Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 See im not asking for this, all i ask is people take a real look at geocentrism again. I feel it is one of the true travesties of our time, the stigma carried with geocentrism is on a level with child abuse. Its actually insane to me. You talk about it as if it were some sort of taboo. It isn't. It gets discussed. It even gets used - when calculating satellite orbits for example. The whole GPS system is based on geocentric coordinates. The "stigma" that you talk about so dramatically is purely in your mind. (Or is this one of the many lies you have picked up from Sungenis?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 You literally just proved the entire point i was trying to make in this sentence. So, you agree that there is no proper notion of the centre of the Universe, yet you want to place the Earth at the centre of the Universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Absolutely not lol. Flat earth theorists are nut jobs, geocentrism is something different entirely. What do you base that distinction on? Your beliefs are exactly equivalent to those of flat earthers: irrational, based on mythology, unsupported by evidence, contradicted by much evidence, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 So, you agree that there is no proper notion of the centre of the Universe, yet you want to place the Earth at the centre of the Universe? No, geocentrism only states that its at least AS valid as any other point according to relativity. What do you base that distinction on? Your beliefs are exactly equivalent to those of flat earthers: irrational, based on mythology, unsupported by evidence, contradicted by much evidence, ... Please now lets not go down this road, if you are really implying flat earth theorists are on the same level of "acceptance" as geocentrists, i think we are done strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 No, geocentrism only states that its at least AS valid as any other point according to relativity. That is what I called the 'weak' form of geocentricism. This is okay, but trivial. There is noting to discuss here. I was under the impression that you wanted to consider the 'strong' form and really say that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. This is what people would generally understand by geocentricism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) That is what I called the 'weak' form of geocentricism. This is okay, but trivial. There is noting to discuss here. I was under the impression that you wanted to consider the 'strong' form and really say that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe. This is what people would generally understand by geocentricism. This has all been talked about in this thread. We need to start back at galileo and go forward from there. I find this capital G lower case g stuff absurd anyways, yes of COURSE geocentrists imply the earth is the EXACT center of mass in the universe and that view is supported by relativity. Edited August 9, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 We need to start back at galileo and go forward from there. Why? Physics and cosmology have come a long way since then. I find this capital G lower case g stuff absurd anyways, If they have the standard meaning as found in textbooks, then there is nothing absurd about this. What is you point here? yes of COURSE geocentrists imply the earth is the EXACT center of mass in the universe and that view is supported by relativity. But that view is not supported by general relativity or modern cosmology at all. I do not think you have been reading carefully what people have been saying here. There is no true meaningful 'exact centre' of the Universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 No, geocentrism only states that its at least AS valid as any other point according to relativity. Which is NOT what you are claiming. But also, as ajb says, in most cosmological models, there is NO centre. Please now lets not go down this road, if you are really implying flat earth theorists are on the same level of "acceptance" as geocentrists, i think we are done strange. I assume that means that you are unable to explain how they are different? We need to start back at galileo and go forward from there. Why? Do you want to re-introduce the Phlogiston theory as well? The idea that diseases are caused by an imbalance in humors? I find this capital G lower case g stuff absurd anyways, yes of COURSE geocentrists imply the earth is the EXACT center of mass in the universe and that view is supported by relativity. That is shown to be false by relativity. You can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) 1 Which is NOT what you are claiming. But also, as ajb says, in most cosmological models, there is NO centre. I assume that means that you are unable to explain how they are different? Why? Do you want to re-introduce the Phlogiston theory as well? The idea that diseases are caused by an imbalance in humors? That is shown to be false by relativity. You can't have it both ways. How is that different from what im claiming? They are one in the same. Surely you didnt think i just meant "any place in the universe is as valid as the next". You KNEW i meant the earth IS the exact center of mass as according to geocentrism. As for the flat earth theory, it honestly hurts my feelings you would even bring that up in this conversation and it really clarifies your intentions in this thread. (if you are on the internet a lot, or play MMO's much you would be viewed as a "troll") That is shown to be false by relativity. You can't have it both ways. Proof please. How are we this far along in this thread and not even come to the agreement geocentrism is a valid theory in accordance to relativity? Please strange, show me a study that has 100% disproved a geocentric view of the cosmos (PS, you cant!). Edited August 9, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 1 How is that different from what im claiming? They are one in the same. Surely you didnt think i just meant "any place in the universe is as valid as the next". You KNEW i