Earth at the center of the Universe?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Greta » Sun Jan 03, 2016 12:06 pm

How many instances have been found of a star orbiting any planet, let alone a small rocky one like Earth? It would be strange if we were objectively in the centre. Subjectively, the centre is the observer, which seems pretty broadly agreed on.

How can one picture the relative movements of all the objects in the solar system if the Earth is in the centre? It does my head in trying to think about it.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:09 pm

Greta wrote:How many instances have been found of a star orbiting any planet, let alone a small rocky one like Earth? It would be strange if we were objectively in the centre. Subjectively, the centre is the observer, which seems pretty broadly agreed on.

How can one picture the relative movements of all the objects in the solar system if the Earth is in the centre? It does my head in trying to think about it.
Technically orbits are mutual. Even the sun's motion is affected by the presence of the earth.

"Centre" is a matter of perspective.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Greta » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:05 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Greta wrote:How many instances have been found of a star orbiting any planet, let alone a small rocky one like Earth? It would be strange if we were objectively in the centre. Subjectively, the centre is the observer, which seems pretty broadly agreed on.

How can one picture the relative movements of all the objects in the solar system if the Earth is in the centre? It does my head in trying to think about it.
Technically orbits are mutual. Even the sun's motion is affected by the presence of the earth.

"Centre" is a matter of perspective.
Fair point, although in its gravitational interactions with the planets, you'd no doubt agree that the sun is the least active entity.

I don't know if you watched the new Cosmos but I'm reminded of Philip DeGrasse Tyson's climate v weather analogy where he was walking along a beach's shoreline with his dog on a leash. While he walked in a fairly straight line (representing climate) the dog was forced to follow his master's line, but with far side to side movement, the instability of its path being meant to represent the weather in the analogy.

That's how I see the relationship of the Sun and the planets. The Sun is like a dog walker holding the leashes of many dogs (planets), each pulling at the leash in various directions. The Sun continues to push on firmly in the direction of the galaxy's rotation while the planets are dragged along, pulling at gravity's "leash" in different directions. As you say, the planets do have an impact on the Sun's movements, just as dogs can pull a human around, but their influence is nowhere near as pronounced as the influence the Sun has on the planets' trajectories or that the human has on the dogs' paths.

Still, it's interesting to imagine the Sun and Earth in mutual orbit with the Earth at the centre, but once I add another planet or two then my visualisation breaks down ... trying to imagine the planets orbiting the Sun while it orbits the Earth. Does-not-compute!

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by UniversalAlien » Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:24 am

OK, now I'm going to answer in very simple terms so all can understand two posts currently running here:
The one I started "Where did the 'Big Bang' occur?" and "Earth at the center of the Universe?" started by skakos 4/2014.

The answer is so simple most of you philosophical geniuses will dispute it. The answer is that the answer dose not exist
because the universe is infinite - So the Big Bang could occur somewhere but the position in an infinite universe is irrelevant
- Same could be said about the center of the universe - there can be no center in an infinite universe

And for those of you who want to dispute me, tell me what are the boundaries of the universe? You don't even have to believe
in the multiverse because the same state of infinity would apply.

{PS: I will post this on skakos post as well - fell free to respond to either or both} - UA

User avatar
skakos
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:22 pm
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by skakos » Mon Jan 04, 2016 10:30 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
skakos wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote: Name one!

You are actually referring to a game played by poor philosophers, or people wanting to criticise philosophy as a idiot's sport, like Hex does.

Philosophers to not deny that the 'notion exists', that would be idiotic to say.
Philosophers are interested in what the notion does, what are the implications for its use, and to what tasks the notion can be put.
Parmenides for example.

Claiming that "time" exists is just based on almost nothing. Time is a human construct.
Tell that to the projectionist when you show up late to the cinema and the film has been running for 15 minutes.
Too shallow answer if you ask me. Yes I agree that our senses tell us that things change, but philosophically you would have a really hard time proving it or proving that time as a notion exists. (especially since we do not even know what "exists" means...)

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8363
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:58 pm

skakos wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
skakos wrote: Parmenides for example.

Claiming that "time" exists is just based on almost nothing. Time is a human construct.
Tell that to the projectionist when you show up late to the cinema and the film has been running for 15 minutes.
Too shallow answer if you ask me. Yes I agree that our senses tell us that things change, but philosophically you would have a really hard time proving it or proving that time as a notion exists. (especially since we do not even know what "exists" means...)
Too shallow?
How about sitting underwater in the deep end, and telling yourself that the amount of time you spend not breathing is just a construction.
Deep enough?

