GENIUS FORUMS

I was pondering this yesterday.

So, we have these laws and rules that we have gained by insight into how gravity works having the earth revolve around the sun.

Thus we have a pretty simple understanding of eliptical orbits, and how gravity creates them.

But.

Remember back in the day, when people thought everything revolved around the Earth? They came up with very complex models that were actually much more accurate in foretelling the positions of the planets & sun (at the time). Now, of course, we have dropped that notion for the more simplistic central sun.

Here's the thing, there is no reason why we can't use the Earth as the center of the universe. The math just becomes more complex. This is ultimate relativity. But what this means is, may we be looking at the entire universe in a way that makes it much too complex? Is there a simpler way to look @ things?

What I want to see is science develope this idea. I want to question whether the Earth is in fact the center (since we are here it's the easiest origin for most mathematical purposes). What would this bring up in equations as far as astronomy goes? Could we, indeed, be overlooking a simple bit of the equation by 'taking the easy way out' by using the sun as the origin?

Just food for thought.

IJesusChrist wrote:I was pondering this yesterday.

So, we have these laws and rules that we have gained by insight into how gravity works having the earth revolve around the sun.

Thus we have a pretty simple understanding of eliptical orbits, and how gravity creates them.

But.

Remember back in the day, when people thought everything revolved around the Earth? They came up with very complex models that were actually much more accurate in foretelling the positions of the planets & sun (at the time). Now, of course, we have dropped that notion for the more simplistic central sun.

Here's the thing, there is no reason why we can't use the Earth as the center of the universe. The math just becomes more complex. This is ultimate relativity. But what this means is, may we be looking at the entire universe in a way that makes it much too complex? Is there a simpler way to look @ things?

What I want to see is science develope this idea. I want to question whether the Earth is in fact the center (since we are here it's the easiest origin for most mathematical purposes). What would this bring up in equations as far as astronomy goes? Could we, indeed, be overlooking a simple bit of the equation by 'taking the easy way out' by using the sun as the origin?

Just food for thought.

Well the Sun isn't the centre of the Universe either. Somebody on a science site once posted that everything is moving at C. I don't know if they were right or not, but it's possible I suppose.

If we used the basis that the earth is the center of the galaxy, or the sun is the center of the universe, I have a feeling (even though they would not be very simple to use!) that we may find soe proper insight into how we delve into astronomy, and possibly even q.m.

IJesusChrist wrote:If we used the basis that the earth is the center of the galaxy, or the sun is the center of the universe, I have a feeling (even though they would not be very simple to use!) that we may find soe proper insight into how we delve into astronomy, and possibly even q.m.

The Earth, and Sun are far from the centre of the Galaxy. We are half way across of the Frisbee....

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Su ... 8-520.html

The Universe doesn't revolve around the sun or the earth, it revolves around me.

;)

Pincho that was possibly the best example you could have given to show that you have no idea what I'm trying to explain.

IJesusChrist wrote:I was pondering this yesterday.

So, we have these laws and rules that we have gained by insight into how gravity works having the earth revolve around the sun.

Thus we have a pretty simple understanding of eliptical orbits, and how gravity creates them.

But.

Remember back in the day, when people thought everything revolved around the Earth? They came up with very complex models that were actually much more accurate in foretelling the positions of the planets & sun (at the time). Now, of course, we have dropped that notion for the more simplistic central sun.

Here's the thing, there is no reason why we can't use the Earth as the center of the universe. The math just becomes more complex. This is ultimate relativity. But what this means is, may we be looking at the entire universe in a way that makes it much too complex? Is there a simpler way to look @ things?

What I want to see is science develope this idea. I want to question whether the Earth is in fact the center (since we are here it's the easiest origin for most mathematical purposes). What would this bring up in equations as far as astronomy goes? Could we, indeed, be overlooking a simple bit of the equation by 'taking the easy way out' by using the sun as the origin?

Just food for thought.

You do realize that science, and indeed sense-perception more generally, cannot establish anything at all with certainty?

We have no way of establishing whether the universe really revolves around the sun or the earth or anything else we care to name, or even if it revolves around anything at all. The only information that we can call upon are the appearances we experience through our senses, which may or may not be hallucinations of some kind.

