Earth: The Center of the Universe?

Sum1sgruj

Banned
Veteran
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
774
Age
37
Location
Virginia, USA
Gil
0
I recently indulged again on the theory of relativity and the principles that are drawn from it. I figure for anybody that holds interest, this will broaden their scope of Einstein's intrigue.
To make it easier, I'll just tell the basic principle of general relativity: It is an explanation of gravity which is theorized by the relativity of all matter in space. To do this, Einstein had to produce new views of the universe's inner workings. The most popular, and most important, is his idea that space and time are in unison and make up all of existence. The reason why this is so dire is because matter has to act on both without there being a distinction between the two. Otherwise, the theory won't work.
We all know that gravity is a force that pulls celestial bodies toward each other. Since space is a vacuum, objects do not always collide. The moon, for example, has no matter to contend with that will slow it down, and therefore it continues to orbit Earth. When you throw a baseball, it is going to stop because of matter in the air and fall by Earth's gravity.
Einstein figured that everything has a relative quality to each other. No matter what the celestial body is made of, or how much active energy it has, gravity is a constant for everything but variable by density.
Thus, relativity was born. The less space there is, the less potential movement there is. Logically, that means the less potential movement there is, the less space there is. This is space-time. All objects in the universe are relative to each other. Is the Earth orbiting the sun or is the sun orbiting the Earth? We can only tell by the relative movement of other things in space. If it were just Earth and the sun, there would be no conclusion of which one orbits the other.
Since there is nothing relative to all other objects in space as a whole, who's to say that the Earth isn't the center of the universe?

**note: i do not wish to hop on the subject of theism, so please refrain from messaging bias opinion.
 
I say its not the center of the universe.

The less space there is, the less potential movement there is. Logically, that means the less potential movement there is, the less space there is.

This Gruj is the lamest paradox I have ever heard:lew:

Space/Time..........all you have done is told the basics of of the nature of Gravitational force? where are the details on the effect of time compression relative to the extreme molecular density and near light velocities.

The moon does have material to contend with in space micro meteorites, spicules of space dust, hell gravity itself is a physical force that are celestial bodies contend with, its what formed them and what keeps them in place.

If it were just Earth and the sun

If it were just the earth and the sun, the Earth would have fallen into the sun long ago,
You can only understand the relativity with in a system, you cant speculate with a system the whole process of system formation and gravitational points happens over billions of years.

The Sun is not orbiting the earth.:ffs:

The sun orbits the Sagitarius A* star at a distance of 30,000 light years towards Scorpio and Sagittarius in a mean time of 225-240 Million years its simply ignorant to say the Earth is the center of the universe, and annoying.

You cant talk about expanding bodies in the Universe with our mentioning Dark Energy and Dark Matter and there inherent anti-gravitational, relativityis an old theory superseded by String theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, 2 amongst ,many varying competing theories of everything.

Expand you scope of reference Gruj and you will see the earth is small and insignificant.
 
where are the details on the effect of time compression relative to the extreme molecular density and near light velocities.
The moon does have material to contend with in space micro meteorites, spicules of space dust, hell gravity itself is a physical force that are celestial bodies contend with, its what formed them and what keeps them in place.


General relativity and quantum mechanics do not agree with each other. They seem to have two extremely different workings. Obviously, there must be something unifying the both worlds. Though, being at a loss to prove either relativity or particle physics, we have theoretic science such as super-symmetry and string dynamics that attempt to re-write the whole idea of the universe.
String theory believes there may be 'gravitons' at work within atoms, for example.

As far as relative motion, it is a speculative theory more or less describing the universe as having no center. Logically, there can be no center in an infinite of space. Therefore, everything is relative to one another. Us orbiting the sun is only a speculation based on other objects that do not revolve around it.

There is less space within a dense object. Since time is essentially movement, there is also less time within the object. Think of this dense object as a 'knot' in space-time. When a less dense object moves towards it, it becomes limited in space and movement and starts to orbit.
That makes
The less space there is, the less potential movement there is. Logically, that means the less potential movement there is, the less space there is.
meritable.
 