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:35 am

Greta wrote:Subjectively, the centre is the observer, which seems pretty broadly agreed on.
Have a chocolate, Greta. The centre of the universe is ALWAYS the observer of it. This topic comes up time and again in philosophy forums and everybody keeps looking for a mystery where no mystery exists.

WHEN PHYSICISTS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING THEY ARE NOT MAKING A PHYSICAL STATEMENT.

They are making a mathematical statement because they are applying a spatio-temporal extension to a phenomenon which is purely temporal in nature. It is not the universe which creates the spatial backdrop for reality because the universe has no need of such a thing. It is the consciousness of the observer which creates the spatial backdrop because we observe the world entirely from within our own minds. Whichever "direction" we choose in which to look out on our world we are only seeing a world of events which no longer exist, and the further away these events appear to be occurring the longer ago they actually occurred. Our consciousness spatialises these time intervals but these spaces cannot possibly be physically real because they extend to no-longer-existing events. This applies equally to every observer in the universe so every observer is at the centre of his own spatial projection.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by UniversalAlien » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:02 am

Obvious Leo wrote: WHEN PHYSICISTS SAY THAT THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING THEY ARE NOT MAKING A PHYSICAL STATEMENT.

They are making a mathematical statement because they are applying a spatio-temporal extension to a phenomenon which is purely temporal in nature. It is not the universe which creates the spatial backdrop for reality because the universe has no need of such a thing. It is the consciousness of the observer which creates the spatial backdrop because we observe the world entirely from within our own minds. Whichever "direction" we choose in which to look out on our world we are only seeing a world of events which no longer exist, and the further away these events appear to be occurring the longer ago they actually occurred. Our consciousness spatialises these time intervals but these spaces cannot possibly be physically real because they extend to no-longer-existing events. This applies equally to every observer in the universe so every observer is at the centre of his own spatial projection.
That makes sense.

Now what about my concept that the Universe is infinite and there is no way to conceive of the center of
something that is infinite :?:

And if you do not accept the universe as being infinite define its limits :!:

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:48 am

UniversalAlien wrote:Now what about my concept that the Universe is infinite and there is no way to conceive of the center of
something that is infinite :?:
The term infinite in this context needs a more precise definition. The evidence for the big bang is extraordinarily persuasive which means that the universe cannot be infinite in terms of its matter/energy content. In the modern jargon this means that the universe is finite in the sense that it is informationally closed. This also accords perfectly with the first law of thermodynamics, which is more meaningfully understood as a statement of metaphysical first principle rather than as a "law of physics". If the universe is defined as everything that exists then to suggest that no information can either enter it or leave it is a simple statement of the bloody obvious. The information of the universe can change its form but it can be neither created nor destroyed without first positing some realm of existence whose nature is then unknowable by definition. Such a claim is neither scientifically nor philosophically kosher.

However an informationally closed universe also implies a universe which is temporally infinite, in other words eternal. This accords with the findings of most of the major philosophical schools throughout history and it is not incompatible with big bang cosmology if this is regarded as an event with no spatial extension. The universe can then be simply defined as the eternal journey of matter/energy within time. This highly austere perspective also explains why the overall entropy of the universe is decreasing, a paradox which spacetime physics is utterly unable to account for.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Greta » Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:06 am

@ Leo. If I'm getting you, you're saying that the redshift Hubble noticed was not galaxies moving away from each other but ageing light stretching to longer wavelength, lower energy red light over time?

Your thoughts on inflation a la Guth? You might told me before but I only have a few functioning brain cells left.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by UniversalAlien » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:27 am

Obvious Leo wrote: The term infinite in this context needs a more precise definition. The evidence for the big bang is extraordinarily persuasive which means that the universe cannot be infinite in terms of its matter/energy content. In the modern jargon this means that the universe is finite in the sense that it is informationally closed. This also accords perfectly with the first law of thermodynamics, which is more meaningfully understood as a statement of metaphysical first principle rather than as a "law of physics". If the universe is defined as everything that exists then to suggest that no information can either enter it or leave it is a simple statement of the bloody obvious. The information of the universe can change its form but it can be neither created nor destroyed without first positing some realm of existence whose nature is then unknowable by definition. Such a claim is neither scientifically nor philosophically kosher.

