Ohmygodohmygod

[BIXX]

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/

Holy fuck

Apparently these people are trying to prove the earth is the center of the universe

Holy shit

I don't know about you godless fuckers but I know that I'm gonna blaze fat bowl and watch this.

[Prometeo liberado]

What's wrong with you?

[Loony Le Fist]

You can't prove what the center of the universe is, since from every point, it would appear that you are at the center. There are only two possible conclusions: either every point is the center, or no point is the center. The conclusion that makes the most logical sense, is that there is no center.

[A Psychological Symphony]

Bahahahahaha! :laugh:

Don't have a reason for something? God made it that way!

[Loony Le Fist]

Don't have a reason for something? God made it that way!

Nothing like the good old goddidit. You don't need to do any experiments or have reasons or scientific theories for anything. The only problem is that it doesn't answer who/what created god. And any attempt to say god didn't need a creator, leaves one holding special pleading bag.

[Red Commissar]

There's two good articles about this movie, specifically those behind it

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/08/the_principle_a_documentary_about_geocentrism.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/08/lawrence_krauss_on_ending_up_in_the_geocentricism_ documentary_the_principle.html

I was wondering if this was just some attempt to troll or w/e but at least from those two it's evident that the main figure behind it has been trying to push this for awhile.

It's obvious they are trying to fish for attention by generating controversy- it'll bloat the ego of those behind the movie by saying that the response justifies their approach that there is still a debate to be had here.

[BIXX]

What's wrong with you?


What do you mean?

Oh please god don't think that I actually believe their stupid "earth is the center of the universe" shit.

[tallguy]

I've just visited the site and watched the trailer. The trailer is a disingenuous mixture of out of context quotes and meaningless waffle. That's already enough to tell me this thing is based on polemic and not science.

[Thirsty Crow]

You can't prove what the center of the universe is, since from every point, it would appear that you are at the center. There are only two possible conclusions: either every point is the center, or no point is the center. The conclusion that makes the most logical sense, is that there is no center.
No, that makes the authors right.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

What earth isn't the center of the universe?
God damnit church..

[Alexios]

looks like they're just trying to get attention, tons of stupid documentaries have been made over the past decade like this (Zeitgeist, the Federal Reserve crap, etc). not that shocking.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know about you godless fuckers but I know that I'm gonna blaze fat bowl and watch this.lol!

The movie "anarchy u.s.a." Is good for that (racist Cold War propaganda about how the us civil rights movement was a plot by the USSR to create "anarchy" in the states). I used to have a bootleg of it, but I bet it's on YouTube.

[BIXX]

You can't prove what the center of the universe is, since from every point, it would appear that you are at the center. There are only two possible conclusions: either every point is the center, or no point is the center. The conclusion that makes the most logical sense, is that there is no center.


Well, theoretically you can actually prove where the center of the universe is if you get enough points of data from the actual edges of the universe. But that implies that the universe is perfectly spherical, which is highly unlikely.

I just wanna watch this movie while high. They sounds so insane.

[Slavic]

Well, theoretically you can actually prove where the center of the universe is if you get enough points of data from the actual edges of the universe. But that implies that the universe is perfectly spherical, which is highly unlikely.

I just wanna watch this movie while high. They sounds so insane.


Edges imply a finite universe.

[synthesis]

Edges imply a finite universe.

How could it be expanding if it has no edges?

[Marshal of the People]

Who needs science when you have Creation "Science"?

[Marshal of the People]

How could it be expanding if it has no edges?It doesn't have any edges because it is continuously expanding. As soon as you figure out where an edge is it will no longer be there.

[synthesis]

It doesn't have any edges because it is continuously expanding. As soon as you figure out where an edge is it will no longer be there.

If I spill a bowl of terrible, watery gravy, the edges of the gravy puddle on the floor might be expanding at first, but they're still edges. There's still parts of the floor that are gravy and parts that are not.

Anyways, that's not really the question; you're saying that it's impossible to calculate the edges - although it would still be possible to determine the rate of expansion and then extrapolate the data from there - but the original argument was that the universe is infinite and therefore can't have any edges at all.

