Geocentrism

Waning Density Con says, “I could argue that [growing] density [towards us] does not implied being physically central in the universe[...]” Con can't argue this. The only plausible explanation for us being in such a special place is that we are in the center of the universe. To argue otherwise would be saying out of all the possible places we could be in, we just happened to end up here. Con is appealing to a statistical impossibility. Con says, “However, z-0.7 corresponds to a bit less than 10 Glyr in radius. The size of the observable universe is around 47 Glyr in radius, so we are looking at a volume of less than 1% of the observable universe.” 1 Glyr (Gigalight-year) = 1 billion light-years. My first chart represents 2 billion light-years,(5) a.k.a. 2 Glyrs. 47 Glyrs / 2 Glyrs = 100 / 5, so we're actually looking at 5% of the observable universe, not “less than 1%” like Con said. Con says, “So this means that [...]we are looking at a [tiny part] of the universe and trying to say "See, we are in the middle of it". We simply do not have the data to form such a conclusion.” I'm using the evidence available to draw a conclusion. If you have a different conclusion that can be drawn that's equally supported by the same evidence, let's hear it! Appealing to the possibility that I may be wrong, because contradictory evidence might turn up later, is a logical fallacy. Con objects that my chart only represented up to z=0.7, so here is a larger chart compiled with more recent data that reaches up to z=2.3 and includes not only galaxies, but quasars too: (8) As you can see, the waning density and concentric spheres are still present. Con says, “Very simply stated, the graph Garrett presented shows successfully redshifted galaxies. The further out we go, the fainter the galaxies are and the lower the success rate on redshifting.” If the waning density were really an illusion due to a declining success rate with distance, the density would decline smoothly and not abruptly, forming concentric spheres as you can see in the image. Con showed a chart from the 2dF quasar survey and said, “The above image is from the 2df QSO surey quasar survey, which goes up to z=13.” However, his chart is compiled from data only up to z=3; here is what his source says: “The survey probes redshifts up to z~3.” If the survey really went to z=13, why does Con's chart only go up to z=3? What is it hiding? Could it be the telling indicators of galactocentrism that mainstream science doesn't want to flaunt? Further, Con's survey is outdated, and my last chart is compiled with more recent data. Con says, “imagine you are standing in the middle of a[...] forest, idenifying trees around you. [...]you look down and realise you've managed to identify far more trees in your immediate vicinity than trees further out that you had to squint at. This is perfectly expected from any location in the forest[...]” Con's analogy fails because in his scenario, distribution density would wane away from the observer smoothly, not abruptly, several times. Con's analogy fails to account for concentric density spheres. In fact, if Con charted trees in concentric spheres around him, he would have to assume the trees were planted around him like that on purpose. Maybe if the analogy involved mushrooms it would be different, but Con would still have to explain why he was standing in the center of the circle. But trees don't form fairy rings, so the only explanation is that Con is standing in the center of a bulls-eye plot of trees. Concentric Density Spheres Con asserts these are due to a phenomenon known as Baryon Acoustic Oscillations. I'm going to have to demand an explanation from Con of what this is and how it explains away the concentric circles, or have his argument dismissed. Identifying a feature as the “Great Wall” doesn't damage my argument anymore than calling the oblong clusters pointing towards us “Fingers of God” proves God's existence. Con has a lot of explaining to do. Con says, “when we zoom out a little more, we clearly see galacitc filaments are not concentric spheres[...] The above image is based on physical data” Con's source for this image brings me to a blog post that doesn't source the image. I'm going to have to dismiss this pretty picture until Con can point me to the data it was derived from. An obvious red flag about the picture is the complete, 360 degree mapping which should be impossible to obtain since the Milky Way Galaxy obscures much of our view; in fact, that is why my charts don't map all the way around. Con says, “the below is a simulation of mass distribution showing the structure of filament at extremely large scales [6]. Notice the lack of concentric spheres or indeed any obvious focal point that one could claim is the "center" of the universe.” I'm going to have to dismiss this picture as well. It's not drawn from empirical data; it's a computer modeled simulation which assumed galactocentrism is false as one of it's parameters. Using this picture as evidence against galactocentrism is fallacious. It's circular logic. Con says, “Unfortunately for Garrett, these images and their lack of any centre point merely reinforce the position that our galaxy is not special or unique in its location.” Unfortunately for Con, his images only demonstrate confirmation bias (using outdated data because the new data doesn't support his position) and circular logic. It also demonstrates why one shouldn't use blogs as a source of evidence in a scientific debate. Fingers of God Con says, “Fingers of God are[...] a well understood observational phenomenon that would be seen from any viewing direction [7]. To give a brief explanation, redshifting works by measuring recession velocity. In galactic clusters in which galaxies are orbitting each other and being pulled around, the objects recession velocity is a combination of both the expansion of the universe and it's perculair velocity[...]” Before we go further, Con is going to have to clarify what he means by “expansion of the universe” since his entire rebuttal of the Fingers of God argument depends on it. Does he assume expansion into the dimension of hyperspace, where space itself expands, or does he mean all matter is moving away from a central point in only 3 dimensions? I can easily demonstrate to you, right now, that the universe is 4D. Pace backwards and forwards: you're traversing 1 dimension. Run in a circle: you're exploring the 2nd dimension. Now jump up and down: that's the 3rd dimension you just went through. Well actually, you've traveled through the 4th dimension of time, too, since you're further along in time now than you were at the start! If Con wants to argue space expands into an extra, 5th dimension, he's going to have demonstrate this is true. (8) http://astro.uchicago.edu...