Just between us Gruj you believe in String theory, I find the more classical fundamentals
Loop Quantum Gravity to be more applicable myself, string theory is a load of Bollucks, requiring the existence of 11 parallel dimensions.

Its clumsy and non re-normalizabale.

As far as a grand theory of Unification...........:hmmm: it would be exciting to see what the tests @ CERN provide over the next decade.

Gravitons are a theoretical particle describing the nature of a field which is a by product of mass within a Vacuum space, it Explains a lot but remains unproven at this time, if they proof the existence of the Graviton it would revolutionize the way we look at the universe.

Finally confirming our theories............In a Electro-static rings you say?

I might look that up.
 
Eleven different dimensions isn't as unlikely as it seems. There are many things that can be explained by the existence of extra ones and after all, nothing really denies the possibility that they could exist.
Some people see a lack of proof for such an elegant theory and dismiss it as an impossibility, but this is with every theory also. String theory is only different in the way it is supported: by it's own supports. Nothing really proves it right or wrong.
I'm not a strict believer in string theory, but I do point in that general direction. I believe in the idea of dimensional mechanics simply because without dimensions, where does 'existence' fit? They are grid lines of our universe, the coding of physical nature..
To understand extra dimensions, you have to stray away from the misconception of what is 'real'. Electrons, for example, pop out of existence and pop back in another location spontaneously. They are 'real', but only because they interact with us. What are they when they are in 'limbo'? Where are they?
It's not really a theory of 'strings' anymore so much as it is 'dimensional mechanics', as I mentioned it to be earlier. It will continue to change, probably to the point where it transforms into something completely different. I believe it's a turning point at the very least. Physics has been at a hard dead-end for a long time now. Graviton hunting is one of many things that prove it.
 
Im just concerned about string theory because it needs so many un-proven dimensions to
be viable, all those extra dimensions Just means there is that more that can go wrong, Gruj you do know that there at least 7 different variations of String theory?

I like the ideas of super symmetry, but its been a while since I have researched it:lew: thanks for the kick in the pants to get back into my study:ryan:

Where electrons go is what CEEN is endeavoring to fond out, and the other place......:hmmm: yeah the Large Hadron Collider, I could be wrong but they could be the same thing:lew:
 
There became a new explanation that unified all seven, called M-theory. It's name bears no meaning to what it states..,??
But it unified them by adding another dimension. It introduced a higher universe where dimensions interact with each other through a system of 'branes' (shaped multi-verses). In them are any number of universes with any number of dimensions in each.
They float in this 11th dimension and spin off new branes when they collide (string theory version of the big bang)

It does, I admit, sound a little far fetched, but once you see the nuts and bolts of the theory it's hard to think that reality is only a few dimensions.
 
It does, I admit, sound a little far fetched, but once you see the nuts and bolts of the theory it's hard to think that reality is only a few dimensions.
So reality is complex, but everything revolves around one planet?

Anyway, something that was already mentioned was "dark energy". Sounds like an interesting idea to me.

We still come back to the circular logic of the Earth mentioned in the OP, but I read how scientists tried a scale model and strangely enough, believed the theory wouldn't work. Philosophical ideas only work so far, some are dated or don't hold a lot of weight, etc... this is kind of how I view the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe. Maybe I'm incorrect in believing that the Earth isn't the center of the universe, but if I am to believe that it is, I need something to go on...
 
Last edited:
I dont want his to turn into an argument Gruj ans Czen so we can just "discuss" this friendly like?

You want to know the story behind the origin of theory?:lew:

The M is really a W its the 1st initial of the dudes name that created/combined multiple facets of string theory:ryan: I forget his name:hmmm:.

