/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9762250]

So, /sci/...

Why is the CMB aligned with the Solar System's equinox plane and its ecliptic plane???

It's very unlikely that it's just Pareidolia...

[Anonymous No.9762261]

Because what we think is CMB is probably just a byproduct of our own star.

[Anonymous No.9762281]

CMB proves we are at the center of the universe, the heliocentric model is going through a death at the moment (finally).

[Anonymous No.9762316]

Because we're moving around the Galaxy.

[Anonymous No.9762349]

>>9762316
Lay off the acid.

[Anonymous No.9762401]

>>9762281
I've heard that the ptolemaic system and the Kepler are the same too

[Anonymous No.9762510]

>>9762401
Yes, it not only works mathematically, but it is also experimentally true, unlike the heliocentric model.

[Anonymous No.9762562]

>this thread

[Anonymous No.9762579]

>>9762510
any links for the theoretical part and the experiments associated with it?

[Anonymous No.9762627]

>>9762261
Interesting. I read that the CMB is aligned with Earth's equator, which is at a 23.5 degree angle to the orbital plane. Why would the Sun's output be linked to our axial tilt?

[Anonymous No.9763276]

>>9762250
bump for unconventional thought

[Anonymous No.9763284]

>but it is also experimentally true, unlike the heliocentric model.

[Anonymous No.9763310]

>>9762261
What effect on cosmology would it have if the CMB turned out to be just a byproduct of the Sun? I can hardly imagine.

[Anonymous No.9763365]

>>9763284
They are the same model desu; but now it's that the CMB matches the geocentric model, making a very important distinction

[Anonymous No.9763371]

>>9762250
Maybe because it's being modified by the Earth's magnetic field upon coming towards us. Were these measurements taken from far outside the Earth's magnetic field?

[Anonymous No.9763397]

>>9763371
WMAP data was confirmed by the Planck satellite data. The Planck craft was on average 400,000 kilometers away from the second Lagrange point (L2). L2 was 1,500,000 kilometers away from earth. So the Planck craft was ~2 million km away from earth while earth's magnetic field expands out about 65,000 km lmao

[Anonymous No.9763424]

>>9762250
Mere coincidence goyim. Don't think anything of it. You're just a collection of random matter and nothing more. Don't let it worry you and continue believing your existence is random, meaningless and pointless.

[Anonymous No.9763946]

Bump

[Anonymous No.9763961]

>>9762281
from the standpoint of special relativity, we might as well be at the center. almost everything is moving away from us in all directions and the CMB is extremely uniform--within 0.0002 Kelvin. the nature of our reference frame might not be unique, but no one can say that any other frame is more central than ours is.

[Anonymous No.9764351]

>>9763397
Quality post.

>>9763961
This is disingenuous. Every point in the Universe is moving away from every other point, which means that there is no centre to the Universe. Relativity Theory assumes that there are no special reference frames, as a matter of course. So from the point of view of relativity there is nothing special about the Earth and it makes no sense that the CMB of the entire universe would orientated with our planet.

[Anonymous No.9764550]

>>9763961
Doesn't relativity hinge on the Copernican principle?

[Anonymous No.9764652]

>>9764351
>This is disingenuous.
Not really. If you step back to a special frame and say, "well, that other frame's information is wrong," then you're not taking the idea of special frames seriously enough. Relative to us, all the information available is consistent with the idea of centrality. You could posit that the "real" center is not where we are or that centrality doesn't exist, but again, then you'd be stepping into a frame not beholden to our cosmic light horizon.

[Anonymous No.9764664]

>>9764351
>Every point in the Universe is moving away from every other point
Therefore every "point" in my body is moving away from each other? Come on, stop deluding yourself.

[Anonymous No.9764898]

>>9762261
Wrong. The CMB is demonstrably very distant because you can see the effect of galaxy clusters on the CMB. The Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect occurs when distant CMB light passes though a galaxy cluster and is scattered by the electrons in the intracluster medium. This scattering promotes photons to high energies, meaning that along the line of sight to a galaxy cluster there are fewer low energy photons and more high energy ones. That means galaxy clusters cast shadows on the CMB at low temperatures, this could not occur if the CMB was produced by the Sun or our Galaxy. The SZ effect is not only observed but has been used to find hundreds of new galaxy clusters.

[Anonymous No.9764932]

>>9764652
How are you relating our special reference frame in this instance as being the cause of Earth's alignment with the CMB? Where does that even come into relativity?

