>>11680719>I asked you how alignment implies Earth is the center >It's not even a good alignment,These two sentences reveal what a duplicitous interlocutor you are. If you don't think that the alignment is significant (which you haven't been able to show), then there is no reason to ask how the alignment implies the Earth is at the centre. It sounds like you are trying to cover all the bases, since you are so insecure about your position. I would add your disrespectful and adversarial tone as another example of your insecurity.
The CMB alignment is merely another piece of evidence, along with the Mitchell-Morley experiment, the red-shifts of galaxies, the concentric rings of galaxies surrounding our own, Airy's failure and others, all of which suggests that the Earth is stationary and the centre of the Universe.
In the model you prescirbe to, humanity is a random mistake, the universe has no centre and the Earth is unimportant. As such we would not expect it to have any special relationship to the CMB. And yet it does.
The angle between the other planets in the solar system changes with respect to the Earth's plane of the ecliptic. So you might say that one or other planet is better aligned with the CMB at some point in time, but the fact that it varies at all shows that this alignment is not consistent and therefore arbitrary and non-existent.
>better alignments in the solar system as I've already shown>And the CMB aligns with the full orbits of other planets regardlessWhere is the evidence that the CMB aligns with ANY equinox plane in any of the other planets? You haven't shown it and I have just dismantled your previous argument. Your arguments are so vague and don't contain any real data. Your previous source (
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5083) contains no information to back up your claim, so it appears to be another deception on your part.