Dark energy Czen is the very Basic energy in the Universe, to man its the very fabric of Space/Time.........but the really exciting part about DE is that it has an inherent Anti Gravitational force that is expanding the Universe on a massive scale.

O could go on here but.........its not an Astronomy thread:lew:
 
So reality is complex, but everything revolves around one planet?

I don't remember ever claiming that..

Anyways, dark matter never sit well with me. It tries to fill the gap where 'aether' couldn't. Aether was thought to be a fabric that had to exist for energy to travel through empty space, but it was deemed impossible after Einstein's studies. Now we have a theory of dark matter, which conveniently has mass.
As far as dark energy, I think it's a patch that scientists add on to logic to hide all the fluctuating variables. This is something to be wary about when you study theory.
 
Gruj are your terms right...........:hmmm:

Dark Matter is Material that cannot be observed at optical light wavelenghts
like brown dwarfs and other objects that a re thought to cause the expansion of Spacetime Blah blah blah:lew:

And Dark Energy is the fabric/field which the Universe is constructed of, again not obervable at Optical light wavelengths:lew: it does not absorb or emit any form of light or radiation.

So how do we know its there? tell me that and we can discuss Unification:ryan:
 
Dark matters prime reasoning to exist in theory is to explain another phenomena that general relativity fails to answer. Gravity has to have a constant. E=mc sq, for instance, is still used today for mapping orbits and travel of celestial objects. But for some reason, the equation becomes less accurate in many places of far space. Allegedly, dark matter is the cause for this variation. Like regular matter, dark matter can be as dense as a star or as light as a meteorite and makes up over 90 percent of all matter in space. Although, it does not behave like regular matter. Like you said, it is undetectable in every way (except by gravity), and it's particles are so small that they can pass right through the center of the Earth and back into space in a blink of an eye.

My problem with dark matter is that it produces as many anomalies as it does answers. If dark matter exists, should it not adhere to the rules of gravity like everything else? Shouldn't we be seeing some objects in space orbit phantom objects?
 
Well something is expanding the universe and rapidly too. A substance that does have a gravity pull..so they gave it a name.."Dark Energy".. I believe Dark Energy exists, mainly based on the programmes Ive seen on National Geographic Channel lol..

What else could expand the universe this way?
Dark Matter was said to actually pull things, but there isnt enough Dark Matter to compensate for the Dark Energy's pull.

Matter and Anti-Matter..man its confusing....

About the multi-universe thing (Bubble Theory) Im starting to lean more towards that theory myself..The Big Bang Version to be exact.. I believe our universe will implode one day and start the cycle again, bubble will burst and new Big Bang will occur again..OR our Universe will collide with an other Universe..

The exact place where the Big Bang started/originated = Center of Universe..not Earth imo and thus for reference they could check out the Cosmic Background Radiation..dont know exactly what they called it lol..

I cant imagine the Universe will end with a big rip..
Maybe Big Crunch.
 
Anti-matter definitely exists, there's no doubt about that. I just don't agree with the full context of it.
Dark energy is theory built on theory, and the integrity of what it claims to uphold is threatened by an obvious inquiry: if any quantum theory can work, matter and energy have to essentially be the same thing. Dark energy has to have mass and repel gravity at the same time to work. This doesn't make sense to me. I feel that scientists are just getting too carried away with mathematics and turning things such as anti-matter into some sort of ultimate celestial substance.
I'm strongly against any 'key' energy or matter. It goes against fundamental theory.

As far as the Big Band being the center of the universe, it would seem so on the surface..
But when gravity falls back on itself and everything masses together again, it will be in another location. It adheres to the chaos theory in which forces will interact between matter and produce a different outcome. If you believe in dark energy, you could argue it because dark energy does not move with gravity even though it spurred from the big bang. Therefore if it shrinks it will go back to the 'center'.
 
Just a couple points, since this thread is all over the place (not a bad thing, and definitely an obvious result of the topic - I just worry about how relevant I'll be).