[Marshal of the People]

If I spill a bowl of terrible, watery gravy, the edges of the gravy puddle on the floor might be expanding at first, but they're still edges. There's still parts of the floor that are gravy and parts that are not.

Anyways, that's not really the question; you're saying that it's impossible to calculate the edges - although it would still be possible to determine the rate of expansion and then extrapolate the data from there - but the original argument was that the universe is infinite and therefore can't have any edges at all.The universe can't have edges because the universe is all that exists, there is nothing out of the universe. The universe is everything, therefore the universe cannot have edges since there is nothing outside of the universe.

[synthesis]

the universe is all that exists, there is nothing out of the universe.

Then, again, how is it expanding?

[jake williams]

Then, again, how is it expanding?
Obviously there is some room for skepticism that the universe is actually shaped like this, but the classical analogy is to imagine a two dimensional universe which does not exist on a Euclidean plane (because a two dimensional universe on a Euclidean plane would either be bounded, or infinite), but which, while still two dimensional (all "matter" in the universe existed on a two dimensional surface), existed on, for example, a spherical balloon.

A two dimensional universe "wrapped around" the surface of a spherical balloon, which was subsequently 'inflated', would see individual bits of matter move further and further away from each other.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

[BIXX]

Obviously there is some room for skepticism that the universe is actually shaped like this, but the classical analogy is to imagine a two dimensional universe which does not exist on a Euclidean plane (because a two dimensional universe on a Euclidean plane would either be bounded, or infinite), but which, while still two dimensional (all "matter" in the universe existed on a two dimensional surface), existed on, for example, a spherical balloon.

A two dimensional universe "wrapped around" the surface of a spherical balloon, which was subsequently 'inflated', would see individual bits of matter move further and further away from each other.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html


Interesting. So then we bring that idea to a higher power and bam, that's how our universe actually is?

That's fucking weird but I like it.

[synthesis]

Obviously there is some room for skepticism that the universe is actually shaped like this, but the classical analogy is to imagine a two dimensional universe which does not exist on a Euclidean plane (because a two dimensional universe on a Euclidean plane would either be bounded, or infinite), but which, while still two dimensional (all "matter" in the universe existed on a two dimensional surface), existed on, for example, a spherical balloon.

A two dimensional universe "wrapped around" the surface of a spherical balloon, which was subsequently 'inflated', would see individual bits of matter move further and further away from each other.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html

Huh. So what's the problem with the Euclidean model being "either bounded or infinite"? Is it related to the bit about the fourth spatial dimension in the article you provided, where with the "balloon wrapper" model you'd need one to conceive of what's "outside the universe"? So, according to the article, it would depend on the actual existence of this hypothetical fourth dimension as to whether or not the universe is "bounded or infinite"? Am I getting this right or just babbling? How many question marks can I fit in a single post? More than necessary?

[Loony Le Fist]

How could it be expanding if it has no edges?

Unfortunately, scientists have to lie a bit when they compare the expanding universe to the surface of say a balloon. Take for example how it is possible to have an object with finite volume but yet infinite area. In other words, it's possible to have an infinite amount of terms, that add up to a finite value. Space is the same way. It's hypervolume (The 4D volume) might actually be finite and expanding, but the three dimensional volume (kind of like a surface area of sort) is still infinite. In fact, there might be as many as 11 dimensions, but that's very much hypothetical at this point.

[Loony Le Fist]

Let's take a visual example in 3d. A Sierpinski Pyramid can be constructed so that it has an infinite surface area (the sum of the infinite terms of the areas of the smaller pyramids that construct it). Yet we can clearly see the total volume is visibly finite.

Sierpinski Pyramid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sierpinski_pyramid.png


EDIT: Let me add that the Sierpinski Pyramid actually has a volume of 0! Strange as that may sound. You can imagine each smaller triangle being a copy of the whole structure.

EDIT: Here is the proof for the Sierpinski Triangle, which is simply a lower order form of the pyramid. But the result is the same.

