There are also some vestigial indications of why he prefers to debate without an opponent (it is, after all, so much easier that way).
First, the progress:
The smaller effects align with our galactic plane,
>> The first few multipoles (that is, the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole) align with the ecliptic and equinoxes of Earth (or, if you prefer to employ the heliocentric frame, with the ecliptic of our local system, and the equinoxes of the "insignificant" third planet).
Click the link above to see a graphic representation (from the heliocentric point of view, of course) of these astonishing alignments of the "oldest light in the universe", according to the standard model, the "leftover radiation from the Big Bang", which are inexplicably oriented with the planes of relative motion of Earth and Sun- a supposedly insignificant, run-of-the-mill, "nothing special" local system.
First question: How did the Universe end up aligning its "first light" to the planes of relative motion of an "insignificant" local system which would not come into existence until billions of years after the fact?
Second question: Perhaps the insignificant local system is not "insignificant" after all?
Third question: Perhaps the local system did not come into existence billions of years after the fact?
Fourth question: Perhaps the assumptions concerning relative motion which have led us to these paradoxes ought to be re-examined, and other assumptions considered?
and also with each other in such a way that it suggests that it's not just our relative motion anymore.
>>More precisely, its suggests that your metaphysical assumptions concerning the relative motions involved cannot account for these observations.
Therefore we are permitted (required) to cast the greatest critical examination upon these assumptions.
The first thing we ought to do is re-consider the utterly ignored little detail:
All of modern cosmology is based upon a Theory of Relativity which itself was adopted precisely in order to explain the failure of all experiments ever attempted, to directly detect the universally-assumed orbital motion of the Earth.
Relativity explains these failures by postulating that the experiments incorrectly assume the existence of an aether.
This postulate, in turn, is exactly responsible for the foundational difficulty facing observational science in our time:
There exists an irreducible contradiction between the postulate of Relativity concerning the aether, and the observations of science concerning quantum phenomena.
As a matter of science, when a postulate conflicts with an observation, it is the postulate which must bend.
And it is in fact bending.
Whether called "dark matter", "dark energy", "quantum foam", "zero point energy", "energy of empty space that isn't zero", "spacetime curvature", or what have you........
All of these metaphysical entities are advanced in order to explain observations which would be consistent with the existence of an aether.
I personally would suggest that all of these metaphysical entities are, in fact, simply new labels for the aether.
The new labels are employed because Relativists would be deeply inconvenienced by having to admit that a foundational postulate of Relativity theory- especially the foundational postulate which explained away the failure of all experiments to detect the motion of the Earth around the Sun- was wrong.
No one knows what causes this alignment.
>> Just exactly as no one knows what causes the dipole, quadrupole, octupole, and higher-order terms in the first place. Just like no one knows what causes the CMB (despite your assertion that it "is" the remnant of a Big Bang; this too is a metaphysical assumption; a bit of scientifically-based philosophy. It is certainly not a scientific conclusion; that is, it is not the outcome of a crucial, repeatable experimental result.
It could just be chance.
>> That is 99.99% unlikely.
The probability that it's just chance is about one in a thousand, but given other coincidences in our cosmos, this may not be as significant as it sounds.
>> It is fair to say that since we have only one universe to examine, statistical probability arguments are not, in themselves, conclusive.
But of course neither are metaphysical speculations about relative motion conclusive.
At the end of the day we must recognize highly anomalous observations as Red Dots.
It is the essence of scientific discovery not to ignore the Red Dots.
It is, unfortunately and by the very nature of things, sometimes the path of least resistance when it comes to career advancement, peer acceptance, and institutional funding, to ignore them.
This is why, as Max Planck famously said, "science progresses funeral by funeral".
Nevertheless, it appears as though something mysterious, something unexplained, is making the colors align. One explanation is that the colors are not aligned just for us, but everywhere. This suggests that the universe is not isotropic, and so the simple Big Bang cosmology is wrong. In my own speculations, I suspect this to be the case.
>> The above paragraph is remarkable progress.
If I have succeeded in doing nothing else here, at least I have succeeded in introducing Paul to these observations, and I can see that he is considering them.
His ridiculous question below:
So why would a geocentrist use some of the best new evidence that earth is moving to argue that the earth isn't moving? I have no idea.
>> Has the following answer:
This evidence does not show any absolute motion. How could it? Paul's entire interpretation is based upon a metaphysical assumption of absolute motion, which the Theory of Relativity explicitly states can never be detected by any means!
Also, the CMB Axis is not advanced to show the Earth is not moving around the Sun. The evidence that the Earth is not moving around the Sun has stood uncontradicted experimentally for one hundred and twenty five years, since the Michelson Morley experiment of 1887.
The CMB Axis is advanced against the Copernican Principle, which is adopted by Relativity as another postulate, and which has poisoned our culture and our worldview, with its metaphysical assumption:
"We're nothing special".
Well, according to the CMB alignments, we apparently are.
According to the Michelson Morley and related experiments, we certainly are.
Much more to come.