Earth at the center of the Universe?

[Obvious Leo]

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.

This is the most serious problem which spacetime physics confronts. The total entropy of the universe is trending the wrong way. All subsystems of the universe are beholden to the 2nd law of thermodynamics but the universe as a whole is not. For 13.8 billion years the universe has been steadily evolving from the simple to the complex, instead of the other way around. This is not a trivial problem but it's something we have reason to be grateful for. If this wasn't the case then no possible explanation exists for our own existence.

[Dubious]

If one can apply 'process' for subsystem than the state of any process at any moment in time is considered its microstate. Since there are multitudinous subsystems or processes in the universe which collectively define it, entropy would have to increase as I understand it.

[Obvious Leo]

If one can apply 'process' for subsystem than the state of any process at any moment in time is considered its microstate. Since there are multitudinous subsystems or processes in the universe which collectively define it, entropy would have to increase as I understand it.

There's nothing wrong with your understanding of spacetime physics because what you say is exactly right. If the theory is correct then the overall entropy of the universe should be increasing. However the overall entropy of the universe has been steadily decreasing ever since the first Planck interval following the big bang. Therefore the theory is bollocks. QED.

[UniversalAlien]

From someone who has gained much respect not only among scientists but the general public as well:

"While the Copernican principle comes with no guarantees that it will forever guide us to cosmic truths, it's worked quite well so far: not only is Earth not in the center of the solar system, but the solar system is not in the center of the Milky Way galaxy, the Milky Way galaxy is not in the center of the universe, and it may come to pass that our universe is just one of many that comprise a multiverse. And in case you're one of those people who thinks that the edge may be a special place, we are not at the edge of anything either."
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

"Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, cosmologist, author, and science communicator. Since 1996, he has been the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City."

[Obvious Leo]

UA. You should read physics more discerningly instead of plucking out sound bites, because your Tyson quote actually completely misses his point. What Tyson says on this subject is consistent with the position of ALL the major theorists, who in fact are saying that the notion of a spatial centre to the universe is not a valid construct. The 4D manifold used in the spacetime modelling is simply not mathematically reducible in this simplistic way but the real problem is that this is simply a completely wrong-headed way of thinking the world because it ignores relativity. Every observer in the universe observes his world as it is projected against a different spatial backdrop so when we speak of a "centre" we are implying the existence of a preferred referential frame.

Here is a better way to think about the spatial backdrop of the observer. Imagine looking out across a vast area of the universe with various events occurring at different distances from you. Those events closest to you occurred only millionths of a second ago, those at lunar distances 1.3 seconds ago, those at solar distances 8.3 minutes ago, those at Andromeda distances a million years ago etc. Bearing in mind that this spatial projection is different for every single observer of it what then is the true nature of the background onto which you are projecting your cognitive map? The question is a rhetorical one because the answer is well known to science. The universe you are observing is a different universe from the one which anybody else is observing and absolutely NOBODY is observing the real world so such a projection is known as a HOLOGRAM. Your cognitive map is a holographic representation of the real world and NOT the real world itself. It is this hologram which the models of physics are modelling because they are specifically designed to model and thus predict observations. However it is not your hologram or my hologram that physics models. Rather physics models the sum of all possible holograms, which Feynman described as the sum over histories. Feynman was a smart bloke and he is to be congratulated on this occasion for the precision of his language. Physics models the sum of all possible observations from all possible observer referential frames of events which no longer exist and then somehow manages to conclude that this is the real world. Back in the good old days the whole fucking lot of them would have been sold into slavery.

[Greta]

As usual, my head bent a little reading that.

Re: Guth's perpetual inflation of space. Let's say we worked out a means of travelling faster than light speed and we could travel intergalactic distances in practical time frames. Re: the expanding universe, would the distance a craft would have to travel to another galaxy (not Andromeda or other galaxies drawn by the Great Attractor) be greater with each passing year due to inflation?

Of course, outer space is not actually "space" as such, it's seemingly just lower density zones of the same stuff we're all made of with a different energetic configuration.

[uwot]

Re: Guth's perpetual inflation of space. Let's say we worked out a means of travelling faster than light speed and we could travel intergalactic distances in practical time frames. Re: the expanding universe, would the distance a craft would have to travel to another galaxy (not Andromeda or other galaxies drawn by the Great Attractor) be greater with each passing year due to inflation?

As far as I am aware, Guth's inflation was over in a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, but yes, if the red shift of distant galaxies is due to their moving away from us, then the longer we leave it, the further we'll have to go.

Of course, outer space is not actually "space" as such, it's seemingly just lower density zones of the same stuff we're all made of with a different energetic configuration.

Apparently so. Bear in mind that it's the same stuff the big bang was made of. It is quite possibly the same extraordinary capacity for expansion that is driving galaxies apart at an accelerating rate, dark energy, as it is commonly called.

[Obvious Leo]

Let's say we worked out a means of travelling faster than light speed and we could travel intergalactic distances in practical time frames.

You really need to excise this sort of thinking from your mind if you really want to understand the universe, Greta. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is the speed at which reality is being MADE. You can't travel into a future which doesn't yet exist!!

Apparently so. Bear in mind that it's the same stuff the big bang was made of. It is quite possibly the same extraordinary capacity for expansion that is driving galaxies apart at an accelerating rate, dark energy, as it is commonly called.

Dark energy is a desperate attempt to salvage a theory which has run its course. Dark matter is even worse. They invent dark matter to explain why the galaxies aren't flying apart when in fact it is blindly obvious that most of the galaxies are in fact flying apart, including the one we're living in. Why should the galaxies be granted an exemption from the second law of thermodynamics? Interestingly once our galaxy merges with Andromeda the combined mass of the two spiral galaxies will cause the new meta-galaxy to take the form of an ellipse. Nobody can reliably predict how long it would take to start flying apart and forming a spiral but no doubt another convenient galaxy will happen along for it to mate with before it flies to bits completely. Our Humpty Dumpty universe is putting itself back together again but it's got plenty of time to do it in.

[Greta]

Let's say we worked out a means of travelling faster than light speed and we could travel intergalactic distances in practical time frames.

You really need to excise this sort of thinking from your mind if you really want to understand the universe, Greta. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light because the speed of light is the speed at which reality is being MADE. You can't travel into a future which doesn't yet exist!!

Okay, fair cop. The how about this. Imagine we were capable of almost indefinite stasis and we decided to fly an AI controlled spacecraft travelling at the maximum practicable speed to a galaxy that appears to be moving away from us. Time is no object. Even billions of years. The AI is designed to track the movement of the distant galaxy, making allowances the illusions created by the speed of light.

Will it take longer for spacecraft to reach to the other galaxy if it leaves a year later? That is, will the other galaxy be further away - even more inaccessible?

[Obvious Leo]

Will it take longer for spacecraft to reach to the other galaxy if it leaves a year later? That is, will the other galaxy be further away - even more inaccessible?

Probably but not certainly. Just because we observe a galaxy moving away from us does not necessarily mean that it is actually moving away from us at the time when we launch our spacecraft. We can't possibly know that. We only know that the distant galaxy has moved away from us in the time it's taken for the light from it to reach us. The motion of every galaxy in the cosmos is causally determined by the motion of every other, a causal influence which is propagated at the speed of light. Therefore we can't possibly have a clue, even in principle, where our target galaxy is likely to be at the conclusion of our mission when we first set off towards it. We'll have to make it up as we go along but it is distinctly possible that once we get a bit closer to it we might find it coming towards us. This is and always will be utterly impossible to know in advance and, believe it or not, the same applies if we send a spacecraft to Pluto. There is no guarantee at all that Pluto will be where we predict it ought to be when the spacecraft actually gets there. This is and always will be impossible to know for certain.

"prediction is difficult, particularly of the future"....Yogi Berra.

[uwot]

Dark energy is a desperate attempt to salvage a theory which has run its course.

I think you are over-egging it Leo. It is simply an acknowledgement that the red shift of distant galaxies appears greater that it would be if the universe were expanding at a constant or decelerating rate. There is no ontological commitment, it is just, the entirely reasonable, hypothesis that something is responsible for the acceleration.

Dark matter is even worse. They invent dark matter to explain why the galaxies aren't flying apart when in fact it is blindly obvious that most of the galaxies are in fact flying apart, including the one we're living in.

What data do you base this on? Again, dark matter is just an hypothesis to explain anomolous observations; in this case that the amount of visible matter should not overcome the centrifugal force generated by the rotation of observed galaxies.

Why should the galaxies be granted an exemption from the second law of thermodynamics?

I don't see why galaxies, the constituents of which are becoming more disordered, should violate thermodynamics by not losing integrity.

[Obvious Leo]

I think you are over-egging it Leo. It is simply an acknowledgement that the red shift of distant galaxies appears greater that it would be if the universe were expanding at a constant or decelerating rate. There is no ontological commitment, it is just, the entirely reasonable, hypothesis that something is responsible for the acceleration.