Sierpinski Triangle: Proof of 0 area and infinite permiter

Sierpinski Triangle: Proof of 0 area and infinite permiter

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How could it be expanding if it has no edges?

Take two arbitrary, although close, points in the universe. The distance between them is given by a function which is generally called a metric. In Euclidean space, this function is the length of a line - on the surface of a sphere, the distance between two points (i.e. the shortest line that can be drawn between them) is a section of a great circle. And so on.

Now, the metric itself can change. That's what the expansion of the universe means - certain scale factors in the metric change so that distances increase over time.

[Skyhilist]

It doesn't have any edges because it is continuously expanding. As soon as you figure out where an edge is it will no longer be there.

If it's expanding though, and if it's symmetrical then it'd still be expanding around a central point, which would be considered the center of the universe, no? Anyways, even if that were true who knows if we could even see the center - it's my understanding that we can only even see a fraction of the universe since the light from a lot of it (from the time of the big bang) hasn't yet reached us it's so far away.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If it's expanding though, and if it's symmetrical then it'd still be expanding around a central point, which would be considered the center of the universe, no?

Not really. An observer at any point in the universe will see the universe expanding around them.

[Skyhilist]

Let's take a visual example in 3d. A Sierpinski Pyramid can be constructed so that it has an infinite surface area (the sum of the infinite terms of the areas of the smaller pyramids that construct it). Yet we can clearly see the total volume is visibly finite.

Sierpinski Pyramid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sierpinski_pyramid.png


Wouldn't there be a limit (asymptote) for the surface area of this though (which would depend on the size of the biggest pyramids and the ratio by which they were shrinking as you go from top to bottom) as the edge lengths of the closest triangles approached zero? It seems like this could be written mathematically as a geometric series (with the terms in its sequence increasing from top to bottom), and if so, don't geometric series always have limits when r (the ratio that the lengths are decreasing by) is less than 1?

[Skyhilist]

Not really. An observer at any point in the universe will see the universe expanding around them.

Suppose you could step outside the universe though (ik, you can't), and take a big 3D scan at a single point in time. What would that look like, and isn't it possible if expansion is symmetrical that the universe has some type of center? Also, since the universe expanded out from a single point, then shouldn't there be some place in spacetime that at least exists where that initial single point once did?

EDIT: I realize there is no actual center to the universe now after very little research, but still am not getting how there aren't any edges if you took a snapshot at a specific point in time theoretically from the outside of the universe.

[Loony Le Fist]

Wouldn't there be a limit (asymptote) for the surface area of this though (which would depend on the size of the biggest pyramids and the ratio by which they were shrinking as you go from top to bottom) as the edge lengths of the closest triangles approached zero? It seems like this could be written mathematically as a geometric series (with the terms in its sequence increasing from top to bottom), and if so, don't geometric series always have limits when r (the ratio that the lengths are decreasing by) is less than 1?

Well the volume would fit that description but not the surface area. But it wasn't really a good example, but it was one that came to my head first. Here's another one that is more clear called "Gabriel's Horn". It extends infinitely from 0, and has a finite volume. Yet the surface area is infinite.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/GabrielHorn.png

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Suppose you could step outside the universe though (ik, you can't), and take a big 3D scan at a single point in time. What would that look like, and isn't it possible if expansion is symmetrical that the universe has some type of center? Also, since the universe expanded out from a single point, then shouldn't there be some place in spacetime that at least exists where that initial single point once did?

EDIT: I realize there is no actual center to the universe now after very little research, but still am not getting how there aren't any edges if you took a snapshot at a specific point in time theoretically from the outside of the universe.

One of the problems with the question is that time and position are not defined separately. So if you're "outside the universe", i.e. have no position, it's probably extremely hard to define the time without referencing some other point "within" the universe (to be honest I don't know what it means to be outside the universe).

Now, suppose you're in a definite point in the universe and make a (magical) "snapshot" of the entire universe, as it is at that moment, without worrying over things like the finite speed of propagation of light. What then?

