Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[Strange]

 

Oh clearly i dont have the know how for this, math was probably the wrong word to use i just mean in general relativty geocentrism can fit just on the basis of the theory.

 

So can any-other-centrism. <shrug>

 

 

I saw a very curious news article the other day, what do you guys think about it? (im not sure if its huge news in the science world yet)

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe

 

I'm sure it was discussed here several months ago. Why do you think it is relevant? Why are dragging this thread off-topic in yet another direction? Is it a way of avoiding the problems with your beliefs?

[Scotty99]

Eh what? Im not dragging anything off topic. Im not sure how recent that news article is in relation to the discovery, but its dated august 6th. But considering relativity predicts that everything in the universe is homogenous on the large scale why would something like this exist? Was just something that caught my eye.

Strange what did you mean by

Why do you think it is relevant?

 

 

I must be missing something because to me this could be a game changer, no? How do you explain something so massive when the theories only predict the maximum a structure could be in the universe to be ~1.2b light years across. I just want to know where you are coming from with that comment, its very possible ive missed something.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

I saw a very curious news article the other day, what do you guys think about it? (im not sure if its huge news in the science world yet)

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe

Is it related to the discussion here? If not you maybe better off starting a new thread. I suggest in the astronomy section.

[Klaynos]

 

Oh clearly i dont have the know how for this, math was probably the wrong word to use i just mean in general relativty geocentrism can fit just on the basis of the theory.

 

Then how can you make the statement? If you cannot show even the classical maths for predicting the positions of the planets of the solar system in a geocentric way which is consistent with what we know about gravity how van you possibly state that it works?

 

It's significantly more complicated just to get the positions in the night shy before you even try SBD make it consistent. Which is why is easier when doing it to treat the sun as stationary.

[Scotty99]

Is it related to the discussion here? If not you maybe better off starting a new thread. I suggest in the astronomy section.

 

Oh maybe it isnt clear why i think that article is in relation to this thread. Relativity states that the universe should be homogenous, no special places in the cosmos. If a structure like this exists we would need to explain it in someway that does not contradict the theory correct? Geocentrism says we are at a special place in the universe, if special places do exist (like this massive structure they have apparently found) does that not at least make you give pause about what most people consider absurd about geocentrism (that the earth is exact center of mass in the universe).

[ajb]

Oh maybe it isnt clear why i think that article is in relation to this thread. Relativity states that the universe should be homogenous, no special places in the cosmos. If a structure like this exists we would need to explain it in someway that does not contradict the theory correct? Geocentrism says we are at a special place in the universe, if special places do exist (like this massive structure they have apparently found) does that not at least make you give pause about what most people consider absurd about geocentrism (that the earth is exact center of mass in the universe).

It is not that general relativity actually says that the Universe should be homogeneous (and isotropic), that assumption is added in order to find solutions to the field equations that describe the Universe in a reasonable way. Note that the homogeneity is only an approximation that should hold at the scale of clusters of galaxies. If this massive object is really there, then it does seem to contradict the assumption of the scale of homogeneity, which is backed up by other evidence. We should see how the further observations of this object develop.

 

Still, I am not sure that you can use this to argue that the Earth (or the Solar System) really is the centre of the Universe.

[Scotty99]

Yes im not trying to use this as some sort of definitive proof for geocentrism, just something i found very interesting given our current view of the cosmos.

 

And man this stuff is really confusing to someone just starting to research it, i couldve sworn relativity predicts a homogenous and isotropic universe but you say to the contrary. If not, what theory does predict this? I assume the standard model in general?

[Strange]

Yes im not trying to use this as some sort of definitive proof for geocentrism, just something i found very interesting given our current view of the cosmos.

 

Maybe that massive structure is the centre of the universe, rather than some small very average structure.

 

And man this stuff is really confusing to someone just starting to research it, i couldve sworn relativity predicts a homogenous and isotropic universe but you say to the contrary. If not, what theory does predict this?

 

It is not a theory. It is the cosmological principle and has, largely, been confirmed by observation. This structure might indicate that there is more variation than thought for some reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

 

I assume the standard model in general?

 

The "standard model" is usually used to refer to quantum theory. What do you mean by it?

[ajb]

i couldve sworn relativity predicts a homogenous and isotropic universe but you say to the contrary. If not, what theory does predict this? I assume the standard model in general?

The cosmological principal is an assumption, but it seems to be true, for example it is backed up by observations of the CMBR.

 

 

That is why this very large structure is at odds with the standard model of cosmology, there should not be structures that large in the Universe.

[Scotty99]

Ah yes that is where i got confused, please disregard my comments about the standard model.

