Earth at the center of the Universe?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

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 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:27 pm

I don't know how much you know about the philosophy of physics but the fact is that it is always impossible to prove a scientific theory true. However it should always be possible to prove a dodgy scientific theory false. To do this is simply a matter of asking the right question of the theory but this is not as simple as it sounds in physics because physics is a science based solely on observation. The models of mathematical physics are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe, so provided the mathematics are done correctly we can always expect that the observer will duly observe what the models have predicted. If the observer observes something different if can simply be appended to the theory with the use of mathematical constants and various other codicils. This is an inherently tautologous method which affords only a Pyrrhic victory but alas physics could not be done in any other way, which is why the Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology survived for 1400 years. As Max Planck pointed out theories in science never die a natural death but must always be assassinated in a brutal coup d'etat by an alternative theory. Only by first formulating an alternative theory can an existing theory ever be falsified, even in principle, because only an alternative theory can ask a question of the existing theory which nobody thought to ask of it before. I have such a question and a prediction as to the outcome which could be very easily tested within both the budget and expertise of any university physics department, or even a well-resourced high school. If validated this prediction would unequivocally and unambiguously falsify Special Relativity and thereby the entire spacetime paradigm.

As I said you underestimated me. The philosophy of applied metaphysics has been my life's work and because my first love in science was always the biological sciences I always saw physical reality as a PROCESS, which is not the way physics sees the world. Thus the basic principles of a process model were not that difficult to formulate and this was something I managed to do already several decades ago. In the course of formulating this alternative theory I discovered that spacetime had already been falsified many times over but on each occasion had been simply patched back together with mathematical sleight-of -hand. Therefore I'm fully aware of the fact that in order to be seriously regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis a theory must also be able to falsify the existing theory which it seeks to replace in such a way that such mathematical chicanery would be unable to salvage it. Finding the right question to ask of the existing theory was always the stumbling block in my quest but don't take me for an idiot. I wouldn't be here exposing myself to ridicule if I hadn't done it.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5301
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:29 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:I don't know how much you know about the philosophy of physics but the fact is that it is always impossible to prove a scientific theory true. However it should always be possible to prove a dodgy scientific theory false. To do this is simply a matter of asking the right question of the theory but this is not as simple as it sounds in physics because physics is a science based solely on observation. The models of mathematical physics are specifically designed to predict what the observer will observe, so provided the mathematics are done correctly we can always expect that the observer will duly observe what the models have predicted. If the observer observes something different if can simply be appended to the theory with the use of mathematical constants and various other codicils. This is an inherently tautologous method which affords only a Pyrrhic victory but alas physics could not be done in any other way, which is why the Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology survived for 1400 years. As Max Planck pointed out theories in science never die a natural death but must always be assassinated in a brutal coup d'etat by an alternative theory. Only by first formulating an alternative theory can an existing theory ever be falsified, even in principle, because only an alternative theory can ask a question of the existing theory which nobody thought to ask of it before. I have such a question and a prediction as to the outcome which could be very easily tested within both the budget and expertise of any university physics department, or even a well-resourced high school. If validated this prediction would unequivocally and unambiguously falsify Special Relativity and thereby the entire spacetime paradigm.

As I said you underestimated me. The philosophy of applied metaphysics has been my life's work and because my first love in science was always the biological sciences I always saw physical reality as a PROCESS, which is not the way physics sees the world. Thus the basic principles of a process model were not that difficult to formulate and this was something I managed to do already several decades ago. In the course of formulating this alternative theory I discovered that spacetime had already been falsified many times over but on each occasion had been simply patched back together with mathematical sleight-of -hand. Therefore I'm fully aware of the fact that in order to be seriously regarded as a legitimate scientific hypothesis a theory must also be able to falsify the existing theory which it seeks to replace in such a way that such mathematical chicanery would be unable to salvage it. Finding the right question to ask of the existing theory was always the stumbling block in my quest but don't take me for an idiot. I wouldn't be here exposing myself to ridicule if I hadn't done it.
But there you go proving my point, and I'm not saying you're an idiot, my mind was made up long before I ever new you existed. And that point is that all this that you're referring to is conjecture, THEORY! Nothing more and nothing less. There is no empirical data backing it, which is why I originally said I don't like taking on such topics. Not that I don't understand the words/concepts being used, and that you should explain them to me.

First they're here today, gone tomorrow, replaced by yet another theory, and I'll not read the books of others theories, as if they actually have any real substance, to come up with my own permutation, or buy into anyone else's. second, You're doing the same thing as everyone in this arena, using your mind to change previous hints about something humans cannot necessarily know, at this particular time in history. Of course the future, I'm sure, shall eventually bear out the winners of the arguments, and I'll not make a fool out of my self in that process. If I choose not to decide, I still have made a choice. It's why I'm agnostic, sitting on my fence, because up on that fence I can see farther, as I entertain both sides of the argument. Invested in neither one, I stand more of a chance in seeing the actual truth of things.

