Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Strong and Weak Geocentrism: What Does Tomazawa's Paper Mean?

Special thanks to John Martin, who posted some excellent questions in a comment related to my earlier citation of Yukio Tomazawa's remarkable August 2011 mathematical proof concerning the CMB dipole in a standard "Friedman" type General Relativity universe.

What's so remarkable about it?

Well, according to Tomazawa, in a standard "Big Bang" universe of the type we are all constantly assured is the way things "really are"....

The CMB dipole cannot exist in the first place!

Since the CMB dipole does in fact exist........


Tomozawa's paper is telling us that the mathematics disprove the Friedman "balloon type" universe.

John Martin raises some excellent questions which I address below.

Thanks, John!


Hi John:

"I read over the paper which was devastating for the BB cosmology."

>> Completely devastating. But if the math involves false assumptions in the first place, what good is the equals sign in the middle?

jm: "However the paper seems to indicate the Hubble law is valid"

>> Yup. That's one pretty large assumption built into the math right there.

jm: "and the solar system is moving along towards the great attractor."

>> Of course, under Relativity the above sentence means exactly the same thing as saying "The Great Attractor is moving along towards the solar system".

The mere fact that Tomazawa prefers the first formulation means nothing at all, because under the mathematical assumptions of Relativity, the two statements involve no physical difference whatever. All Relativity can describe objectively is a relative motion, never an absolute motion.

Interestingly, modern physicists seem to have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on, since they will use their theory mathematically, but report their equations' results from the philosophical preference of heliocentrism- a position ruled out by their own math!

jm: As such, it seems to me that the paper is only a half way point in regards to geocentrism.

>> Yes, as I said to Paul the paper proves from within Relativity what I call the "Weak Geocentric Principle"- that is, the idea that the Copernican Principle is wrong, and that earth does occupy a special position in the universe.

The "Strong Geocentric Principle" is not possible within the assumptions of Relativity- Relativity must be wrong in order for the "Strong" Geocentric Principle to be true.

The "Strong Geocentric Principle" is what the Church authoritatively taught in 1633, and universally held for at least 1800 years:

The Earth isn't moving.

There has never been a scientific experiment which contradicted that teaching, to this day.

Every scientific experiment ever designed to detect the assumed motion of Earth around Sun, has instead shown the Earth cannot be orbiting the Sun.

Which is why Relativity was adopted in the first place, along with its foundational assumption that absolute motion can never be determined by any experiment.

jm: "Can you comment on this?"

>> I am actually going to turn this exchange into a post on the blog- thanks!

jm: "For example, do the conclusions of the paper change if hubbles law is rejected?"

>> If Hubble's law is rejected, then we have no expanding universe. If we have no expanding universe then Relativity (as employed in the current consensus cosmology, at least) is done. If Relativity is done then we have utterly devastating observational evidence of geocentrism, since:

1. Michelson Morley and related experiments would have shown the Earth is not orbiting the Sun, and

2. All cosmological observations would show Earth at the center of the universe (the only way around this would have been the "balloon" universe of Relativity- take that away and all the observations put us at the center).

jm: "It seems so to me and as such the paper can only be used to show relativity and BB cosmology dos not predict a CMB dipole, thereby invalidating those models."

>> That is more than enough.

UPDATE 1/25: The paper actually does much more than merely show the Friedman "balloon universe" solutions failed to predict the CMB dipole.

It claims much, much more than that.

Tomazawa is saying the the Friedman universe *cannot allow* for a CMB dipole.

There is a difference, and it is a big one- a huge one.

Tomazawa is saying that he has disproven the mathematics upon which the entire concordance model of cosmology is premised.

That is very, very much more than merely proposing that a given observation was not predicted by the model.

jm: "It also shows that if hubbles law is assumed, then the universe does have a center, but that center is moving through space."

>> Yes, because expansion is assumed. What is interesting is that even if we assume a center of expansion........

It sure can't be the Big Bang singularity, can it?

Since we are relatively close to that center even under Tomazawa's Relativistic maths, and since the Big Bang is at least 13.7 billion light years away from that center...........

I think the mainstream cosmology consensus has a few rather large problems on its hands.

The wrong turn was taken in 1905, when the results of the Michelson Morley experiment were wrongly interpreted under the outlandish assumptions of a brand new theory of physics invented *precisely to explain that experiment's puzzling failure to show the expected motion of Earth around Sun*.

That is, the Theory of Relativity.

Once Relativity falls- and it certainly looks to me like that day is at hand.........

We're all geocentrists again.

No comments:

Post a Comment