Originally posted by Bosse de Nagelausey seems to be arguing that choosing an origin to a coordinate system and then calling it the centre of the Universe is tautological. If I'm just calling it the geometric centre of the Universe, then he's right of course. But I'm talking about centre from a mechanics perspective, like centre of mass. The fact that any point in the Universe would be a centre of mass for the entire Universe is a consequence of the homogeneity and isotropy of the Universe.
Then you agree with lausey & no1marauder. Super.
no1 is arguing that the Universe has no centre at all. He's not presented any science to back his arguments, and the only authority he cites actually disagrees with him. He's too stubborn to admit it.
I find it amusing that he has no problems conceiving an object (the Universe) with no centre at all (can you think of any object from ordinary experience that doesn't have a centre?) - but cannot conceive one with multiple or infinite centres.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou'd think he'd never read Bruno, eh.
I find it amusing that he has no problems conceiving an object (the Universe) with no centre at all (can you think of any object from ordinary experience that doesn't have a centre?) - but cannot conceive one with multiple or infinite centres.
Originally posted by lucifershammer"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
If Bruno had ever said anything about non-Euclidean geometries, I would've been surprised.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour snotnose comments aside, you are simply wrong. The article did not say any point in the universe can be validly considered to be its center; that's absurd. I see you have now tried to change the definition of center of the universe; how predictable! You're a total clown and asshole.
For objects in curved spaces, every point can indeed be the centre.
Consider an "object" with a uniform mass distribution that completely covers a [spherical] Riemann space. In this space, every point would indeed be the/a centre of mass for the object.
In fact, this is one of the most common conceptions of the Universe - which is why it does no ...[text shortened]... ce to the scientists. Or, at the very least, do some study before making scientific judgments.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWe've been through this BS before. The Brahe model was rejected by the vast majority of scientists at the time for valid scientific reasons, though it took you about 20 pages back then to realize that it wasn't the primary model until the 1800's! Idiot. . You read this crap in one article and have adopted it as Gospel to help excuse the persecution of Galilleo. When are you going to give this ridiculous charade up?
Who says scientists at the time were always thinking scientifically?
Present the data and the two models to any modern scientist - the only reason to adopt the Copernican-Galilean model would be simplicity (i.e. Ockham's razor). However, the issue of stellar parallax would over-ride simplicity and any modern scientist would adopt the Brahean model ...[text shortened]... e of the vastness of the Universe or something else that might explain the absence of parallax.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Church held sway through most of Europe. I realize you are mindnumbingly stupid, but at the same time that the RCC was declaring heliocentrism a heresy the religious genocide in Germany called the Thirty Years War was going on. Try reading a history book, fool.
Which areas of Europe besides Italy? You said "many".
Originally posted by lucifershammerFalling back on "common sense" and ordinary observations are very poor arguments when discussing relativity. A super scientist like you should know that.
lausey seems to be arguing that choosing an origin to a coordinate system and then calling it the centre of the Universe is tautological. If I'm just calling it the geometric centre of the Universe, then he's right of course. But I'm talking about centre from a mechanics perspective, like centre of mass. The fact that any point in the Universe would b ...[text shortened]... that doesn't have a centre?) - but cannot conceive one with multiple or infinite centres.
Originally posted by no1marauderYep - that's the way to refute a scientific argument - call me a "total clown and asshole".
Your snotnose comments aside, you are simply wrong. The article did not say any point in the universe can be validly considered to be its center; that's absurd. I see you have now tried to change the definition of center of the universe; how predictable! You're a total clown and asshole.
Go back and read your own article, no1 - why do you think it said "no unique centre"?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage1. IIRC, Yates specifically picks out this passage as one that has been most misunderstood by Bruno. The emphasis in the passage is on the spiritual aspect - not the physical. Which is not to say that Bruno is speaking purely metaphorically - but the physical cosmology is purely incidental.
"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Ever ...[text shortened]... ange in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."
2. It's still Euclidean. 😉
Originally posted by lucifershammerI already explained that to you. It also doesn't say that the Universe has infinite centers like you are now claiming. I read the article and it deals with the Universe's expansion. It's obvious you didn't read it in detail and/or can't understand it.
Yep - that's the way to refute a scientific argument - call me a "total clown and asshole".
Go back and read your own article, no1 - why do you think it said "no unique centre"?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMFAO!!! As Bruno was murdered by the RCC, LH insists that he was merely an ignorant, superstitious astrologer. This BS was also demolished in another thread.
1. IIRC, Yates specifically picks out this passage as one that has been most misunderstood by Bruno. The emphasis in the passage is on the spiritual aspect - not the physical. Which is not to say that Bruno is speaking purely metaphorically - but the physical cosmology is purely incidental.
2. It's still Euclidean. 😉
Originally posted by lucifershammerBruno did not distinguish between a "spiritual" and "physical" universe.
1. IIRC, Yates specifically picks out this passage as one that has been most misunderstood by Bruno. The emphasis in the passage is on the spiritual aspect - not the physical. Which is not to say that Bruno is speaking purely metaphorically - but the physical cosmology is purely incidental.
2. It's still Euclidean.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Be specific. You said that heliocentrists were threatened with torture and death in "many" place of Europe. Which places? Only Spain and Italy had Inquisitions. How many scientists were tortured or killed for heliocentrism in these countries? In the rest of Europe? Galileo himself had his letters published in Germany, where Copernicus's book was also freely available. Be specific.
The Church held sway through most of Europe. I realize you are mindnumbingly stupid, but at the same time that the RCC was declaring heliocentrism a heresy the religious genocide in Germany called the Thirty Years War was going on. Try reading a history book, fool.
2. "Religious genocide"? Are you running for political office?
EDIT: FYI, Catholic France fought on the Protestant side during the war.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderno1: The Brahe model was rejected by the vast majority of scientists at the time for valid scientific reasons
We've been through this BS before. The Brahe model was rejected by the vast majority of scientists at the time for valid scientific reasons, though it took you about 20 pages back then to realize that it wasn't the primary model until the 1800's! Idiot. . You read this crap in one article and have adopted it as Gospel to help excuse the persecution of Galilleo. When are you going to give this ridiculous charade up?
Name one (reason, not scientist).
The fact that the majority(?) of 17th century scientists rejected Brahe's model does not necessarily mean they did it for scientific reasons. Modern scientists (I'd listed a few in that thread) looking at the data admit as much. Science is not a matter of opinion polls.
As I said (both in that thread and here) - why don't you actually present the data to a modern scientist and ask for his professional opinion as to which model he would've upheld?