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 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:23 am

SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, both! At the moment of the big bang supposedly space and time were created, thus relative to all space there is in fact a center. Because explosions radiate outward omnidirectionally from their center.
Supposedly is an interesting word to use in this context because relativity shows that space and time cannot both be physically real. At least one of them must be observer dependent and in my opinion the spacetime paradigm has nailed its colours to the wrong mast.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5287
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 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 4:33 am

Obvious Leo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:No, both! At the moment of the big bang supposedly space and time were created, thus relative to all space there is in fact a center. Because explosions radiate outward omnidirectionally from their center.
Supposedly is an interesting word to use in this context because relativity shows that space and time cannot both be physically real. At least one of them must be observer dependent and in my opinion the spacetime paradigm has nailed its colours to the wrong mast.
You know, Leo, I believe I've already told you that I really don't like taking on such topics, at least as fully as you are seemingly comfortable doing. In this particular case it's because 13 billion years is quite a span, which seems to preclude human knowledge of it, their belief on the other hand, might just be as imaginative as their, so called, knowledge allows. And I don't really see a means of nailing it down. Speaking of anything potentially so steeped in conjecture makes me feel really uncomfortable.

When I was a kid I believed that space went on ad infinitum, because that's what I was told. As I tried to wrap my head around that thought, my head seemed to swirl such that I just couldn't fathom it actually being the case, it seemed incomprehensible. But my wonder would keep revisiting the image, until the incomprehensible would again hurt my head. Obviously today, I'm still just as baffled by the possibility, yet it doesn't hurt as much as it once did. I still like to believe it's possible. I think it's because the unfathomable is powerful, and in my mind illustrative/proportionate of the universe's power, something I can't be sure that I can ever fully understand, if at all. And I'm comfortable with that, at this stage of the human game.

Walker
Posts: 6817
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by Walker » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:55 am

Likely an off-topic observation perhaps not an interruption in the dialogue, but you are the universe Spheres, and Feynman was also comfortable with not knowing so you’re in good company. The universe is unborn and never dies. You are unborn. That about sums it up. Any inference that makes sense in light of this is truth, and any that doesn’t has a faulty premise somewhere, should you care to find it.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5287
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 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:29 pm

Walker wrote:Likely an off-topic observation perhaps not an interruption in the dialogue, but you are the universe Spheres, and Feynman was also comfortable with not knowing so you’re in good company. The universe is unborn and never dies. You are unborn. That about sums it up. Any inference that makes sense in light of this is truth, and any that doesn’t has a faulty premise somewhere, should you care to find it.
Yep, I'm fully aware that we r the universe and the universe r us. But the rest? OK, so you believe this, in your terms, so it's true for you. And that's sometimes the problem with synopsis, it precludes others gettin' in another's head. Expound your personal understanding, if you care to, otherwise, so be it!

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 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:43 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You know, Leo, I believe I've already told you that I really don't like taking on such topics, at least as fully as you are seemingly comfortable doing.
Fair enough. Applied metaphysics is not for everyone and I won't torture you with concepts you're not comfortable with. However the point I made is directly relevant to the OP because Sean Carroll, one of the leading theoretical physicists of our era, has been saying for some years now that the term "expanding universe" should be stricken from the lexicon of physics. When I first heard him say this it brought a tear of joy to my eye because as a philosopher of physics I'd been saying exactly this for almost thirty years. The so-called "expanding universe" is nothing more than a mathematical metaphor for a universe which is merely aging .

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by The Inglorious One » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:12 pm

Obvious Leo wrote: No matter whereabouts in the universe we place our trillions of observers they are ALL equidistant from the big bang. However to give this event in time a location in space is a metaphysical absurdity because such a location would be different for each observer of it. Relativity 101.
The world began when I was born. Relativity 101.

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 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 10:30 pm

The Inglorious One wrote: The world began when I was born. Relativity 101.
This is by no means a crazy way of looking at it, in my opinion. The mind is essentially a universe within a universe and the only information which we can glean about the universe without must first be filtered through the minefield of the universe within. Kant 101. Even physics, that supposedly most empirical of sciences, is not exempt from this fundamental constraint. The physicist cannot model the universe the way it is but only the way he thinks it is.

