Thanks Dr. Robitaille. As a kid I was enchanted by science, before the oxymoron "settled science" became a cultural and political football, destroying science education. When so much about the Cosmos is not settled and never should be, it is an incredible liability to have people running science who are "know it alls". Upside down world. Keep up the great work!
Jip. When I was a child, I asked questions, but always just accepted that everything they say are true. 30 years later... and you start to see the problems youraelf. You even see how other people are brainwashed into believing everything and they will not allow you to question anything about the validity of a theory. They protect their little world ao much that they try insults on people they have no clue of who you really are. Thus... their insults are laughable.
Agree! When I was young to my Christian and biologist professor mother, I was asking and asking question, like, ' if the universe never finish, what is behind? ' I have some of the answers now, bu I have to navigate into an Ocean of misinformation, to find some Captains Cook exploring the true Science.
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics.
@@sphereitis2433 LOL Threatened, are you? Methinks so. Name calling is such a fun sport, don't you think?? It really does speak volumes abut the positions held by the speaker, you know what I mean? If you can't discuss the topic, but you want to make a statement, just say those works often, loudly, with LOTS of punctuation symbols thrown in for effect. Predictable.
Ohhh shit , sorry did I offend you 4n 2earth or whatever you call yourself , I believe in science fact , not science fiction .the guy in the video really has no idea what he's talking about, for a start he's about 770,000 years astray on the CMB
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham. I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally in that position once.
@@slevinchannel7589 What exactly in your opinion qualifies as "pseudo-science"? Is it "science" conducted by hypothesis alone, or "science" conducted through the presentation of evidence, well-founded research and experimental proof? What "grade school science" is he getting wrong? Is it the "grade-school science" peddled by educational authorities that seeks to replace evidence with creationist myth? Or is it the "grade-school science" that is backed by well-founded scientific research, experimental proof and evidence? You'll be ready and able to point to the errors that have been made and back up your assertions with good evidence? I won't hold my breath. I look forward to your well-presented counter arguments. I'm sure the good Dr does also.
Precisely. The atheist cosmologists are offended by the very nature of the universe. Since the UNIVERSE ITSELF disagrees with their models, theories and hogwash.
"We now understand the history of the universe from the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second" - I've been fed that balderdash for a couple decades now. Dr. R, I really appreciate that you, Alexander Unzicker and others are pushing back against the careerists in the field formerly known as science.
@@newoneinblack You have no idea what you're talking about and Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@mylesrussell You have no idea what you're talking about and Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
The exciting thing about the Axis of Evil, IMO, is that it suggests there is new physics to be learned about light dispersion in the universe. If the Big Bang is fantasy, and there is more to CMB sometimes than just earth contamination, this strange alignment might exist as a unique identifier for every local place in the universe relative to a cosmic frame: so CMB could be used as a Cosmic Positioning System for universe travellers.
Is this 'Doctor' dazzling you with oh-so-complex Science or why do you legit not know that he gets things wrong all the time? This is not science: He just blatantly gets things wrong. Sorry to burst youre bubble but its objectively wrong what he says all the time.
i have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in Civil Engineering… i took a year of Astronomy in college 1986/87… and have followed astrophysics and cosmology closely since then. AND! i have watched it devolve into utter nonsense with a 40 year unfruitful hunt for dark matter/energy and now declaring a Multiverse in foolish exasperation. contrary to your smug presupposition… i understood the video because of my scientific background and because i’ve watched all of the good doctor’s videos. btw~ Socrates was heralded as the wisest man alive… this is because he realized that he knew nothing. start there @@slevinchannel7589
I can follow most of this. But I always feel like the dumb kid in the back. I just realize that while I can comprehend it as you explain it, I couldn't tell you how to get the same results from the same information. Mad respect. Deepest gratitude.
The reason being you are the kid at the back , nothing wrong with that , go study and so real experiments and measurements then you won't be that kid anymore , while that you are just listening to a fake scientist double talking mumbojumbo thinking you are understanding anything, as in fact you know you aren't, just become the person you need to be to understand something not simple to understand.
Fundamental foundational differences in the standard model and the torus jet model, so only believing in one model of astrophysics would make the torus jet model mumbojumbo. th-cam.com/video/jcDrKtKPBac/w-d-xo.html This is an awesome NASA video on Jupiters moon, Eo. Notice NASA's labs are focusing on electromagnetism, not gravity. Gravity assists. Also interesting to note that a plasma sensor was on the Voyager in 1977. Particle physics and the electromagnetic universe is where it's at and our higher institutions easily prove what they are pursuing. Check out NASA's various websites and research programs
@@RG-rl6hj Well , Sky Scholar has a lack of intelligently notions on everything he says , just a moron deprived of any mental faculties can't tell he is a charlatan .
That was a good one! I truly hope the underground people have kept a complete account of your total work and dna... You are a concert pianist of thinking xx
Mr. Sky Scholar, you have a very pleasant presence. Thank you for your short and informative videos. Your presentations are easy to understand, and engaging to view.
@@johncampbell9216 and you believe some radiologist who claims the Sun is metallic hydrogen, says the CMB is from the oceans (wtf the telescopes never even pointed at Earth) and has no training in astronomy/cosmology whatsoever? Makes perfect sense. 😂
@@KennyT187 I ‘believe’ nothing. I follow the evidence that is presented. In this case by a spectroscopy professor who knows more about light radiation than every radiologist that ever lived. And he doesn’t SAY the sun is metallic hydrogen, he presents EVIDENCE that it is! Astronomers and Cosmologists know shit about light, all they do is look at pictures and come up with wild fantastical theories about how what they see can fit into their creationist mythology. Because that makes no sense whatsoever! The fact his evidence is over your head is your fault, not his.
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham. I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally in that position once.
@@Kalepsis Ohhhh, where do i even start... Professor Dave made a whole Essay. You may skip the first 20 Minutes to get into the most objective things an the most-telling stuff. You may as well though just go and ask ANY random science-youtuber of flat-earth-debunker. They can all discern Science from Pseudo-Science.
@@slevinchannel7589 So, you have no examples of anything incorrect. Dave was incorrect, and Robitaille responded to his video with corrections that are based in science instead of personal incredulity.
@@slevinchannel7589: Dave is a half-baked moron who doesn't even understand high-school physics; he's just parroting whatever the mainstream says with zero regard to the underlying physics. Robitaille made a response video to Dave where he savagely destroyed every single piece of Dave's nonsense to the point of obliteration. And by the sound of it, you're even dumber and more ignorant than Dave is. You have my pity.
Hes a Pseudo-Science-User who gets laughed outta the room. You WANT him to be right so you can be some Supporter-of-an-Underdog but thats wishful thinking. Stop being irrational and ignoring youre 'Idol' got debunked so hard he even lost many Subs.
@Romeo Prince Radiologist trying to be an expert on astronomy is like a general medical doctor trying to be an expert on neuropsychology - you get alot of shit wrong even though you think you know the basics but you f*ck up even on them.
Of course that is going to happen, they can't just subtract the Milky Way like they think they can. But the dipole aligned with ecliptic smacks of interference from the sun.
@@Kalepsis You are probably thinking of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The large radio telescope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. I think that in this video he is talking about trying to subtract the image of the galaxy as foreground noise.
