At 3/7/08 08:04 PM, ShortMonkey wrote:
So, what do you guys believe in? The heliocentric theory (where the sun is the center of the universe and the other planets, including earth, revolve around it)? Or the other theory where the earth is the center of the universe, and the other planets and the sun revolve around it (I forgot the name of this theory)?
I don't think we can measure the center of the universe since we never found and probably never will find the edge of the universe, because it probably doesn't exist. Not only do I think the earth isn't the center of the universe, but it also isn't the center of our galaxy, or even our solar system. It has been proved that there are countless galaxies in this universe and they are all moving away from each other, and the center of most of those galaxies (maybe all of them, im not sure) there's a black hole around which the galaxy revolves.
At 3/7/08 08:21 PM, ImpendingRiot wrote:
How can it be a 'theory'...we know exactly what it does :\
We DO orbit the sun... its simple as that.
Today, like all days on earth, we seemed to turn around the sun, so turning around the sun is still a fact. A theory however, is not the same thing. In this case the theory would be Newton's theory of gravity. With that we can conclude that if all the conditions are correct, according to the theory we will turn around the sun today, but we shouldn't have faith that we will orbit around the sun tomorrow. A theory is only a set of causes and predicted effects, if one day we discover we are not orbitting around the sun anymore and all the conditions were present, we drop the theory and move on. That's how science work, all the time we discover new facts that lead us to more accurate theories, science changes all the time and that's the beauty of it.
At 3/8/08 03:43 AM, ShortMonkey wrote:
I believe that there is an end to the universe and whether the earth is the center or not, the other planets revolve around earth.
What makes you think there is an end to the universe? We have no scientific evidence that can lead us to any conclusion about the end of the universe, only the fact that the part of the universe which is currently observable to us seems to be expanding.
If you think planets orbit around the earth you're wrong except about the moon, which is our natural satelite. The only reason it "looks" like planets are orbitting around us is because our point of referrance is the earth. If you are on a fully blocked room in a train, with only a tiny hole through which you can see another train moving, how can you know the other train is moving and yours is still instead of your train moving and the othero ne being still?
It's a delusional lack of thinnking to assume planets orbit around us just because relative from earth we see sunrise in one side and sunset in the other.
We are both ignorant on this subject - how could we know the truth if even great scientists haven't fully proved anything yet either?
Science never claims absolute truth, only practical truth. Sure you could assume there's a possibility every single scientist in the history of humanity has been wrong, but by that same logic you should see no reason to desbelieve in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In absolute truth, there is a possibility that the flying spaghetti mosnter truly exists, and every story about him is true, but in practical terms we assume it's useless to believe in a claim that has no evidence to support it. It seems more rational to use the theories of those 'great scientists' you refer to rather than claiming we can't know anything for sure so we should maybe just drink tea instead of writing theories about the universe.