The Inglorious One
Posts: 593
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:25 pm

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by The Inglorious One » Sat Feb 06, 2016 2:22 am

Damn. I actually agree with you, Leo. REPENT! The end of the world is nigh! :mrgreen:

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 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:26 am

The Inglorious One wrote:Damn. I actually agree with you, Leo. REPENT! The end of the world is nigh! :mrgreen:
You've actually said a lot of things over the journey that I agree with so in some modes of thinking we are very much alike. However your infatuation with the supernatural leaves me stone cold and that's unlikely to change.

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

Re: Earth at the center of the Universe?

Post by JSS » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:57 pm

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Speaking of anything potentially so steeped in conjecture makes me feel really uncomfortable.
I like that sentence. 8)
SpheresOfBalance wrote:When I was a kid I believed that space went on ad infinitum, because that's what I was told. As I tried to wrap my head around that thought, my head seemed to swirl such that I just couldn't fathom it actually being the case, it seemed incomprehensible. But my wonder would keep revisiting the image, until the incomprehensible would again hurt my head. Obviously today, I'm still just as baffled by the possibility, yet it doesn't hurt as much as it once did. I still like to believe it's possible. I think it's because the unfathomable is powerful, and in my mind illustrative/proportionate of the universe's power, something I can't be sure that I can ever fully understand, if at all. And I'm comfortable with that, at this stage of the human game.
.. ummm .. so I'm guessing that the notion of infinity^2 is out of the question, huh. :wink:

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5287
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 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 6:43 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote: You know, Leo, I believe I've already told you that I really don't like taking on such topics, at least as fully as you are seemingly comfortable doing.
Fair enough. Applied metaphysics is not for everyone and I won't torture you with concepts you're not comfortable with. However the point I made is directly relevant to the OP because Sean Carroll, one of the leading theoretical physicists of our era, has been saying for some years now that the term "expanding universe" should be stricken from the lexicon of physics. When I first heard him say this it brought a tear of joy to my eye because as a philosopher of physics I'd been saying exactly this for almost thirty years. The so-called "expanding universe" is nothing more than a mathematical metaphor for a universe which is merely aging .
Well Leo, on this note I can say that I agree that at least, humans are not necessarily capable of discerning whether the universe is or is not expanding. I pointed this out a year or so ago here on this forum. I had said that in order for us to be even somewhat capable of discerning such, first we'd have to know that we could see the 'entirety' of the universe, not simply be capable of seeing the 'observable' universe. Because of the "time" it takes for electromagnetic energy to travel, 186,000 m/s, there 'could' be some energy that hasn't even gotten here yet due to relative movement in 'opposition' relative to the center of the big bang. If we are on one side of the omnidirectional bang, which certainly we only could be, there are some celestial bodies whose trajectories would directly oppose ours. Here's a diagram I created when I was attempting to explain this to another PNF member back when I originally brought this up. Image
The two circles on the left represent a hypothetical multi-verse, where two have overlapped. The circle on the right represents our belief of a single, uni-verse. The only reason I created both scenarios was to show how relative position, speed and time, gives one a different perspective as to the truth of things, NOT that I believe either scenario is necessarily true. It's just to point out how things on such a large scale, relative to our small size/capabilities, if absolutely true, would create varying perspectives and thus beliefs. How Justified True Belief (JTB) can be tainted due to ignorance of the actual truth of things. Of course maths could be applied to either of my posits presented that would seem to indicate either one was in fact the truth of things

Notice how if you move both planet X and earth around, inside the extent of the bangs expansion, it can give the inhabitants of both planets different beliefs, relative to that position.

Move Planet X 180 degrees opposite their current position relative to the center of one of the bangs and they believe the same as we currently do. They would not know there was a multi-verse.

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 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:03 pm

SOB. Try getting rid of 3 dimensional space altogether and then see how you go. Since the space you observe is extending to entities which no longer exist it has no ontological status. Think of the light from a distant star as having travelled ONLY through time to reach you and that the "space" you observe is simply a construct of your consciousness in which you are spatialising time. An observation is an act of cognition and what you're actually doing is applying a spatial extension to what is purely a temporal phenomenon. This allows us to make a clear distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon. We imagine that the real universe is a "place" within which events occur but this notion is illusory. The real universe is simply the event itself and the spatial extension which we apply to it is merely projecting the events of the past onto our own temporal background. The longer ago the event occurred the further away it appears to be but what we're actually looking at is a holographic projection of the past as observed from our own referential frame.