@@Kalepsis WTF the WMAP and Planck were at L2, same as Webb, and they mapped the OUTER SPACE. You really can't be that thick. Also Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics. And nothing was measured at L2. Don't you listen, Ian? You sad little man with a correspondence masters degree in fairy dust.
The assumption is we observe from here and that makes the location of our observations hyper-limited in locational variability, it is not likely or logical to assume this makes us the center of anything except our ability to look outward. Any conclusion based on this is pure presupposition. It is much more likely that the apparent centeredness is an artifact of observational bias and not an actuality. Until we spread our observational center to light years across we cannot know one way or another.
I was wondering if you see the alternator/generator in the picture at the 3:33 minute mark in your video? Living off grid building my own generators it stood out to me. Thank Ben for me discovering you. Eyes and ears open, no fear.
An observation made anywhere in our observable universe will always appear as if it was made in the center, because every point that now exists was before at the center of the big bang; we are expanding along with it, not removed from it, not looking at the universe from the side, but from within. It's a hard concept to grasp, even for a physicist, but ask yourself this question: where is the absolute center of the universe? It's not a point, it doesn't have coordinates, it's not moving along an absolute axis. The center is everywhere, which is why every observation appears to us as if it's made with the earth in the center. That planet over there? What about the furthest Galaxy we can observe certainly THAT isn't in the center right? Short answer, yes it's also in the center, just at great distance from us after also expanding along with everything else that was once in the center of the big bang. Imagine you have all of space/time/reality in a small infentesimal point that exploded to the size of the universe, where is the center of that point? Is it, outside the universe? No. There are no sides or corners here, just as there is no last number in an infinite system, no final digit to pi. Don't think of the universe as having reference points/axis moving along in a simplistic coordinate system, but rather think of the universe as itself being the coordinate system. While things within the universe can move, expand and contract relative to everything else in the system, it will always appear that any observation made from any point within the system (observable universe) is indistinguishable from the "center" for precisely that reason. I prefer using the term of being "in the middle, along with everything else" as opposed to being in the center, unique in the universe.
is my "microwave oven" in the exact center of universe according to WMAP? Please don't let it be my neighbors, his head is big enough as it is .. Thanks for the video :-)
would it be possible to do some videos that a layman might understand? You keep mentioning the dipole, but I don't know what that is and googling it wan't much help either.
In the video, there's 2 renditions of the same sky map. The line in both maps, be it a straight line or a squiggly line, is the same thing. It represents stationary observer scanning the stars from horizon to horizon, the line is the motion your head would make. In one map it's squiggly, because it's is a scientific map. When you take the line and straighten it. You get the other map. Now in the map you can see a color pattern. Basically, the map is describing something like this. Your in the middle of a dark tunnel, with 2 open ends where you can see day light. You know your in the middle of the tunnel because you can see both ends from inside. The pattern is dark to light. If I asked you to leave the tunnel, it would be very obvious how to get out. So basically the map says the earth is in the middle of a "tunnel," meaning the middle of the universe. Now when you look up at the sky. You are looking out from in our galaxy. The pattern follows the plane of our solar system. So ether the earth, the solar system and the galaxy are special, cause we in the middle, and everything is on the same plane. Or the data used in making the image isn't the radiation from the big bang.
That's because it does not exist or matter . This guy is a con artist and a fake . Not a scientist, has no idea what he's talking about, I think the dipole is the hole where they put all the dipshits , he would know where that is . If you want fact , not fiction then might I suggest you look up Niel degrasse Tyson or doctor Brian Cox , they both know what they are talking about when it comes to cosmology and the world of astro physics. Seriously - this is easy to understand because what they speak is the truth
@@sphereitis2433 "This guy is a con artist and a fake . Not a scientist, has no idea what he's talking about," I've read quite a few of your posts here, Super Dave Osborne's lover, and so far you haven't made a single scientific rebuttal of anything. Why don't you and Quackhole Quantti go and find a warm corner and a blanket together and you can cry on each other's shoulders as you watch your magical world of astrophysics crumble into fairy dust.
Regarding the position of the 'CMB', how do they know that it is at the primordial state of the universe. We can only observe the 'observable' universe from our position here on Earth. We have no idea at all about where we and our observable universe is within the entire universe which (they say) originated with the big bang. Its like they are trying to describe an entire house by standing in the kitchen looking at the kitchen walls - we have no information beyond the walls of the room we are in (our 'observable universe'). So even if by using their methods they can describe the kitchen, they have no ability to claim that the kitchen in some way represents the entire house!!!
@@4n2earth22 Gee, I never thought of that. Thank you so much. If I pointed an audience to other sources, I would take the trouble to include links out of common courtesy. There are plenty of others in his video description. I like to think Robitaille simply forgot to include them and does not share your 'let them eat cake' attitude.
@@johnkesich8696 Thank you sir for your lovely and constructive criticism. The truth is, folks like the professor are pretty darn busy, and as a common courtesy they provide content as they see fit. And yes, you are right about the plenty of other links in his presentations. If you attend to his words, you will see that he does not provide them all, but usually only the ones he is directly quoting from for the main points of his talk. Plenty of references that do not include a link, that is a fact. Your last comment clearly reveals the disconnect your mind has with the written word. No problem here about that. You are, thankfully, free to say what you think. Your assumptions of my 'attitude' are indeed your freedom in action, but from my perspective, clearly wrong and unfounded. So, I guess, dude, enjoy your pie. Cake. Whatever. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Dig in!!!
Dr. R., re. your note a 8:33, a large survey of red-shift values of objects in all directions we can observe indicates that our local galaxy group is near the center of a series of concentric spheres of similarly quantized red-shifted objects. Think of a red and white 3D target with our local galaxy group near the center of the 3D bullseye. Thus, regardless of the findings of invalid CMB anisotropy maps, this would seem to independantly indicate that we ARE near the center of the universe. Something which itself indicates that the Anthropic Principle, which is anathema to the naturalist and materialist Faith, may well be true. Our local galaxy group very well may be in a "favored position" - independent of botched Anisotropy maps which imply the same thing invalidly.
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
Thank you Dr. Robitaille for being a real scientist. I appreciate your effort to combat the dogma of modern science, it seem settled science is creeping in everywhere and has been for a very long time. The state of affairs in modern cosmology is a sad read, thank you for pointing out what you find to be wrong and/or questionable in cosmology. Greetings from Norway.
When someone over-analyzes data, it sounds like there was some preconceived bias from the get-go, i.e. let's analyze this beyond the scope of the data so it supports our theory, otherwise direct analysis says our theory is wrong. Even is cosmology, two wrong don't make a right.
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
I've always known the earth was the center of the universe, but what most scientists don't understand is that I am the center of the universe, so the earth being center is just a first approximation.
Indeed, the "univerise is still weird and interesting"! I discovered that in my Junior Classical Mechanics course (1983) when we studied non-linear oscillators and chaos, etc. "The simple things you see are all complicated ...", "Substitute" ~ The Who.
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham. I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally in that position once.
Can't count all the times I've brought up the Copernian principle, only I'd never realized that it's regarded as a law. Always had the hardest time explaining it to my mom, at least at first.
As always I love the clarity and focus you bring to some very complex topics. The one question this brings up for me is this idea of the center of the universe! It brings up this thought around the geometry of the universe. Is it possible to have a geometry where every point is the center of the universe? I would think from the perspective of an observer, this would always be the case. What comes to mind is the torus and how pervasive we see it in physical space. I know it’s tied to the role magnetic fields play. A topic for a future video?
