For Ocean

[Dubbelosix]

I offered you an olive branch 2 weeks ago and you denied going through it with me, in any... way you could make it easy.

 

 

I offer you a second olive branch. Except this time, a bit more public and let us see if you can defend what you where saying about the axis of evil you keep mentioning that ''puts the final nail in the coffin'' as you once... problematically put it once.

 

 

 

''

On the Axis of Evil: Courtesy of a link through wiki ~

 

 ''We have seen that observers lying on the y axis (in the original chart) see the rest of the universe rotating clockwise about that axis. However, the homogeneity of the spacetime shows that the direction but not the position of this "axis" is distinguished.''

 

This means by principle, a homogeneous universe should make It a priori over any mechanism to allow a cosmic microwave background axis.

 

The mechanism, notice has not been identified, only a mechanism has been hypothesized that has made the system homogeneous. It reminds me slightly of how Newton viewed gravity… using a partial quote, he considered it ‘a force, without explanation and attributed to only god himself.’

 

I am sure we can argue against such things. God is not required to explain gravity, no more than the universe exists without a cause. The two should not be confused as meaning the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

​​​Now, Ocean, you can clinically dissect this if you want, but I hope your arguments consist more than those links you once published and have already been explained to you, are bogus in a number of ways. If you want to cover why that is again, I have a lot of patience, so that I can finally put the ''nail in the coffin.''

Edited July 18, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[OceanBreeze]

How nice of you, to be thinking of me.

 

The nail you speak of was put in Gödel's coffin in January 1978.

 

From the same link you used, but lacked the integrity to quote in full:

 

"Following Gödel, we can interpret the dust particles as galaxies, so that the Gödel solution becomes a cosmological model of a rotating universe. Besides rotating, this model exhibits no Hubble expansion, so it is not a realistic model of the universe in which we live, but can be taken as illustrating an alternative universe which would in principle be allowed by general relativity (if one admits the legitimacy of a nonzero cosmological constant). Less well known solutions of Gödel's exhibit both rotation and Hubble expansion and have other qualities of his first model, but travelling into the past is not possible. According to S. W. Hawking, these models could well be a reasonable description of the universe that we observe, however observational data are compatible only with a very low rate of rotation.^[3] The quality of these observations improved continually up until Gödel's death, and he would always ask "is the universe rotating yet?" and be told "no, it isn't."^[4]"

 

And, the answer today is still the same "no, it isn't"

 

Just as a side note, do you find the color red raises your blood pressure, just a little?