Nasa Confirms Water on Mars

  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 935
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
They have already proven that the sun and Earth orbit each other. The sun and Earth orbit the center of gravity of everything in our solar system in fact.


Actually, I'm not convinced you're right to be this black and white. Your argument is based on theories that have stood the test of time and are supported by overwhelming observable evidence (*said the spaghetti monster), but they are still only theories and not to be confused with fact - i think :roll:

To pick up on Joebert's wacky point, when observed from beyond our own universe the laws of physics may not even apply :? dimensions could be different... :multi: 'god only knows' what it would be like to look-in from the outside.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

If you can't see the whole picture, you can't tell what it's doing.
Untill someone finds the edge of the universe, there will always be an amount of uncertaity whether the universe revolves around the earth or not.

There was a time when the fact that the earth is flat had withstood the test of time & had been derived from numerous observations. :D
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Prime wrote:
Actually, I'm not convinced you're right to be this black and white. Your argument is based on theories that have stood the test of time and are supported by overwhelming observable evidence (*said the spaghetti monster), but they are still only theories and not to be confused with fact - i think :roll:


The stuff I quoted you wasn't theories, that is all stuff they have proven. That is how they can send spaceships up and know what velocity to send them to stay in orbit. It is also how they know what velocity is needed to break orbit and head to other planets, asteroids, comets, the sun etc on the precise path that they do. How do you think they were able to send what they have to Mars? You really have to have a good understanding of these laws and how gravity works to pull things off like that.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

That only covers the relationship between the Earth & the Sun. There's still the matter of the relationship between the Earth & the Universe.

It's just like the time meman couldn't prove that polar bears will actually be "extinct" because there will always be a level of uncertainty whether there's another planet with polar bears on it somewhere else in the Universe. :)

I'm not arguing against gravity, only against it being possible to prove whether the Universe revolves around the Earth or not. :)
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 935
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
The stuff I quoted you wasn't theories, that is all stuff they have proven. That is how they can send spaceships up and know what velocity to send them to stay in orbit. It is also how they know what velocity is needed to break orbit and head to other planets, asteroids, comets, the sun etc on the precise path that they do. How do you think they were able to send what they have to Mars? You really have to have a good understanding of these laws and how gravity works to pull things off like that.



You believe something to be absolute because you can observe/calculate it :?: ...try this... :roll:

Most of science is not based on fact but on theory. Gravity is a theory general relativity evolution and quantum physics are all theories. And whilst I happen to agree with them (in my limited understanding) they are all to often taught/mistaken as fact.

You do not need to fully comprehend the underlying reasons in order to exploit an opportunity.

I maybe guilty of arguing bigger picture with limited success :oops:
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Take for instance this pocket watch.

Image

Any single gear tooth when observed becomes a stationary position & can be the center of the pocket watch (Universe) & all of the gears can continue to work exactly how they did before observation.

You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?
  • Prime
  • Professor
  • Professor
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 935
  • Loc: Liverpool

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Any single gear tooth when observed becomes a stationary position & can be the center of the pocket watch (Universe) & all of the gears can continue to work exactly how they did before observation.

You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?


my head hurts :puppydogeyes: I have a headache :cry: time for bed... :D
  • quantumcloud
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 456
  • Loc: Dhaka, Bangladesh

Post 3+ Months Ago

joebert wrote:
That only covers the relationship between the Earth & the Sun. There's still the matter of the relationship between the Earth & the Universe.

...............

I'm not arguing against gravity, only against it being possible to prove whether the Universe revolves around the Earth or not. :)

joebert wrote:
You can argue that the room around the pocket watch is proof that the gear tooth is revolving around its' axis, but how do you know the room itself is not spinning without going outside of it and making that observation ?
:)


Interesting topic. There are actually 2 scenarios that must be considered to avoid confusions. One, in which the entire universe with all the 11 dimensions, including space-time, is revolving or more precisely rotating (with respects to a point in our 3 spatial dimensions). And one in which the objects inside the universe are revolving around a central point. Here the rotation of space-time and the universe in total is not the main factor.

All of our observations and evidences suggest that the Cosmological Principle is true; that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large spatial scale and there are no preferred directions or preferred places in the Universe. The local group, which consists of milky way and few other galaxies, lies on outskirts of Virgo Cluster consisting of a few thousand galaxies. But it is a very very small scale. In the large scale the universe is mostly empty and would look the same in any direction you look. Now let's assume a simple rotating universe model where every point in space is rotating around an origin. If the universe rotates with respects to a point in our 3 spatial dimensions - this violates the Cosmological principle as there is now a preferred direction and place. Also those who follow Mach (as Joebert here) may think that a rotating universe is meaningless because if the whole universe is rotating then there is nothing with respect to this rotation can be happening. So there is really no way to prove one way or the other unless we actually go outside of the universe and observe (visually?)! However, GTR shows that a rotating universe would have observable effect that we can detect staying within this universe and we can settle the issue one way or the other. If you fire a laser beam in the so-called empty space-time of a rotating universe it will appear to travel along a spiral path rather than a straight line. But increasingly precise observations show that this is not the case and we do not have a rotating universe revolving around anything according to GTR. A rotating universe theory was put forward by Godel around 1949 but later observations of the real universe dismissed this theory.

To consider the 2nd scenario: objects within the universe move around another big object when the Mass of the big object curves the space-time fabric and forces smaller objects moving in straight line to move along the curve instead. There is no such large object on or nearby earth that can cause the entire universe to revolve around it. The uniform expansion of the space-time fabric everywhere at once also suggests strongly that there is no center of the universe.

There is no Center of the universe around which everything revolves. There is the famous balloon analogy that anyone can look up to see exactly how the space-time metric expands and why there is no Center of the universe.

Lastly for both Joe and Prime, the Observer effect or the Collapsing of Quantum Probabilities applies only to microscopic scale; scale much smaller than atoms. Quantum Mechanics has no relevance to macroscopic objects.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

Prime wrote:
You believe something to be absolute because you can observe/calculate it :?: ...try this... :roll:

Most of science is not based on fact but on theory. Gravity is a theory general relativity evolution and quantum physics are all theories. And whilst I happen to agree with them (in my limited understanding) they are all to often taught/mistaken as fact.


I still disagree. Yes there are many theories, but there are also laws too. Please read Newton's Law of Gravity:

http://physics.about.com/od/classicalme ... ravity.htm

Quote:
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.


Also read this:

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

Now this could be where you are confusing what I am saying. I am just talking about the center of gravity and how things orbit each other. It is fact that the sun orbits around a center of gravity, this is also how they can figure out if a star in the night sky is actually a binary star (actually two stars not one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star

Anyway that is off topic. Now if you involve time and all sorts of additional things then I would agree with you in that you are getting more into theory. If you read that link above here is a quote:

Quote:
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
  • jflynn
  • Mastermind
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2305
  • Loc: Baker City, Oregon

Post 3+ Months Ago

I've known some woman that thought the Universe revolved around them,

:)

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 40 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
cron
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.