However an informationally closed universe also implies a universe which is temporally infinite, in other words eternal. This accords with the findings of most of the major philosophical schools throughout history and it is not incompatible with big bang cosmology if this is regarded as an event with no spatial extension. The universe can then be simply defined as the eternal journey of matter/energy within time. This highly austere perspective also explains why the overall entropy of the universe is decreasing, a paradox which spacetime physics is utterly unable to account for.
"The information of the universe can change its form but it can be neither created nor destroyed without first positing some realm of existence whose nature is then unknowable by definition. Such a claim is neither scientifically nor philosophically kosher."

And I maintain, irregardless of whatever philosophical or scientific jargon you want to use, that from nothing nothing can come - 'A' universe, this universe, or any other universe you might postulate to exist, and in any form you want to perceive or define it, could not come from nothing - nothing does not and never did exist. Otherwise we might as well
go back to the Theist view of creation and say 'In the beginning there was nothing and God said......." Of course even they can not tell you where God came from and when did he begin to exist? Point being existence itself can not have a beginning. Apparently the poor Human with his mortal state and limited life span refuses to accept this - Man can not
imagine what infinite existence and what a truly infinite state is, so he denies it as fact. And yet when you look up to the
heavens and see a cosmos that Man realizes and has been realizing throughout his minds evolution always shows more
- more stars, more galaxies, and now with theories of the Multiverse, more universes rather than a single universe - He must soon realize that existence, creation, and evolution has no limits, no beginning, no end, and no boundaries.

"“At dawn of man, many words of inspiration.
At the end, there will be words of revelation.”
― Toba Beta, My Ancestor Was an Ancient Astronaut
[/u]

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:41 am

Greta wrote:Your thoughts on inflation a la Guth? You might told me before but I only have a few functioning brain cells left.
Some people reckon losing functioning brain cells as we age is a disadvantage but I take the alternative position. I reckon the bloody obvious is easier to grasp once the number drops down to a more manageable level. Everybody is simply overthinking all this because Guth's inflation hypothesis is not derived from the evidence at all. It is derived only from a particular narrative of the evidence which is already known to be false. If the universe is a pseudo-Riemannian hypersphere, as it is modelled in SR and QM, then inflation would falsify GR. Inflation is a desperate attempt to salvage a failed theory which was already beyond salvage after the EPR paradox.
Greta wrote:@ Leo. If I'm getting you, you're saying that the redshift Hubble noticed was not galaxies moving away from each other but ageing light stretching to longer wavelength, lower energy red light over time?
Sort of. It's OK to say that the galaxies are moving away from us as long as we understand that they are moving away in time and NOT in space. The spatial extension of this phenomenon is the property of the consciousness of the observer of it and this is an interpretation which is perfectly consistent with GR. From GR we know that time passes more quickly between galaxies than it does within them and to the observer this will appear as a spatial expansion. Furthermore the more distant the galaxies are from the observer the more quickly this so-called expansion will appear to occur, which is exactly what the evidence shows. The same explanation applies to gravitational lensing. When the light from a distant light source passes through an intervening galaxy it slows down under the influence of gravity. The observer observes this as bent light, so gravitational lensing is exactly the same phenomenon as the bent stick in the water from our high school days.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Obvious Leo » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:43 am

UniversalAlien wrote: And I maintain, irregardless of whatever philosophical or scientific jargon you want to use, that from nothing nothing can come
In that case you are not doing philosophy.

User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by UniversalAlien » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:53 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
UniversalAlien wrote: And I maintain, irregardless of whatever philosophical or scientific jargon you want to use, that from nothing nothing can come
In that case you are not doing philosophy.
In that case you are not doing logic - But maybe you are right - Maybe logic does not exist, maybe like the universe it is
nothing more than an illusion.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
--Albert Einstein


"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Albert Einstein

Dubious
Posts: 2210
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Dubious » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:56 am

Obvious Leo wrote:This highly austere perspective also explains why the overall entropy of the universe is decreasing, a paradox which spacetime physics is utterly unable to account for.
...yet the Second of Law of Thermodynamics states precisely the opposite, that the entropy of the universe can never decrease only go into equilibrium in it's so called 'heat death' scenario...which seems quite well understood by physicists.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests