1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou personally specifying that an object has a center doesn't make it so. The universe has no center therefore it is wrong to say that any point is the center of the universe. Your original claim was incorrect.
Every coordinate system has a centre. That's how a coordinate system is defined - an origin (centre) and a method of determining positions relative to the origin (e.g. using a set of axes that span the space, or using some measure of distance and angle etc.)
The article says there is no unique or preferred centre of the Universe - not ...[text shortened]... in a particular frame of reference.
As I said earlier, leave the science to the scientists.
Stop trying to pretend you're a scientist; it's about as believable as the RHP Jean Hebert pretending that he was the IM Jean Hebert.
EDIT: Remember saying this?
From the perspective of modern relativity, it would not be wrong to call the earth the centre of the Universe.
As the articles make clear, it certainly would be wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderActually, your article says "no unique center" of the Universe. Why do you think the author you cite says "unique", no1?
You personally specifying that an object has a center doesn't make it so. The universe has no center therefore it is wrong to say that any point is the center of the universe. Your original claim was incorrect.
Stop trying to pretend you're a scientist; it's about as believable as the RHP Jean Hebert pretending that he was the IM Jean Hebert.
...[text shortened]... he centre of the Universe.
As the articles make clear, it certainly would be wrong.
Spot the difference between the following statements (from maths, this time):
1. This equation does not have a unique solution.
2. This equation does not have a solution.
I would say the key word in this argument is "the":
1. The centre of the universe.
2. A centre of the universe.
So even if there were infinite centres and you were to choose a centre, it makes the statement "The Earth is the centre of the universe" invalid.
A centre is a point, so does that mean infinite centres would make the universe one big centre? 😀
Originally posted by lausey"The Earth is the centre of the Universe" is incomplete, not invalid.
I would say the key word in this argument is "the":
1. The centre of the universe.
2. A centre of the universe.
So even if there were infinite centres and you were to choose a centre, it makes the statement "The Earth is the centre of the universe" invalid.
A centre is a point, so does that mean infinite centres would make the universe one big centre? 😀
"The Earth is the centre of the Universe in a particular frame of reference X" is complete and valid.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIsn't that a mutually exclusive proposition though?
"The Earth is the centre of the Universe in a particular frame of reference X" is complete and valid.
Would make more sense to say:
"The Earth is the centre of my frame of reference."
It makes reference to the universe irrelevant.
Originally posted by lauseyNot really. If you tried to calculate the centre of mass of the Universe in this frame of reference, you would see that it would, indeed, be the Earth.
Isn't that a mutually exclusive proposition though?
Would make more sense to say:
"The Earth is the centre of my frame of reference."
It makes reference to the universe irrelevant.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you ever make a scientific assertion, I'll make a scientific argument against it (please stop pretending you're a scientist BTW; it's an obvious fraud). As it is, you made an incorrect and ignorant statement and are now trying to goalpost move. A fifth grade playground would be a perfect place for the assertions you regularly make in these forums except that most fifth graders wouldn't even believe your BS.
You know, you really need to start making scientific arguments against scientific assertions.
This isn't the fifth grade playground.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe second statement is utterly meaningless and contradictory. The Universe encompasses all frames of reference and has no center.
"The Earth is the centre of the Universe" is incomplete, not invalid.
"The Earth is the centre of the Universe in a particular frame of reference X" is complete and valid.
Originally posted by no1marauderFull of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing.
If you ever make a scientific assertion, I'll make a scientific argument against it (please stop pretending you're a scientist BTW; it's an obvious fraud). As it is, you made an incorrect and ignorant statement and are now trying to goalpost move. A fifth grade playground would be a perfect place for the assertions you regularly make in these forums except that most fifth graders wouldn't even believe your BS.
Come back when you have a real argument to make instead of petty ad hominems.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL!
The second statement is utterly meaningless and contradictory. The Universe encompasses all frames of reference and has no center.
A frame of reference is not some kind of physical object that can be "encompassed" by the Universe - it is (basically) a coordinate system that one uses for measurements.
You've still not answered why your source said "no unique center" rather than "no center" (as you're claiming). Do you really not see a difference?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour frames of reference exist outside the Universe? Interesting.
LOL!
A frame of reference is not some kind of physical object that can be "encompassed" by the Universe - it is (basically) a coordinate system that one uses for measurements.
You've still not answered why your source said "no unique center" rather than "no center" (as you're claiming). Do you really not see a difference?