Philosophy Now Forum

I always thought I was if not the most humble person out there hardly a braggart. Gently weeps onto his keyboard.

Ginkgo wrote:In modern astronomy everyone is at the center, regardless of the planet or galaxy you happen to be on.



edit

uwot wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

Actually technically it is impossible to determine the centre of the universe as everything is co moving, so a stationary point around which everything revolves is impossible to establish. It's better to say the centre of the universe if it has any meaning is impossible to determine in a co-ordinate/time frame of reference. There is no centre to the universe that can be established, although probably one exists, the point at which the singularity expanded most likely being it, but due to quantum uncertainty even that is an uncertain posit at best.

I was hoping you or uwot would come along and explain it. I didn't do a very good job. By saying everyone is at the center I was implying there is no center. Thanks for the clear explanation.

A very rough and ready way to look at it is to imagine the universe shortly after the singularity Blaggard* mentions began to expand (and before inflation); when it was the size of a full stop, a football, a planet or whatever takes your fancy. Then consider that every point within it has been expanding for the best part of 14 billion years. Wherever the part of the universe that corresponds to where we are now started out, it is in the middle of a visible bubble that for simplicity we can imagine is 14 billion light years in radius (actually much bigger, because spacetime expands 'faster' than the speed of light.) That is true of every point in the early universe and it is in that sense that every point is in the middle.

*I've got this new tablet that keeps turning Blaggard into Braggart. Apologies in advance for when I inevitably forget to correct it.

Just add Blaggard to it's user defined dictionary, usually with a right click over the word, then "add to dictionary."

Skip wrote:Why should it matter whether the center of the universe is Earth, Sol, Reisa II or Gallifrey? Who says the universe needs a center? And if we could identify such a things, what would it affect? What would change?

No one says that.

But it is "common knowledge" that the Earth is NOT at that center which "does not matter".

Hubble himself discovered - BASED ON HIS OBSERVATIONS - that Earth was AT THE CENTER.
And he changed this scientific (for his days) conclusion based on the atheistic DOGMATISM that "we cannot be so important so as to be at the center"!

So I guess it DOES MATTER for some people...

skakos wrote:Hubble himself discovered - BASED ON HIS OBSERVATIONS - that Earth was AT THE CENTER.

No he didn't. He discovered that the radiation from all but a few local galaxies is red shifted. There is so much supporting evidence that it can safely be considered a fact. What you extrapolate from that is your business, but it does not follow that the Earth is the centre of the universe. It is easy to demonstrate that the same phenomenon would be observed from any point within an expanding universe. People with no religious axe to grind are more likely to choose the latter.

uwot wrote:

skakos wrote:Hubble himself discovered - BASED ON HIS OBSERVATIONS - that Earth was AT THE CENTER.

No he didn't. He discovered that the radiation from all but a few local galaxies is red shifted. There is so much supporting evidence that it can safely be considered a fact. What you extrapolate from that is your business, but it does not follow that the Earth is the centre of the universe. It is easy to demonstrate that the same phenomenon would be observed from any point within an expanding universe. People with no religious axe to grind are more likely to choose the latter.

"…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…."

Hubble's words...

Yeah Skakos I am not sure you are reading that right, he's actually saying the opposite of what you posit, and he would be right too. That the Earth has no favoured place as a central point. Might be that your first language is not English but you are reading that all ironically. What he's actually saying is that to posit that the Earth is a central point is so far removed from physics as to make such a proposition unlikely and if not unlikely, useless and to be avoided at all costs as the pointless assertion it is.

Actually I am reading it very well, thank you.

The "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe" says exactly what I say: that the data shows that we ARE at a unique position.
And then he simply REFUSES that conclusion and SELECTS another conclusion based on his BELIEFS. Not on data!

Here is another part...

"The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."

Are you sure you do not want tol go to the link I gave in the very FIRST post in this thread?
It will save you a whole lot of time...

skakos wrote:

Skip wrote:Why should it matter whether the center of the universe is Earth, Sol, Reisa II or Gallifrey? Who says the universe needs a center? And if we could identify such a things, what would it affect? What would change?

No one says that.

But it is "common knowledge" that the Earth is NOT at that center which "does not matter".