Do you see how my mind works? My trust in another is hard to come by, instead I take my time, observing every possible argument, for itself. The truth then, I believe shall bear itself out naturally, I'll not need to make any, so called, informed decisions, as if they are necessarily definitive, absolutely! As even if one says they note the fact that it's all hypothetical, they then often use verbiage to argue, that would seem to indicate they believe it is definitive, seemingly forgetting that it's only theory. Some will actually go so far as to ridicule another, as if they are certain, when they can't possible be, which makes them fucking liars! They should save their passionate self stroking for something solid, something empirical, before being so indignant. Even then there's no room for it!

Again this has nothing to do with you, my mind was made up long ago. Of course I can change it, once things are definitely, absolutely, apparent.

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 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:47 pm

You seem to have difficulty in comprehending the English language, SOB, and you certainly don't understand the scientific method. I said that I can falsify the spacetime paradigm, and that's all I've ever claimed. However you don't seem to be grasping the significance of this so it's got me fucked why you're bothering to get involved in a conversation about physics at all.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5301
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:42 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:You seem to have difficulty in comprehending the English language, SOB,
Not at all! Here the word "seem" made your assessment fair.

and you certainly don't understand the scientific method.
Now you couldn't be more wrong. Your use of the word "certainly" is probably why I should never listen to your hypothesis, as there is no way you could say that about me, while at the same time actually being certain. All you could say with certainty is that it appears/seems to be the case. And that's one of the problems I have with peoples dialogue often times. They lie so as to appease self. Fear the mind killer!

I said that I can falsify the spacetime paradigm, and that's all I've ever claimed.
It's not apparent to me that you can falseify anything, "CERTAINLY." As you just proved that you don't even know what the word "certainly" means, or so it surely seems, if so, how can I expect you to understand any words more complicated that that one.

However you don't seem to be grasping the significance of this
If it's true! And if I care whether you believe it's true. But great, you used the word "seem" bravo! Back to honest and fair again!

so it's got me fucked why you're bothering to get involved in a conversation about physics at all.
What? I've made the comments above, did you not read them? See this is what I was talking about, you take it personal and get all indignant and shit, largely because I don't want to buy into your assertions. EVEN THOUGH I'VE TOLD YOU TWICE ALREADY, THAT MY STANCE IS NOTHING PERSONAL.
I've provided on topic material, showing why I see that it's impossible for humans to know where the center, (origin of the big bang) is/was, I've used older physics models as I see it's believable, namely relativity, do not take offence that I see yours as illusory, it's got nothing to do with you, as I've said. Consider what I told you about how I proceed.

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 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:59 pm

You haven't understood a word I've said, SOB, so I suggest you take your own advice and steer clear of physics. It's not for everybody. The universe has no bloody centre and that's all there is to it. It's got nothing to do with being able or unable to locate such a centre because the entire notion of a centre simply cannot be applied to an event which occurs in time. Does a movie have a centre, or a football game, or a pain in the neck?

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5301
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Tue Feb 09, 2016 3:33 am

Obvious Leo wrote:You haven't understood a word I've said, SOB,
I've understood every single word you've said.

so I suggest you take your own advice and steer clear of physics.
Not Physics, just any newfangled physics supplied from people (novices) neither published nor peer reviewed, Leo!

It's not for everybody.
It's for those that choose it, not that they have to take it all or nothing.

The universe has no bloody centre and that's all there is to it.
Bull shit. I specified what type center I was referring too. I defined my center. The position of the big bang relative to the farthest extents of the universe, not that any current human could traverse backwards in time based upon evidence of trajectory and velocity so as to pin point it relative to today's universal extents.

It's got nothing to do with being able or unable to locate such a centre because the entire notion of a centre simply cannot be applied to an event which occurs in time.
I defined my meaning of center above.

Does a movie have a centre,
Sure it does, The center of direction: Director;
Funding/Needs: Production Company or Producer;
Time: the half way point through the film;
Message or Moral: Plot; etc!

or a football game,
Sure it does, he stands in front of the quarterback;
the stadium (Sports center), etc.

or a pain in the neck?
Sure it does, NOT SOB, but instead the cluster of nerve cells that are at the center of the pain;
the nerves most affected by the trauma, etc.[/color]

SOB: center of the universe
The source of it's existence;
Since all big bangs thrust matter outward omni-directionally, the starting point of all matter relative to the current extents of the universe, etc

See below:

center [sen-ter]
noun
1. Geometry. the middle point, as the point within a circle or sphere equally distant from all points of the circumference or surface, or the point within a regular polygon equally distant from the vertices.
2. a point, pivot, axis, etc., around which anything rotates or revolves: The sun is the center of the solar system.
3. the source of an influence, action, force, etc.: the center of a problem.
4. a point, place, person, etc., upon which interest, emotion, etc., focuses: His family is the center of his life.
5. a principal point, place, or object: a shipping center.
6. a building or part of a building used as a meeting place for a particular group or having facilities for certain activities: a youth center; The company has a complete recreation center in the basement.
7. an office or other facility providing a specific service or dealing with a particular emergency: a flood-relief center; a crisis center.
8. a person, thing, group, etc., occupying the middle position, especially a body of troops.
9. the core or middle of anything: chocolate candies with fruit centers.
10. a store or establishment devoted to a particular subject or hobby, carrying supplies, materials, tools, and books as well as offering guidance and advice: a garden center; a nutrition center.
11. shopping center.
12. (usually initial capital letter) Government.
the part of a legislative assembly, especially in continental Europe, that sits in the center of the chamber, a position customarily assigned to members of the legislature who hold political views intermediate between those of the Right and Left.
the members of such an assembly who sit in the Center.
the political position of persons who hold moderate views.
politically moderate persons, taken collectively; Centrists; middle-of-the-roaders:
Unfortunately, his homeland has always lacked a responsible Center.
13. Football. A lineman who occupies a position in the middle of the line and who puts the ball into play by tossing it between his legs to a back. The position played by this lineman.
14. Basketball. A player who participates in a center jump. The position of the player in the center of the court, where the center jump takes place at the beginning of play.
15. Ice Hockey. a player who participates in a face-off at the beginning of play.
16. Baseball. center field.
17. Physiology. a cluster of nerve cells governing a specific organic process: the vasomotor center.
18. Mathematics.
the mean position of a figure or system.
the set of elements of a group that commute with every element of the group.

19. Machinery.
a tapered rod, mounted in the headstock spindle (live center) or the tailstock spindle (dead center) of a lathe, upon which the work to be turned is placed.
one of two similar points on some other machine, as a planing machine, enabling an object to be turned on its axis.
a tapered indentation, in a piece to be turned on a lathe, into which a center is fitted.

verb (used with object)
20. to place in or on a center: She centered the clock on the mantelpiece.
21. to collect to or around a center; focus: He centered his novel on the Civil War.
22. to determine or mark the center of: A small brass star centered the tabletop.
23. to adjust, shape, or modify (an object, part, etc.) so that its axis or the like is in a central or normal position: to center the lens of a telescope; to center the work on a lathe.
24. to place (an object, part, etc.) so as to be equidistant from all bordering or adjacent areas.
25. Football. snap (def 21).
26. to pass (a basketball, hockey puck, etc.) from any place along the periphery toward the middle of the playing area.

verb (used without object)
27. to be at or come to a center.
28. to come to a focus; converge; concentrate (followed by at, about, around, in, or on): The interest of the book centers specifically on the character of the eccentric hero. Political power in the town centers in the position of mayor.
29. to gather or accumulate in a cluster; collect (followed by at, about, around, in, or on): Shops and municipal buildings center around the city square.

Idioms
30. on center, from the centerline or midpoint of a structural member, an area of a plan, etc., to that of a similar member, area, etc.:
The studs are set 30 inches on center.
Abbreviation: o.c.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:53 am

The idea that spacetime does not physically exist is one I find to be very counter intuitive. This is because it is
idealist in principle and I see no evidence that what I experience is simply a mental construct and nothing else

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 Feb 09, 2016 10:59 am

surreptitious57 wrote: I see no evidence that what I experience is simply a mental construct and nothing else
What evidence do you need? That an observation is an act of cognition is a completely uncontroversial proposition both in philosophy as well as in science. Therefore the convention is that the burden of proof lies with you. How on earth would you go about proving otherwise?

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by surreptitious57 » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:42 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
That an observation is an act of cognition is a completely uncontroversial proposition in philosophy as well as in science
Therefore the convention is that the burden of proof lies with you. How on earth would you go about proving otherwise
Observation is indeed an act of cognition but that does not mean anything I observe cannot also exist independently of that. This is
why I think spacetime is a real phenomenon and not a mental construct like you do. For most of the universes existence there were
no observers. So does this mean spacetime never existed either ? Of course not as physical phenomena do not require any observers

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 Feb 09, 2016 11:54 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:
That an observation is an act of cognition is a completely uncontroversial proposition in philosophy as well as in science
Therefore the convention is that the burden of proof lies with you. How on earth would you go about proving otherwise
Observation is indeed an act of cognition but that does not mean anything I observe cannot also exist independently of that. This is
why I think spacetime is a real phenomenon and not a mental construct like you do. For most of the universes existence there were
no observers. So does this mean spacetime never existed either ? Of course not as physical phenomena do not require any observers
You're missing the point. A tree is only a tree because that's what we've intersubjectively agreed to call it. The tree-ness of the tree is a property of the observer of the tree and has no ontological status. The same goes for a quark. A quark is only a quark because that's the way that physicists have chosen to codify a particular class of observations in their interrogation of the subatomic world. It is nothing more than an epistemic representation of an observed phenomenon. How on earth could spacetime be any different? This is very basic Kant 101 which any philosophy undergraduate would be expected to understand. Physicists are notorious for mistaking the map for the territory but no philosopher worthy of the name should be guilty of such a logical fallacy.

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 Feb 09, 2016 11:58 am

A couple of quotes straight from the horse's mouth.

"Spacetime should NEVER be regarded as physically real".....Albert Einstein

"Space and time are modes in which we think, NOT conditions in which we exist"....Albert Einstein

If you're not content to take my word for it on the ontological status of spacetime then perhaps you might consider these thoughts from the bloke who invented it.

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS » Tue Feb 09, 2016 11:23 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:A couple of quotes straight from the horse's mouth.

"Spacetime should NEVER be regarded as physically real".....Albert Einstein

"Space and time are modes in which we think, NOT conditions in which we exist"....Albert Einstein

If you're not content to take my word for it on the ontological status of spacetime then perhaps you might consider these thoughts from the bloke who invented it.
Although I agree with that statement as exactly worded, I have to point out an important distinction.

It is perfectly valid to say that "space" or "time" is a physical property. But the thing called "spacetime" happens, after careful thought, to not be.

Even though what we construct as a mental image of "space" is merely a mental image, it cannot be said to be not real, else one exposes their ignorance of what truth really is about.

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 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:17 am

JSS wrote: It is perfectly valid to say that "space" or "time" is a physical property.
This is the entire central point of relativity theory. Either space OR time is physically real but not both. Either space is relative to time or time is relative to space but to suggest that both are relative to each other leaves us is an ontological limbo. What I'm saying is that spacetime has nailed its colours to the wrong mast by making time relative to space and it does this by spatialising time out of existence. The Minkowski block universe makes no metaphysical distinction between past present and future which is why QM makes no sense. However if we instead make space relative to time then we at least are making it relative to something which we know is physical.

In many ways what this boils down to is that GR and SR were published in the wrong order. Don't forget that when SR was published it was still assumed that time passed at a constant speed, as Newton thought, which meant that the speed of light must indeed be a constant, as assumed by Minkowski. Unfortunately when GR showed us that time does not in fact pass at a constant speed then this assumption of Minkowski's should have been revisited. Instead what happened was that GR was compelled to conform to SR by brute mathematical force and for a century we've now had to confront the ludicrous notion of a "curved" space. Oy vey!!

JSS
Posts: 232
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:42 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS » Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:13 am

I think that it was in 1905 that Einstein wrote his college paper to Minkowski proposing that both time and distance were relative to the speed of the observer/measurer. He made some blatant errors in that paper, but apparently beyond the scope of Minkowski and others of that period. Minkowski then formed an entire ontology based upon the notion of existence being entirely relative to whoever was observing it, "Minkowski space". Obviously at that time, no one had the wherewithal to point out that non-existence can never exist as a component of an ontology.

In those days, they had no idea why light traveled at the particular speed that it does and what would happen if that speed somehow changed. Gravity was still a mystery that had to be resolved in order to make SRT into an intended unified field theory, which it never became. GRT was the effort to complete the puzzle, but still left gaping paradoxical holes.

Today it all seems to be merely a mind game for the masses, intentionally obfuscated and twisted for intrigue, but still taught in universities as true science.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3449
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by surreptitious57 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:02 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
Either space OR time is physically real but not both. Either space is relative to time or time is relative to space but to suggest that both
are relative to each other leaves us is an ontological limbo. What I am saying is that space time has nailed its colours to the wrong mast
by making time relative to space and it does this by spatialising time out of existence. The Minkowski block universe makes no metaphysical
distinction between past present and future which is why QM makes no sense. However if we instead make space relative to time then we at
least are making it relative to something which we know is physical
I can accept the physicality of space more than I can the physicality of time. This is because space has dimensions to it in a way which time does not. One cannot physically observe time in the same way that one can physically observe space. Maybe why the block universe model makes zero sense is that human beings cannot exist in a world devoid of the temporal references of past and present and future. This is because we use such references as physical coordinates in the same way we use physical coordinates of space. If we how ever had zero concept of the passing of time then the block universe model would make perfect sense. But because we are effectively hard wired to perceive time as something with physical coordinates this is why that model not only makes no sense but is too counter intuitive to even be seriously contemplated. For in purely practical terms how could human society function without any reference to the the concepts of past and present and future? It would be simply impossible

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dachshund and 1 guest