An important point came up about the fabric of the universe. One of the things that makes it easy to forget about the various energies is that space seems so very empty. But when you realize that every field (gravitational, electric, etc.) changes the space where it could affect other objects, you realize that space isn't really empty at all.

There are a lot of competing theories on what the universe is doing. Personally, the infinite expansion makes the most sense to me (too many things have to go right for the universe to either crunch or bounce, and those seem to contradict things that make sense - 2nd law of thermodynamics for example). If we go with infinite expansion, then Earth sort of is the center of the universe. I have to specify sort of, since every location is equally the center of the universe. Since everything is accelerating away from each other equally, and there's no boundary on the universe, everything has equal claim on being the center of the universe.

Gruj, as far as the relocation of the big bang/crunch, with the random distribution of matter in the universe, shouldn't the "center" or average location of all the mass/energy remain constant (assuming the distribution is truly random)? Also, since space itself would be moving and shifting during all that, would there even be an objective/external way to measure where the center was at the start and is at the end?
 
Gruj, as far as the relocation of the big bang/crunch, with the random distribution of matter in the universe, shouldn't the "center" or average location of all the mass/energy remain constant (assuming the distribution is truly random)? Also, since space itself would be moving and shifting during all that, would there even be an objective/external way to measure where the center was at the start and is at the end?

If we assume that space is infinite, then technically there can't be a center. Only a theory such as dark energy can suggest a limited universe, as it repels gravity and the other forces and has a 'ground zero' symmetry.
As far as the big bang being the center of the universe, Einstein's theory of relativity states that space is infinite and therefore all matter is only relative in their 'coordinates and movements'.
 
So, stop me if I'm wrong, but there's no scenario where you could have a true objective center? In an expanding universe (which ours seems to be doing at least currently), since everything is expanding from each other equally, there's no real "origin point." We'd have to assess the Universe externally to mark a center, and since that's not possible, there can't be a center?
 
No there is a center, Gruj is just drunk with power:lew:

You see universe construction is not following a uniform flow, its developing Asymmetrically over the course of the expansion and as larger groups of matter drew closer together they caused the universe to expand into a non uniform shape.

And so what center there was maybe a very weak force in the universe right now if it exist anymore, it could have been ripped apart, many years ago astronomers thought they found the Center of existence.

It was a paradox of what they thought they would find?

This was back when the expansion of the universe was not even an understanding in theory,
they thought they had found a Center point to the universe, that was Static, but it found to be producing earlier evolutionary states of galaxies the closer you got to the "Center"

What gruj is attempting to explain is the varying theories dont express room a "center" point to the universe? i could be wrong, but that shte thing about relativity and interpretation of spatial distances and co-ordinate systems.

Its up to the individual perception.

All you guys need to know is this:
you_are_here_galaxy.jpg

BTW thats actually M33 the Andromeda Galaxy :lew: I recognise the large halo and the 2 smaller galaxies orbiting:ryan:
 
Last edited:
The rationale of a static universe is that it's the center of a multi-verse. It gets it's name from the idea that it is void, but in vain, still has the same laws of physics.
But even in empty space, something can 'happen'. You see it in quantum physics, where an atom can lie stable for millions of years, and then bOOm, out pops an alpha particle.
When this occurs, another universe is created, and for every unique happening, another universe is formed. That means there are 10 to the 500th power of universes being created every time something moves..

In other words, I don't believe that a static universe is the foundation of ours lol. I find the universe coming from nothing absurd, as I've mentioned in other threads. I feel that quantum leaps and things of the sort have to have a source, a tap if you will.
Quantum leaps are explained very well in string theory :awesome:

So um, Flare,, you been drinkin? cuz you def got some slurred typin goin on there :smartass:
 
Yes im very drunk, its warm right now and the best way to ignore it is to not feel it in the first place...........the drinking.

Quantum leap was a great show:lew:

Gruj what do you know about Zero point energy? Im impressed with your knowledge:ryan:
 
Back
Top