This different conceptual angle contradicts none of the empirical evidence of modern physics and yet it is a complete and adequate explanation for why the universe appears to us to be "expanding". Furthermore it also explains why this "spatial expansion" appears to be accelerating so it dispenses with the cosmological constant and dark energy in one fell swoop. It also obliterates every other paradox and metaphysical absurdity in the models of modern physics but this should be enough to think about for the time being. Other than within the consciousness of the observer of it SPACE DOES NOT EXIST.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5287
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 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:33 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:SOB. Try getting rid of 3 dimensional space altogether and then see how you go.
I'll not get rid of the obvious. You take up space and are a 3 dimensional, object!

Since the space you observe is extending to entities which no longer exist it has no ontological status.
I never said, nor do I necessary believe this.

Think of the light from a distant star as having travelled ONLY through time to reach you
I don't believe in gods Leo or anything else just as laughable/unprovable.

and that the "space" you observe is simply a construct of your consciousness in which you are spatialising time.
Sorry, but see comment immediately above! What you speak of is more of that which is only in your head, just like the boogie man, god and leprechauns. You have a fine imagination though!

An observation is an act of cognition and what you're actually doing is applying a spatial extension to what is purely a temporal phenomenon.
Because you say so doesn't make it so! Prove it! You can't! There you go again with the absurd notion that, that which is created by the universe is somehow separate from the universe, an impossibility! Observation and cognition are of the universe, because they are contained within us, no matter how we conceptualize them. Your spatial extension on the other hand is a concept like that of a god. Here you go, ask the astronauts how long it took them to travel the thousands of miles to the moon? Notice that I just referenced both space and time. There is a distance between the two celestial objects, what's between them is space, or the lack of anything measurable, a sea if you like. It takes 'time' to close that 'distance,' to travel through space to reach your goal. It's just a fact Leo! Leave your quantum world where it belongs, there in the microscopic world, not the macroscopic! They are two very different realms!

This allows us to make a clear distinction between the noumenon and the phenomenon.
Not necessarily the case. Prove it! You can't! As that which you say is their difference precludes it. You struggle with imaginary concepts that are over your head, much like the religious do when imagining their god! Again this is an example of your assertion that, that which is born of and contained within the universe, is somehow removed from it. An Impossibility!

We imagine
No, you do! And you're quite good at the fiction!

that the real universe is a "place" within which events occur but this notion is illusory.
No, you're notions are illusory, that any particular place is here today, gone tomorrow, does not disprove that in any particular moment there is a position in space relative to other positions in space.

The real universe is simply the event itself
Never said that the universe wasn't eventful, but that doesn't preclude a place at any particular moment along the events timeline. That it's a constant metamorphosis does not preclude distance, even though those distances change.

and the spatial extension which we apply to it is merely projecting the events of the past onto our own temporal background.
Neither the past nor the future exist, only each moment of now! No, Now! No, Now! ...ad infinitum!

The longer ago the event occurred the further away it appears to be but what we're actually looking at is a holographic projection of the past as observed from our own referential frame.
Why the hell are you suddenly consumed with the past? Because you, like I, are old? Knowing what our future holds? The past has nothing to do with a place in space in any particular moment, distance between places/objects still exist, though aqueous, ever changing, it matters not.

This different conceptual angle contradicts none of the empirical evidence of modern physics and yet it is a complete and adequate explanation for why the universe appears to us to be "expanding".
Not necessarily, or do you argue that it's not true that something in motion tends to stay in motion until another force acts upon it? Leo you could fart in space and on that one small fart travel for eternity, until another force of greater influence acts upon your trajectory and/or velocity. Which is all to do with 3 dimensions, relative places, whether aqueous (constantly changing) or not. If you admit that your conceptual angle changes nothing, except the way you choose to view it, what's the fucking point? It changes nothing of any real importance. Oh and I forgot to say, "so now you tell me the brunt of your commentary." I'd prefer it up front so I don't have to do so much god damn reading! ;)

Furthermore it also explains why this "spatial expansion" appears to be accelerating so it dispenses with the cosmological constant and dark energy in one fell swoop.
Just because you believe your perspective is all inclusive of other perspectives, those more commonly believed, doesn't necessarily mean that yours is the absolute correct model of the actual, as remember it's you that first inferred that the creations of the universe, contained within it, can't necessarily know it, as if we're at the same time removed from it, we're not! We are the universe and the universe is us. That we allow emotional content to disturb a more purer sensing of ourselves, thus the universe, is immaterial to the truth of things. Because if we can continually learn the truth of things, and survive our selfish wants and desires (emotions), one day we shall be able to sense much much more than we currently do, replacing our emotions with pure intellect, much like a god might be seen. As that is the definition of a god, "all knowing." I just hope we can outlive ourselves.

It also obliterates every other paradox and metaphysical absurdity in the models of modern physics but this should be enough to think about for the time being.
You saying so, doesn't make it so, where's your proof? ;)

Other than within the consciousness of the observer of it SPACE DOES NOT EXIST.
You're higher than a fucking kite, says one old hippy to the other! ;)
Please take no offence from the things I said above, as they were not intended to poke you in the eyeball, rather your minds eye, which is not yours alone, rather a combination of all those that have come before you, and you, as you've twisted and turned their understanding into a conglomerate that is now called your own. We all do it, we are all the same that way! Our knowledge only ever a-posteriori.

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 » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:27 am

You underestimate me, SOB. I can prove every word of it.

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5287
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 5:55 pm

Obvious Leo wrote:You underestimate me, SOB. I can prove every word of it.
No Leo, I don't underestimate you, actually I have more respect for you as a human than I do many here, even though you do cuss, and/or lose your cool, every once in a while. You seem to be pretty even keeled. The sign of a more informed mind, as to the subject of humanities.

It's just that I know exactly the realm where this sort of, so called, knowledge exists. It's all in THEORY, it's ALL HYPOTHETICAL, thus it's NOT KNOWLEDGE AT ALL! NOT REALLY! It only exists in the fanciful minds of those that care to dream of possible solutions to VERY big problems, well beyond humankind's current scope. They take what they BELIEVE they see, or 'more importantly' what others have CLAIMED to see, that they've read in a book, having absolutely no way of judging the actual facts empirically. Then comes the extrapolation, of a billion possible permutations, depending on the bit of, so called, knowledge they choose to include as possible, to THEIR particular way of thinking. Yes I know the human animal well, reaching for the stars to somehow qualify itself, because of it's selfish tendencies, due to it's fear of death, first and foremost, then peer pressure, competition, due largely to testosterone, sexual competition misplaced, as the animal can't really separate things that are so intrinsically base, animalistic, automatic in this current form of human, we are far to emotional at this stage of development, to really understand those things so far removed from our microcosm. But we are very BIG dreamers, on that one can count.

So at this stage of the human game such large understandings are "hit and miss," based upon the ACTUAL knowledge/ignorance ratio, whether known or not."

THIS IS NOT AIMED AT YOU, IT'S AIMED AT HUMANS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY YOU AND I AS WELL AS ALL THE REST, HAPPEN TO BE APART OF. I've formulated this understanding long before I ever knew you existed! So take no offence!

You would have to lay all your evidence down for me to scrutinize, and I mean all, so I could provide argument along the way, before I would concede on this matter.

Psychology has shown me that often times, men especially, that have low self esteem (emotion), physical defects, etc, through their competition (emotion), choose the hardest things to grasp, reading it in others books of course, use mastery of those words/concepts of others works, so as to dazzle others with their intellectual prowess, sure they may understand exactly the words they've read to the T, but that does not necessarily ensure that the truth factor of those words/concepts is real, just that it's an elaborate web of reasonable logic based upon those millions of read constituents, BELIEVED to be knowledge. If only one bit of knowledge believed to be fact is out of place, the entire structure of logical thought crumbles to the ground. 100% OF ALL THE THOUGHTS (PREMISES) HAS TO SURVIVE "EMPIRICALLY" OR ELSE THE (CONCLUSION) IS 'POSSIBLY' JUST SO MUCH HOT AIR. The argument has to be 100% valid and the premises 100% true for the conclusion to be 100% true. Cutting edge science just doesn't have that in it's arsenal, in all 'actuality' it's 'probably' more conjecture, than anything else, unless it's accidentally a hit, of course.

Once we can dispense with emotion, we'll have a much better chance of coming to real conclusions.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests