Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeffsmith202 t1_j7ckalg wrote

there is proof that the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

there is no proof that aliens exist

21

NotAHamsterAtAll t1_j7cm05s wrote

According to the current orthodoxy (Big Bang theory), we are in the center of the universe.

(As is everything else as well).

4

cmdtarken t1_j7cst9q wrote

Not at all. We are the center of our observable universe and that's all. We are not the center of our universe

8

NotAHamsterAtAll t1_j7ctllf wrote

You have no way of knowing that there even exist a non-observable universe, and in the BB theory, we are indeed in the center of the universe (observable or not).

−4

cmdtarken t1_j7cuq7g wrote

So you think that we sit at the absolute epicenter of the universe even though we don't sit at the center if our own galaxy?

7

Anonymous-USA t1_j7di0bo wrote

Enough buddy. There is no center — or the center is everywhere — same as there’s no center on the surface of a ball. Don’t pretend you don’t get it.

2

cmdtarken t1_j7ehut9 wrote

Except a ball would have a center as a ball is a 3d space. The center would be at the core of the ball. Same with our space. Assuming the big bang is true and the universe was created out of a singularity expanding outward, then the center would be the origin of the big bang itself. We are a point in space somewhere within the expanding matter of this universe. We are not at the center or the edge of this universe

2

Anonymous-USA t1_j7ek9ic wrote

That core would be in a dimension that doesn’t exist in our universe. I was giving you a simple analogy in 2D space. I’m sure you fully understand this concept and are just being argumentative. A child can understand it.

−1

cmdtarken t1_j7em4de wrote

Except you are using a 2d example to represent 3d space. This is a common problem with trying to portray infinity in a way thats understandable to everyone. We, as matter, exist with a physical 3 dimension. The existence of matter allows us to determine a center as long as we can observe that matter in it's entirety. Thus is true whether or not we live within an infinite or finite space.

If space is finite, that center is defined by its edges.

If it's infinite, and assuming that the only matter within that universe came from finite number of big bangs, then its center would be defined by the distribution of matter within it.

If it's infinite, and assuming an infinite number of big bangs, then a center cannot be determined as there exists no definable edge or boundary of matter.

Going back to your ball example and why it is a bad representation of your argument, you could define a central point. First problem, the surface of a ball is finite. Ignoring that let's look at problem two. If you add any matter to the surface of that sphere, you now have a definable point in space. As it is a single point, it would become the definable center of that surface. As you add more points, the center would be defined by a point in space that would see an even distribution of points on the surface.

4

phredbull t1_j7dd667 wrote

There is no center of an unbounded space.

1

cmdtarken t1_j7eijwr wrote

That depends. Even infinite space can have a defined center if there is a finite material within that space for which we can observe distribution and find the center

2

NotAHamsterAtAll t1_j7d0bvj wrote

Yes, according to the BB theory all places are in the center of the universe. Because the universe expanded out from a small dense state, so all places was there together.

If course that is if you believe in the BB theory, which I will not use against you if you don't.

0

cmdtarken t1_j7eifq2 wrote

That doesn't make any sense and I believe you may be misunderstanding what was being said. According to big bang theory, matter existed as a singularity that exploded into what we see as our universe. Assuming even distribution of matter, the origin of the big bang would be our center.

2

koko838 t1_j7d54m1 wrote

No. Big Bang theory and the cosmological principles of the universe being roughly homogeneous and isotopic says that there no center of the universe.

We are the center of our observable universe but there is no center of the entire universe at all.

8

NotAHamsterAtAll t1_j7f3gmm wrote

>ng theory and the cosmological principles of the universe being roughly homogeneous and isotopic says that there no center of the universe.
>
>We are the center of our observable universe but there is no center of the entire universe at all.

If everywhere is a center, and nowhere is the center = the same statement.

Also the concept of an unobservable universe = pure speculation by definition.

1

turquoisepaws OP t1_j7ckg15 wrote

I'm aware there's ppl whom only believe in what they see.

−10

jeffsmith202 t1_j7ckn37 wrote

now you are talking about faith

8

PoppersOfCorn t1_j7clkhq wrote

Or probability.. it's more probable they exist than dont.. coming to visit earth is another story

0

szypty t1_j7clu9p wrote

We literally just don't have sufficient information to make a most approximate educated guess, with a sample size of one.

6

PoppersOfCorn t1_j7cm80n wrote

Given the amount of galaxies, stars, and planets, it is unrealistic that the earth is the only planet where life has occurred. It is, however, very likely that the conditions on earth has happened elsewhere

2

1992PlymouthAcclaim t1_j7cufb3 wrote

It isn't unrealistic at all if the odds of abiogenesis are prohibitively small. We can imagine all sorts of events with vanishingly small possibilities. We might not be able to wrap our human minds around the numbers involved, but that's kind of the problem: we look at the size of the known universe and say, well surely, x must have happened at least once. But without a sense of the probabilities involved, we simply do not have any reason to say whether x has happened or not.

There are plenty of conceivable events that happen precisely zero times (things that would violate the laws of physics), and we can imagine possible events that never happen at all -- simply because they are so unlikely that not even trillions of years of interactions between gazillions of particles will bring them about. We might posit that somewhere a teacup from the 1972 Sears-Roebuck catalog is orbiting a planet made of leather. This is certainly possible -- in the sense of not contradicting physical laws -- but it is so unlikely that, no matter how vast the universe is, we cannot be certain that such an item exists. Abiogenesis might simply be one of these mathematically highly unlikely events.

I'm actually not as skeptical about extraterrestrial life as I sound. I do think that, given the tendency that compounds have of quite naturally bunching together into slightly more complex compounds, it does seem reasonable to think that life is fairly abundantly distributed around the universe. But we simply don't know enough about life or about the universe yet. For aught we know, life could exist in the cores of neutron stars and on every god-forsaken rock in the universe -- or just here on this little blue rock for the past few billion years or so. Nobody knows.

5

Glum_Implement_7136 t1_j7csgbt wrote

Actually, for intelligent life to occur (and not be destroyed) there may be even more conditions to be fulfilled than the amount of galaxies.

Besides, you are looking only at one dimension here - size of the universe. There is one, even more hard to comprehend - time. And I find it entirely possible that there may have been civilizations before but what can be almost impossible - is to have the right matching for time and place.

Anyways, not taking aliens as a matter of fact is the right scientific approach for now. And probability may go to hell with such a sample size, as someone pointed above.

3

Laurizxz t1_j7cq4xa wrote

Well I see the same distance into space no matter which way I look?? I must be in the center then

1