For example, it could be that what we call "the universe" is really a simulation of some kind, run on some kind of computer. And if that is the case, then everything you ask here in your opening post becomes pointless.

The thing to remember is that science isn't really interested in truth as such. Rather, its primary interest, or so we are led to believe, lies in the art of making successful predictions. It creates models and systems of mathematics to make these predictions. If a certain model makes successful predictions, it gains credibility, and if it displays simplicity and elegance and fits neatly into the rest of the established scientific framework and has the potential to make a whole host of new interesting predictions, it becomes a candidate for the title of "established theory".

The old earth-centered theories that you talk about were rejected because they were cumbersome and unwieldly and steeped in a primitive philosophic outlook, even though they were capable of making a range of successful predictions. The newer sun-based theory was far more simple and elegant and compatible with the growing scientific outlook of the universe. Hence, it has been accepted for the time being, until something "better" comes along.

This is how science works. It is driven by a collection of competing forces, of different intellectual principles (prediction, explanatory power, Ockam's razor, mathematical elegance, social trends, social mythology, etc) bumping up against one another, and it is anyone's guess as to which has the upper hand at any one time.

The bottom line, though, is that every scientific theory, no matter how "'well-established", is tentative and provisional in nature, always vulnerable to being replaced by a "better" theory. As such, science cannot tell us anything at all about fundamental issues, such as the nature of reality, and what the universe really looks like.

To resolve those sorts of issues, one has to go more deeply into logic.

-

You got my point exactly! Now, realize that science has been blindly charging through thing. It has changed from prediction -> test -> outcome? to Observation -> prediction -> test.

We are missing some things, obviously.

Hello,

As I have studied, from the scientific point of view you may establish any reference you want (Earth, Sun, any star or random point). From that reference point (coordinate system) you may write the equations you need to prove or predict something. So this is already being done. Based on the equations you want to write you choose your reference point so that you can write them as simply as you possibly can.

IJesusChrist wrote:Pincho that was possibly the best example you could have given to show that you have no idea what I'm trying to explain.

It was an example of what you should be looking for. If you want the very best model of our Galaxy you should really find the most stationary object in it, which is most likely the centre of the Galaxy. If you want to solve the absolute Quantum Physics which does slightly have something to do with our location then you would be best to get the centre of every Galaxy in the Universe. If you want to use the Earth as the centre of the Universe I'm not sure what you would solve. Give me an example.

Maybe you are getting centre of the Universe confused with Origin. Origin is different.

Pincho Paxton wrote:

IJesusChrist wrote:Pincho that was possibly the best example you could have given to show that you have no idea what I'm trying to explain.

It was an example of what you should be looking for. If you want the very best model of our Galaxy you should really find the most stationary object in it, which is most likely the centre of the Galaxy. If you want to solve the absolute Quantum Physics which does slightly have something to do with our location then you would be best to get the centre of every Galaxy in the Universe. If you want to use the Earth as the centre of the Universe I'm not sure what you would solve. Give me an example.

Maybe you are getting centre of the Universe confused with Origin. Origin is different.

Again you are completely lost in this thread.

Excelsior:

We pick the easiest coordinate system, i.e. place a stationary object at the origin, or use polar coordinates, etc. Yes this is great! It makes it very easy to come up with very accurate answers, the quickest way.

What I'm getting at is, we may be overlooking some things while we do this. When we place something at "the origin" i.e. (x,y) = (0,0) and observe movement, change, or what have you around that origin, we are making some assumptions that we can ignore some other parts of the equation! This does work grandly for 90% of the applications, if not more, I'm sure, but by doing this - I hope we are not bum rushing the gates of science as we get to more extreme scales of science. We may be overlooking some things.

the universe does not revolve, planets do. all other things i find to be useless and ambiguous.

face palm

IJesusChrist:

I understand your point of view. Of course, there is more than one scientific approach to understanding the Universe. There are the main ones micro, macro, statistics, analytical etc.
But I generally try to apply philosophical results, opinions in real life. So, do you have an approach, an idea or you were just pointing out a direction for research, maybe?