Geocentrism

I will adress my opponents points first, and then provide my last argument against geocentirsm in this post.The scope problemAs pro seems to have misunderstood my position, allow me to clarify that I am not claiming there is a scope problem based on the possibility of contrary data turning up. I am not relying on the possibility of contrary data, merely pointing out that extrapolating our data on the assumption it is representative of the universe when we have such a tiny portion of the observed universe to go off may be rash. This isn't absurd, it is prudent. Luckily for theories like the Big Bang theory, our evidence stretches all the way out to the CMBR, which is as far as it is physically possible to see.Redshift quantisation And now we come to ground we have both tread before. If it is useful to readers, see this citation for the wikipedia entry on redshift quantisation [1]. Here though is what I think is the most pertinent excerpt:In 1973, astronomer William G. Tifft was the first to report evidence of such clustering (before that see György Paál[3]). Recent redshift surveys of quasars (QSOs) have produced no evidence of quantization in excess of what is expected due to galaxy clustering, [4][5][6][7] and consequently most cosmologists dispute the existence of redshift quantization beyond a minimal trace due to the distribution of galaxies across voids and filaments.So we can see already the position Pro is arguing from isn't something that has managed to get acceptance by the community of cosmologists. The reason for this is that these peaks disappear once selection effects are taken into account properly (selection effects, as in because telescope time is limited, we have to chose what to look at. Given that choices aren't done by saying "Okay, we just looked here, lets look over there", and are done by the probability we think we will get a redshift off the object, we do not actually look at all redshift distances equally). So, to support his position, Pro cites Bell and McDiarmid [2] which analysed the SDSS DR5 (data release five). So let us actually go straight to the SDSS team and what they had to say about it [3]:Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006). So using a different analysis on the data makes all the peaks disappear. This is why cosmologists are not convinced: the results disappear when you use a different analysis algorithm or different data sets. Case closed. BAO and FilamentsI must say that now Pro's continued discarding of my sorces and rebuttals is starting to be annoying. I am not even going to bother refuting the diagram he drew on to show density spheres, as I think simple visual inspection of his drawn spheres is enough to show that Pro is now grasping at straws. I should also note that the Sloan Great Wall (what Pro circled in one of his first diagrams) is a filament, and pro has simply assumed that it is a spherical shape, despite the data I have presented.Pro dismissed my point source image showing that there are no spheres by saying he couldn't find how the image was made. So, here are a few more sources showing galaxy and cluster distribution, and all showing that there "density spheres" do not, in any way, exist [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. I have even given another image below to try and drive this point home. Why galactocetnrism is geometrically nonsensicalI don't have too much to say in this section, given that Pro provided no refutation and merely showed he did not understand what the terms flat, open and closed mean. I would invite Pro to actually follow up the basic source of Wikipedia I provided for a detailed explanation. In essence, "flat" spacetime implies no global curvature, not that it is 2D. To explain the closed universe further, a closed universe would be like the surface of a sphere (which is 2D), in that if you went in one direction on that surface you would end up where you started. Pro proposes a spherical universe, by which I imagine he means a finite space-time boundary at some arbitrary point. Not only is this undemonstrate, this is not one of the possible space-time gemoetries given in the Friedmann metric, which means that Pro's hypothesis now contradicts general relativity (and therfore special relativity by extnesion) as well as its contradiction with the Big Bang theory. Needless to say, this is not a point in favour of a galactocentric universe. Note that Pro's version of a spherical universe is not to be confused with the spherical unvierse given on Wikipedia, which is a closed universe [11].My final pointAs Pro helpfully pointed out in his closing statement, geocentrism and the Big Bang theory are mutually exclusive. Therefore, when deciding on which theory is more likely correct one cannot consider them in isolation - you have to compare the amount of confirmation of both ideas. This means that even if everything Pro has already said about density spheres, quantisation, etc, is correct, that galactocentirsm still wouldn't be mainstream cosmology because the confirmation we have for the BBT is so much stronger. To keep it short, the BBT theory explain the composition of the stars, the galaxy formation ratios (when we look back in time), the ratio of elements in the universe, the cosmic microwave background, the baryon acoustic osciallations, the homogeneity of the universe and a hundred other things which galactocentrism says absolutely nothing about. The ability for the BBT to explain so much more than galactocentrism means that if you ever had reason to place them both on the scales together, the BBT would be the most confirmed, most detailed, and most explanatory theory by a massive margin. Now add in that Pro's proposed universe shape isn't allowed by general relativity, and you can add in GR and SR to the BBT on the imaginary scales we are talking about. Do I even need to continue? The only way a person can, given these options, actually believe geocentrism is the most plausible scientific explanation is to have already concluded that before judging the scientific evidence - which is what Pro has already done and admitted in our last conversation [12]. On the topic of authority: You've got your authority: the modern consensus. I've got mine: the word of God. You may challenge the mere existence of my authority, but at least I can honestly say I believe my authority to be infallible. ConclusionIn this debate I have presented three solid reasons why the conclusion that geocentrism is true is completely unwarranted. I have also presented solid refutations for every single argument Pro has put forth. As such, I believe I have demonstrated without any doubt that geocentrism is not a scientifically plausible, nor scientifically supported, hypothesis.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://arxiv.org...[3] Page 12: http://arxiv.org...[4] http://www.sttff.net...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://uvs-model.com...[8] http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...[9] http://upload.wikimedia.org...[10] http://www.phy.olemiss.edu...[11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://www.reddit.com...;