09 Jul 17
5 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]"ends" 'where'? In what way? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And how do you know that the universe isn't infinite in size? Modern science certainly by far doesn't rule that possibility out.
What makes no sense whatsoever is arguing with the likes of you with your continued confusion of simple concepts.
We have no idea if the universe ends ...[text shortened]...
Yep.
You're two for three.
Not quite 67%, but it really doesn't matter: I'll give you the D.[/b]
We have no idea if the universe ends or if it doesn't.
If what you mean by "ends" is it being finite in size, that is true and nobody here claims otherwise.
From all appearances, it appears to end.
NO, it very clearly doesn't. How can it "appear" to be finite when we see no empirical evidence indicating it is finite in size?
+ you contradict yourself (yet again) because If it was true that "From all appearances, it appears to end" then we would KNOW it is finite but then that completely contradicts the assertion "We have no idea if the universe ends or if it doesn't."
I said the only thing that isn't moving its position is the universe,
No, the universe does NOT have a "position". WHERE is its "position" then? "position" in relation to what?
HOW can the "position" of something be defined when there is no definable outside of it?
You can expand through nothing, but you cannot move through nothing.
If what you mean by "nothing" is space,
1, space isn't nothing
2, you clearly can move through space. You do it when you walk.
3, you contradict yourself yet again because "expanding through" space involves "moving through" space so if it expands then it is NOT true it "cannot move"
so let me get this straight;
You literally believe the Earth is flat as in NOT roughly round like a ball? Or is that just a joke?
BUT you don't believe if you travel too far in one direction on its surface, you would fall off its 'edge'? So how does that work then? If you travel continuously in one direction on its surface you wouldn't eventually circle back to your starting point (because the Earth isn't round but flat) but just go on for ever? so the Earth is infinitely large? Or what exactly? Or is that just all a joke?
And do you SERIOUSLY believe the Sun orbits around the Earth rather than the Earth orbiting around the Sun or is that a joke?
https://www.wired.com/2014/04/how-do-we-know-the-earth-orbits-the-sun/
".... How Do We Know the Earth Orbits the Sun? ..."
but much more impressive is;
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/88-is-there-a-proof-that-earth-moves-intermediate
which explains the actual proof and concludes;
"...So, aberration (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's speed), parallax (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's changing position) and Doppler effect (slight change in color of stars due to Earth's speed) all prove that Earth is moving around the Sun, and not the other way round...."
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWrong.
I have no misconception related to the universe; how I characterized it makes logical sense.
It can be likened to a room in the sense that it, like a room, creates a space with borders.
I'm not even willing to argue with you about this, you're just wrong. The universe has no borders. If you don't understand that, you should simply refrain from arguing about cosmology with your betters.
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
09 Jul 17
2 edits
Originally posted by Shallow Blue"The universe has no borders"
Wrong.
I'm not even willing to argue with you about this, you're just wrong. The universe has no borders. If you don't understand that, you should simply refrain from arguing about cosmology with your betters.
Thats just one theory.
And Freaky: There is no absolute coordinate that can tell you where the Earth "is" or what "velocity" it has, etc... We can only say where Earth was/is/will be relative to a random coordinate system. The truth is, the Earth and Unverse for that matter may not be anywhere. You may as well be asking "where" the number "seven" is?
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by Shallow BlueYou're unwilling to argue, but expect someone to accept your claims by fiat?
Wrong.
I'm not even willing to argue with you about this, you're just wrong. The universe has no borders. If you don't understand that, you should simply refrain from arguing about cosmology with your betters.
On account that there are betters?
If you're not going to join the conversation, may I invite you to, um, not join the conversation then?
That'd be great.
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by joe shmoNo one said anything different yet, so why quibble about something no one knows definitively?
"The universe has no borders"
Thats just one theory.
And Freaky: There is no absolute coordinate that can tell you where the Earth "is" or what "velocity" it has, etc... We can only say where Earth was/is/will be relative to a random coordinate system. The truth is, the Earth and Unverse for that matter may not be anywhere. You may as well be asking "where" the number "seven" is?
Originally posted by joe shmoI would say that is more than just a "theory" because the alternative seems pretty absurd! What would such hypothetical "borders" look like? A brick wall? An invisible barrier that has some kind of mysterious "nothingness" on the other side? Would it even HAVE an "other side"!? If so, why not call that other side part of the same universe? Would light reflect off it? What could be its hypothetical physical properties? I for one cannot imagine a type of hypothetical "borders" without involving at least one absurdity.
[b]"The universe has no borders"
Thats just one theory.
/b]
09 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyHuh?We have no idea if the universe ends or if it doesn't.
If what you mean by "ends" is it being finite in size, that is true and nobody here claims otherwise.From all appearances, it appears to end.
NO, it very clearly doesn't. How can it "appear" to be finite when we see no empirical evidence indicating it is fini ...[text shortened]... o Earth's speed) all prove that Earth is moving around the Sun, and not the other way round...."
- Joined
- 10 Dec 06
- Moves
- 8528
Originally posted by humy"I for one cannot imagine a type of hypothetical "borders" without involving at least one absurdity".
I would say that is more than just a "theory" because the alternative seems pretty absurd! What would such hypothetical "borders" look like? A brick wall? An invisible barrier that has some kind of mysterious "nothingness" on the other side? Would it even HAVE an "other side"!? If so, why not call that other side part of the same universe? Would light reflect ...[text shortened]... or one cannot imagine a type of hypothetical "borders" without involving at least one absurdity.
Well, If you find nothing absurd with "infinite size" as a "real" solution, I'm afraid you can't be helped.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
That only helps in a motionless system, i.e., the system itself is not moving.
The specific question is: where in the universe will the earth be, or has it been?
Not in relation to the sun, but in relation to the broader room, the universe.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo we discuss "scientists" here? Or do we discuss scientists.
Read it again, do a modicum of research to determine how "scientists" at NASA predict theirs.
There is a difference, you know, as conspiracy theorists often depict themselves as "scientists", superior of scientists.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyThe fact that you have not even the foggiest of ideas who and what NASA relies on for its 'predictive modeling' for eclipses--- which is in complete agreement with 100% of my "weird assertions"---- confirms you are talking out of your donkey... which you do an awful lot of in these various threads.
the fact that they can and do predict solar eclipses contradicts your weird assertions.
The remedy is an old carpenter's rule: measure twice, cut once.
While thought can be good, when your thought is based on faulty premise, it matters not how elaborate or sophisticated or even how brilliantly the string appears: your conclusion will result with crap.
It's one of the weaknesses of your thought structure, really.
Confirming your bias by referring to your own notes is the discipline of a fool.
Not even considering the words of another is, again, the folly of a fool.
It isn't just possible that I kniw more than you do on the topic, it is an actual verifiable fact.
Want that proof?
Do some study.
Dig into how NASA came to "announce" their prediction for this upcoming eclipse.
Follow that short road to determine how that one guy formulated 'his' predictive model.
Those two relatively easy steps should convince you to tell your donkey to stop writing checks on a closed account.
It won't; but it should!