Geocentrism

My thanks to Pro for his timely response. To address his challenges and disputations:The implication of waning density In my last post, I pointed out that even if waning density was correct, it does not imply we are the centre of the universe. I believe this point has been lost on Pro, so to state it more clearly: Pro has yet to provide a model or theory about a galactocentric universe which predicts waning density, and as such it seems simply that Pro finds it intuitive: if you're in a region of high density, it lends credence to being in the centre. What I was trying to explain, is that, given the lack of model Pro has presented, I could also present an unsupported model in which there are regions of high density scattered randomly over the universe, and thus increased density would not imply centralisation. I would like from Pro actual supportive arguments for all of this points. Why does increased density imply centralisation? Why does Pro believe this to be a singular phenomenon?On the scope of the dataYou know, I was trying to be generous to Pro, by upping the survey radius to all of SDSS's high density mapped area up to z=0.7. But sure, I will now take Pro's 2Glyr figure. What Pro seems to have forgotten in his maths is that we do not live in a 1 dimension world. Pro has presented a sphere of radius 2Gly, in a universe of Hubble radius 47Gly, and minimum radius of 293 Glyr [1]. Just looking at the observable universe to be extremely generous to pro, we have (2/47)^3 = 0.008% of the observable universe. So it seems extrapolating a perceived trend (which doesn't actually exist, as I will get to) based on less than a hundredth of a single percent of the universe to the entire universe to be a bit unwarranted. If we did actually throw in the minimum size of the universe (going beyond the observable universe), we are drawing conclusions about the whole with less that 0.00003% of the data. Rigorous, this is not.Concentric SpheresTwo very simple things to note in here: firstly the majority of galaxies we can get a good redshift on occur at z<0.8 (beyond that point its old enough we mostly get quasars) and so there is a greater focus on spending very precious telescope time at less than this redshift so that we can get highest number of successful redshifts. Secondly, more importantly and also more amusingly, the "sphere" shown in the image Garrett presented is an artifact of the particle rendering system, nothing more. This is also why no SDSS data release supports concentric density spheres - this is something that if it existed, would be noticed by actual cosmologists. I give you two images below, one taken when zoomed out and the minimum particle size (1px on your monitor) makes the "sphere appear", and a zoomed in image, where you can see we actually do get a fade out and not a sudden drop. These concentric spheres do not physically exist. My unfortunate typoI apolise to the readers and to Garrett. When typing in the redshift for the 2df QSO survey I typed in "13" instead of "3". Of course, given that this is further out than the local area galaxy data presented by the SDSS team, it is obviously still valid. We do not see concentric spheres in it. Furthermore, I wish to point out to Garrett that in cosmological surveys "more recent data" doesn't mean we throw the old data out or do not use it. The surveys look at different things, in different areas of the night sky. In fact, for proper cosmological studies, we normally combine as many surveys as we can into the data set we feed to our model, because each survey only contains a small portion of the data we have available. Data does not become outdated unless the methodology of the survey was found to be incorrect.BAOI will try and keep this as nontechnical as I can. If anyone wants more information or a more detailed explanation, feel free to ask in the comments, or hit up Wikipedia [2]. The BAO are a result of the coupling between matter, dark matter, photons and neutrinons in the early universe before it cooled (forming the CMB). Observed time and temperature constrains on the evolution of the early universe allow precise calculation of the Baryon Accoustic Oscillations. Given the expansion of the universe, the regions of higher density in the BAO collapse faster and become regions of higher density in the universe, at a length scale of around 160MPc (490Mlyr). These regions of higher density - these filaments, are what is shown in the diagrams I presented previously. Now, for a graphical overview, read the smaller plots top to bottom from the left to the right for the time evolution of the BAO from t=100yrs to t=500Myrs (which is essentially the same as now). This is the correct and scientifically accepted explanation of large scale structure in the universe. FilamentsTying into the BAO, filaments are essentially the large scale sctructures we talk about. As to sources, the one Pro was unable to find is from the Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, where they put observed data into their T3E supercomputer and let it evolve in a simulation [3]. This, unlike what Pro will say, obviously does not assume galactocentirsm (once again, it was actually given cosmological data to use as the initial condition). However, if he remains unconvinced, here is another image using just observed point sources [4]. Once again... no concentric spheres. No indication we are in a unique position. Fingers of GodI am not certain what is causing confusion in my opponent, so please see this easy to understand sources for an external explanation of fingers of god if my explanation is not being understood [5][6]. As to what I mean by expanding spaces... precisely that. Space is expanding. It's not expanding into another dimension, it is simply expanding in our current dimensions, at a rate of around 70km/s/Mpc [7]. Now, I realise Pro is a creationist that rejects the Big Bang theory, but let me point out that regardless if its correct or not, any direct conversion of recession velocity to distance (which is what redshifting is), would have radial skewing from the perculiar velocity of galaxies in a cluster.Why galactocentrism is geometircally nonsensicalFinally to get to something new! Unfortunately, I only have space for one point. Garrett, are we not introducing new arguments in our conclusion, or would I be alright to put my third point in it?Okay, so to get down to business, there are three possible universes we live in: a closed, flat or open universe [8]. Now, the universe is actually so flat that it could be any one of the these within the uncertainty we have for the total curvature [9]. So let us examine each three cases. For flat and open, space is inifite, so it is mathematically nonsensical to define a centre point. For a closed universe (one in which if you kept flying you would reach where you started eventually), we can think of this easier if we imagine a 2D closed universe, which would be like a sphere with galaxies dotted on the surface of the sphere. There is no center point we can place on the surface of a sphere, and there is no center point if we extend our 2D example up to 3D. For a center to exist in the universe, we would have to have a finite spacetime boundary which has an axis of symmetry, and this does not exist under any physically possible universe shape. ConclusionI hope this has helped inform readers on cosmology and some of the fantastic phenomenon we see.[1] http://arxiv.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de...[4] http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...[5] http://www.astro.washington.edu...[6] http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law#Observed_values[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...[9] http://arxiv.org...