meant the earth IS the exact center of mass as according to geocentrism. As for the flat earth theory, it honestly hurts my feelings you would even bring that up in this conversation and it really clarifies your intentions in this thread. (if you are on the internet a lot, or play MMO's much you would be viewed as a "troll") But relativity shows us that every frame is just as valid. That's kinda the point. Earth is not special in general relativity. And I imagine it does hurt your feelings but you're ignoring the known science and providing no evidence in exactly the Dane way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 But relativity shows us that every frame is just as valid. That's kinda the point. Earth is not special in general relativity. And I imagine it does hurt your feelings but you're ignoring the known science and providing no evidence in exactly the Dane way. Whoa whoa whoa. If you agree that every frame is valid, what is wrong with geocentrism claiming the earth is the center? How is this at odds with relativity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel222 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Please throw this in the trash can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 How is that different from what im claiming? They are one in the same. Surely you didnt think i just meant "any place in the universe is as valid as the next". You KNEW i meant the earth IS the exact center of mass as according to geocentrism. Exactly: relativity says that ANY point can be chosen as the centre. That is not what you claim. Therefore your claim is not supported by relativity. As for the flat earth theory, it honestly hurts my feelings you would even bring that up in this conversation and it really clarifies your intentions in this thread. Can you explain why? Proof please. How are we this far along in this thread and not even come to the agreement geocentrism is a valid theory in accordance to relativity? Please strange, show me a study that has 100% disproved a geocentric view of the cosmos (PS, you cant!). 1. Relativity proves that no point is special, different, or THE centre. 2. Modern cosmological models do not have a centre at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 If you agree that every frame is valid, what is wrong with geocentrism claiming the earth is the center? How is this at odds with relativity? You are talking about G vs g in this context! 'Geocentricism' means that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe (I called this 'strong'), while 'geocentricism' means that we can choose the Earth to be the 'centre' and make all our measurements etc relative to that choice (I called that 'weak'). Do you see the distinction? g is fine, but trivial G is not even well defined in modern cosmology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Whoa whoa whoa. If you agree that every frame is valid, what is wrong with geocentrism claiming the earth is the center? How is this at odds with relativity? You can claim that. But being THE centre is NOT supported by relativity. Do you see the distinction? I don't think he does. And that is part of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Ok think about what you are saying for a second people. Relativity says there are no special places in the universe, meaning there is no CHANCE of there being a center. This would imply you ALL think the universe is absolutely infinite and there is no possibilty of a center in any case. Think on that for just a second (even when CMB data does suggest the universe is finite). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel222 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 So... you presume there is a sign and a blank white wall at the "edge"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 Please throw this in the trash can. This is the first time ive seen you reply in this thread, im just curious as to why you think this deserves to be moved to the trash bin? So... you presume there is a sign and a blank white wall at the "edge"? I dont presume this, science does. Go look, we predict there is a "wall" of sorts out there. Meaning, if you could travel fast enough you could find this particular spot in the universe and actually visualize the universe being born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Relativity says there are no special places in the universe... Well, as I said before, it is not really general relativity that says this, it is the cosmological principal that is used to construct models. General relativity says, loosely, that all observers should be treated equally. There is no 'privileged' point of view. ...meaning there is no CHANCE of there being a center. This is what some basic assumptions about homogeneity and isotropy of space say, and it seems to be okay with all observations so far. This would imply you ALL think the universe is absolutely infinite and there is no possibilty of a center in any case. Not really, we are talking about the centre of space, rather than space-time. Remember we can only really see just the Observable Universe. As an illustration, once again think of a sphere. That surface has no boundary, has no privileged 'centre', yet it is of finite extent. You could also think of a plane, that is similar but now of infinite extent. Think on that for just a second (even when CMB data does suggest the universe is finite). Finite in age, yes it does imply that as the CMBR is one of the features of the standard model of cosmology. Edited August 9, 2015 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel222 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I'm not going to respond to your nonsense. Geocentrism is a lazy, arrogant and misguided idea. You haven't given any effort to acknowledging the facts or ideas of others and continue to blithely ignore them. So I'm ignoring you now and I'll just consult with others in the thread. ajb, what do you think about the universe being something more akin to a 4th dimensional sponge, rather than a sphere? Supposing for a moment that perhaps the infinitely dense black holes enlarged space around them- creating a kind