Your snapshot isn't uniquely defined by your position and the time you measure. Like I said, time and space depend on one another, and in particular, changes in velocity can result in two distant events having one order (A -> B) to one observer and another (B -> A). All events in the universe form one 3+1 (in classical physics; in some of the newer theories this can go up to 11+1, and even higher) dimensional bloc; these "snapshots" are really different ways to slice the bloc into 3+1 - 1 dimensional slices.

Now, what would the slice contain? It would contain either an infinite universe or a finite universe without edges (the surface of a sphere has no edges, but its area is finite). Anything else is ruled out by the cosmological principle - that there are no "preferred" points in the universe.

As for the universe "expanding from a single point", first of all, that is not what standard cosmology says. In standard cosmology, we can track the evolution of the universe to a very hot and dense state that we call the Big Bang.

If we follow the equations of classical general relativity, we get the metric of the universe collapsing into a singularity. This doesn't mean there was a point in the universe that the universe expanded from, however. It is analogous to the surface of the sphere shrinking until it becomes a point. In the reverse process, when the surface of the sphere "grows" from that single point, the original point isn't anywhere on the sphere.

In any case, the problem with following general relativity to what might be the beginning of the universe is that general relativity is a purely classical theory that is widely expected to break down at the energy scales of the early universe. So far we don't have a satisfactory quantum treatment of strong gravitational fields, so what happened before the hot, dense state is very much an open question.

[synthesis]

Now, what would the slice contain? It would contain either an infinite universe or a finite universe without edges (the surface of a sphere has no edges, but its area is finite).

So there's no edges in the geometric sense of the term, but there's potentially edges in the more colloquial sense, as in "boundaries of something"? I mean, you can find the center of a sphere, can't you? I think that was the original question. Also, just out of curiosity and going back to an earlier post in this thread, what are the hypothetically determinant factors that would tell us whether it's an infinite universe or if it adheres to the "balloon" model?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So there's no edges in the geometric sense of the term, but there's potentially edges in the more colloquial sense, as in "boundaries of something"?

Not really; again, consider the analogy with the surface of a sphere. If you start moving from a particular point on the surface of a sphere, eventually you will return to that point without having run into any boundaries.


I mean, you can find the center of a sphere, can't you?

Well, yes, but the analogy involved the surface of the sphere, a finite 2D manifold with a curved geometry. If we consider just the surface of the sphere, the centre of the sphere doesn't exist. It only exists when we embed the surface in the 3D geometric body that presumably lives in Euclidean space.


I think that was the original question. Also, just out of curiosity and going back to an earlier post in this thread, what are the hypothetically determinant factors that would tell us whether it's an infinite universe or if it adheres to the "balloon" model?

That depends on the curvature of the metric function that describes the universe at large scales (see my previous posts). At large scales, the universe is usually modeled as a relativistic fluid; then the metric is the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/2/58278ae49734ca65e34a68486419535e.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/3/b/03b98f373f1af532812ae3e8940b9b86.png

(This site really needs LaTeX support.)

So depending on the factor k, the universe can be flat (for k=0), or have positive (the "balloon model", as you put it), or negative curvature (the metric of a saddle). In current cosmological models, the value of k depends on the density of mass in the universe and on the various forms of dark energy. It seems to be close to zero.

[BIXX]

Let's take a visual example in 3d. A Sierpinski Pyramid can be constructed so that it has an infinite surface area (the sum of the infinite terms of the areas of the smaller pyramids that construct it). Yet we can clearly see the total volume is visibly finite.

Sierpinski Pyramid

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Sierpinski_pyramid.png


EDIT: Let me add that the Sierpinski Pyramid actually has a volume of 0! Strange as that may sound. You can imagine each smaller triangle being a copy of the whole structure.

EDIT: Here is the proof for the Sierpinski Triangle, which is simply a lower order form of the pyramid. But the result is the same.

Sierpinski Triangle: Proof of 0 area and infinite permiter

Sierpinski Triangle: Proof of 0 area and infinite permiter


Wow, that's fucking cool. You just took a fat shit on my brain, gonna need to see more posts of yours.

On another note, this got really scientific really quick, I like it.