I read those opinions.
Earth, center of the Universe..
Sort:
NimzoRoy wrote:
How about some sources for all of your "facts?"
BTW there is no "center" of the universe
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Scientist's are not above speculation, it can be a little like propaganda. The question is, did the Universe have a beginning or not? If it had a beginning then there has to be a center. If you believe there was no beginning then..well..I guess your mind can wonder around to many conclusions.
Some people just like the intrigue of never answering a question, they pursue pursue but dodge any meaningful conclusions to anything. No criticism of you personally, I don't know you.
Relativity makes some counter-intuitive predictions, and you get into trouble when you try understanding it in terms of our human experience.
For example, it's not that your atomic clock will run slower for you if you take it on a fast trip towards a black hole. However, if you return back to Earth, less time will have elapsed on your clock compared to atomic clocks on the planet. The thing is, neither clock ran fast or slow. They both measured time as flowing at the same rate within their frame of reference, and neither can be said to be correct.
This isn't just speculation. Time on GPS satellites runs faster than the recievers on Earth, since they are higher up in Earth's gravity well.
We live pretty much in a three dimensional world, it's weird to think of space or time as being curved, and it's natural to think that there must have been something before the Universe or something outside the Universe, or that the Universe is an ordinary object in the unchanging medium of space. But that's not the right way to look at it.
Here's how Stephen Hawking suggests we try to comprehend spacetime:
"...consider an imaginary time spacetime that is a sphere, like the surface of the Earth. Suppose that imaginary time was degrees of latitude. Then the history of the universe in imaginary time would begin at the South Pole. It would make no sense to ask, "What happened before the beginning?" Such times are simply not defined, any more than there are points south of the South Pole. The South Pole is a perfectly regular point of the Earth's surface, and the same laws hold there as at other points. This suggests that the beginning of the universe in imaginary time can be a regular point of spacetime, and that the same laws can hold at the beginning as in the rest of the universe."
Do not intend to deviate the conversation, but after reading about such fantastic figures like billions of light years and awfull concepts like paralel Universe, time and mass. . .
. . .why do not we put down our feet on the Earth and answer me a couple of questions?
1.
In the very interesting book of George Gamow "Matter, Earth and Sky" written about 1958 it says that the SIZE of the human brain is half way (in a logarithmic scale) between the sizes of electrons and of known groups of galaxies.
It also says that the DURATION of the wink of a human eye stands half way between the length of life of uranium and the one of gamma rays.
With such an expanding Universe, how do those scales stand now?
2,
The smallest size of a drop of water (droplet?) is that found in the fog (that size is due to gravity and superficial tension) and still is bigger than small ants.
Now, how do ants drink water? - - -for if they "bite" a small drop. . .then there is a smaller drop----
Happy weekend
dajacca, I will have to look for it..
[COMMENT DELETED]
scotchfaster wrote:
Relativity makes some counter-intuitive predictions, and you get into trouble when you try understanding it in terms of our human experience.
For example, it's not that your atomic clock will run slower for you if you take it on a fast trip towards a black hole. However, if you return back to Earth, less time will have elapsed on your clock compared to atomic clocks on the planet. The thing is, neither clock ran fast or slow. They both measured time as flowing at the same rate within their frame of reference, and neither can be said to be correct.
This isn't just speculation. Time on GPS satellites runs faster than the recievers on Earth, since they are higher up in Earth's gravity well.
We live pretty much in a three dimensional world, it's weird to think of space or time as being curved, and it's natural to think that there must have been something before the Universe or something outside the Universe, or that the Universe is an ordinary object in the unchanging medium of space. But that's not the right way to look at it.
Here's how Stephen Hawking suggests we try to comprehend spacetime:
"...consider an imaginary time spacetime that is a sphere, like the surface of the Earth. Suppose that imaginary time was degrees of latitude. Then the history of the universe in imaginary time would begin at the South Pole. It would make no sense to ask, "What happened before the beginning?" Such times are simply not defined, any more than there are points south of the South Pole. The South Pole is a perfectly regular point of the Earth's surface, and the same laws hold there as at other points. This suggests that the beginning of the universe in imaginary time can be a regular point of spacetime, and that the same laws can hold at the beginning as in the rest of the universe."