[Anonymous No.9765011]

>In 1965, it was discovered that the Universe is permeated by microwave radiation left over from the period of recombination (which occured about 300,000 years after after the Big Bang). This radiation, now called the Cosmic Microwave Background or CMB, has an extremely uniform temperature of 2.725 Kelvin if one accounts for the smooth gradient in its temperature (from 0.0035 Kelvin below average in the direction of the constellation Aquarius, to 0.0035 Kelvin above average in the direction of the constellation Leo) across the sky. It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation, and it is now known that this reflects the motion of the Local Group of galaxies towards the Great Attractor.
>Once the cosmic microwave background dipole is removed, the variation in the temperature of the CMB is astonishingly uniform with variations of only one part in ten thousand.
Source: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole

[Anonymous No.9765024]

>>9764664
Uh not that anon but you are fuckin retarded and don’t understand a simple concept like acceleration

Locally this isn’t the case but it functions as a general rule. We are going to collide with andromeda, our sun will eventually engulf the earth, etc

These things are gravitationally bound

[Anonymous No.9765032]

>>9765024

[Anonymous No.9765127]

>>9765011
>It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation
This answer conveniently ignores that the Earth is not aligned with the solar system and the solar system is not aligned with our Galaxy. Taking this into consideration it seems odd that the dipole should be aligned with Earth's equator and not with the Galactic plane, who's speed we are measuring.

Furthermore, "a paper by Singal (2011) showing an apparent solar velocity of 1600 km/sec, which is about four times higher than the previously accepted 369 km/sec, and which “suggests a potential violation of the cosmological principle” and thus “the Universe may be intrinsically anisotropic with the preferred axis approximately in the direction of the CMBR dipole.” "
You can read the paper here;
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/481/1/012007/pdf

[Anonymous No.9765135]

>>9765011
>... we will notice from the graphs that the dipole axis is almost perpendicular to the quadrupole/octupole axis. Big Bang cosmology claims that the dipole axis is created by the sun-earth system moving through the CMB, which creates a Doppler blue shift. But how does Big Bang cosmology then explain the quadrupole/octupole axis, which is perpendicular to the dipole axis? It cannot be created by a movement of the sun-earth system through the CMB since, obviously, the sun-earth system cannot be going in one direction to create the dipole and, at the same time, going in an orthogonal direction to create the quadrupole and octupole. Something is definitely amiss here.

http://magisterialfundies.blogspot.ie/2013/07/new-analysis-shows-universe-aligned.html
"Galileo Was Wrong" by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett

[Anonymous No.9765140]

>>9765032
The expansion of the universe is only measure at a few metres per second. This expansion is not on the order strong enough to break apart the atomic bonds or overcome gravity, although it has never to my knowledge ever been proven experimentally to be the case.

[Anonymous No.9765403]

>>9765140
Diploma brainlets think their was a period of superluminal expansion, would this not make space look infinite from our perspective, irrespective of how long the burst was.

[Anonymous No.9765482]

>>9765403
>calls anon a brainlet
>their

[Anonymous No.9765500]

>>9765127
>it seems odd that the dipole should be aligned with Earth's equator and not with the Galactic plane, who's speed we are measuring

600 m/s is the speed of the entire galaxy compared to the CMB, not the rotation of elements of the galaxy. The direction that the Milky Way is moving in isn't aligned with the galactic plane any way.

[Anonymous No.9765685]

>>9764932
The conclusion is drawn from observation within a frame. The frame has nothing to do with the CMB in and of itself. But if what we observe is deep and uniform red shift in all directions, from the perspective of Earth, we are the center. So again we could step back from that frame into some cosmological model and claim it's illusory, but that's missing the point.

[Sage No.9766176]

>>9765500
>The direction that the Milky Way is moving in isn't aligned with the galactic plane any way.
Are you claiming it is aligned with the celestial equator. Wouldn't that be a bit of a coincidence?

[Sage No.9766180]

>>9765685
>but that's missing the point.
Just like you and this whole thread.

[Sage No.9766642]

>>9766176
>>9766180
Ignore sage on these posts. It was leftover from a different thread.

[Anonymous No.9766646]

>>9766176 (You)
>>9766180 (You)
Ignore sage on these posts. It was leftover from a different thread.

[Anonymous No.9766704]

>>9766176
It almost certainly is a coincidence.

[Anonymous No.9766722]

>>9766704
that's pathetic lol

[Anonymous No.9766817]

>>9766704
The celestial equator doesn't align with the milky way or with its percieved direction of travel.

[Anonymous No.9768630]

>>9762250
Cosmic rays interact with the magnetic fields of celestial bodies. Do you remember what a refractive index is? Electromagnetic retardation is responsible for a lot more than most people think. Does anyone know exactly how eddy currents form in correspondence to different light frequencies smashing into flux of varying densities?

