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

[Mordred]

That link has nothing to do with geocentrism. Can you prove the physics on Earth is different than any other place in the universe?

 

Did you miss the part that states the physics are the same?

 

Are you familiar with the modern form called the Cosmological Principle?

 

The principle of relativity follows two postulates.

 

1) the speed of light is the same for all observers

2) there is no preferred reference frame. Google the meaning of reference frame (ie at rest or in motion)

 

Next time you choose an argument make sure you understand what it means.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

You actually didnt read the article, unbelievable. Can we get a ban on mordred.

[Mordred]

Good luck I am more than familiar with how relativity works. Would you like to read the reprint of his original article?

 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

If you paid a SECOND of interest you would realize im not saying this article is about geocentrism, its about the earth being SPECIAL and the COPERNICAN principle being wrong. In the same breath you have to allow geocentrim, because of how different the earth is from the 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied.

[Mordred]

Of course it's different than every planet but so is every other different from each other.

 

What makes one more special than the other?

 

Nothing just ego of humanity

[Scotty99]

Of course it's different than every planet but so is every other different from each other.

 

What makes one more special than the other?

 

Nothing just ego of humanity

 

Again, you didnt read the article. What scares you so much? This is from scientific american not some random website. Please PLEASE open the PDF and look at what was actually recorded in data. Of 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets the earth was not only similar to a few of these planets in structure, but was almost always 3.5 millions years+ younger than any of them.

If you cant contemplate what that actually means ill spell it out. If the earth is 3.5 million years younger than than the vast majority of exoplanets, how is it possible we havent came across "alien" life yet? How were we not inhabited in that time? This isnt a question of where we are in the cosmos in this study, its about how the hell is the earth so young but there is literally no evidence for any other intelligent life in the universe.

I request to be moved from the speculation forum based on this max tegmark quote alone:

 

But Max Tegmark from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who also was not part of the research, thinks Earth is a colossal violation of the Copernican principle—not because of its location but because of its young age. “If you have these civilizations that had a 3.5-billion-year head start on us, why haven't they colonized our galaxy?”

 

He works at MIT, what do YOU do lol. Again this is not me saying the earth is in the centre of the universe, merely people are STARTING to understand earth is special and the big bang is likely not a thing.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Scotty99

[Mordred]

I've already read the article your understanding of it is incorrect...

 

The Universe is huge, we have evidence that life can exist on meteors (microbes) and survive.

 

We haven't been able to leave our solar system and we've only explored an extremely small % via telescopes which can barely detect the planets let alone determine if there is life on it or not.

 

It's not like our telescopes can stare down on a planet several million light years away and spot an alien eating dinner.

 

Use a little common sense

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

Mordred you are a simpleton. Instead of replying to my individual questions you make rash generalizations? Disgusting. You act as if you have more pull than the study i linked, who do you think you are lol? I literally linked a max tegmark quote stating he believes the earth is in a "COLOSSAL" violation of the copernican principle, but clearly you are smarter than a man working at MIT?

 

Just stop dude, please stop and think before you type.

I am actually disturbed at the lack of responses to this recent news article. There are only a couple of options as to why:

 

1. They feel i (and this study, which is peer reviewed on arxiv.org) are illegitimate so i deserve no response.

2. They are intimidated with the actual FACTS of the paper and what that means to our current view of the cosmos.

 

Can i please ask you stop being a pussy and reply to my thread, all of you?

 

Remember, i am a college dropout with an engineering degree as a major.

[Scotty99]

Where did i even mention geocentrism? Please pay attention. The article i linked only says the earth is in a special place, NOT in regards to position in the cosmos. Why cant you even reply to that?

Whoa wait a second, what is that green text. Am i seriously getting warned by a moderator, for what? I linked a legit article stating the earth in in a special place and i get a warning for?????

[Mordred]

It's a modtip, It's more a message to avoid insulting tones in your posts.

 

Also this thread has numerous information showing the Earth isn't a special place.

 

The laws of physics is the same here than anywhere else.

[Scotty99]

It's a modtip, It's more a message to avoid insulting tones in your posts.

 

Also this thread has numerous information showing the Earth isn't a special place.

 

The laws of physics is the same here than anywhere else.