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
It's time to let the cosmologists continue to flounder and make wild speculations. We need to continue to make improvements to telescopes and other instrumentation so we can begin to figure out what's happening out there. If JWST continues to see even more galaxies, mature structures, and stuff well beyond where reionization used to be expected, we can finally start to make progress.
So because you refuse to even entertain the possibilities implied by the AoE, which has been validated and confirmed repeatedly. Since its just "inconceivable", it must not be true. You are wrong, show me any papers from the archive server that support your statements. I cannot believe that you are calling both the WMAP & Planck data invalid and moot without a shred of proof other than the infamous "trust me bro" methodology. Sad.
1: "The CMB is the central element of the Principle documentary." It is not. The CMB is one part of that eclectic documentary. 2: "Sungenes is unable to asses astronomical observations." That's DOCTOR Sungenis to you, pal. 3: The CMB anisotropy problem was the result of "data manipulation." Who, exactly, in all three CMB projects are you accusing? Care to name them? There was no "data manipulation." That accusation is outrageous and should set off a lawsuit. 4: "The alignment with the ecliptic does suggest that the Earth is at the center of the universe, as Dr. Krauss realized, but that cannot be valid." And here we arrive at the impetus of the objection: It just can't be! But it can. At the very least, an understanding of inertial reference frames renders it legitimate to say that anything, anywhere, can be correctly regarded as being at the center. As John Broderick, Assistant Professor of Physics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University put it, "...you indeed are right and also those opposing… are right." Sean Carroll, research professor in the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics in the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Department of Physics, explains it in his article, Does the Earth move around the Sun? He writes, "It’s actually a more subtle question than you might think. The question is not 'Was Ptolemy right after all?', but rather 'in the context of modern theories of spacetime, is it even sensible to say `X goes around Y,’ or is that kind of statement necessarily dependent on an (ultimately arbitrary) choice of coordinate system?” How about you start with explaining inertial reference frames to folks -- but then they might come to an uncomfortable conclusion, eh?
Consider the following: a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics). b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand. c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary. d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do. e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
@@happyplace00 Oh and also, for you and/or anybody who reads this, you have my permission to copy and paste the above into your own files and/or elsewhere. It is a search for the real absolute truth concerning these items.
The Flat earthers use the success of the SAGNAC, and the failure of Einstein's SRT to explain the Michelson Morley experiment, to advance their geocentric model. They claim SAGNAC detected the ether medium, but use Einstein's failed concept of SRT to claim that the Earth is not in motion around the Sun.
@@JoeDeglman the funny part is if the just dropped the flat earth part they could easily have geocentrism as the failure to detect the ether could be evidence of the earth being stationary (and would eliminate their need for constant acceleration to explain gravity). I know that presents other problems and I'm not convinced of stationary geocentrism but it is interesting. The funny thing is they come at it from a Christian perspective but there weren't many (if any) Church fathers who held to flat earth.
@@rushthezeppelin If you are interested there is a channel by Steven B. Bryant. He has a video called... Relativity Fails To Explain A Key Experiment. He also has several mathematical papers online. Basically, he shows that when you assume the particle theory of light and use Special Relativity to compute the Michelson Morley Experiment it gives a speed of 7 km/sec orbital speed of the Earth. When you assume that light is a wave in a medium you can detect the Sun's interplanetary magnetic field with the interferometer. When you assume that light is an energy wave, then there are two opposing waves in the arms of the interferometer, which requires the Superposition of Waves Equation, to compute MMX. The right equation gives a speed of 30 km/sec instead of the 7 computed using SRT. The MMX is a result of detecting anisotropy of the Sun's solar wind and the Earth's orbit through it. The second leg of the experiment requires a 90 degree wait of 3 months.
@@JoeDeglman You are just plain wrong. Special relativity explains the MM-experiment perfectly. I don't know where do you come up with such complete bullshit. Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics. General relativity is pure bullshit, Ian the Quackhole.
4:40 this is a fallacy. It wouldn't mean that all of science is wrong because it's theoretical physics in the first place, not natural science. So it would be that the presuppositions are incorrect, not that "all of science" would be wrong
@@KennyT187 that is wrong. Cosmology isn't an empirical science BECAUSE while you satisfy 1 fundamental part of the scientific method which is observe, the empirical result comes from the hypothesis test which involves manipulating your presumed cause to get the effect of the natural phenomena observed. There is no viable hypothesis in cosmology, which means no test, which means no empirical result. Astrophysics is pseudoscience for this reason
@@2Storyz I'm sorry but that is just loads of BS. You clearly aren't aware how well the lambda-CDM model of the universe fits all the observations when you make claims like that. It does have it's problems, but it is the best model of the universe yet. Stay in school.
We might not be the actual center, but light comes To us from a 360 degree circle… we only have one cosmological common perspective…. And just as unwelcomed as the concept of being the center of the universe, so can the earth being flat not ever explain the axis of evil right?
Hes a Pseudo-Science-User who gets laughed outta the room. You WANT him to be right so you can be some Supporter-of-an-Underdog but thats wishful thinking. Stop being irrational and ignoring youre 'Idol' got debunked so hard he even lost many Subs.
he does look like evild dwarf euphemism or otherwise, im probably thinking about some greeks or itlanians or lebanese guys that are mid east philolisgist, he kinda looks like that tunisian guy talking about africans
I am so sorry youre ensnared in some pseudoscientists trap. Its always hard for me to see such a thing. Please know its not youre fault but you really need to get out. This youtuber here is hurting you with supporting muffled Logic and Broken Reasoning, among other things. And if you have an agressive Urge hearing this from me, that just shows all the more: this aint healthy, please get out.
@@loturzelrestaurant Honestly, I have no idea of what you are talking about. But perhaps you have not followed the conversations enough to understand. By the way, I do not think I am ensnared in anything remotely like a "pseudoscientists trap", whatever that is. I am not at all clear on the meaning of this phrase. So I looked it up. Sure enough this is a new word/phrase not known to the world until apparently recently??? By the way, they sell very reasonably priced books that explain punctuation, how to use apostrophes, and proper capitalization too. You should consider the investment. It could help with spelling too. Just a quick point of reference here: when the word you use has a red underline, the TH-cam overlords are telling you that there is a spelling error. Just saying. But understand that I appreciate your expression of sorrow.
That the earth is at the center of the universe is a problem the cosmologists absolutely must address. It is their map, it is their data, it is their conclusion(although an unstated one). Fortunately you dropped the "bad religion" label regarding the movie, The Principle. If the map does in fact show that the earth is at the center of the universe and if the map is correctly constituted, that would be a startling result. A nearly unbelievable result. But the argument that the CMB map must be wrong because the earth cannot possibly be at the center of the universe is not a compelling argument. The cosmologists have apparently painted themselves into a corner with this map and it is for them to find their way out. Ian the Shrill should address this problem, but I am betting he will not. Maybe the Ultimate Screamer can figure it out and give us a post laced with CAPS. Or maybe they will concede that the CMB map is not good science. That too would be a startling result. Or maybe some of the other trolls...Midlander the Mindless, Deipatrous the Depraved, SkyVenom the Toothless, Tex Robinson (from Lost in Nasa Space), Plunderer of Darkness will give it a go. Thanks for the list Bushie!
