Geocentrism

Con says, “I would like from Pro actual supportive arguments[...] Why does increased density imply centralisation?” This is because the method of determining the distance of the data points in both Con's charts and mine utilizes the fact that almost all of the points are moving away from us. A simple thought experiment where one rewinds time to the beginning demonstrates that this means most of the matter in the universe originated from a central point somewhere around the current location of our galaxy. Con says, “So it seems extrapolating a perceived trend[...] based on less than a hundredth of a single percent of the universe to the entire universe to be a bit unwarranted.” As I explained last round, this is a fallacious rebuttal because my claim is based on the evidence we do have, while Con's argument relies on the hypothetical possibility that contradictory evidence may turn up in the future. If all scientific claims could be falsified based on the mere possibility of falsifying evidence turning up in the future, no scientific hypothesis would survive this absurd standard of proof. Con says, “no SDSS data release supports concentric density spheres - this is something that if it existed, would be noticed by actual cosmologists.” First, cosmologists have noticed it, and in fact have been noticing it for over 30 years: Over the past three decades or more astronomical evidence has been interpreted by some as suggesting that a major component of the redshift of quasars arises from a non-cosmological origin (Burbidge 1968; Karlsson 1971; Karlsson 1977; Burbidge & Hewitt 1990; Burbidge & Napier 2001; Bell 2002a; Bell 2002b; Bell 2002c), which is quantized in some fashion.(9) By the way, for those who may be unfamiliar with the word “quantized”, it simply means restricted to particular number ranges. If redshift values of stellar objects are quantized, this means they are arranged in concentric spheres about us, or their density distribution peaks at a certain distance. Of course, this assumes the validity of using redshift values to determine distance, but this is something Con and I agree is valid. Second, it's not true that “no SDSS data release supports concentric density spheres”, because in SDSS Quasar Catalog III Bell et al. found 6 concentric circles, which they refer to as “peaks” in redshift values. Here is a chart of the 46,400 quasars where several of the peaks are clearly visible: (10) The authors demonstrated that data selection effects could not explain away all of the peaks, and focused on the peak at z=0.70 because it had been demonstrated independently by previous studies already: [A]nalysis of the distribution of over 46,000 SDSS quasar redshifts has been found to show a[...] distinct power peak for redshift periods less than W10;z = 1. The peak found corresponds to a redshift period of W10;z ∼0.70[...]The power peak is detected in three different samples[...] We conclude that it is real, and is due either to the preferred redshifts predicted in the DIR model, or to selection effects. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both.(10) Con may object that this paper, http://arxiv.org..., repeated analysis on the sample after accounting for selection effects and failed to find any peaks or quantization (a.k.a. concentric density spheres). The problem with this argument is that the way they supposedly accounted for selection effects was “by excluding extended objects,” but “[e]xcluding extended sources will certainly eliminate many low-redshift quasars”!(11) In other words, the new analysis that didn't find quantization in redshift values had actually eliminated an entire subset of quasars! Obviously, if you eliminate a subset of data from the data set, then try to look for it, you're not going to find it. The second problem with their supposed “correction” is when they “limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1.” What if the peaks were due to quasars with a magnitude greater than 19.1? Last, but not least, they “have corrected for the known incompleteness near z∼ 2.7 and z∼ 3.5”. The problem is that they don't even say what they mean by “corrected.” The locations at z=2.7 and z=3.5 represent troughs. If you assume these troughs are caused by “incompleteness” and “correct” them by flattening the peaks down to the level of the troughs (which is what they did! see their new chart), of course you're going to erase all evidence of the peaks! What's particularly suspicious about this is that their biggest “correction” involves erasing the peaks without explaining how. If anyone wants to verify their results, they can't! In contrast, the study that did find the peaks(10) actually did explain their methodology fully, so anyone can replicate these results for themselves and verify the existence of the peaks. The data is in the public domain. Con says, “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.” Unfortunately for Con, even his zoomed-in image demonstrates quantization: Con tried to explain away the thick, filamentous structures curved around our galaxy as “Baryon Acoustic Oscillations” but, for all his explanations, he didn't say why they appear to be wrapped around our galaxy if we aren't in the center of the universe, which was the entire reason I mentioned them in the first place. When I challenged Con to source his “pretty picture” from a previous round, he said it was “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)” I think Con's trying to say they didn't assume galactocentrism is false. Well, Con is simply wrong. Following his source(11) for the simulation, one can read the following: [Observed data] was extrapolated backwards in time to shortly after the Big Bang. The simulation [that made Con's picture] then followed evolution forward again to the present[...] This admits the simulation actually did assume galactocentrism is false! It simulated the Big Bang, and the Big Bang doesn't allow for galactocentrism. So Con's picture is based on a simulation biased against my position; he can't use it as evidence. Con says, “here is another image using just observed point sources [4]. Once again... no concentric spheres. No indication we are in a unique position.” Since nobody can find out how the image was contrived, I'm going to have to dismiss it. Con says, “Okay, so to get down to business, there are three possible universes we live in: a closed, flat or open universe” Actually, there's another possibility, and it's called a spherical universe. Con says, “the universe is actually so flat that it could be any one of the these[...] For flat and open, space is inifite, so it is[...] nonsensical to define a centre[...]” However, space is obviously not flat, since nothing prevents me from moving in all directions. No space ceiling has ever been found. Con says, “For a closed universe[...] 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[...]” This makes no sense: a 2D universe wouldn't be “like a sphere” because spheres are 3D. Con says, “For a center to exist[...] have to have a finite spacetime boundary[...] this does not exist under any physically possible universe[...]” Con can't just assert that my scenario is not physically possible. (9) http://arxiv.org... (10) http://arxiv.org... (11) http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de...