 

Mordred please PLEASE stop. I just linked an article from scientific america where the title literally states LITERALLY says this :

Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All

What the hell are you talking about lol. This isnt a ploy mordred, i think before i speak and have never taken gods word before logic......but HOW do you deny this study.

[Mordred]

Yeah I just noticed the arxiv file I'll retract the modtip. Reading the arxiv file atm

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

Im not trying to be insulting, but its hard.

 

You keep rattling on about saying ive had multiple instances in this exact thread where geocentrism has been debunked but that is purely false. Relativity in and of itself explains all frames are equally relevant. But that isnt even the POINT of this particular post. PLEASE PLEASE read this entire article and PDF and come back saying the earth is a run of the mill planet:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exoplanet-census-suggests-earth-is-special-after-all/

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00690v1.pdf

Mordred im gonna post before you even come back with a reply, you are stupid. Do you realize why you are the only person to reply to my recent inquiries? Because no one was dumb enough to challenge the article i posted.This is life changing, world changing stuff. PLEASE stop trying to outsmart god because you will lose every time. I saw this a year ago and no one belived me, it feels so fucking weird being smarter than people that went to school for 8+ years. But god works in mysterious ways, and this is why people will never see the truth. Second coming is within my lifetime, dont pretend you werent warned.

[Mordred]

Well I'll admit the paper itself is interesting, but the pop media Scientific America hype does it zero justice.

 

First off the paper doesn't state life doesn't exist on other planets. It states that galaxies such as our own may have a smaller %. This is the as the paper puts it "mild Copernican violation". Key word on mild.

 

The paper also bases it's study with look back time in mind . Meaning the further we look back the further into the past we see. This is part of the error bar.

 

The only thing special they actually refer to is the conditions of Earth like planets developing in our local group up to a specific z value. Not too surprising a result. When you consider all the criteria for a planet with liquid water, right mix of elements via metalicity.

 

That's about the only indication that the Earth is special, The problem is we can't measure "Now" everywhere so our datasets are limiited by that factor.

 

It places a higher probability of life sustaining planets in other galaxy types.

[Scotty99]

I forgive your ignorance mordred.

 

No one expected this. If you actually read the entire PDF and came to the conclusion earth isnt special i pray for your soul.

Im not here to prove im right, im here to spread a message. God shows everyone at least once in their lives he is real, this is your chance to accept him before its too late. This message isnt just to mordred, but anyone who read this thread.

String junky do you have anything to say, i see you lurking in chat quite often.

[Strange]

What! He didnt say the word god or geocentrism but went as close to it as you can without saying the actual words.

 

You are so desperate that you are seeing things that are not there. That study shows that the Earth may be fairly unusual. It doesn't say it is the centre of the universe. And it certainly doesn't say anything about god. Even if the Earth is not the most average, median type of planet in the galaxy, so what? The most dramatic thing you can deduce from that is that there may be fewer "Earth like" planets than other types. As we don't live in a science fiction novel and are not going to be colonising them, it is hardly relevant.

 

For god's sake, grow up and start acting rationally. What next? A cloud that looks a rabbit proves the Earth is special?

 

 

because of how different the earth is from the 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied.

 

Don't be an idiot. If you don't even understand the article, you are in no position to lecture others.

[ajb]

I have not read the paper, but only the Scientific America article. The thing to be careful with there is that the authors have not examined 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanet, but have used a computer program to model the formation of such planets. There are of course big questions of how accurate these models are and how sensitive they are to the input data (the claim is it is okay to an order of magnitude).

 

So it is interesting that they suggest based on this work that the Earth is quite special, but without actually examining more planets no one can be sure.

 

Anyway, I do not think that this really overturns the cosmological principle; this holds okay on the scale of clusters of galaxies. And of course, this has nothing to do with geocentricism.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

im here to spread a message. God shows everyone at least once in their lives he is real, this is your chance to accept him before its too late. This message isnt just to mordred, but anyone who read this thread.

I don't see how a computer simulation shows God. Best to leave such claims out of this thread.

[Strange]

Max Tegmark who is an absolute genius in my eyes said this:

 

On the other hand, according to the researchers who did the work:

 

With the estimated errors taken into account, the researchers conclude that Earth stands as a mild violation of the Copernican principle.

 

No exactly surprising. It would be surprising if the Earth were exactly the median age, median mass, media distance from a median star.

 

It is an interesting piece of research which you are cheapening by your ridiculous misinterpretation of it.

[Scotty99]

 

You are so desperate that you are seeing things that are not there. That study shows that the Earth may be fairly unusual. It doesn't say it is the centre of the universe.

 

I never said the study proclaimed this, i said above:

 

The article i linked only says the earth is in a special place, NOT in regards to position in the cosmos.

 

 

I made this thread a year ago, and have been fighting you people off like i was a mongoose in a cave vs a thousand snakes because you knew i wasn't as versed in the particular subject at the time. Mainstream science comes out with a article that seemingly states the earth is different from nearly all other planets that have been discovered, and your demeanor hasn't changed 1 degree, i'm the idiot?

 

Strange things are changing, this article is just the beginning. What astounds me is how little media coverage this story has compared to gravitational waves, mind boggling actually.

[Strange]

Mainstream science comes out with a article that seemingly states the earth is different from nearly all other planets that have been discovered

 

Except it doesn't say that. You are making stuff up based on your religion and then cherry picking quotes that you think support it. This is the same dishonest tactic (along with your initial "just asking" deception) used by creationists and other liars.

 

So it is hardly surprising that people are impatient with you.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Strange

[Scotty99]

More tantalizing to me is Tegmarks quote, how do you take into account earths age when speaking logically about why we have found no signs of life in the cosmos? If we are really 3.5 bil years, give or take, younger than the majority of other planets we have discovered, how havent we found life or as Tegmark said how wasnt our galaxy colonized in that time?

 

Yes a sim is a sim, but the sim is based on what we currently know about the universe.

 

created a cosmic compendium of all the terrestrial exoplanets likely to exist throughout the observable universe, based on the rocky worlds astronomers have found so far

 

 

Then they unleashed the laws of physics—as close as scientists understand them

 

 

Except it doesn't say that.

 

How does it not say that? You keep holding onto the sim part of the study, but what is the sim based off of......yes discovered planets. I said this:

 

Mainstream science comes out with a article that seemingly states the earth is different from nearly all other planets that have been discovered

 

 

How is that false?

Edited February 20, 2016 by Scotty99

[Robittybob1]

More tantalizing to me is Tegmarks quote, how do you take into account earths age when speaking logically about why we have found no signs of life in the cosmos? If we are really 3.5 bil years, give or take, younger than the majority of other planets we have discovered, how havent we found life or as Tegmark said how wasnt our galaxy colonized in that time??

Those other signs of life would have had to find us. If they are older they would need to find us rather than we find them. Some think this has happened.

[Mordred]

More tantalizing to me is Tegmarks quote, how do you take into account earths age when speaking logically about why we have found no signs of life in the cosmos? If we are really 3.5 bil years, give or take, younger than the majority of other planets we have discovered, how havent we found life or as Tegmark said how wasnt our galaxy colonized in that time?

 

 

 

 

mankind certainly isnt 3.5 Billion years old, and our spaceflight technology is less than 100 years. Some things take a logical amount of time to develop the necessary technology.

 

Would a 3.5 billion year ago microbe care if life is on another planet???

would it even be able to percieve such?

 

the quoted argument in my opinion is poorly thought out. Not by you but by Tegmarks

Edited February 20, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

I obviously am not talking about us going to other planets and finding life, i mean anything. Why havent we found siginals of any form, or data in the form of light. If we are the toddlers in the universe, and life has existed before us we should absolutely be able to find traces imo. And i do think Tegmark has a point about the colonizing, 3.5 bil years would be more than enough for a civilization to be able to do that.

 

People keep holding onto the possibility to find life on europa by sending a tunneling device that morphs into an underwater drone, but say that comes back null where do we look after that?

[Mordred]

have you ever looked at how far a radio signal progogates through space before it gets effectively washed out and indiscernable from the background radiation?

 

Have you ever considered how far the nearest star is from us and how long it takes light to reach us? let alone the nearest known Earth like planet in the habitable zone were aware of ?

 

How long does it take for a planet to develop a technologically advanced enough race for space travel?

 

How many extinction events ocur in our hazardous universe from Comets, meteors Planetary collisions etc??

 

the question your asking cannot be determined from a timeline based on a sim no matter how accurate the sim may be. These types of questions were not even involved in the sim.