrists. Rather than being a barely-discernible signal, the quadrupole moment should be huge if the earth were the center of the universe. Sungenis et al are either too ignorant of science or too blinded by their zealotry to acknowledge this embarrassment. They have not even bothered to offer a calculation of the expected quadrupole moment, to see if the Planck survey values agree. In short, they aren't doing science at all. They'll cherry-pick from science when it suits their purpose, but they'll ignore it when it might challenge their dogma. That sort of intellectual dishonesty deserves a harsh rebuke.

Fortunately the laws of physics, as they are currently understood, are not a "bible" to scientists. They're just our best guess, which we adhere to for now. Unlike religion, our "book of laws" can be edited.

Very well said, kojax. On that we are in firm agreement.

Originally Posted by tk421

Now that you've amended your claim to "religious zealots," you've softened the assertion to one with which I may agree. But zealotry being what it is, scientific experiments have little to do with altering beliefs. Results that are in conflict with dogma are simply ignored, and those that are consonant are embraced. No change in world-view follows in consequence.

When dealing with religious zealots, it is good to bear in mind that zealots are the vanguard of a larger group. Behind each zealot are a bunch of more reasonable fence sitters, watching, and waiting to see what kind of reaction the zealot gets.

Persuading those people is worth the effort, even if the zealot him/her self will never get it. I used to be one of those people. I grew up in a seriously religious community, and I remember how I saw things back when I was in high school and still knew next to nothing about physics. My background makes me more sympathetic than I might be otherwise.

If your family was more secular, then you should be happy for that. Being raised in a secular environment gives a person a lot of advantages in their education.

If we took all of current physics at face value, and accept the results of the experiment as accurate, we would indeed be forced to conclude that we are in the center of the universe in some way.

That's not quite correct as worded. You are bit too quick to declare that such-and-such would force this or that; there is a danger of committing the same logical error that JoeSixPack is making. It is critically important to consider the many possibilities that have not been explored (but which are being explored by science).

Accepting the data narrows the possibilities. It doesn't force us down any one, specific, path, but it limits our options.

I think it is more likely that the Big Bang origin of the CMBR will come into question. Or something like that. But putting the Copernican principle on the chopping block helps wake us up to the reality we face.

Something will need to change.

If we accept the results as accurate, all that means is that one has established that one measures a quadrupole moment (say). Two independent, well-designed surveys of the CMB have measured higher-order moments. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that these measurements are wrong. So does accepting those experimental results imply that the Copernican principle is wrong? Absolutely not; they do not force us to do anything except to consider the next set of questions that science logically asks: Why do we measure what we see?

It forces us to choose the least absurd modification. Or rather, we must choose between abandoning the Copernican principle or abandoning some other principle. (Or adding something new.)

I agree that the Copernican principle is probably not the best one to abandon.

Originally Posted by tk421

...As does exchemist, I question your assertion that aether theory was almost universally accepted at the time. But even if we were provisionally to agree, it does not logically follow that one would be forced to conclude that the earth were stationary.

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which
presupposes that the Earth moves…”
Albert Michelson
Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,”
American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space
might happen to have been nil…”
Arthur Eddington
Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11

“Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”
Henrick Lorentz
Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s
Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in Arthur Miller’s
Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20

Not forced, not, but one should consider it. Though technically, the MM experiment did measure a velocity, just too small to ascribe to the presupposed motion around the sun. Certainly Dayton Miller and later interferometer experimenters verified it. I won't get into that here.

Originally Posted by tk421

I am surprised that you continue to maintain this position, for it is wholly untenable. Scientists of the day -- including adherents of the aether -- knew full well the implications of Foucault's experiment, of the Coriolis pseudoforce, of Newtonian physics... A null result from the MMX did not compel these folks to abandon all of that and conclude that the earth was stationary.

Seriously? On a science board? If we understood inertia, we might be able to settle the question, but according to Mach and Einstein, the pendulum can only distinguis relative motion.

If we took all of current physics at face value, and accept the results of the experiment as accurate, we would indeed be forced to conclude that we are in the center of the universe in some way.

Originally Posted by tk421

...CMB measurements are quite delicate; that we can achieve the required sensitivities and resolution is astonishing. The higher-order moments are exceedingly tiny deviations around that exceedingly tiny background. As such, a similarly tiny confounding effect can perturb the measurement. The Copernican principle is all about large-scale isotropy and homogeneity. Obviously, the universe is not homogeneous on local scales -- we have lumps in the form of planets and galaxies. That local inhomogeneity introduces artefacts in the data that are corrected to the best of our ability. The magnitude of the observed higher-order moments is smaller than the magnitude of the corrections applied. The measurements may be accurate, but what they imply spans a large range of possibilities. Perhaps the most likely is that local conditions are different from what has been modeled -- that itself would excite the scientific community.

I also pointed out to JSP that these measurements can't be a source of comfort to him or other geocentrists. Rather than being a barely-discernible signal, the quadrupole moment should be huge if the earth were the center of the universe...

But the preferred direction is collaborated with other independent observations such as galaxy spin directions (Longo 2007), quasar polarization preferred direction (Hustemekers, 2007), radio polarizations orientations (Jain & Ralston 1999), optical polarizations (Hutsem ́ekers 1998), radio number counts (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011) and radio polarization flux (Prabhakar 2014).

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

Though technically, the MM experiment did measure a velocity, just too small to ascribe to the presupposed motion around the sun.

The current measurements are of the order of 0.3m/s. You do know though that the actual speed is 108,000 km/h, don't you?

Certainly Dayton Miller and later interferometer experimenters verified it. I won't get into that here.

Miller confused "measurement error" with "signal". See here.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack

“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which
presupposes that the Earth moves…”
Albert Michelson
Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,”
American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125

I see that you are adopting the distasteful and all-too-common disreputable tactic of quote mining -- why the dishonesty? Is it that you recognize the fundamental weakness of your position, as well as your understanding of science, and thus feel you have no choice but to mislead? Does your religion condone lying outright as a tactic?

Let's take a look at Michelson's words in full:

"The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.
This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest."

Thus, anyone can see that Michelson is clearly not claiming that the earth is stationary, despite your contemptible attempt to leave that impression. Michelson was no idiot; he knew what Foucault's experiment showed.

“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space
might happen to have been nil…”
Arthur Eddington
Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11

And here again we see your shameful dishonesty. Let's see the bits that you left out:

"Certain optical or electrical consequences of the earth's motion were looked for of the same type as the distortion of images by a moving mirror; these would have been observed unless a contraction occurred of just the right
amount to compensate them. They were not observed; therefore the compensating contraction had occurred. There was just one alternative: the earth's true velocity through space might happen to have been nil. This was ruled out by repeating the experiment six months later, since the earth's motion could not be nil on both occasions. Thus the contraction was demonstrated and its law of dependence on velocity verified."

By leaving out the concluding sentences, you dishonestly leave the reader with an impression that is precisely the opposite of what Eddington means.

That's enough of that for now. Suffice it to say that we've established your dishonesty. The next time you offer up citations in support of your position, make sure not to misrepresent them. Thanks to google, it's easy to find out what they really say. You can't always count on the laziness of your readers.

Not forced, not, but one should consider it.

Stop behaving as if science has never considered the possibility. It has, in detail. The evidence is against a stationary earth. Stop pretending as if no one has brought this up.

You continue to portray science as closed-minded for rejecting the possibility. The truth is that you are unhappy that science has already applied the scientific method and rejected your favored hypothesis. I guess it's understandable that you are forced to fall back on the feeble, tired "science is closed-minded" gambit, because you have so few options, but it surprises me how little shame you seem to feel.

Though technically, the MM experiment did measure a velocity, just too small to ascribe to the presupposed motion around the sun.

Yeah, cling to that slender thread, JSP. In science, we call that "grasping at straws." The "measured" velocity is well inside the error bars of the experiment. Zero is the most likely value.

Certainly Dayton Miller and later interferometer experimenters verified it. I won't get into that here.

Of course you won't get into that here, because you can't succeed. Miller blundered badly. His experiment shows nothing other than he did not know how to run a clean experiment.

Originally Posted by JSP

Originally Posted by tk421

I am surprised that you continue to maintain this position, for it is wholly untenable. Scientists of the day -- including adherents of the aether -- knew full well the implications of Foucault's experiment, of the Coriolis pseudoforce, of Newtonian physics... A null result from the MMX did not compel these folks to abandon all of that and conclude that the earth was stationary.

Seriously? On a science board? If we understood inertia, we might be able to settle the question, but according to Mach and Einstein, the pendulum can only distinguis relative motion.

Massive goalpost motion and non sequitur noted. On a science board, yes.

Originally Posted by JSP

But the preferred direction is collaborated with other independent observations such as galaxy spin directions (Longo 2007), quasar polarization preferred direction (Hustemekers, 2007), radio polarizations orientations (Jain & Ralston 1999), optical polarizations (Hutsem ́ekers 1998), radio number counts (Blake & Wall 2002; Singal 2011) and radio polarization flux (Prabhakar 2014).

And so what conclusions do you think are implied by these observations? (That's a rhetorical question)