[Anonymous No.9768655]

>>9768630
stfu

[Anonymous No.9768981]

>>9765127
The dipole isn't aligned with the equator.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5087

>>9765135
Doppler boosting don't induce a quadruple or octupole. The doppler effect creates the dipole and causing a subtitle distortion at small scales (l~1000) due to relativistic beaming. Whoever wrote that is actually retarded.

[Anonymous No.9769015]

>>9768655
4chan

[Anonymous No.9769034]

>>9764664
No, because the attractive forces overcome the would-be repulsion.

[Anonymous No.9769806]

>>9768981
OP sites the ecliptic plane, which is inline with the celestial sphere and therefor the equator. Many other sources speak of the dipole being aligned with the equinox plane and the ecliptic plane. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.9769827]

>>9768981
Doesn't align with the equator. This cartesian project format begs to differ.

[Anonymous No.9769837]

>>9768981
>https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5087
The declination posted here seems meaningless because the Earth changes its apparent declination in relation to the Milk Way throughout the year. A rate of change should be included. No?

[Anonymous No.9769900]

>>9768981
>Doppler boosting don't induce a quadruple or octupole.
The Quad and Octupole align with the plane of the ecliptic (which is different from the celestial equator) and the dipole axis intersects the ecliptic axis at the summer and winter soltices. This is a remarkable alignment, although one which I do not claim to fully understand. Pic related.
>The doppler effect creates the dipole and causing a subtitle distortion at small scales (l~1000) due to relativistic beaming.
Don't bring up relativity since it is in doubt if not outright disproven at this point.

>>9765135
>we will notice from the graphs that the dipole axis is almost perpendicular to the quadrupole/octupole axis.
I measure it at -55.58 degrees.

[Anonymous No.9769998]

>>9768630
See >>9763397

[Anonymous No.9770674]

>>9769806
Wrong. I cited a Planck paper which gives the coordinates for the axis of the dipole. Convert these Galactic coordinates to equatorial and you get 11h11m08.7s -07d08m43s, i.e. neither aligned with the equator, nor a pole.

>>9769827
Those are Mollweide projections, not Cartesian. Retard.

[Anonymous No.9770854]

>>9770674
>Convert these Galactic coordinates to equatorial and you get
what if you're wrong

[Anonymous No.9770989]

>>9770854
What if you're retarded?

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/calc?in_csys=Galactic&in_equinox=J2000.0&obs_epoch=2000.0&lon=264&lat=%2B48&pa=0.0&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=J2000.0

[Anonymous No.9771466]

>>9770674
>Mollweide projections, not Cartesian.
It is a Mollweide projection of Cartesian coordinates. Pic related.

>Wrong.
Sorry I got mixed up between the celestial and equinox planes when reading the graph;
I corrected my position in this post >>9769900
where I said;
>The Quad and Octupole align with the plane of the ecliptic (which is different from the celestial equator)

>the dipole axis intersects the ecliptic axis at the summer and winter soltices.
The celestial equator and therefore Earth's equator intersect the ecliptic at the vernal and winter equinoxes. So, you are right, it is not aligned with the equator, but it is aligned with features of the equator that are peculiar to our relative position in the heavens. I'm not sure why this would be, but it seems significant.

[Anonymous No.9771696]

>>9771466
>It is a Mollweide projection of Cartesian coordinates. Pic related.
Wrong and nonsensical. Latitude and longitude are spherical coordinates, not Cartesian coordinates. Coordinates used on the sky are also spherical coordinate systems, equatorial, galactic and ecliptic coordinates are all spherical. The grid on both your plots shows they are both indeed in polar coordinates, not Cartesian.

>the dipole axis intersects the ecliptic axis at the summer and winter soltices.
And where is this shown? Given your terrible grasp of celestial coordinates there is no reason I should believe you.

[Anonymous No.9771782]

>>9771696
> The grid on both your plots shows they are both indeed in polar coordinates, not Cartesian.
Polar coordinates are equivalent to cartesian coordinates on a sphere. Nevertheless, I accept your interpretation. It makes little difference to the debate.
>And where is this shown?
It is put forward in this image. >>9769900 It is not my research, perhaps you would do better to assess the information on its own merits rather than attacking the integrity of the messenger?

[Anonymous No.9771866]

>>9771782
>It is put forward in this image. >>9769900 It is not my research
So you literally never questioned it?

>perhaps you would do better to assess the information on its own merits
It's a claim without basis, a baseless claim doesn't have any merit. You cited no source. I've already disproven one of your claims, I'm not wasting my evening calculating it. You made this assertion and now you just shrug it off. Put up or shut up.

