It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Earth the Center of the Entire Universe?

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The earth is the center of the universe but more to the point I am the center of the universe.
Ego is the fuel that keeps earth turning.

The only constant thing I've noticed about this universe is that I am in it. I'm sure that without me in it to observe it and make it real by collapsing the quantum wave function, this universe wouldn't exist. It's a holographic universe, of course, and other people contribute to it, but only while I'm alive. When I die, my contribution to the holographic universe will be removed and the entire universe will collapse into non-existence. At least as far as I'm concerned, which is the only thing that really matters to me.

If that don't make me the center of the universe, I don't know what does.




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: deadeyedick
The earth is the center of the universe but more to the point I am the center of the universe.
Ego is the fuel that keeps earth turning.

The only constant thing I've noticed about this universe is that I am in it. I'm sure that without me in it to observe it and make it real by collapsing the quantum wave function, this universe wouldn't exist. It's a holographic universe, of course, and other people contribute to it, but only while I'm alive. When I die, my contribution to the holographic universe will be removed and the entire universe will collapse into non-existence. At least as far as I'm concerned, which is the only thing that really matters to me.

If that don't make me the center of the universe, I don't know what does.


Which means 99.99999% will continue to function just as it did before your existence. So really no loss.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: enament

Hate to break the news to you buddy but our solar system is located quite far out on one of the spiral arms of our galaxy, absolutely no where near the center which is probably a large black hole. Now our galaxy, that being the Milky Way, is only one of many in a cluster of 17 galaxies, beyond our cluster are more clusters, then more, probably somewhere to the tune of around 100 billion galaxies more. I think its a safe bet that our Earth is not the center of our universe.

Put it this way if indeed our Earth were even close to the center of our galaxy never mind our universe then the sky would be full of rather more stars.


Scroll back a page or two I already discussed that actually, I agree completely.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Which means 99.99999% will continue to function just as it did before your existence. So really no loss.

You would never be able to prove it to me.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: anonentity

I believe they are talking about the observable universe.
that would be no different. You would still be at the centre.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642
I believe they are talking about the observable universe.


that would be no different. You would still be at the centre.

Pretty much. The observable universe (or at least the universe that can be experienced or inferred) IS the universe. Everything else is either fantasy or incomprehensible/non-existent. Are there things that exist that we don't know about? Not really. We can't include things in the universe that we don't know about. "Unknown" is just that.
edit on 24-6-2015 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: enament


Are you a Ph. D?

No, I am not.

Then again, I don't need to be one, do I? I'm not the one challenging the scientific consensus

When it comes to specialist areas of knowledge in which I am not qualified, I'm happy to accept what the experts tell me.

You don't need a Ph.D. for that. But if you're going to disagree with the experts, you'd better be an expert yourself.

Thanks for asking, by the way. You gave me a chance to point out something important. Perhaps I'll start a thread about it.


edit on 24/6/15 by Astyanax because: of phone dumbness.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

Funnily enough, one guy who gave this movie a favourable review is an accredited scientist with a PhD, but at the same time a stouch Creationist who tries to find support for biblical passages in modern science: John Hartnett.

So having a PhD is not everything, and doesn't mean you're always right in what you say.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax
a reply to: MarsIsRed
a reply to: admirethedistance

I don't believe some things this guy is promoting and other things i can entertain the ideas. I don't believe it possible the sun revolves around us or the milky way galaxy revolving around us either.

But the other things this man brings up I can't easily discount it until the documentary is made available for viewing, so I could form my own opinion and do some digging to prove or disprove the concentric shell theory or also being the center of the cosmic radiation, it could be possible stranger things have been proven.

Even the things we know and have been taught are proven or disproven often, an example of this is the equation E=mc2
which is currently on the verge of being rethought entirely and dismissed as no longer valid. If you want proof of that scroll back a page or two where someone challenge me on that notion and I proved it to be the case.

I am an open minded person who does not easily dismiss things without properly giving it some research to validate and form an opinion. And we shouldn't do that here either stranger things have happened.
edit on 25-6-2015 by enament because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: enament

remaining undecided/skeptical is better than clinging to unfounded opinions. at least you have that going for you.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheMadTitan

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: anonentity

I believe they are talking about the observable universe.


Say our most powerful telescope for arguments sake can measure a maximum 1 light year. Whichever way you point it, you're only going to see 1 light year in all directions. So we map everything 1 light year in all directions eventually you'll have a light 'sphere' around you, a 3D map if you will of everything mapped. Because of the limit of the telescope it appears we are bang in the center when in reality we are not.

But if we can determine the geometry or layout of the larger universe, given what we can see, we might be able to tease out our actual position in the universe. I'm unaware of this has been done or is even possible.

I do know there's a barrier or terminator or event horizon beyond which we will NEVER see. It's likely small compared to the size of the larger universe, but it's hard to say how large the universe is. I'm unaware of anybody actually knows the size of the non-observable universe.
edit on 25-6-2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh thats How I like to do it for sure , yet among my friends they say i am truly one of the most misunderstood persons they know LOL.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh thats How I like to do it for sure , yet among my friends they say i am truly one of the most misunderstood persons they know LOL.


perhaps it has something to do with your communication skills.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

One of the things that happens to me often is people ignore the part where I say might, maybe could be possible, might happen,and scientists have said and it turns into enment believes in etc etc, So I am often thought of as believing things I just have conversations about.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh thats How I like to do it for sure , yet among my friends they say i am truly one of the most misunderstood persons they know LOL.


perhaps it has something to do with your communication skills.


Nah it just has to do with people's listening skills mostly.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: enament

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: enament
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh thats How I like to do it for sure , yet among my friends they say i am truly one of the most misunderstood persons they know LOL.


perhaps it has something to do with your communication skills.


Nah it just has to do with people's listening skills mostly.


well, of course there isnt anything you could improve on in the area of communications! how thoughtless of me to suggest otherwise.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: enament


I could form my own opinion and do some digging to prove or disprove the concentric shell theory or also being the center of the cosmic radiation

Here's a place to start. The radiation you're talking about is known to scientists as the Cosmic Microwave Background. It was accidentally discovered by a couple of Bell Telephone engineers in, I think, the 1950s; and it is regarded as the first important piece of evidencefound to support the Big Bang theory.

The CMB is leftover light from just after the Big Bang. As the universe expanded, the origin-point of the Big Bang expanded with it. That's why the radiation seems to be coming more or less equally from all sides: it is. This explains why its intensity is more or less equal in whichever direction we look. Actually, there are slight irregularities ('anisotropies') but they need not worry us here.

Because the expansion of space occurs at relativistic speeds, the intense radiation of first light in the universe has been red-shifted down to the microwave band (microwave radiation is very weak).

The 'concentric shell theory' is rubbish. The data from microwave telescopes (the most important of which is a satellite called the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP for short) don't show concentric 'shells' of CMB radiation centred on Earth.

Check out the link to read, in an article not much longer than this post, some of the amazing things we know about the early universe, and how we know them. Happy digging, and welcome to the club!


edit on 25/6/15 by Astyanax because: of a bad link.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join