Hubble himself discovered - BASED ON HIS OBSERVATIONS - that Earth was AT THE CENTER.
And he changed this scientific (for his days) conclusion based on the atheistic DOGMATISM that "we cannot be so important so as to be at the center"!

So I guess it DOES MATTER for some people...

First and foremost, one cannot say, they are at the center of the universe, unless they are capable of sensing it's entirety, and one cannot know that they can, as the limits of their sensing precludes it.

Second, that one senses a center, instead speaks more probably that one cannot sense the fullest extents of the universe, as always ones limitation of sensing creates a radius of sensing, in all possible directions, creating a sphere, them being at it's exact center. So there is absolutely no evidence that man could ever sense such a thing as the center.

For that matter, remember that there are supernovas, that spew elements potentially omnidirectionally, on any particular trajectory, thus when considering the relativity of motion, one can see that we could be sensing a center of any particular massive supernova explosion, that formed this particular quadrant if you will of multiple trajectories from the same number of ancient supernova explosions, our particular ones current radius of expansion just happening to be beyond our current sensing range.

See attachment:

skakos wrote:Actually I am reading it very well, thank you.

The "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe" says exactly what I say: that the data shows that we ARE at a unique position.
And then he simply REFUSES that conclusion and SELECTS another conclusion based on his BELIEFS. Not on data!

Here is another part...

"The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature."

Are you sure you do not want tol go to the link I gave in the very FIRST post in this thread?
It will save you a whole lot of time...

Nah no offence you are not really are you. Because you are suggesting what someone believed is something that they did not believe and in fact they believed the opposite which is of course pretty nonsensical, you are reading your own beliefs into something because you want to believe a modern scientist would and could claim there was a central position in the universe, when in fact no modern Physicist could or even would say that and in fact never did.

I don't care what link you gave in the first thread there cannot be a centre to the universe no modern day scientist would agree to that or in fact ever did, you are just making out they did because it suits your own odd beliefs, the usual religious nonsense whereby you have such massive cognitive dissonance that you can't even understand when people are disputing your claims by saying the opposite. Which is fine you go on believing anyone in modern science thinks there can be a centre to the universe, despite no modern scientist believing that, whatever floats your boat. You're lying to yourself though nonetheless. And it's humorous of course to watch people lie to themselves because they can't actually consider that there is no central point in the universe according to modern Scientists or science according to people who are actually talking about science. You go on being an apologist for religion though, you are one of many, just making it up as they go along to explain something that makes no sense and never has. I have nothing personally against religion, but people who just deny reality because they have some odd pathological beleifs are really odd.

Honestly it's like we are back in the 16th century talking to people who believe everything revolves around us like some backward religious apologism. I mean did Copernicus do nothing, did Kepler and Tycho Brahe, Newton, Einstein et al make no impact on these people? It's amazing that the world has progressed in the last 400 years but some religionists are so far behind the times, that it is actually embarrassing to consider them on the same planet as us. Why not go play with raptor Jesus and leave the real people to get on with the real world without the usual numpties making absurd claims?

You are missing the point, skakos. It doesn't follow from Hubble's initial implication that the Earth appears to be in a unique position, that Earth in fact is in a unique position. The recession of the galaxies is explained perfectly well by an expanding universe wherein it doesn't matter where you are, everything else is getting further away.

uwot wrote:You are missing the point, skakos. It doesn't follow from Hubble's initial implication that the Earth appears to be in a unique position, that Earth in fact is in a unique position. The recession of the galaxies is explained perfectly well by an expanding universe wherein it doesn't matter where you are, everything else is getting further away.

Exactly, everyone is in that unique position.

uwot wrote:You are missing the point, skakos. It doesn't follow from Hubble's initial implication that the Earth appears to be in a unique position, that Earth in fact is in a unique position. The recession of the galaxies is explained perfectly well by an expanding universe wherein it doesn't matter where you are, everything else is getting further away.

Which does not necessitate the actuality, though current capabilities, surely make it seem so.

Of course I'm special, and the Earth is unique and the center of the Universe, Just like everyone and everything else.

I absolutely agree that the earth is the center of my Universe, and the center of the rest of the Universe is revolving around the Sun.

thedoc wrote:Of course I'm special, and the Earth is unique and the center of the Universe, Just like everyone and everything else.

Not necessarily, so!