Earth at the center of the Universe?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I absolutely agree that the earth is the center of my Universe,
Totally agree with this!
and the center of the rest of the Universe is revolving around the Sun.

No! The sun is the light bulb that allows be to see my earth universe, and the rest of the universe is just a pretty backdrop.

[uwot]

You are missing the point, skakos. It doesn't follow from Hubble's initial implication that the Earth appears to be in a unique position, that Earth in fact is in a unique position. The recession of the galaxies is explained perfectly well by an expanding universe wherein it doesn't matter where you are, everything else is getting further away.

Which does not necessitate the actuality, though current capabilities, surely make it seem so.

Indeed, Spheres; at any time all you have are your current capabilities. What you see with those capabilities is what you have to explain. If the way you explain what you see demands that you improve your capabilities, it is a scientific hypothesis. If on the other hand, you explain what you see by referring to things that no human capability will ever see, it is metaphysics: interesting, perhaps, but entirely useless.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are missing the point, skakos. It doesn't follow from Hubble's initial implication that the Earth appears to be in a unique position, that Earth in fact is in a unique position. The recession of the galaxies is explained perfectly well by an expanding universe wherein it doesn't matter where you are, everything else is getting further away.

Which does not necessitate the actuality, though current capabilities, surely make it seem so.

Indeed, Spheres; at any time all you have are your current capabilities.
Fully understand your meaning and agree 100%! Though I would have used "we" and "our," instead of "you" and "your," see what's 'quite common' below.

What you see with those capabilities is what you have to explain.
Fully understand your meaning and agree 100%! Though I'd prefer to say, "try to explain," as it is in keeping with the first statement. Let us not assert probability so that ones mind can wander to certainty, because it pleases the ego (no not necessarily aimed at you, rather all of humanity, our method of self stroking, in the face of doubt, {fear?}, which is 'quite common.')

If the way you explain what you see demands that you improve your capabilities, it is a scientific hypothesis.
Here I see the cart before the horse. Do you understand that analogy? In other words, if the way one explains, "demands." It proves forethought that the explanation is probably incorrect, thus should never be stated in any way that one could assume, not hypothesis, in the first place. (again see previous to understand what's 'quite common.') Hypothesis always demands improvement. Notice that Einsteins two propositions on relativity are still quoted as theories, and well they should be. As they have not been fully proven yet.

If on the other hand, you explain what you see by referring to things that no human capability will ever see,
This is impossible, as again, the cart is before the horse, as no human can peer into a crystal ball to see what shall be in the entirety of the future, so as to be capable of doing this. Things happen in sequence, your words require forethought, at the time they are stated. In other words, no human can know, what in fact, they can never do in the future, they can never know what human capabilities may, or may not, someday exist.

it is metaphysics: interesting, perhaps, but entirely useless.
Only in hindsight my friend, only in hindsight, which they say is 20/20, but in truth, not necessarily even then. As it's relative to, not only, that day they initially think it's so, but also, shall be so, in the future, if further understanding dictates.

Sometimes it's easy, to make the mistake of placing the cart before the horse, with respect to any still unfinished understanding, fooled by, so many times, seeing mans revisionist nature, on previous attempts at solving natures riddles.

Am I saying this clearly enough? Sometimes I see that articulation can be indeed difficult so as to thoroughly convey the actuality of meaning contained in ones mind. Does anything, seemingly, not bridge the gap? Are you an American or an Englishman, or from some other, ever varied culture? I ask this because sometimes, though subtle, differences exist, even in a give language, creating dialects, creating inconsistencies!

No attempt at demeaning, was meant, I'm just being as honest as I know how to be, with the words that make the most sense to me. I feel that I have to spell this out these days, due to others, of insecure nature. It's what I've seen, in the words you've used, that I make report, their aqueous nature somewhere exactly half way between us, for what ever reason.

[uwot]

If the way you explain what you see demands that you improve your capabilities, it is a scientific hypothesis.

Here I see the cart before the horse. Do you understand that analogy? In other words, if the way one explains, "demands." It proves forethought that the explanation is probably incorrect, thus should never be stated in any way that one could assume, not hypothesis, in the first place. (again see previous to understand what's 'quite common.') Hypothesis always demands improvement. Notice that Einsteins two propositions on relativity are still quoted as theories, and well they should be. As they have not been fully proven yet.

There is a difference between theory and hypothesis. A simple way to understand it is that there are things you can see happening, those are facts. An idea for why those facts are happening is a theory; a prediction of what you might see based on a theory is an hypothesis. Theories can never be fully proven, for the simple reason that we can never known that some piece of evidence will pop up. They can however, be proven wrong. If an hypothesis follows from the theory and the phenomenon it hypothesises fails to be observed, the theory needs adjusting or replacing.