[Anonymous No.9771876]

>>9764351
Ignoring the shit posts, a frame moving relative to us would measure a dipole in the CMB.

[Anonymous No.9771918]

Given everything spins in the universe, the big bang probably spun too.

Sometimes the lighthouse is pointing towards you and you can see the light. Sometimes its pointing away and you can't.

[Anonymous No.9773299]

>>9771866
This information has been known about for a long time. I don't doubt it's veracity. Alignments of this sort are tricky in my estimation, I was also previously involved in some other work so I wasn't able to really bring my attention to this properly.

>It's a claim without basis
Why do you say that? It is the same claim OP is making over all. The Axis of Evil is well known.

[Anonymous No.9773364]

>>9773299
Here is another source saying that the cmb is aligned with the equinox/equator.
https://cycliccatastrophism.org/2015/05/03/nasa-juno-will-explain-the-axis-of-evil/
I remember reading this years ago.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huterer/PRESS/CMB_Huterer.pdf
Here's a fragment of an article speaking about how the cmb alignment is real was discovered by cosmologists in 2005 and was dubbed the 'Axis of Evil' by them.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-700-cosmic-coincidences-everything-points-in-one-direction/

>However,recent observations, such as the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)radiation, the motion of galaxies in the universe, the polarization of quasars and the acceleration ofthe cosmic expansion, indicate preferred directions in the sky. If these directions have a cosmologicalorigin, the cosmological principle would be violated, and modern cosmology should be reconsidered
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.05484v3.pdf

The alignment of the Equinoxes is visible in OPs image. If we reverse search his image we see that it is indeed a real image.

[Anonymous No.9773370]

>>9771876
See >>9765127

>>9773299
Taking one of the images from the reverse search mentioned here; >>9773364 I decided to see if the dipoles were actually aligned with the equinox points and hence with an important and peculiar feature of Earth's celestial or equatorial sphere. The results can be seen in this image. It also shows an alignment with the NEP and SEP.

[Anonymous No.9773373]

>>9762250

Activate subtitles, enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYIurRmmnsU&list=PLfdj8oy5zeoHJohMx_VLaK0-2_A_TQrKB

[Anonymous No.9773531]

>>9773373
Good video. The guy claims that negative mass is responsible for dark matter. He also claims that the anti-gravity field of this matter is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. He further claims that there is a parity between the number of matter and anti-matter particles (although there is also a third branch of negative mass anti-matter particles). According to relativity;
>A light beam and two mirrors in "flat" vacuum form a closed triangle. Its three interior angles sum to exactly 180°. Add gravitation. Said sum increases up to 540°. Decrease the 180° sum for anti-gravitation.
This seems to suggest that the results of light from galaxies being bent around stars in areas dense with dark matter should produce a net zero result of curvature as the two cancel each other out. If light cannot interact with dark matter due to being the wrong parity then we should see no effect. Either way the results of timespace distortion are anomalous.
It seems to me that there is a fourth example of matter that is not accounted for in this video. We have ordinary matter, anti-matter and then time reversed anti-matter or negative matter. It would seem that it is leaving out time reversed matter, which should exist along side the time reversed anti-matter i.e. in the same dimensional space.

[Anonymous No.9773535]

>>9773531
forgot source
https://backreaction.blogspot.ie/2014/11/negative-mass-in-general-relativity.html

[Anonymous No.9773553]

>>9771918
>the big bang probably spun too.
Interesting perspective. I've never heard of this before. A spinning big bang would not be isotropic, which would violate the cosmological principle. It would also appear to validate the rotating universe above that of the heliocentric model.

>Sometimes the lighthouse is pointing towards you and you can see the light. Sometimes its pointing away and you can't.
Elaborate pls.

[Anonymous No.9773654]

>>9762349
please respect the acid.

[Anonymous No.9773690]

>>9773531

He is formally against any Dark Matter hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.9773885]

>>9773690
Ah I see. I'll have to watch the rest of his vids.

[Anonymous No.9773954]

>>9773885
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfPqGoKPJkY

Yes

[Anonymous No.9774036]

>>9773954
>26:10 in the that video
Lel. Directly after Darth Vader asks his question he does say that negative matter "could be thought of as Dark Matter". Interesting info, I particularly like the negative matter clusters corresponding inversely to the galactic cells.

[Anonymous No.9774087]

>>9774036

Yes, I does the Dark Vador in another video, he is funny.

Unfortunately, French scientists don't like him very much because he tells them all their researches are garbage tier (String Theory/Dark Matter/etc)