Our Solar System is the Center of the Observable Universe

a reply to: cooperton

it is a conscious-centric universe

Did I miss any links you have offered for further study along these lines?

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: ConcernedCanadian
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Don't speak for the tomato unless you are a tomato! It's presumptuous.

Have you ever killed and ate a Tomato?

Only the ones who self identify as tom-ah-toes

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

You seem to misunderstand. We are at the center of the universe like we are the center of all things visable when holding a lantern in a heavy fog. We are centered because that is all we can see, not because that is all there is.

You have clearly not studied the Doppler effect
Go research red and blue shift

We are really pretty close to the centre of everything
Believe or not, makes no difference to me

a reply to: Raggedyman

If the epicenter is in all places simultaneously, then there's no epicenter.

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: ConcernedCanadian
a reply to: beyondknowledge

Don't speak for the tomato unless you are a tomato! It's presumptuous.

Have you ever killed and ate a Tomato?

a reply to: cooperton

First, thank you for your ghaphs.

about the temperature of the Cosic Microwave Background Radiation.

1) a crazy idea:
if the colors in the chart blue and red are differences in temperature

If I fry an egg in a frying pan the egg will cook first, be heater, in the areas with more heat below the frying pan.

that could explain the radiation levels above and below the egg ( the elliptic plane) of the solar system.
the mass of the egg of pancake affect while the frying pan is being heated.

but also that could say, that we dont now anything about the boundaries of the frying pan, only from the ratiation level concentrated en the frying pan... which let us know partially what is in the external side (the unknown unverse), the outer side of the known universe (the frying pan bounaries) and that is being transmitted or reflected to the frying pan as heat.

2) You said:
therefore, matter is to consciousness as a shadow is to light.

yes, most of people dont know that light has awareness.

your brian works in ultraviolet waves (light) , which source are like the sun light(fire symbol), and that syncronizes.

the connection light ( fire) with water is deeper..

and light can travel backwards in time, or forward in time.
awareness..

yes, light is awareness

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

You seem to misunderstand. We are at the center of the universe like we are the center of all things visable when holding a lantern in a heavy fog. We are centered because that is all we can see, not because that is all there is.

You have clearly not studied the Doppler effect
Go research red and blue shift

We are really pretty close to the centre of everything
Believe or not, makes no difference to me

That’s ok. I don’t pretend to want you to believe as I do. I don’t even believe in the explanation of the double slit experiment ether. It is not about the slits, it is all about the edges of the slits.

You have never learned about knife edge propagation. If you aim a microwave beam at the sharp corner of a building, you can bend it around that building. The double slit is really four knife edges. The observer that video introduces on one slit just gets in the way of some of the beam and thus affects the outcome by just being there weather it is observing or not.

a reply to: cooperton

*looks as far as i cam see in one direction

*looks as far as i can see in the other direction.

Yup. Im in the center if what i can see.

a reply to: Randomname2

Your god can feel free to step in and speak for themselves any time now.

I'll wait.

Be great if they did show up, instead of relying on open to interpretation texts, and people who what god wants and says, just magically lines up with their own wants.

If god disagrees with the science, then they can come dispute it themselves for once. But I doubt they will. So many gods in human history, yet amazingly none ever seem to show up to more than one person at a time or seem capable of speaking for themselves. Why is that?

Maybe your God wants science to point away from themselves, I mean after all, this omnipotent infallible alpha omega created Satan yeah?

Or has God come and seen you and made you his official mouth piece telling you exactly what its plans are?

Satan's plans of death and suffering? That the same Satan that flooded the Earth? Same Satan that nuked cities and turned peoples wives into salt? That the same Satan who made his followers suffer just to prove a point or win a bet despite being all knowing, all seeing?

Oh wait, that wasn't Satan doing all the smiting and nasty crap to humanity in the bibles now was it?

Now maybe run along and go rewrite your religion to suit you as many before you have, because your god clearly has no idea what it wants instead of bothering the nice science people wanting to have a chat.

Heck I think there are even forums on ATS specifically designed for you folks that want to chase spooks. Maybe take the 'sky fairy' stuff there.

a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

There is an essay titled “what it’s like to be a bat.” It goes to explain how bats see through sonic vibrations, they screech and the wavelengths that bounce back to them paint a picture of what their world looks like. Now as a human I can imagine what it would be like for me to experience that, but since I don’t have the subjective view of seeing like that I have no knowledge of what it is for a bat to be a bat… full stop.

a reply to: cooperton
Pretty neat.
I often imagine viewing the universe in a place where an all new splendor of constellations are observed for the first time. I imagine more than a thousand different perspectives are possible.

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

You seem a bit confused
God is still coming, said so, and He will bring justice like never seen before, no mistaking that

See God is love and righteous justice is love, salt people, killing, executing, returning His own creation to dust, that’s judgement on evil.
You blame God for your freewill, for others poor choices, like a child.

Nasty crap happens to nasty people, it’s on you

And by the way, God did come, you just don’t care

a reply to: Raggedyman

Nasty crap happens to nasty people

Yeah! Damn newborns born with hours, days, weeks left to live deserved it! They should have been better people!

originally posted by: Sillyosaurus
a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

There is an essay titled “what it’s like to be a bat.” It goes to explain how bats see through sonic vibrations, they screech and the wavelengths that bounce back to them paint a picture of what their world looks like. Now as a human I can imagine what it would be like for me to experience that, but since I don’t have the subjective view of seeing like that I have no knowledge of what it is for a bat to be a bat… full stop.

As imperfect as our perception is, I wouldn't trade down to a bat.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Raggedyman

Nasty crap happens to nasty people

Yeah! Damn newborns born with hours, days, weeks left to live deserved it! They should have been better people!

Well I was talking judgement not the problems we create for each other
Yes, innocent die and justice is coming
Better maybe, sometime I think, the young escape this torture, to be with the God who loves them

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

You meet my God when you die. That's when your appointment is scheduled, buddy.

You can't seriously believe that God, big G, GOD, will just pop into this thread, do you?

Jackie Chan and Joe Biden COULD come in this thread and make a post, but they aren't going to work on your beck and call, or your beckon call.

Funny how those sound the same, and can mean the same thing, but we only consider one correct...

Anyway, prove me wrong all you want, after you die once.

a reply to: cooperton

The big bang did not occur at one point, but rather all points at once simultaneously.

If it were a singularity, both would be true.

The origin of the universe is therefore more like a tv screen turning on where all the pixels on the array light up simultaneously.

Ironically, a good comparison, but only if you mean old vacuum-tube style tv's. The whole television screen fires right up, but a full clear picture takes a few seconds.

a reply to: cooperton
When Lawrence Krauss talked about the CMB data back in 2006, he mentioned three possibilities:

1. All of science is wrong and we're at the center of the universe.
2. Maybe the data are incorrect.
3. There's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.

Krauss seemed to favor option 3 and there are some other issues with our theories on larger scales, for example the Hubble constant calculations come up with contradictory ranges as published in 2017, which Krauss didn't know about yet in 2006.

A constant conflict
In the Hubble data I think we could argue for three similar options. #1 because some mathematicians calculated if we really were at the center of the universe, we would have a different interpretation of the data used to calculate the Hiubble constant. And #2 and #3 apply because we shouldn't be getting different answers for the Hubble constant so something must be wrong with either the data, or our models. I don't think option 1 is likely given so many possibilities for 2 and 3 to be the source of issues, but it's fun to throw it out there.

Here are Krauss's 2006 comments:

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is imply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.

An interesting aside about the conference Krauss put together mentioned in that link, it was funded by science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein and the scientists got to go for a ride in a submarine and visit Epstein's private island.

The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event.

By the way, being at the center of "the observable universe" doesn't have to be anything special. We don't have to be at the center of the universe to be at the center of our observable universe.

For example, the observable ocean around a ship in the North atlantic ocean will be some radius around the ship in the North Atlantic.
The observable ocean around a ship in the South Pacific ocean will be some radius around the ship in the South Pacific. Neither of these observations means there is anythig special about the North Atlantic, or the South Pacific ocean. It's just that where ever you are, you will be at the center of your surroundings.

The "observable universe" works the same way. We are at the center of our observable universe, and people in a distant galaxy are at the center of their observable universe, even if they are on the other side of the universe. So being at the center of your own observable universe tells you nothing about where the center of the total universe is, if there is such a thing which most scientists doubt there is such a thing as the center of the universe. But it's fun to talk about "what if?", which Krauss did.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge
a reply to: ConcernedCanadian

You seem to misunderstand. We are at the center of the universe like we are the center of all things visable when holding a lantern in a heavy fog. We are centered because that is all we can see, not because that is all there is.

This is a good analogy, with the only exception being as though every point in the universe is also a point where everything expanded from. The cosmic microwave background seems to be some sort of observer effect, and I would bet if we theoretically were to move billions of light years in one direction, the cosmic microwave background would follow accordingly and remain symmetrical around the observer point.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think that if we could observe the universe from any other location besides our own, we would see the same thing.