>> the argument that the CMB map must be wrong because the earth cannot possibly be at the center of the universe is not a compelling argument Agreed. In addition once relativity is rejected for its obvious contradictions. Mickelson-Morely leads to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is stationary. There is also the lack of curvature and the obvious fraud of space agencies . Some of us get it others like Robitaille a still a little slow on the uptake :)
@@decadent. Just to be clear, my point was about the form of the argument. I am not a scientist and my unscientific wager is that the CMB map is fiction. The proof of this is ably presented by PMR. The idea that the earth is stationary is not a good bet. If I were in your boots, I'd keep the amount of my wager low, and get some serious odds like any long shot bet. Good luck.
@@sphereitis2433 Hey Mark, I am waiting for your answer. If you are right that the earth is not the center of the universe(and I do not doubt you on that assertion), then explain the axis of evil. It is Ok if you take a pass here, but you have to assert it in writing (the pass that is) or nobody will pay any further attention to your trolling ways. By the way, how is Ian doing? His comments are absent and I am worried he/she is not well.
Earth is in fact, at the center of the universe. However, that does not excuse ecliptic-plane symmetries in CMB data. By definition (of the standard model), space is expanding equally in every direction. Since earth's view is limited to only 13Blyr, earth is by definition at the center of that visible universe. Even if one contends the larger 42Blyr radius is in play vs CMB, it still does so as a perfect sphere with earth at the center (from earth's pov). It's spherical-symmetry that rules-out ecliptic-symmetries, not centrality.
Well that's because its thought the big bang came from a single point. It's very linear, theme park. It's what people want, I guess. The 1 ring to rule them all because other wise it just doesn't make any sense. Chewbacca living on a planet with ewoks, it just doesn't make sense.
@@michaelstiller2282 - You are correct. Physics wants it both ways, a finite single-point beginning vs an infinite-energy beginning (which makes no sense from a conservation of energy perspective). So Physics allows the public to believe theory is a point-source, teaching it through high-school. Only in second-year college is it gently and carefully introduced that the full energy of the universe was condensed, but as a mere drop in an infinite ocean of similarly condensed energy. Physics then goes on to hand-wave a faster-then-light "inflation" model, but that's a whole other inconsistency...
@@tomnoyb8301 yeah, hyper inflated an already infinite source, cause we need more space. Um... Let me get my calculator. Infinity times, faster than light inflation equals the same thing we started with. Yep my calculator works.
I like your way of explaining things. Also, while I doubt we are the center of the universe, since I believe in a brane theory of universe creation, which would create a lumpy universe that would be difficult to determine a center for, I must say that logically, until we find an edge to the universe, we can not discount, nor any other world could discount, that we or they could be at the center of the universe. By the way, I have a silly video on magnetism, if you care to watch it. Not many people take it seriously, but with my theory, I intend to use magnets to create subspace radio, this year.
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
Is it me, or is science just another name for religion. It's getting to the point where anyone with a thinking brain is starting to doubt the highly "trained" specialists in many fields.
The anistropy maps self-negate themselves as they have no valid 3D foreground, middle ground, back ground or any other 3D holographic existence ... and thus anything of Copernicus appears as a small non sequitor question.
Looking forward to it, Dr Robitaille. Thanks as always.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
Thanks Dr. Robitaille. As a kid I was enchanted by science, before the oxymoron "settled science" became a cultural and political football, destroying science education. When so much about the Cosmos is not settled and never should be, it is an incredible liability to have people running science who are "know it alls". Upside down world. Keep up the great work!
Jip. When I was a child, I asked questions, but always just accepted that everything they say are true. 30 years later... and you start to see the problems youraelf. You even see how other people are brainwashed into believing everything and they will not allow you to question anything about the validity of a theory.
They protect their little world ao much that they try insults on people they have no clue of who you really are. Thus... their insults are laughable.
Agree! When I was young to my Christian and biologist professor mother, I was asking and asking question, like, ' if the universe never finish, what is behind? ' I have some of the answers now, bu I have to navigate into an Ocean of misinformation, to find some Captains Cook exploring the true Science.
@@mizmera Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@patriciaoudart1508 Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics.
Excellent. Clarity without apology; succinct and packed with info!
Clearly, a gauntlet has been thrown. I think you clearly hold the better hand, sir.
OMFG, you flat earth freaks need to wake the f*** up
@@sphereitis2433 LOL Threatened, are you? Methinks so. Name calling is such a fun sport, don't you think??
It really does speak volumes abut the positions held by the speaker, you know what I mean?
If you can't discuss the topic, but you want to make a statement, just say those works often, loudly, with LOTS of punctuation symbols thrown in for effect.
Predictable.
Packed with unsubstantiated bshit yeah
@@4n2earth22 I can say wtf I want . Free speech .threatened by who exactly lol
Ohhh shit , sorry did I offend you 4n 2earth or whatever you call yourself , I believe in science fact , not science fiction .the guy in the video really has no idea what he's talking about, for a start he's about 770,000 years astray on the CMB
Hope you and your editor are doing well, another thought provoking video. Very happy to see this today
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
"Data overinterpreted": This is a clear admission of engagement in wishful thinking, not science!
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham.
I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally
in that position once.
@@slevinchannel7589 What exactly in your opinion qualifies as "pseudo-science"? Is it "science" conducted by hypothesis alone, or "science" conducted through the presentation of evidence, well-founded research and experimental proof?
What "grade school science" is he getting wrong? Is it the "grade-school science" peddled by educational authorities that seeks to replace evidence with creationist myth? Or is it the "grade-school science" that is backed by well-founded scientific research, experimental proof and evidence?
You'll be ready and able to point to the errors that have been made and back up your assertions with good evidence? I won't hold my breath.
I look forward to your well-presented counter arguments. I'm sure the good Dr does also.
Precisely. The atheist cosmologists are offended by the very nature of the universe. Since the UNIVERSE ITSELF disagrees with their models, theories and hogwash.
"We now understand the history of the universe from the first trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second" - I've been fed that balderdash for a couple decades now. Dr. R, I really appreciate that you, Alexander Unzicker and others are pushing back against the careerists in the field formerly known as science.
Gravity only cosmology is a religion at this point. Dogmatic and ignorant of actual discovery.
Hasn't it always been a religion though! Only one with less logic than Venus or Cow worship...
@@newoneinblack You have no idea what you're talking about and Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@mylesrussell You have no idea what you're talking about and Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
The exciting thing about the Axis of Evil, IMO, is that it suggests there is new physics to be learned about light dispersion in the universe. If the Big Bang is fantasy, and there is more to CMB sometimes than just earth contamination, this strange alignment might exist as a unique identifier for every local place in the universe relative to a cosmic frame: so CMB could be used as a Cosmic Positioning System for universe travellers.
I only need to understand about 15 new concepts and I'll be able to get a remedial grasp on this topic.
Me too
Plainly elucidated. Thank you, Sir.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
Bravo good Doctor! you continue to do excellent work!