 

Going back to that article for just a second, i assume you guys are connected in some sort of way to the "heartbeat" of science news (whereever that is). Have you heard anything about this story come up in conversation among the elites, and is the discovery new (like i said, im not sure the date of the discovery, just the date of the article).

[Strange]

If a structure like this exists we would need to explain it in someway that does not contradict the theory correct?

 

Or modify our theories about how the universe evolved.

 

Geocentrism says we are at a special place in the universe, if special places do exist (like this massive structure they have apparently found) does that not at least make you give pause about what most people consider absurd about geocentrism (that the earth is exact center of mass in the universe).

 

This is a typical attitude of creationists and other cranks: "if there is something that science doesn't know then <insert random belief here> should be considered."

 

But that ignores the fact that these beliefs (like yours) have no supporting evidence and are contradicted by the evidence and theories we do have. And not all ideas are equally valid.

[ajb]

Going back to that article for just a second, i assume you guys are connected in some sort of way to the "heartbeat" of science news (whereever that is). Have you heard anything about this story come up in conversation among the elites, and is the discovery new (like i said, im not sure the date of the discovery, just the date of the article).

I don't work in observational cosmology or astronomy, so I am not really in tune with the latest thinking on these aspects.

[Scotty99]

 

Or modify our theories about how the universe evolved.

 

 

This is a typical attitude of creationists and other cranks: "if there is something that science doesn't know then <insert random belief here> should be considered."

 

But that ignores the fact that these beliefs (like yours) have no supporting evidence and are contradicted by the evidence and theories we do have. And not all ideas are equally valid.

 

Yes absolutely, i do 100% get what your comments are getting at. I dont want to come off as some crackpot fringe guy because ive never been about that in ANYTHING in my life. I have friends who are CONVINCED that 9/11 was a hoax and the moon landing was simply a social motivator. Ive never subscribed to any of these things. There is just SOMETHING about geocentrism that my brain will NOT let go. The major factor for me it that it is impossible to measure the movement of the earth in relativity....well because of relativity lol. It just seems far too convenient to me. As for the religious aspect of geocentrism, like ive said in this thread many times i was not raised on religion nor did i have a religious experience that "changed" me, my thoughts on this 100% come from a logical way of thinking and nothing so far that science has shown me says unequivocally that geocentrism isnt a possibly valid theory. I must add (even tho i know this stuff doesnt fly on a forum like this) ive just always had a feeling in the back of my head we have someone to answer too, otherwise how to you explain a conscience? I mean a conscience in a way that you feel wrong after doing something bad, how do we inherently know right from wrong?

 

You dont have to reply to that last part, just something ive always thought on.

 

Let me just add one more thing. I have watched a metric crapton of videos on youtube, from the "giants" of science and physics and almost universally they all say "to question everything". This is how discoveries are made. If there arent people like me out there that try and question things (no matter how silly they look on a forum of educated people such as this one) how are we going to move our race forward? I would rather come off as an idiot with a tiny chance of discovery than being chained to a certain way of thinking and being "right" in the eyes of others.

 

That comment is not meant in any way as a denouncement of anyone who has replied in this thread, i view you guys as a source of knowledge because i clearly got started on my research into this way late into the game and i fully respect you guys for having an insight early in your life about what is really important, that i have only grasped fairly late in life.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

The major factor for me it that it is impossible to measure the movement of the earth in relativity....well because of relativity lol. It just seems far too convenient to me.

The same is true of other objects. The Earth is not special in this respect at all. That is why you have to let go of any meaningful notion of geocentricism; modern science renders the idea rather meaningless.

[Scotty99]

The same is true of other objects. The Earth is not special in this respect at all. That is why you have to let go of any meaningful notion of geocentricism; modern science renders the idea rather meaningless.

 

Yes, very good point. To that i would say, how do you explain we have found ZERO signs of life in the universe outside of us? How is this possible given the immensity of the universe? Our best chance (which i agree with, actually) is a mission to europa, which i believe is a moon of jupiter? According to research this moon has a full crust of ice on it, but due to various factors it is believed to have liquid water beneath. I would assume this mission is possible in the next 20-30 years, but what happens if this mission comes back null, no signs of life?

 

Outside of a europa mission, where do we go from there? Correct me if im wrong but in our galaxy europa is the best hope of finding life, if this comes back negative what do we do! Sure we can scan the cosmos for life and identify planets in the "goldilocks" zone but how do we get there to see? Unless we figure out wormholes these missions simply wont be feasable. Yes we could do generational time travel, but i dont see that being successful because of the human condition.

 

LET ME PLEASE ADD WHY FINDING LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO SCIENCE:

If we can find life outside of earth not only geocentrism goes away, but so does god, a creator, as well as religion. HOWEVER until that happens you have to at least give geocentrism .000001 of your brain power, we cant write it off fully YET!

Edited August 7, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

To that i would say, how do you explain we have found ZERO signs of life in the universe outside of us? How is this possible given the immensity of the universe? Our best chance (which i agree with, actually) is a mission to europa, which i believe is a moon of jupiter? According to research this moon has a full crust of ice on it, but due to various factors it is believed to have liquid water beneath. I would assume this mission is possible in the next 20-30 years, but what happens if this mission comes back null, no signs of life?

This is a separate question.

 

We have not yet found evidence of life elsewhere in the Universe, this is true. The Universe is a big place and we are really only now developing technology that stands a chance of providing some evidence. Maybe we just have to wait.

 

Looking for life in the Solar System is a good idea and if it exists we stand a good chance of concrete evidence. Further afield collecting evidence maybe much harder, one would have to look for chemical signs in the atmospheres of the planets. That is unless we can find clear communication signals, which of course relies on an advanced civilisation.

 

Outside of a europa mission, where do we go from there? Correct me if im wrong but in our galaxy europa is the best hope of finding life, if this comes back negative what do we do! Sure we can scan the cosmos for life and identify planets in the "goldilocks" zone but how do we get there to see? Unless we figure out wormholes these missions simply wont be feasable. Yes we could do generational time travel, but i dont see that being successful because of the human condition.

I don't know if Europa is our best hope in our galaxy, but for sure it is somewhere we can send actual probes in reasonable time.

 

Anyway, you want to suggest that the Earth is special as it is the only place with life? Maybe it is, but we have not yet given up hope of finding ET.

[Klaynos]

 

Yes, very good point. To that i would say, how do you explain we have found ZERO signs of life in the universe outside of us? How is this possible given the immensity of the universe?

That's an easy one. Because the universe is so immense. If life is even somewhat rare, you need life to be at s point where it can be detected in some way. An often put idea is that they'll be broadcasting.

 

Now if we take the earth as an example we have been broadcasting for around 100 years. There are around 500 stars within 100 light years of the earth. So to detect us you need to have life at a point that is developed enough to be looking for other life within those solar systems. The probability of that is pretty small if you must consider how long life has been around on earth and how long we've been looking for life relative to that. It gets harder the further away you are as well because the signal strength decreases. Out would be more surprising if we had detected life by this point outside our solar system. Within the solar system it's difficult because the experiments are hard and we're the only planet in the goldilocks zone.

[Scotty99]

Yes absolutely, even to a person like myself who half subscribes to a fringe theory like geocentrism europa is extremely exciting. I live in minnesota and have gone ice fishing since i was a little boy, europa is in theory the exact same thing. We will need to come up with a highly advanced craft that can not only drill down to get to the water, but at the same time transform into an underwater diving machine. The hard part is convincing the world it is worth the cost of the mission, and i am fully hoping this gets done in my lifetime.

 

Its not that i suggest earth is the only place with life in the universe, its that geocentrism does and so far science has not done ENOUGH to tell that isnt at least a possibility. The crazy part about all of this to me is that if you asked me just a few years ago i would have said 100% there is life in the universe besides us, i mean just random chance says not only this is possible but LIKELY. Since ive discovered geocentrism ive had a different view on the whole situation, and us not finding life or SIGNS of life yet really added to it for me.

[ACG52]

 

Yes, very good point. To that i would say, how do you explain we have found ZERO signs of life in the universe outside of us? How is this possible given the immensity of the universe?

Because the universe is so immense and we've been looking for a very very short time.

[ajb]

Its not that i suggest earth is the only place with life in the universe, its that geocentrism does and so far science has not done ENOUGH to tell that isnt at least a possibility.

Does geocentricism really suggest that the Earth is the only place to find life? I do not see how the idea that the Earth is the centre of everything (which is not a meaningful statement in modern cosmology) necessarily implies there is no life elsewhere.

 

Most scientists I think, do believe that life exists elsewhere in the Universe, but none would absolutely discount that we are truly alone. However, the idea of being alone seems strange, but not impossible.

[Scotty99]

Does geocentricism really suggest that the Earth is the only place to find life? I do not see how the idea that the Earth is the centre of everything (which is not a meaningful statement in modern cosmology) necessarily implies there is no life elsewhere.

 

Most scientists I think, do believe that life exists elsewhere in the Universe, but none would absolutely discount that we are truly alone. However, the idea of being alone seems strange, but not impossible.

 

 

Yes, geocentrism states we are the only life in the universe, that we are in a preferred spot. This is in my assessment why science is so absoultely single minded in finding life outside of this planet, it would nullify geocentrism god/creator and religion.

Because the universe is so immense and we've been looking for a very very short time.

 

Ive always had a bit of a problem with this line of thinking. What does us looking for a short time have to do with it? If the universe is so massive and so surely supports life somewhere (in many many many spots) how has that light/signal not reached us easily?

Edited August 7, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

Yes, geocentrism states we are the only life in the universe, that we are in a preferred spot.

If you take that as a prediction of geocentricism then that is something we can test and indeed are testing. Geocentricism in its strict form also does not sit properly with modern cosmology. I would say that the idea is already rather debunked.

 

 

This is in my assessment why science is so absoultely single minded in finding life outside of this planet, it would nullify geocentrism god/creator and religion.

Only a few scientists are really working on trying to find life outside of the Earth.

 

Anyway, finding life elsewhere would nullify geocentricism, provided the statement that one of its predictions is life is only to be found on the Earth. (We think it is nullified already.) But how would this nullify the idea of a creator and religion? Okay, it may point to an inconsistency in the Bible and Koran (and other such books), but these are full of inconsistencies and things that are just wrong anyway. I am not convinced that finding life elsewhere would really end all religion.

[Klaynos]

 

Ive always had a bit of a problem with this line of thinking. What does us looking for a short time have to do with it? If the universe is so massive and so surely supports life somewhere (in many many many spots) how has that light/signal not reached us easily?

I'd suggest you read my post again. The distances are huge.

[Scotty99]

If you take that as a prediction of geocentricism then that is something we can test and indeed are testing. Geocentricism in its strict form also does not sit properly with modern cosmology. I would say that the idea is already rather debunked.

 

 

 

Only a few scientists are really working on trying to find life outside of the Earth.

 

Anyway, finding life elsewhere would nullify geocentricism, provided the statement that one of its predictions is life is only to be found on the Earth. (We think it is nullified already.) But how would this nullify the idea of a creator and religion? Okay, it may point to an inconsistency in the Bible and Koran (and other such books), but these are full of inconsistencies and things that are just wrong anyway. I am not convinced that finding life elsewhere would really end all religion.

 

Because no matter what is taught in religion today, geocentrism is still a thing that they dont talk about in public because it cannot be proved in a relativistic universe. Trust me, that is the reason we are looking so hard for life (i know you say only a few are looking, but i truly feel this is important to far more than you believe).

 

Maybe i went a step far in the religion comment, i only know if we found life on another planet it would be a massive blow to Christianity, i am not well enough versed on the other religions of the world.

That's an easy one. Because the universe is so immense. If life is even somewhat rare, you need life to be at s point where it can be detected in some way. An often put idea is that they'll be broadcasting.

 

Now if we take the earth as an example we have been broadcasting for around 100 years. There are around 500 stars within 100 light years of the earth. So to detect us you need to have life at a point that is developed enough to be looking for other life within those solar systems. The probability of that is pretty small if you must consider how long life has been around on earth and how long we've been looking for life relative to that. It gets harder the further away you are as well because the signal strength decreases. Out would be more surprising if we had detected life by this point outside our solar system. Within the solar system it's difficult because the experiments are hard and we're the only planet in the goldilocks zone.

 

See this is the point i was making earlier. Why do they have to be detecting us? Logically thinking people would assert that if the universe is so massive there would have been signals sent at many different points throughout history and that at least ONE of them has hit us, even in our short time of searching, I dont see how us searching for only a short period of time matters, how about all of the information that has reached us and PASSED our planet many times over?

[ajb]

Because no matter what is taught in religion today, geocentrism is still a thing that they dont talk about in public because it cannot be proved in a relativistic universe.

It is not my experience that geocentricism is really a widely held view by those who have thought about it.

 

The Catholic Church recognises there is no problem with an Earth in motion. In fact this was settled by Pope Pius VII in 1820.

 

As for other branches of Christianity, I am not sure on their view, but the 'true' church that can trace its roots back to the Holy Roman empire say there is no problem.

 

 

Trust me, that is the reason we are looking so hard for life (i know you say only a few are looking, but i truly feel this is important to far more than you believe).

Can you offer evidence of this? Maybe cite a paper or a proposal or something?

 

Most scientists are not out to disprove religion.

 

Maybe i went a step far in the religion comment, i only know if we found life on another planet it would be a massive blow to Christianity, i am not well enough versed on the other religions of the world.

I don't recall any explicit mention in the bible that there are no aliens.

 

I have no idea about the other books.