If on the other hand, you explain what you see by referring to things that no human capability will ever see,

This is impossible, as again, the cart is before the horse, as no human can peer into a crystal ball to see what shall be in the entirety of the future, so as to be capable of doing this.

At least some versions of religion hold that god is a different substance to the physical world and therefore cannot be detected by any physical means. Such a god is literally beyond physics, for ever and ever, amen.

Are you an American or an Englishman, or from some other, ever varied culture? I ask this because sometimes, though subtle, differences exist, even in a give language, creating dialects, creating inconsistencies!

I'm from some other, ever varied culture.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If the way you explain what you see demands that you improve your capabilities, it is a scientific hypothesis.

Here I see the cart before the horse. Do you understand that analogy? In other words, if the way one explains, "demands." It proves forethought that the explanation is probably incorrect, thus should never be stated in any way that one could assume, not hypothesis, in the first place. (again see previous to understand what's 'quite common.') Hypothesis always demands improvement. Notice that Einsteins two propositions on relativity are still quoted as theories, and well they should be. As they have not been fully proven yet.

There is a difference between theory and hypothesis. A simple way to understand it is that there are things you can see happening, those are facts. An idea for why those facts are happening is a theory; a prediction of what you might see based on a theory is an hypothesis. Theories can never be fully proven, for the simple reason that we can never known that some piece of evidence will pop up. They can however, be proven wrong. If an hypothesis follows from the theory and the phenomenon it hypothesises fails to be observed, the theory needs adjusting or replacing.
As far as the dictionaries I reference, and how I use them, theory and hypothesis, are in fact one in the same thing, synonyms, as both are purely educated guess's, conjecture. As you've displayed above. It's true that people try and split hairs as to meaning, by creating new words that according to them, have subtle differences. Usually selfish reasons, I suppose. No, not you, those that submit words to companies that create dictionaries. If you are one who has done so, pardon me, I did not know, but that's still the way I see it, though no malice intended

If on the other hand, you explain what you see by referring to things that no human capability will ever see,

This is impossible, as again, the cart is before the horse, as no human can peer into a crystal ball to see what shall be in the entirety of the future, so as to be capable of doing this.

At least some versions of religion hold that god is a different substance to the physical world and therefore cannot be detected by any physical means. Such a god is literally beyond physics, for ever and ever, amen.
I'm an agnostic, so this means nothing to me, more power to them though, that's OK with me, they can believe what they want to believe, though I might think them silly, but who really knows, they could be right, a luck of the draw. Though I'm sure many of them would prefess to knowing.

Are you an American or an Englishman, or from some other, ever varied culture? I ask this because sometimes, though subtle, differences exist, even in a give language, creating dialects, creating inconsistencies!

I'm from some other, ever varied culture.
Actually this was a rhetorical question, I was just trying to spell out the differences between us when it comes to language. I have no real need to know where you are from, which does not mean I don't care, I do hope you live long and prosper, as I hope that for everyone that loves, and does not begrudge anothers life. You seem to be level headed, a very good thing, though I have seen you have your moments, but no ones perfect, surely not I, at times I have been far worse with my tongue, and I have a feeling you'd judge yourself the same way, being level headed, of course I could be wrong, it's just my estimation!

As to the topic at hand, I believe you and I agree, that it's currently impossible for man to measure where the exact center of the universe is, no?

[skakos]

There is a difference between theory and hypothesis. A simple way to understand it is that there are things you can see happening, those are facts.

What exactly are the "facts"?
Everything is filtered via your eyes, via your brain.
There are no "objective" facts.

[thedoc]

There is no center, no more that there is a center point on the surface of a perfect balloon. Asking where the center is, or looking for it, is as foolish as asking "What is 1 mile north of the north pole?" a meaningless question.

[uwot]

There is a difference between theory and hypothesis. A simple way to understand it is that there are things you can see happening, those are facts.

What exactly are the "facts"?
Everything is filtered via your eyes, via your brain.
There are no "objective" facts.

You're right to challenge that; I should have been more careful with my language. It is more 'factual' to say 'we see things' rather than 'we see things happening'. (To be really strict, we can't say 'we' with total confidence. All that can be said without any doubt is that there are sensations. Bertrand Russell pointed out that philosophically, there is no logical contradiction in the claim that the whole 'experience' of the universe began 5 minutes ago, complete with your fictitious memories of yesterday and the holes in Russell's socks.)
In the case of the big bang theory, what Hubble saw, when he examined the spectral lines from galaxies outside the Milky Way, is that the patterns associated with particular elements were shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Everybody who has looked since has seen the same thing. It is a 'fact' that we see this red shift. The hypothesis is that the galaxies are moving apart and that the stretching of the wavelength is due to the Doppler effect. The Big Bang theory is the (actually metaphysical) framework that tells the story of why we see what we see.
Long story short: red shift is an objective fact; it can be demonstrated to anyone. Not everyone will accept the expanding universe hypothesis, some people believe in 'tired photons', for example, and not everyone believes the Big Bang. As you say, they are filtered through the brain and while a better theory may come along, most of the best brains believe that, the Big Bang theory is currently the best we have.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is a difference between theory and hypothesis. A simple way to understand it is that there are things you can see happening, those are facts.

What exactly are the "facts"?
Everything is filtered via your eyes, via your brain.
There are no "objective" facts.

Not at all, a filter removes something, nothing has been removed by human senses, their resolution is just precluded by relative size, which is why humans have developed tools. If I were to shrink your entirety to infinity you could see the entirety of what's now the micro, likewise if I enlarged you to infinity, you could see the entirety of what's now the macro. And all that you would see as you combined both cases would in fact be the absolute truth of all objects, contained within the universe, the universe itself. That is, if you took them at face value, function, without interjecting your rationalizations, as to meaning.

[petm1]

If I were to shrink your entirety to infinity you could see the entirety of what's now the micro,

This is how we got Big bang, running the clock backwards.

likewise if I enlarged you to infinity, you could see the entirety of what's now the macro

Heat death of the visible universe, running the clock forwards.

And all that you would see as you combined both cases would in fact be the absolute truth of all objects, contained within the universe, the universe itself. That is, if you took them at face value, function, without interjecting your rationalizations, as to meaning.

At face value the past is smaller because that is what we see, while the present is dilating at about 32 feet per second. Not forgetting that the static view I have of this world is the co-moving frame of atoms dilating from the past and holding me in the present.

[skakos]

There is no center, no more that there is a center point on the surface of a perfect balloon. Asking where the center is, or looking for it, is as foolish as asking "What is 1 mile north of the north pole?" a meaningless question.

Totally agree with that.
However the mainstream science is the one which supports such an idea.
And I do not believe this happens just... because!
I see a specific philsophical agenda behind all these beliefs.

* Yes, an atheistic/ materialistic agenda.

[thedoc]

There is no center, no more that there is a center point on the surface of a perfect balloon. Asking where the center is, or looking for it, is as foolish as asking "What is 1 mile north of the north pole?" a meaningless question.

Totally agree with that.
However the mainstream science is the one which supports such an idea.
And I do not believe this happens just... because!
I see a specific philsophical agenda behind all these beliefs.

* Yes, an atheistic/ materialistic agenda.

Men (and I think scientists are men, but I'm not sure), are limited by their ability to comprehend, and that is limited by their experience of the world. In the world that man can perceive there is always an edge with something beyond, and a center of whatever they can perceive. The difficulty comes when man tries to understand and conceive of things that are well beyond their normal range of experience. When I was in HS one of the teachers stated that in regards to the Universe not being infinite, "When you get to the edge of the Universe, there must be something on the other side". 2 fallacies. One is to assume that there is an edge, the second is to assume that there must be something on the other side of the edge, and this is what the human mind cannot comprehend. The accepted view is that there is nothing beyond the universe, not even emptiness, Just there is no beyond. I don't claim to be able to comprehend that either, but I can accept it as true, even if it is counter intuitive. It doesn't fit with my understanding of reality, but there is nothing that says that the universe much behave according to my understanding.

[petm1]

The edge of the universe that I can see and feel is the outside edge of matter. The inside edge I can only imagine as the cmb but I can always point to the center by pointing at the center of mass. All are real directions in space/time.

[skakos]

And yet we try to find the "center" of something which does not have "edges"...

Just remember the problems in defining the limits of the solar system
Has Voyager left our solar system? Or not?

What do our DEFINITIONS tell us?

[thedoc]

And yet we try to find the "center" of something which does not have "edges"...

Just remember the problems in defining the limits of the solar system
Has Voyager left our solar system? Or not?

What do our DEFINITIONS tell us?

The definition of the edge of our solar system has to do with gravity, and the influence of the gravity of the Sun and the rest of the Galaxy. To my best recollection when the gravitational effect of the Sun is less that the effect of the rest of the Galaxy, you are out of the solar system. And I believe the Voyager space craft have reached that point, maybe?