Even Stephen Hawking glosses over (in his book) what is considered the biggest most embarrassing problem in physics. That when you add up all of the parameters like G, lambda, Omega, N, Q, etc. the Universe is super finely tuned to 10 to the 120th power. They simply have no scientific answer for that. I don't make these things up.
Ill give you Hawkings own words. "We would not give very high odds that any of these theories is a useful approximation of how galaxies were actually formed" "There shouldn't be any galaxies out there"
No one knows what there was at 10 -43 of a second before the BB. They say it was super physical.
paul211 wrote:
Do not believe everything that you read, Americans are like Russians and many other countries when it comes to telling the truth, they simply convey a message of ignorance as at least 90% of the people that read the information have no basics or knowledge about what they say, and simply gobble the message.
I have read the topic in question and I am simply flabergasted of the "compte rendu"
Those that have basic undersatnding about the universe direction are of two fold when interpreting the cosmology of the universe; the universe is expanding, the Einstein theory, or the universe is collapsing.The density of the geometry of the universe, called Omega, symbol Ω ; plays a major role in its final evolution. Continue tomorrow.
Hawking is English..like Canadians..
Ah the Fine Tuned Universe argument. This amounts to 'puddle thininking' mentioned above; of course it seems fine tuned to us, we evolved in it. Other combinations of physical constants might have enabled other life forms to develop. We ultimately don't know why the physical laws are what they are, but that we have no scientific answer does not mean there is not one, nor is this lack of understanding embarassing. The day when humanity knows everything about the universe will be a sad one indeed, but probably will never come. Positing that any currently unanswered scientific questions point to gods existance is merely a god of the gaps argument. People used to believe that god alone could explain lighting, disease, the movements of the solar system, and now science has explained all these phemonina. If a new theory for galaxy formation comes out tomorrow that scientifically solves the problem better than any theory has up til now, this would no more disprove god than any of the other times when science has trumped religion, nor would this discovery convert any of the faithful.
collinsdanielp wrote:
Ah the Fine Tuned Universe argument. This amounts to 'puddle thininking' mentioned above; of course it seems fine tuned to us, we evolved in it. Other combinations of physical constants might have enabled other life forms to develop. We ultimately don't know why the physical laws are what they are, but that we have no scientific answer does not mean there is not one, nor is this lack of understanding embarassing. The day when humanity knows everything about the universe will be a sad one indeed, but probably will never come. Positing that any currently unanswered scientific questions point to gods existance is merely a god of the gaps argument. People used to believe that god alone could explain lighting, disease, the movements of the solar system, and now science has explained all these phemonina. If a new theory for galaxy formation comes out tomorrow that scientifically solves the problem better than any theory has up til now, this would no more disprove god than any of the other times when science has trumped religion, nor would this discovery convert any of the faithful.
I appreciate you point of view.
The center area of the Universe for Earth is a 14.000.000 light year radius. That is the .0001% center.
RevLarry wrote:
Scientists tell us that the distance from the Hubble telescope to the event horizon (edge of the Universe) is 13.73 billion light years. In all directions. They also tell us the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. So the earth is in the center of the Universe.
If the radius is 13.7 billion L.Y. then the diameter is about 28 billion L.Y. and the circumference is about 84 billion L.Y. The Universe has an equator and poles. The Universe rotated 50 times sence the expansion.
The expansion began within the vicinity of Earth. The Universe is icotropic, which means there are the same amount of galaxy's all around us. Top, bottom, left, right, forward, backward, the same amount galaxy's and radiation.
The Earth is .0001% in the sweet spot or goldilocks zone of the Universe. We are in a 35 galaxy cluster which is in the goldilocks zone of a mega cluster. Our galaxy is in the goldilocks zone of the cluster we are in. Our solor system is in a goldilocks zone from the center of our galaxy's black hole that powers our galaxy 25000 light years away. The Earth is in a goldilocks zone from our Sun. The surface of the Earth is a goldilocks zone between our atmosphere and the core of the Earth. And you in front of your fireplace out in the wilderness.
We receive different kinds of radiation and gas from the stars and of super novas that are necessary for life. Not too many , not too few, just the right amount of super novas must occur and the gas's mix to proper proportions before entering the Earth's amosphere. The Earth does not manufacture these things and our only source are those stars.
What is center? Even you can not explain this. Is center mere illusion? You can not define it. Wherever you are, you assume that you are in the center. Center is only in our mentality.
SirBuster Hello. Does the Universe have a biginning? Was there an expansion? Did the Universe begin as small at one point then grow to be larger? Then there has to be a center..
RevLarry wrote:
SirBuster Hello. Does the Universe have a biginning? Was there an expansion? Did the Universe begin as small at one point then grow to be larger? Then there has to be a center..
Yes you are right that The Center exists. If you draw a circle you know the center. If you have a ball you can determine its center. If you are a man you know where is your center that is center of gravity. But as far as universe is concerned you are not in a position to determine it. The researches are going on. Even you can not imagine the dimensions of universe . To do this you will have to go outside of universe and which is not possible.
SirBuster. You are right. But scientist's have been working round the clock for 1000 years. There are 10 to the 89th power photons in the Universe. 10 to the 80th protons, and 10 to the 130th electrons in our Universe. The Universe is not so big that we can not understand it.
They use radio telesopes and can see the edge of the Universe. The biginning of time. The micro-wave radiation is denser there and it is 330.000 light years thick. We are like the yoke of an egg. The first galaxies, first quazars, A quazar is the center hub of a galaxy that has not formed yet. Cepheid stars, prototype stars. These are found near the beginning of the Universe. The spiral and elliptical galaxies formed later.
Some simply refuse to believe it. But it is real science.
SirBuster. The speed of the expansion is 74km per sec. per sec. The speed of quantum interactions is 10 to the 45th of a sec. The number of interactions (bit operations) in the history of the Universe is 10 to the 150th. This is called specified complexity.
paul211..For every positive force, that is each and every positive particle there is an exact negitive particle. The Universe is in a state of absolute equilibrium. Finely tuned to 10 to the 120 power.
RevLarry wrote: Even Stephen Hawking glosses over (in his book) what is considered the biggest most embarrassing problem in physics. That when you add up all of the parameters like G, lambda, Omega, N, Q, etc. the Universe is super finely tuned to 10 to the 120th power. They simply have no scientific answer for that. I don't make these things up.
I'll give this one last try. There's an easy answer: infinite universes, either through an oscillating universe that is constantly recreating itself, or through parallel universes. There's hard scientific evidence for parallel universes, BTW, in the two slit experiment. If there's an infinite number of universes, there are an infinite number of highly improbable universes. We're here in this universe because it improbably supports life.
But even if your conclusion was that this universe was intentionally created, why would anyone think that we were the desired outcome, apart from human narcissism? Again, maybe "God" really just likes comets, and self-replicating molecules are of no interest at all...
SirBuster wrote:
RevLarry wrote:
SirBuster Hello. Does the Universe have a biginning? Was there an expansion? Did the Universe begin as small at one point then grow to be larger? Then there has to be a center..
Yes you are right that The Center exists. If you draw a circle you know the center. If you have a ball you can determine its center. If you are a man you know where is your center that is center of gravity. But as far as universe is concerned you are not in a position to determine it. The researches are going on. Even you can not imagine the dimensions of universe . To do this you will have to go outside of universe and which is not possible.
You're still thinking in Cartesian terms.
Let's imagine that you are a two-dimensional being living on the surface of a globe - you cannot go up or down, only travel on the surface. To you, the world will have no center.
You're probably visualizing a three dimensional globe, with an inhabitant that just can't see the third dimension or be aware of the globe's center. But what if you take away the third dimension and make the globe's surface the entire universe, that is, simply a two dimensional continuous surface with no beginning or end? Now the globe/universe has no center at all.
I don't know if anyone can really visualize three dimensional space that curves back in on itself like this, but that's the model.
It doesn't make a lot of sense, but then neither does a lot that we can objective measure, such as time dilation or quantum mechanics. Although we definitely evolved, it wasn't specifically to understand physics on the cosmic or subatomic level.
How about some sources for all of your "facts?"
BTW there is no "center" of the universe
http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/centre.html