Is this 'Doctor' dazzling you with oh-so-complex Science or why do you legit not know that he gets things wrong
all the time? This is not science: He just blatantly gets things wrong. Sorry to burst youre bubble but its objectively
wrong what he says all the time.
i have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in Civil Engineering… i took a year of Astronomy in college 1986/87… and have followed astrophysics and cosmology closely since then. AND! i have watched it devolve into utter nonsense with a 40 year unfruitful hunt for dark matter/energy and now declaring a Multiverse in foolish exasperation. contrary to your smug presupposition… i understood the video because of my scientific background and because i’ve watched all of the good doctor’s videos.
btw~ Socrates was heralded as the wisest man alive… this is because he realized that he knew nothing. start there @@slevinchannel7589
I can follow most of this. But I always feel like the dumb kid in the back. I just realize that while I can comprehend it as you explain it, I couldn't tell you how to get the same results from the same information. Mad respect. Deepest gratitude.
The reason being you are the kid at the back , nothing wrong with that , go study and so real experiments and measurements then you won't be that kid anymore , while that you are just listening to a fake scientist double talking mumbojumbo thinking you are understanding anything, as in fact you know you aren't, just become the person you need to be to understand something not simple to understand.
It takes time to be able to reflect intelligently difficult concepts. Stay with it
Fundamental foundational differences in the standard model and the torus jet model, so only believing in one model of astrophysics would make the torus jet model mumbojumbo.
th-cam.com/video/jcDrKtKPBac/w-d-xo.html This is an awesome NASA video on Jupiters moon, Eo.
Notice NASA's labs are focusing on electromagnetism, not gravity. Gravity assists.
Also interesting to note that a plasma sensor was on the Voyager in 1977. Particle physics and the electromagnetic universe is where it's at and our higher institutions easily prove what they are pursuing. Check out NASA's various websites and research programs
@@RG-rl6hj Well , Sky Scholar has a lack of intelligently notions on everything he says , just a moron deprived of any mental faculties can't tell he is a charlatan .
@@RG-rl6hj this guy is a fraud
Dr Robitaille. you are a constant bright light in a world of chaotic embers, thank you.
Thanks Dr. Robitaille! That ending was impressive 🙂
Hello, Jose, see at the S0s tomorrow!
@@jons2447 Hi Jon 🙂
That was a good one! I truly hope the underground people have kept a complete account of your total work and dna... You are a concert pianist of thinking xx
Always a pleasure Dr. Robitaille, keep up your diligent search for real science. Keep safe
Mr. Sky Scholar, you have a very pleasant presence. Thank you for your short and informative videos. Your presentations are easy to understand, and engaging to view.
… and right.
@@johncampbell9216 Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Dave is a dope who wouldn’t know science if it gave birth to him.
@@johncampbell9216 and you believe some radiologist who claims the Sun is metallic hydrogen, says the CMB is from the oceans (wtf the telescopes never even pointed at Earth) and has no training in astronomy/cosmology whatsoever? Makes perfect sense. 😂
@@KennyT187 I ‘believe’ nothing. I follow the evidence that is presented. In this case by a spectroscopy professor who knows more about light radiation than every radiologist that ever lived. And he doesn’t SAY the sun is metallic hydrogen, he presents EVIDENCE that it is!
Astronomers and Cosmologists know shit about light, all they do is look at pictures and come up with wild fantastical theories about how what they see can fit into their creationist mythology. Because that makes no sense whatsoever!
The fact his evidence is over your head is your fault, not his.
Your details in providing such profound informational details are made very palatable.
Thank you
Best stand up I've seen for some time . How do you keep a straight face ?
good to see you again.
Damn. Really putting the anisotropy maps into the grave where they belong. Thanks, Dr. R.
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham.
I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally
in that position once.
@@slevinchannel7589 What has he gotten wrong, exactly?
@@Kalepsis Ohhhh, where do i even start...
Professor Dave made a whole Essay. You may skip the first 20 Minutes to get into the most objective things an the most-telling stuff.
You may as well though just go and ask ANY random science-youtuber of flat-earth-debunker. They can all discern Science from Pseudo-Science.
@@slevinchannel7589 So, you have no examples of anything incorrect. Dave was incorrect, and Robitaille responded to his video with corrections that are based in science instead of personal incredulity.
@@slevinchannel7589:
Dave is a half-baked moron who doesn't even understand high-school physics; he's just parroting whatever the mainstream says with zero regard to the underlying physics.
Robitaille made a response video to Dave where he savagely destroyed every single piece of Dave's nonsense to the point of obliteration.
And by the sound of it, you're even dumber and more ignorant than Dave is. You have my pity.
Learn something new everyday. Thank you. Watching from Blackpool Lancashire England 🇬🇧👍😎
Awesome as always Doc.
Thank you for this video and for separating theology from science, Dr. ROBITAILLE!
Sir, Thanks so much for the video and info.
I wish you All the best.
Awesome, thanks Dr Robitaille!
Pierre doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
Don't you think that cosmology has been agenda driven since the adoption of the Hubble model?
Thank you professor for keeping science rational and thoughtful
Hes a Pseudo-Science-User who gets laughed outta the room. You WANT him to be right so you can be some
Supporter-of-an-Underdog but thats wishful thinking. Stop being irrational and ignoring youre 'Idol' got debunked so hard
he even lost many Subs.
Love it. I'm still waiting for the "Cosmology Isn't Science" t-shirt.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@Romeo Prince Radiologist trying to be an expert on astronomy is like a general medical doctor trying to be an expert on neuropsychology - you get alot of shit wrong even though you think you know the basics but you f*ck up even on them.
That quote from Pryke was absolutely precious! As soon as I read it, I imagined the late Graham Chapman saying that in a sketch.
thank you, sky scholar!
Great science Dr. Robitaille! Greetings from the Netherlands...
Of course that is going to happen, they can't just subtract the Milky Way like they think they can. But the dipole aligned with ecliptic smacks of interference from the sun.
Or the possibility that the majority of the readings from WMAP and Planck originated from the earth. Which I suspect is what happened.
@@Kalepsis Planck is 1.5 million km away from the earth, how can it be from earth?
@@Kalepsis You are probably thinking of Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The large radio telescope at Bell Labs in New Jersey.
I think that in this video he is talking about trying to subtract the image of the galaxy as foreground noise.
@@Kalepsis WTF the WMAP and Planck were at L2, same as Webb, and they mapped the OUTER SPACE. You really can't be that thick. Also Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics.
And nothing was measured at L2. Don't you listen, Ian? You sad little man with a correspondence masters degree in fairy dust.
Thank you Dr. Robitaille
👍🏼 maybe it comes from the fact that the microwave background is generated from earths water
It is.
Enjoying your new book Dr. Scott!
@@xkguy I’m sure, but I’m not The Dr Scott of the EU. 😜
Where is the experimental proof that water at 300K can create black body radiation at 3K?
Dr. PM Robitaille said cmb was from Earth's water years ago.
First climate science and now cosmology. Have you looked into the LIGO findings?
Another great video.
Thanks for this.
This is the third time I’ve watched this video. Terrific!
The assumption is we observe from here and that makes the location of our observations hyper-limited in locational variability, it is not likely or logical to assume this makes us the center of anything except our ability to look outward. Any conclusion based on this is pure presupposition. It is much more likely that the apparent centeredness is an artifact of observational bias and not an actuality. Until we spread our observational center to light years across we cannot know one way or another.
Great video! As always.
Just had an MRI done and chatted to the tech about Dr Robitaille. He now knows who he is and the amazing work he's done in that field.
I was wondering if you see the alternator/generator in the picture at the 3:33 minute mark in your video? Living off grid building my own generators it stood out to me. Thank Ben for me discovering you. Eyes and ears open, no fear.
You always always shine! Cosmology mmmm not so much! Thanks for the revealing!
The earth is at the center of the WMAP, and that is all. It is of earthly origin.
I liked that :-)
Yep, it's terrestrial. The CMB is produced by the oceans of the Earth. And they think that Extragalactic and Interstellar signals can be discounted.
said, "and that is all (it should've been)"
@@eltonrobb6208 Like I said once, it's like trying to see what's in a picture, after someone splashed paint on it.
@@JoseSilveira-newhandleforYT Yep, I couldn't agree more.
Thank you so much for your videos.
Just a note, white text on white stars can be difficult to read.
Thanks again Dr R. Great videos. 👍
An observation made anywhere in our observable universe will always appear as if it was made in the center, because every point that now exists was before at the center of the big bang; we are expanding along with it, not removed from it, not looking at the universe from the side, but from within.
It's a hard concept to grasp, even for a physicist, but ask yourself this question: where is the absolute center of the universe? It's not a point, it doesn't have coordinates, it's not moving along an absolute axis. The center is everywhere, which is why every observation appears to us as if it's made with the earth in the center.
That planet over there? What about the furthest Galaxy we can observe certainly THAT isn't in the center right? Short answer, yes it's also in the center, just at great distance from us after also expanding along with everything else that was once in the center of the big bang.
Imagine you have all of space/time/reality in a small infentesimal point that exploded to the size of the universe, where is the center of that point? Is it, outside the universe? No. There are no sides or corners here, just as there is no last number in an infinite system, no final digit to pi.
Don't think of the universe as having reference points/axis moving along in a simplistic coordinate system, but rather think of the universe as itself being the coordinate system.
While things within the universe can move, expand and contract relative to everything else in the system, it will always appear that any observation made from any point within the system (observable universe) is indistinguishable from the "center" for precisely that reason.
I prefer using the term of being "in the middle, along with everything else" as opposed to being in the center, unique in the universe.
That was awesome, Thanks!
is my "microwave oven" in the exact center of universe according to WMAP? Please don't let it be my neighbors, his head is big enough as it is .. Thanks for the video :-)
would it be possible to do some videos that a layman might understand? You keep mentioning the dipole, but I don't know what that is and googling it wan't much help either.
In the video, there's 2 renditions of the same sky map. The line in both maps, be it a straight line or a squiggly line, is the same thing. It represents stationary observer scanning the stars from horizon to horizon, the line is the motion your head would make. In one map it's squiggly, because it's is a scientific map. When you take the line and straighten it. You get the other map. Now in the map you can see a color pattern. Basically, the map is describing something like this. Your in the middle of a dark tunnel, with 2 open ends where you can see day light. You know your in the middle of the tunnel because you can see both ends from inside. The pattern is dark to light. If I asked you to leave the tunnel, it would be very obvious how to get out. So basically the map says the earth is in the middle of a "tunnel," meaning the middle of the universe. Now when you look up at the sky. You are looking out from in our galaxy. The pattern follows the plane of our solar system. So ether the earth, the solar system and the galaxy are special, cause we in the middle, and everything is on the same plane. Or the data used in making the image isn't the radiation from the big bang.
That's because it does not exist or matter . This guy is a con artist and a fake . Not a scientist, has no idea what he's talking about, I think the dipole is the hole where they put all the dipshits , he would know where that is . If you want fact , not fiction then might I suggest you look up Niel degrasse Tyson or doctor Brian Cox , they both know what they are talking about when it comes to cosmology and the world of astro physics. Seriously - this is easy to understand because what they speak is the truth
@@sphereitis2433 "This guy is a con artist and a fake . Not a scientist, has no idea what he's talking about," I've read quite a few of your posts here, Super Dave Osborne's lover, and so far you haven't made a single scientific rebuttal of anything. Why don't you and Quackhole Quantti go and find a warm corner and a blanket together and you can cry on each other's shoulders as you watch your magical world of astrophysics crumble into fairy dust.
Great info!
Does anyone know what a pole is?
Magnetic Pole.
S pole
N pole
A dipole has 2 poles.
Quadrupole has 4 poles.
IIRC.
People who use their minds to think of new possibilities aren't scientists. I think I finely understood something you said:)
How isn't the Earth and everyone, not at the center of the known Universe. If it's the same distance in every direction?
Regarding the position of the 'CMB', how do they know that it is at the primordial state of the universe. We can only observe the 'observable' universe from our position here on Earth. We have no idea at all about where we and our observable universe is within the entire universe which (they say) originated with the big bang.
Its like they are trying to describe an entire house by standing in the kitchen looking at the kitchen walls - we have no information beyond the walls of the room we are in (our 'observable universe').
So even if by using their methods they can describe the kitchen, they have no ability to claim that the kitchen in some way represents the entire house!!!
Looks like I'm the only one who wanted to watch the three prior videos you mentioned.
Links please.
He told you where to find them. Go look em up!
@@4n2earth22
Gee, I never thought of that. Thank you so much.
If I pointed an audience to other sources, I would take the trouble to include links out of common courtesy. There are plenty of others in his video description. I like to think Robitaille simply forgot to include them and does not share your 'let them eat cake' attitude.
Just below the video is Show more. Find it and click on it to expand.
@@johnkesich8696 Thank you sir for your lovely and constructive criticism.
The truth is, folks like the professor are pretty darn busy, and as a common courtesy they provide content as they see fit. And yes, you are right about the plenty of other links in his presentations. If you attend to his words, you will see that he does not provide them all, but usually only the ones he is directly quoting from for the main points of his talk. Plenty of references that do not include a link, that is a fact.
Your last comment clearly reveals the disconnect your mind has with the written word. No problem here about that. You are, thankfully, free to say what you think. Your assumptions of my 'attitude' are indeed your freedom in action, but from my perspective, clearly wrong and unfounded.
So, I guess, dude, enjoy your pie. Cake. Whatever.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Dig in!!!
@@ronusa1976 "click show more"
I did and while there are numerous links I did not see any to the referenced videos. Care to point them out.
You made a previous video that seemed to prove the CMB is caused by water molecules in the ocean. How does this video relate to that?
Thanks Professor 💗🇨🇦
Dr. R., re. your note a 8:33, a large survey of red-shift values of objects in all directions we can observe indicates that our local galaxy group is near the center of a series of concentric spheres of similarly quantized red-shifted objects. Think of a red and white 3D target with our local galaxy group near the center of the 3D bullseye. Thus, regardless of the findings of invalid CMB anisotropy maps, this would seem to independantly indicate that we ARE near the center of the universe. Something which itself indicates that the Anthropic Principle, which is anathema to the naturalist and materialist Faith, may well be true. Our local galaxy group very well may be in a "favored position" - independent of botched Anisotropy maps which imply the same thing invalidly.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
Thank you Dr. Robitaille for being a real scientist. I appreciate your effort to combat the dogma of modern science, it seem settled science is creeping in everywhere and has been for a very long time. The state of affairs in modern cosmology is a sad read, thank you for pointing out what you find to be wrong and/or questionable in cosmology. Greetings from Norway.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
When someone over-analyzes data, it sounds like there was some preconceived bias from the get-go, i.e. let's analyze this beyond the scope of the data so it supports our theory, otherwise direct analysis says our theory is wrong. Even is cosmology, two wrong don't make a right.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
I've always known the earth was the center of the universe, but what most scientists don't understand is that I am the center of the universe, so the earth being center is just a first approximation.
The white text needs a dark colour behind it, for ease of reading.
Indeed, the "univerise is still weird and interesting"!
I discovered that in my Junior Classical Mechanics course (1983) when we studied non-linear oscillators and chaos, etc.
"The simple things you see are all complicated ...",
"Substitute" ~ The Who.
Warm-meant Warning: This channel here? Its by defintion pseudoscience. Means, it pretends to be science and dazzles people to get Views. You may have not noticed but its kinda objective fact that he gets gradeschool science wrong all the time and some more. Thats not youre fault; he's just good at pretending. But its time to get away from this sham.
I hope this warming reaches you and helps you out, as i do know its hard to get away from frauds. I was literally
in that position once.
Can't count all the times I've brought up the Copernian principle, only I'd never realized that it's regarded as a law. Always had the hardest time explaining it to my mom, at least at first.
Thank you
you are great thank you for show us
As always I love the clarity and focus you bring to some very complex topics. The one question this brings up for me is this idea of the center of the universe! It brings up this thought around the geometry of the universe. Is it possible to have a geometry where every point is the center of the universe? I would think from the perspective of an observer, this would always be the case. What comes to mind is the torus and how pervasive we see it in physical space. I know it’s tied to the role magnetic fields play. A topic for a future video?
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
So if the interpretation of this data is flawed.....how do we know that the interpretations of the rest of the CMB data is correct?
it is time for Stellar Metamorphosis.
I agree. The big bang stuff has been dead for years now. Time to move on.
It's time to let the cosmologists continue to flounder and make wild speculations. We need to continue to make improvements to telescopes and other instrumentation so we can begin to figure out what's happening out there. If JWST continues to see even more galaxies, mature structures, and stuff well beyond where reionization used to be expected, we can finally start to make progress.
Earth may not be in the center of the universe but IT IS in the center of the visible universe 🤓
Thank you, Doctor Robitaille. The Earth was not at the center of the Universe.
And what makes you the last word on this?
So because you refuse to even entertain the possibilities implied by the AoE, which has been validated and confirmed repeatedly. Since its just "inconceivable", it must not be true. You are wrong, show me any papers from the archive server that support your statements. I cannot believe that you are calling both the WMAP & Planck data invalid and moot without a shred of proof other than the infamous "trust me bro" methodology. Sad.
So you still alive...
1: "The CMB is the central element of the Principle documentary."
It is not. The CMB is one part of that eclectic documentary.
2: "Sungenes is unable to asses astronomical observations."
That's DOCTOR Sungenis to you, pal.
3: The CMB anisotropy problem was the result of "data manipulation."
Who, exactly, in all three CMB projects are you accusing? Care to name them? There was no "data manipulation." That accusation is outrageous and should set off a lawsuit.
4: "The alignment with the ecliptic does suggest that the Earth is at the center of the universe, as Dr. Krauss realized, but that cannot be valid."
And here we arrive at the impetus of the objection: It just can't be!
But it can. At the very least, an understanding of inertial reference frames renders it legitimate to say that anything, anywhere, can be correctly regarded as being at the center. As John Broderick, Assistant Professor of Physics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University put it, "...you indeed are right and also those opposing… are right."
Sean Carroll, research professor in the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics in the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) Department of Physics, explains it in his article, Does the Earth move around the Sun?
He writes, "It’s actually a more subtle question than you might think. The question is not 'Was Ptolemy right after all?', but rather 'in the context of modern theories of spacetime, is it even sensible to say `X goes around Y,’ or is that kind of statement necessarily dependent on an (ultimately arbitrary) choice of coordinate system?”
How about you start with explaining inertial reference frames to folks -- but then they might come to an uncomfortable conclusion, eh?
Ben from SuspiciousObservers recently quoted a paper: "let's ignore data and stick to models"
That's science, I guess.
@TheReaverOfDarkness Curious to learn your thoughts on our position in the universe!
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
go on thats the way to think and talk love your coment and the question
@@happyplace00 Thank you. Just trying to implement 'critical thinking'. It seems that modern science still has some explaining to do.
@@happyplace00 Oh and also, for you and/or anybody who reads this, you have my permission to copy and paste the above into your own files and/or elsewhere. It is a search for the real absolute truth concerning these items.
Scientific Progress goes "Boink"
Calvin & Hobbs
Darn. I was hoping Earth was the center of the Universe. 🤣
Great to learn scientific cosmological debate info. Thank you!
The Flat earthers use the success of the SAGNAC, and the failure of Einstein's SRT to explain the Michelson Morley experiment, to advance their geocentric model. They claim SAGNAC detected the ether medium, but use Einstein's failed concept of SRT to claim that the Earth is not in motion around the Sun.
@@JoeDeglman the funny part is if the just dropped the flat earth part they could easily have geocentrism as the failure to detect the ether could be evidence of the earth being stationary (and would eliminate their need for constant acceleration to explain gravity). I know that presents other problems and I'm not convinced of stationary geocentrism but it is interesting. The funny thing is they come at it from a Christian perspective but there weren't many (if any) Church fathers who held to flat earth.
@@rushthezeppelin If you are interested there is a channel by Steven B. Bryant. He has a video called... Relativity Fails To Explain A Key Experiment. He also has several mathematical papers online.
Basically, he shows that when you assume the particle theory of light and use Special Relativity to compute the Michelson Morley Experiment it gives a speed of 7 km/sec orbital speed of the Earth.
When you assume that light is a wave in a medium you can detect the Sun's interplanetary magnetic field with the interferometer. When you assume that light is an energy wave, then there are two opposing waves in the arms of the interferometer, which requires the Superposition of Waves Equation, to compute MMX.
The right equation gives a speed of 30 km/sec instead of the 7 computed using SRT.
The MMX is a result of detecting anisotropy of the Sun's solar wind and the Earth's orbit through it. The second leg of the experiment requires a 90 degree wait of 3 months.
@@JoeDeglman You are just plain wrong. Special relativity explains the MM-experiment perfectly. I don't know where do you come up with such complete bullshit. Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html. Astrophysics is not physics.
General relativity is pure bullshit, Ian the Quackhole.
4:40 this is a fallacy. It wouldn't mean that all of science is wrong because it's theoretical physics in the first place, not natural science. So it would be that the presuppositions are incorrect, not that "all of science" would be wrong
Cosmology is an empirical science which means it's based on observations. Theories are there to explain those observations but they are secondary.
@@KennyT187 that is wrong. Cosmology isn't an empirical science BECAUSE while you satisfy 1 fundamental part of the scientific method which is observe, the empirical result comes from the hypothesis test which involves manipulating your presumed cause to get the effect of the natural phenomena observed. There is no viable hypothesis in cosmology, which means no test, which means no empirical result. Astrophysics is pseudoscience for this reason
@@2Storyz I'm sorry but that is just loads of BS. You clearly aren't aware how well the lambda-CDM model of the universe fits all the observations when you make claims like that. It does have it's problems, but it is the best model of the universe yet. Stay in school.
We might not be the actual center, but light comes To us from a 360 degree circle… we only have one cosmological common perspective….
And just as unwelcomed as the concept of being the center of the universe, so can the earth being flat not ever explain the axis of evil right?
this is very good physiognomy for a scholar, looks like a philologist of the ancient middle east
Hes a Pseudo-Science-User who gets laughed outta the room. You WANT him to be right so you can be some
Supporter-of-an-Underdog but thats wishful thinking. Stop being irrational and ignoring youre 'Idol' got debunked so hard
he even lost many Subs.
careful with tulpas if you keep talking to people in your head theyll start talking back, and who knows if youll be the one left in control
he does look like evild dwarf euphemism or otherwise, im probably thinking about some greeks or itlanians or lebanese guys that are mid east philolisgist, he kinda looks like that tunisian guy talking about africans
Thanks
If I were Copernicus,I'd be rolling in my grave. Turning into copper. Tarnishing.👍🤓no no. Thank you Doc. 🖖💖✌
Still no answer... Can anyone answer this question: Explain the axis of evil.
I am so sorry youre ensnared in some pseudoscientists trap. Its always hard for me to see such a thing. Please know its not youre fault but you really need to get out. This youtuber here is hurting you with supporting muffled Logic and Broken Reasoning, among other things. And if you have an agressive Urge hearing this from me,
that just shows all the more: this aint healthy, please get out.
@@loturzelrestaurant Honestly, I have no idea of what you are talking about. But perhaps you have not followed the conversations enough to understand. By the way, I do not think I am ensnared in anything remotely like a "pseudoscientists trap", whatever that is. I am not at all clear on the meaning of this phrase. So I looked it up. Sure enough this is a new word/phrase not known to the world until apparently recently???
By the way, they sell very reasonably priced books that explain punctuation, how to use apostrophes, and proper capitalization too. You should consider the investment. It could help with spelling too. Just a quick point of reference here: when the word you use has a red underline, the TH-cam overlords are telling you that there is a spelling error. Just saying. But understand that I appreciate your expression of sorrow.
@@DrWhom And you are an as who cannot find its hole. I am going back to calling you diapercack. It fits you so well.
That the earth is at the center of the universe is a problem the cosmologists absolutely must address. It is their map, it is their data, it is their conclusion(although an unstated one). Fortunately you dropped the "bad religion" label regarding the movie, The Principle. If the map does in fact show that the earth is at the center of the universe and if the map is correctly constituted, that would be a startling result. A nearly unbelievable result. But the argument that the CMB map must be wrong because the earth cannot possibly be at the center of the universe is not a compelling argument. The cosmologists have apparently painted themselves into a corner with this map and it is for them to find their way out.
Ian the Shrill should address this problem, but I am betting he will not. Maybe the Ultimate Screamer can figure it out and give us a post laced with CAPS. Or maybe they will concede that the CMB map is not good science. That too would be a startling result.
Or maybe some of the other trolls...Midlander the Mindless, Deipatrous the Depraved, SkyVenom the Toothless, Tex Robinson (from Lost in Nasa Space), Plunderer of Darkness will give it a go. Thanks for the list Bushie!
>> the argument that the CMB map must be wrong because the earth cannot possibly be at the center of the universe is not a compelling argument
Agreed.
In addition once relativity is rejected for its obvious contradictions. Mickelson-Morely leads to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is stationary. There is also the lack of curvature and the obvious fraud of space agencies . Some of us get it others like Robitaille a still a little slow on the uptake :)
@@decadent. Just to be clear, my point was about the form of the argument. I am not a scientist and my unscientific wager is that the CMB map is fiction. The proof of this is ably presented by PMR. The idea that the earth is stationary is not a good bet. If I were in your boots, I'd keep the amount of my wager low, and get some serious odds like any long shot bet. Good luck.
We know earth is not the centre of the universe , we don't claim that it is , we already know where it is
@@sphereitis2433 Well then, explain that axis of evil thing.
@@sphereitis2433 Hey Mark, I am waiting for your answer. If you are right that the earth is not the center of the universe(and I do not doubt you on that assertion), then explain the axis of evil. It is Ok if you take a pass here, but you have to assert it in writing (the pass that is) or nobody will pay any further attention to your trolling ways. By the way, how is Ian doing? His comments are absent and I am worried he/she is not well.
Earth is in fact, at the center of the universe. However, that does not excuse ecliptic-plane symmetries in CMB data. By definition (of the standard model), space is expanding equally in every direction. Since earth's view is limited to only 13Blyr, earth is by definition at the center of that visible universe. Even if one contends the larger 42Blyr radius is in play vs CMB, it still does so as a perfect sphere with earth at the center (from earth's pov). It's spherical-symmetry that rules-out ecliptic-symmetries, not centrality.
Interesting, thank you.
Well that's because its thought the big bang came from a single point. It's very linear, theme park. It's what people want, I guess. The 1 ring to rule them all because other wise it just doesn't make any sense. Chewbacca living on a planet with ewoks, it just doesn't make sense.
@@michaelstiller2282 - You are correct. Physics wants it both ways, a finite single-point beginning vs an infinite-energy beginning (which makes no sense from a conservation of energy perspective). So Physics allows the public to believe theory is a point-source, teaching it through high-school. Only in second-year college is it gently and carefully introduced that the full energy of the universe was condensed, but as a mere drop in an infinite ocean of similarly condensed energy. Physics then goes on to hand-wave a faster-then-light "inflation" model, but that's a whole other inconsistency...
@@tomnoyb8301 yeah, hyper inflated an already infinite source, cause we need more space. Um... Let me get my calculator. Infinity times, faster than light inflation equals the same thing we started with. Yep my calculator works.
I like your way of explaining things. Also, while I doubt we are the center of the universe, since I believe in a brane theory of universe creation, which would create a lumpy universe that would be difficult to determine a center for, I must say that logically, until we find an edge to the universe, we can not discount, nor any other world could discount, that we or they could be at the center of the universe. By the way, I have a silly video on magnetism, if you care to watch it. Not many people take it seriously, but with my theory, I intend to use magnets to create subspace radio, this year.
Sky Scholar doesn't know what he's talking about. th-cam.com/video/Zi_mQ0sKOfo/w-d-xo.html
@@KennyT187 Oh yeah, he does, Quackhole. Check this out, pure fun to watch I'm Not a Professor Dave get pummeled. th-cam.com/video/JRrTvP95kf4/w-d-xo.html.
Is it me, or is science just another name for religion. It's getting to the point where anyone with a thinking brain is starting to doubt the highly "trained" specialists in many fields.
lol like yes
RIP Catholic Geocentrism.
So all the professionals are wrong?
Science: 2+1.321 and other variables = 4
The anistropy maps self-negate themselves as they have no valid 3D foreground, middle ground, back ground or any other 3D holographic existence ... and thus anything of Copernicus appears as a small non sequitor question.
Bad again, the possibility of we being in an special place in the universe is really possible. In fact we are located in a void
LoL you are going hard on these rich telescope kids in their silly ivory towers I love it.
The Earth is not the center of the Universe, I am.
That's the Egocentric view and general relativity allows just that !
Everybody has their own frame of reference. Center on, John Walker!
gonna be some bruising after that beat down...heh