of ever-expanding horizon at their perimeters. Considering that there are billions of them (many of which rest in the centers of galaxies), it may be that the expansion of the universe is itself being guided by principles related to gravitation and space-time. Perhaps the apparent distances of light is actually being affected by the relativity of time as it passes through the vacuum between these immense gravity wells. Perhaps we are the ones experiencing time dilation in proximity to these black holes, and the rest of the universe has already achieved a kind of heat death as a result. Sort of like islands of stability in an expanse of entropic decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 ajb, what do you think about the universe being something more akin to a 4th dimensional sponge, rather than a sphere? You should start a new thread, probabily in the speculations section or maybe in physics, if the model has received some genuine academic attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel222 Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 I'll do it tomorrow when I get some sleep, then. I'll probably post something about the Arrow of Time as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 This is what some basic assumptions about homogeneity and isotropy of space say, and it seems to be okay with all observations so far. Not quite: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe Not really, we are talking about the centre of space, rather than space-time. Remember we can only really see just the Observable Universe. As an illustration, once again think of a sphere. That surface has no boundary, has no privileged 'centre', yet it is of finite extent. You could also think of a plane, that is similar but now of infinite extent. A couple things here: 1. Center of space vs space time. Exactly how does this differ? What does the observable univserse have to do with this particular conversation? Are we talking about aliens all of a sudden? 2.I cannot, in any sense, grasp what you mean by a sphere not having a center. Finite in age, yes it does imply that as the CMBR is one of the features of the standard model of cosmology. Age=size no? How is there a "limit" to what our sensors can produce if there actually isnt a limit? This harkens back to what i said earlier, if you can travel fast and far enough there is "supposed" to be a point where we can literally see the universe being born. How does this go against geocentrism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Not quite: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe So we have one observation that needs more attention. I await more evidence and scrutiny of the evidence before casting aside the cosmological principal. 1. Center of space vs space time. Exactly how does this differ? In general relativity we usually think in terms of 4d space + time. When discussing the 'centre' of the Universe you are explicit considering a 'centre' at time 'now'. A global notion of 'now' exists for the space-times as used in modern cosmology. What does the observable univserse have to do with this particular conversation? The (or our) Observable Universe is finite in age and extent. We cannot say the much about the global shape (ie. topology) of the entire Universe. So I have no idea if the Universe is infinite in extent or if it has some more interesting topology. Either way, no centre does not imply the Universe is infinite in extent and even if it did, we only see the Observable Universe. Also this says nothing about our place being special, we are by definition at the centre of our Observable Universe, which is really no more than a choice of coordinates from a fundamental perspective. Are we talking about aliens all of a sudden? No, but it could be a useful thing to do. They would see there own Observable Universe and it would seem to them that they are at the centre of the Universe. That is until they really think about it and make the same conclusion we have. They are not really at a meaningful unique 'centre' of the Universe, only the centre of their Observable Universe, which is nothing fundamental. 2. I cannot, in any sense, grasp what you mean by a sphere not having a center. Okay, then please go find a ball and mark what point on its surface is the center. Age=size no? The two are tightly related, via the Hubble parameter and so on. How is there a "limit" to what our sensors can produce if there actually isnt a limit? As in all we can observe is the Observable Universe? This harkens back to what i said earlier, if you can travel fast and far enough there is "supposed" to be a point where we can literally see the universe being born. How does this go against geocentrism? I am not quite sure what your point is. Anyway how does this support Geocentricism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted August 9, 2015 Author Share Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) I am not going to quote every individual reply ajb but i will reply. The main point here is trying to understand what science deems as infinite. According to current data (which relativity agrees with, lets keep this in mind) is that from the big bang onward there is literally a line, think of it as an ever expanding balloon that if you could ever travel fast enough and far enough you could catch up with and literally visualize the universe being born. This, blows my mind. How is it possible that science says there are NO special places in the universe when it also says when you go out far enough you WILL find the reaches of the universe. If we accept the universe isnt infinite (as science states currently) how can you not agree,for at least a small point in time (as the universe is ever expanding) that there IS a centre. Let me clarify my thoughts, as i feel they are slightly confusing. Science assumes the universe is ever expanding but NOT infinite. How then, at any point in time (as the universe continues to expand) is there not a centre to the universe? Sure its for a very brief milisecond, but there is a centre. Edited August 9, 2015 by Scotty99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts