It's shocking that given the number of books on the guy's shelf he 'thinks' that the modern view is that the earth is the centre of the universe. It is not. The reason for a 13.7billion year horizon is that the light only has the age of the universe to travel. Relativity says you can't tell it you're moving at a uniform velocity in a single direction. You can absolutely measure whether you are orbiting or turning.
Although I've heard that the universe is constantly expanding I have not come across the idea that the universe is infinite...
Although I cannot verify your claim I can say that you don't understand the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity can indeed have size and just because something can be composed of infinite parts that doesn't mean that those parts have to take up all available space in every direction, everywhere.
Copernicus was right. Earth orbits a point in the Sun, Sun orbits the same point and it also orbits the center of this galaxy. This has nothing to do with the fact that the space between galaxies is expanding.
Sigh. This is what happens when a good education is wasted.
If the universe is infinite (which it isn't), then "center" has no meaning, not the "center is everywhere." Any jump from that to your anthropic argument is sophistry at its worst. Shame. However, as space and time are finite, then a center exists. And "contemporary cosmology" has discovered no such thing: I'd love to see a source for this.
Have you ever watched the mast of a ship with a telescope? This mast issue evaporates in light of the reality. Try it. Without the telescope the masts appear first or drop away, but with the telescope, no optical illusion occurs. Visual images from orbit are either not complete (angles/fish eye lenses, etc) or they are animations. I've yet to see a real image of rotating earth from space. Circumnavigation is as simple on a disk, as on a globe. Email me separately for more.
@flatterearth How about the fact that the masts of ships or the tops of skyscrapers appear on the horizon before the bottoms? Or the fact that if you set up poles at different latitudes the shadows will have different lengths. Or the visual images we can take from orbit. Or the fact that you can circumnavigate the globe.
I mean come on. The ancient Greeks were able to figure this stuff out and they didn't have access to the technology we have today.
A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. You are immersed in one of the biggest lies ever foisted on man and your reaction is predictable. There is not one single proof that the world moves or that it is round. Please, if you have such proof, produce it. The fact is, you have no proof (whereas I have many proofs to the contrary). You only have your pathetic BELIEF which, by the way, is false. Now, who's the idiot?
The problem is: If you managed to resist those hundreds of proofs that the earth is round - I doubt that you would accept mine! So I won´t waste my time on you!
The world IS flat. To find the curvature in any number of miles simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required. 90 mi should make 1 mile curve. But there is NO curve. Answer this, anyone: after leaving the atmosphere, how did the astronauts catch the earth going 70,000mph and climb aboard without getting DEAD?
@flatterearth You´re an idiot beyond belief! We really have to worry about the future of this planet in case people like you should ever get jobs more responsible than that of a dishwasher!
Congrats, you understood Einsteins theoy of common relativity... By the way, there is nothing called infinte exept in mathematics, we just don't know how the shape of the universe looks yet, I personally think it's a loop.
The universe cannot possibly be a loop as far as modern astronomy is concerned. If the universe were indeed a loop, then a distant source of light (for example a quasar) would have to bend around the curvature of the universe to reach us, however, there is no case that i am aware of where such bending has been observed.
The bending has been obsverved, just not at such a large scale... as far as the problem with seeing the lights of distant sources, well.. the universe is very large, and if it's a loop, it is a stupidly large loop, and that wouldn't mean that the distant souces we can observe is far enough away to circel the loop... acturally the only way to test it would be something that nearly never interferes with anything, and even thought, it'll be hard to prove.. so my theory is just a theory.
The reason we are concerned with the objective world is that it allows us to understand the physical world well enough to truly come to terms with the forces of change and continuation in the cosmos...The ideas you present here are really quite old...It's a variation on Nicholas of Cusa's cosmology that "herefore, the world machine will have, one might say, its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere..."
Even if we grant that as a valid cosmology it doesn't translate into method.
The Infinite (nondual) One does not exclude anything, even growth hierarchies, such as from atoms to molecules, to cells, to neuronal organisms to reptiles to mammals with limbic system in brain, to hominids with triune brain of which the neocortex is part (responsible for sybolic thought it many apes), to complex neocortex, SF1, SF2, SF3 structures. There are two main types of hierarchies: growth hierarchis and dominator hierarchies. The latter confuse individual and collective holons.
The word 'hiearchy' has many meanings. The most common is the notion of a (pathological) dominator hierarchy, which confuses individual and social holons. Holons are whole-parts. It is important to note that humans are not subholons of society, but humans are individual holons and human societies are collective holons.Holons have both an interior and exterior aspect to them.There is, for example, according to Alan Watts an interior for each exterior.Just in case I'll say: social dawrinism sucks.
That's Great! This one, the boiling down of some of your other perspectives to a basic idea, seems to bring me to a place in you that has some solidity. Thinking about this "stuff" can get, at times, rather subtle and difficult to follow in relationship to the terms and words used. But this post was well done - I think. As far as the majority living in the 16th century, it must be remarked that this majority just haven't had your experience which has been afforded to you by them and thier works.
The Earth was thought to be the center of the solar system and all the stars circling as well. We know this is not the case. I doubt very seriously that it is the only place where intelligent life exists, so it would not be a center of intelligence either.
We will always have gaps in knowledge, but so far the best way to fill these gaps has been the scientific method, which does not assume an intelligent being behind the curtains.
The phrase "observable universe" is really what is meant by the word "universe" in much of current cosmology. So whether or not it is endless or circular space is an open question, as is, whether or not there was only a single big-bang or continuous "banging"
As to infinite, Copernicus got the idea from Nic de Cusa. So it is interesting to see science getting it from a religious perspective and now with you & your authors returning it to a new age one as an intensity of matter itself.
I believe it's preferable to refer to the universe as "finite but unbounded" rather than infinite. If I understand you, and I may not, your contention that we are "at the cenert of the universe" is a miscronstrual of the data. Any point in the universe would appear from the same kind of data to be at the "center" just as much as do we.
I don't really agree with your use of the word infinite. I would agree with saying that the Universe is boundless, that it has no end, that it never never was, and that it will never not be. But (maybe this is my math background speaking here) "infinite" has a pretty specific definition, and something can be any or all those things without necessarily being infinite.
CM, I think you may have it the wrong way around? Matthew's use of infinite acknowledges the possibility of a bounded universe which is infinite in that its boundary is constantly expanding, growing. My knowledge on this topic is dated though so let me know if I'm wrong!
He's not saying that. Ask yourself this, does the universe exist without you in it? Now I won't be so arrogant to say that it doesn't, but on the flip side, why would you then, if your fesponse is "no," decide to belittle your experience so?
Yes, what he is presenting here has been built from the hard labor of the great minds before him...but know this: their (sceientists) hard labor was built on the foundation of the minds and consciousness that we all share everyday of our lives...
Fine, we are NOT the centre of the universe...but like I inquired, without us, does the universe exist? And if "yes," why do you belittle your existence?
Besides, why do you care so damn much? If he's wrong...why do you care?
Because when you say something about science you should know something about it rather than pretend to know. I like some of ThouArtThat's ideas and he knows his biology but not astrophysics. I'm not entirely against semantics but people really believe that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. I don't 'belittle' my existence. I get it in perspective. There's a monumental difference.
Understood. My apologies for implying that you don't understand that extent of your life. But, seriously, I think he knows that there is a physical impetus/center to the universe. All he is saying is that without us and our awareness, it really doesn't matter. We are each the center of our persepective universes, so why can't we, as we slowly traverse through space, be a center that witnesses and creates what we see and experience.
But, really, can we prove there is an edge to the universe?
good point, it's kind of like-if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?- it's the preceiver that makes the sound, with out the perciever there is no evidence that the tree ever feel...it could have already been on the ground.
also, i wanted to comment on what Mr. video said about the centre of the universe. what he's saying is correct, in my opinion (and what else matters haha) and if we take it even further we see that i am the centre, as are you.
Yes, that analogy does work, but, in all honesty, the real answer to that question is, is that, of course, the tree falls. It doesn't fall. It does everything you can think of. You have every reason to assume that ALL things that you can imagine can happen.
you place a good emphasis on "infinite". most people don't like infinite in their daily lives.... they like 9-5, eating by routine, tv news, coffee, commute, get the job done... known quantities... therefore there are fewer people who do enjoy "infinite" in their daily lives....
The only way I can somewhat dear to envision the singularity issue, for what I am concern, is to appeal for some higher dimensions.
Same as an ant cannot see but 2 dimensions on a cylinder it walks on, the same way us, humans, cannot see higher dimensions; will us see "shadows" from higher dimensions in the future (as physicists see "shadows" in particle accelerators)? Who knows...Then again, there are the brane theories, and other speculations. Far from being facts.
well, i've heard the dispute between a point in physics and a point in mathematics. now your adding yet another concept of point from astrophysics or philosophy or poetic. i think this springs from what you said that we don't know a world separate from our ability to know it. but there is an aspect where you're mixing subjective and scientific. our subjective experience regardless of astrophysics is that we are at the center. you're rhyming that intuition with scientific findings.
what makes thought interesting is that they're both true. we live in a paradox of ourselves, our own thought. we feel we're at the center but we can't deny that the universe is vast to the point of overwhelming us. i think we are asked to live both of these. the narrow bridge where one can err to either side.
It's shocking that given the number of books on the guy's shelf he 'thinks' that the modern view is that the earth is the centre of the universe. It is not. The reason for a 13.7billion year horizon is that the light only has the age of the universe to travel. Relativity says you can't tell it you're moving at a uniform velocity in a single direction. You can absolutely measure whether you are orbiting or turning.
dazzletag 4 months ago
Although I've heard that the universe is constantly expanding I have not come across the idea that the universe is infinite...
Although I cannot verify your claim I can say that you don't understand the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity can indeed have size and just because something can be composed of infinite parts that doesn't mean that those parts have to take up all available space in every direction, everywhere.
tapasoflife 7 months ago
Copernicus was right. Earth orbits a point in the Sun, Sun orbits the same point and it also orbits the center of this galaxy. This has nothing to do with the fact that the space between galaxies is expanding.
You ignored these fundamental points.
BjornPalmen 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very good Grasshopper
philopolymath 11 months ago
Sigh. This is what happens when a good education is wasted.
If the universe is infinite (which it isn't), then "center" has no meaning, not the "center is everywhere." Any jump from that to your anthropic argument is sophistry at its worst. Shame. However, as space and time are finite, then a center exists. And "contemporary cosmology" has discovered no such thing: I'd love to see a source for this.
crabbieappleton 11 months ago
Have you ever watched the mast of a ship with a telescope? This mast issue evaporates in light of the reality. Try it. Without the telescope the masts appear first or drop away, but with the telescope, no optical illusion occurs. Visual images from orbit are either not complete (angles/fish eye lenses, etc) or they are animations. I've yet to see a real image of rotating earth from space. Circumnavigation is as simple on a disk, as on a globe. Email me separately for more.
flatterearth 1 year ago
Just say you have no proof.
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth How about the fact that the masts of ships or the tops of skyscrapers appear on the horizon before the bottoms? Or the fact that if you set up poles at different latitudes the shadows will have different lengths. Or the visual images we can take from orbit. Or the fact that you can circumnavigate the globe.
I mean come on. The ancient Greeks were able to figure this stuff out and they didn't have access to the technology we have today.
FireDragons42 1 year ago
A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. You are immersed in one of the biggest lies ever foisted on man and your reaction is predictable. There is not one single proof that the world moves or that it is round. Please, if you have such proof, produce it. The fact is, you have no proof (whereas I have many proofs to the contrary). You only have your pathetic BELIEF which, by the way, is false. Now, who's the idiot?
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth
The problem is: If you managed to resist those hundreds of proofs that the earth is round - I doubt that you would accept mine! So I won´t waste my time on you!
pelikan88 1 year ago
Yea, right. And you're a moron. Do the math.
flatterearth 1 year ago
The world IS flat. To find the curvature in any number of miles simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required. 90 mi should make 1 mile curve. But there is NO curve. Answer this, anyone: after leaving the atmosphere, how did the astronauts catch the earth going 70,000mph and climb aboard without getting DEAD?
flatterearth 1 year ago
@flatterearth You're a fucking idiot.
cryotimber 1 year ago
@flatterearth You´re an idiot beyond belief! We really have to worry about the future of this planet in case people like you should ever get jobs more responsible than that of a dishwasher!
pelikan88 1 year ago
the world is flat according to some american celeb
tom123ek 2 years ago
Congrats, you understood Einsteins theoy of common relativity... By the way, there is nothing called infinte exept in mathematics, we just don't know how the shape of the universe looks yet, I personally think it's a loop.
oqww3y34 2 years ago
The universe cannot possibly be a loop as far as modern astronomy is concerned. If the universe were indeed a loop, then a distant source of light (for example a quasar) would have to bend around the curvature of the universe to reach us, however, there is no case that i am aware of where such bending has been observed.
knowledgenaut 2 years ago
The bending has been obsverved, just not at such a large scale... as far as the problem with seeing the lights of distant sources, well.. the universe is very large, and if it's a loop, it is a stupidly large loop, and that wouldn't mean that the distant souces we can observe is far enough away to circel the loop... acturally the only way to test it would be something that nearly never interferes with anything, and even thought, it'll be hard to prove.. so my theory is just a theory.
oqww3y34 2 years ago
the center becomes everywhere. i love that, it really puts a size on a sizeless universe.
aliar 3 years ago
The reason we are concerned with the objective world is that it allows us to understand the physical world well enough to truly come to terms with the forces of change and continuation in the cosmos...The ideas you present here are really quite old...It's a variation on Nicholas of Cusa's cosmology that "herefore, the world machine will have, one might say, its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere..."
Even if we grant that as a valid cosmology it doesn't translate into method.
2bsirius 3 years ago
Matt:( Hierarchy)
its absent from the universe. Congratulations.
LimpLoser 3 years ago
The Infinite (nondual) One does not exclude anything, even growth hierarchies, such as from atoms to molecules, to cells, to neuronal organisms to reptiles to mammals with limbic system in brain, to hominids with triune brain of which the neocortex is part (responsible for sybolic thought it many apes), to complex neocortex, SF1, SF2, SF3 structures. There are two main types of hierarchies: growth hierarchis and dominator hierarchies. The latter confuse individual and collective holons.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Ignore my spelling mistakes for these are irrelevant. loL
MaBu888 3 years ago
The word 'hiearchy' has many meanings. The most common is the notion of a (pathological) dominator hierarchy, which confuses individual and social holons. Holons are whole-parts. It is important to note that humans are not subholons of society, but humans are individual holons and human societies are collective holons.Holons have both an interior and exterior aspect to them.There is, for example, according to Alan Watts an interior for each exterior.Just in case I'll say: social dawrinism sucks.
MaBu888 3 years ago
Infinitely well said.
ScorpiusIncorruptus 3 years ago
Recently, reallife I saw a snake attacking a mouse, choking him, the mouse's eyes literally popped out. How's that for experience.
VreeFisions 3 years ago
I AM the center of the universe and radiate ALL out infinitely in all directions. WOW.
hepdot 3 years ago
That's Great! This one, the boiling down of some of your other perspectives to a basic idea, seems to bring me to a place in you that has some solidity. Thinking about this "stuff" can get, at times, rather subtle and difficult to follow in relationship to the terms and words used. But this post was well done - I think. As far as the majority living in the 16th century, it must be remarked that this majority just haven't had your experience which has been afforded to you by them and thier works.
safeteyvalve 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
could there be no center?
TheObnubilators 3 years ago
The Earth was thought to be the center of the solar system and all the stars circling as well. We know this is not the case. I doubt very seriously that it is the only place where intelligent life exists, so it would not be a center of intelligence either.
We will always have gaps in knowledge, but so far the best way to fill these gaps has been the scientific method, which does not assume an intelligent being behind the curtains.
loveisallneed 3 years ago
The phrase "observable universe" is really what is meant by the word "universe" in much of current cosmology. So whether or not it is endless or circular space is an open question, as is, whether or not there was only a single big-bang or continuous "banging"
As to infinite, Copernicus got the idea from Nic de Cusa. So it is interesting to see science getting it from a religious perspective and now with you & your authors returning it to a new age one as an intensity of matter itself.
Zeitschen 3 years ago
I believe it's preferable to refer to the universe as "finite but unbounded" rather than infinite. If I understand you, and I may not, your contention that we are "at the cenert of the universe" is a miscronstrual of the data. Any point in the universe would appear from the same kind of data to be at the "center" just as much as do we.
DynaCatlovesme 3 years ago
I don't really agree with your use of the word infinite. I would agree with saying that the Universe is boundless, that it has no end, that it never never was, and that it will never not be. But (maybe this is my math background speaking here) "infinite" has a pretty specific definition, and something can be any or all those things without necessarily being infinite.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
CM, I think you may have it the wrong way around? Matthew's use of infinite acknowledges the possibility of a bounded universe which is infinite in that its boundary is constantly expanding, growing. My knowledge on this topic is dated though so let me know if I'm wrong!
technepisteme 3 years ago
interesting, thank you for sharing this
ozjthomas 3 years ago
Nonsense. The centre of the universe is not Earth! Where did you learn this junk?
kentmage 3 years ago
He's not saying that. Ask yourself this, does the universe exist without you in it? Now I won't be so arrogant to say that it doesn't, but on the flip side, why would you then, if your fesponse is "no," decide to belittle your experience so?
Yes, what he is presenting here has been built from the hard labor of the great minds before him...but know this: their (sceientists) hard labor was built on the foundation of the minds and consciousness that we all share everyday of our lives...
ScorpiusIncorruptus 3 years ago
@ScorpiusIncorruptus:
1:40
You are making assumptions about what I think aswell! Make sense.
kentmage 3 years ago
The Earth is NOT at the centre of the universe.
kentmage 3 years ago
Fine, we are NOT the centre of the universe...but like I inquired, without us, does the universe exist? And if "yes," why do you belittle your existence?
Besides, why do you care so damn much? If he's wrong...why do you care?
ScorpiusIncorruptus 3 years ago
Because when you say something about science you should know something about it rather than pretend to know. I like some of ThouArtThat's ideas and he knows his biology but not astrophysics. I'm not entirely against semantics but people really believe that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. I don't 'belittle' my existence. I get it in perspective. There's a monumental difference.
kentmage 3 years ago
Understood. My apologies for implying that you don't understand that extent of your life. But, seriously, I think he knows that there is a physical impetus/center to the universe. All he is saying is that without us and our awareness, it really doesn't matter. We are each the center of our persepective universes, so why can't we, as we slowly traverse through space, be a center that witnesses and creates what we see and experience.
But, really, can we prove there is an edge to the universe?
ScorpiusIncorruptus 3 years ago
Comment removed
hepdot 3 years ago
NO. Literally, physically, actually, YOU are the center of the Universe and all that is created shines forth from your BEing. :)
hepdot 3 years ago
:D (re: hepdot)
kentmage 3 years ago
Comment removed
hepdot 3 years ago
good point, it's kind of like-if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?- it's the preceiver that makes the sound, with out the perciever there is no evidence that the tree ever feel...it could have already been on the ground.
also, i wanted to comment on what Mr. video said about the centre of the universe. what he's saying is correct, in my opinion (and what else matters haha) and if we take it even further we see that i am the centre, as are you.
blugreenblu 3 years ago
Yes, that analogy does work, but, in all honesty, the real answer to that question is, is that, of course, the tree falls. It doesn't fall. It does everything you can think of. You have every reason to assume that ALL things that you can imagine can happen.
ScorpiusIncorruptus 3 years ago
someone wasn't paying attention to what he was saying.
MeursaultBatemen 3 years ago
I very much was! 1:40...?!
kentmage 3 years ago
@ meursaultbateman
kentmage 3 years ago
you place a good emphasis on "infinite". most people don't like infinite in their daily lives.... they like 9-5, eating by routine, tv news, coffee, commute, get the job done... known quantities... therefore there are fewer people who do enjoy "infinite" in their daily lives....
matrixcmitech 3 years ago
this is why more and more are on pharma drugs, and other things...like consumerism etc
zezt 3 years ago 2
Indeed. It even affects me. I don't speak about infinitity in school for similar reasons.
MaBu888 3 years ago
The only way I can somewhat dear to envision the singularity issue, for what I am concern, is to appeal for some higher dimensions.
Same as an ant cannot see but 2 dimensions on a cylinder it walks on, the same way us, humans, cannot see higher dimensions; will us see "shadows" from higher dimensions in the future (as physicists see "shadows" in particle accelerators)? Who knows...Then again, there are the brane theories, and other speculations. Far from being facts.
adorianvlad 3 years ago
well, i've heard the dispute between a point in physics and a point in mathematics. now your adding yet another concept of point from astrophysics or philosophy or poetic. i think this springs from what you said that we don't know a world separate from our ability to know it. but there is an aspect where you're mixing subjective and scientific. our subjective experience regardless of astrophysics is that we are at the center. you're rhyming that intuition with scientific findings.
elephantinpajamas 3 years ago
what makes thought interesting is that they're both true. we live in a paradox of ourselves, our own thought. we feel we're at the center but we can't deny that the universe is vast to the point of overwhelming us. i think we are asked to live both of these. the narrow bridge where one can err to either side.
elephantinpajamas 3 years ago