The convention in science is that when two possible explanations for observed phenomena are on offer then the simpler of the two must always be preferred. If the cosmos has ontological extension in time alone then not only does this explain the red-shift it also explains the perceived acceleration.

What data do you base this on? Again, dark matter is just an hypothesis to explain anomolous observations; in this case that the amount of visible matter should not overcome the centrifugal force generated by the rotation of observed galaxies.

Who says that these centrifugal forces are being overcome? This is a prediction demanded by the theory but the evidence says otherwise. What do you reckon a galaxy would look like if was being overcome by centrifugal forces? The question is a rhetorical one because the answer is blindingly obvious. It would look like the galaxy we're living in, a spiral. Do you seriously wish to claim that the galaxies are exempt from the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Luckily our galaxy will eventually merge with Andromeda, another galaxy which is flying to bits. Once the two masses of these galaxies combine they will form themselves into a sedate ellipse but this won't be the case forever. This meta-galaxy will also rotate itself to pieces in due course, that is until it finds another galaxy with which to mate which is undergoing a similar plight. Gravity giveth and gravity taketh away. Eventually the entire Humpty-Dumpty universe will put itself back together again and then go

CRUNCH

I don't expect to be around to see it but it should be quite a spectacle.

I don't see why galaxies, the constituents of which are becoming more disordered, should violate thermodynamics by not losing integrity.

The constituents of galaxies are not becoming more disordered. Galaxies have steadily been evolving more and more complex subsystems within themselves ever since they first started to form and they are still doing so. The fact that you and I are here discussing this is the proof. The entropy within galaxies is decreasing and not increasing and this is why they're flying apart. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Hobbes' Choice]

The constituents of galaxies are not becoming more disordered. Galaxies have steadily been evolving more and more complex subsystems within themselves ever since they first started to form and they are still doing so.

Interesting speculation, but since we've only been observing them in any detail for a couple of decades we are no where near any position to be able to say what they are doing.

[Obvious Leo]

Interesting speculation, but since we've only been observing them in any detail for a couple of decades we are no where near any position to be able to say what they are doing.

There is a strong body of evidence to support this perspective, Hobbes, as well as simple logic. The very first galaxies were very simple cosmological objects containing no more than a few of the elements in the periodic table. Through successive generations of stellar evolution the ratio of complex matter to simple matter has steadily increased, to the point where we now have complex solar systems with rocky planets suitable for life. From a sample size of one it is futile to speculate how ubiquitous life in the universe actually is but it would be foolhardy indeed to suggest that our planet is in any way unique. It's also worth bearing in mind that the universe is probably still in its infancy with many tens of billions of good evolutionary years still in front of her. Most astrobiologists are of the view that life evolved on earth around about as early as it possibly could have anywhere in the galaxy, give or take a billion years or two, so by this reasoning the best is probably yet to come. The universe has come to life, and a more astonishing expression of decreasing entropy is hard to imagine. However that this should occur solely as a result of self-causality is what I describe as a truth bigger than god. The universe has come to life because it could not do otherwise.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Interesting speculation, but since we've only been observing them in any detail for a couple of decades we are no where near any position to be able to say what they are doing.

There is a strong body of evidence to support this perspective, Hobbes, as well as simple logic. The very first galaxies were very simple cosmological objects containing no more than a few of the elements in the periodic table. Through successive generations of stellar evolution the ratio of complex matter to simple matter has steadily increased, to the point where we now have complex solar systems with rocky planets suitable for life. From a sample size of one it is futile to speculate how ubiquitous life in the universe actually is but it would be foolhardy indeed to suggest that our planet is in any way unique. It's also worth bearing in mind that the universe is probably still in its infancy with many tens of billions of good evolutionary years still in front of her. Most astrobiologists are of the view that life evolved on earth around about as early as it possibly could have anywhere in the galaxy, give or take a billion years or two, so by this reasoning the best is probably yet to come. The universe has come to life, and a more astonishing expression of decreasing entropy is hard to imagine. However that this should occur solely as a result of self-causality is what I describe as a truth bigger than god. The universe has come to life because it could not do otherwise.

The concept "very first galaxies" is based on a series of assumptions for which we have no evidence to establish. We assume through limited counterposition that galaxies we assert as more distant are older, as we should. But this has led to an assumption of galactic evolution, when in truth as we do not have the subjective diachronic evidence are assumptions of evolution could be a crock of shit, and what we are witnessing is not an evolution but a distinct typological set of differences. individual types of galaxy and not members of a series.
The tail of the assumption of galactic evolution might be waging the dog of reality.