Our universe

Our universe is so big that one has to wonder about all that has been claimed about the universe.
For starters we go back to the globe we all knew in our childhood.

This globe was, let's say.....30 cm in diameter.
A rocket in this scale is invisable small and so is the Hubble telescope.

When we use this globe as a starting point the sun is a big ball with a 35m diameter. A height of a 10 storey building.
The distance between those two models is 3,74 km.
Pluto is only 6cm in diameter and a whopping 110-185 km away depending where it is in it's orbit around the sun.
The sun's gravity is however keeping it in place.

Alpha Centauri is the nearest star at 1.000.000 km !!! away from our 30cm globe model.
The diameter of the scale Milkyway is 25.000.000.000 km (still considering our 30cm earth as reference)
Andromeda is 600.000.000.000 km away (still considering our 30cm earth as reference)
And the furthest known galaxy is 3.000.000.000.000 km away (still considering our 30cm earth as reference)

Since rockets aren't even visible in this scale model it is safe to assume that mass will not get us anywhere at all.
Even the speed of light is extremely slow to go anywhere and i urge people to write down the billions of lightyears in miles/km, because it are absurd distances.
What can we really tell about our universe when we are trapped because we are to little by an extremely big margin ?.
Even on a scaled down universe the distances remain absurd as i have pointed out above.

What is so brilliant about all those conclusions scietists get so excited about ?
When light doesn't travel in absolute straight lines for trillion-quadrillions of km's, but to some unknown reason bends a tiny bit of a degree each lightyear, we can tell nothing about the direction of the things we observe. Wat is perceived in a certain direction could be in any place at all (not talking about time delay, but the path of light rays).
Yet when we look at the stars, nothing seems so outlandish far away.....and those mockin such infantile reasoning, forget that they themselves can never proof anything behind our solar system. which is so extremely small compared to the other distances (again see above in the scale model), that claiming certain absolutes is nothing more than wild guesses, because we will probably never find out.
From the time that the flatearth debate is growing the counter arguements include more light bending , refraction and all sort of great manouvres than ever to make the globe curvature math fit the equation.
But light from far away gallaxies, trillions and trillions times the distances travels in straight lines so we can make conclusions about the origans of our universe ?

I'm sorry, what are you rambling about?

I'm sorry, what are you rambling about?

You are not really interrested are you ?

So are you saying since the universe is so extremely vast that we can't know or learn anything about it?

We can tell alot about far away things just by looking at their light.

It's not like we're observing those galaxies though our atmosphere.

So are you saying since the universe is so extremely vast that we can't know or learn anything about it?

Indeed !!! We can never test our hypothesis about our universe.....that is exactly what's important to know for the avarage ''Joe''.
Remember that Tycho Brahe detested the notion of this absurd vast universe for several reasons.

What can we tell about the behaviour of light during it's quadrillion km long journey in outer space ?
Science is like a population screening that only asks three induviduals to make claims about the behaviour of the whole population.
Nothing can be concluded, when we are located in such a small part of a supposedly vast universe.......it would be bloody arrogant the claim otherwise.....
And they talk about dark matter, dark energy, the inflation of the early universe as if it were facts,.....that is so disturbing about all this.

Hypothesis are repeated so many times that i believe that many, many person's will talk about ''dark matter'' in a factual way.....which is ABSURD !

We can tell alot about far away things just by looking at their light.

Exactly, we can use spectral analysis to determine the composition of the object. Use redshift to determine its speed and distance. Even use type 1A supernovas to determine the accelerating expansion of the universe.

We can tell alot about far away things just by looking at their light.

Of course i am aware about this explaination.....but they've got it wrong with ''redshift'' vs ''presumed distances'' on several occasions.

My point is that in order to check the facts we have  a mere 400 years of cosmology and measurement to check the behaviour of light in a cotroled invironment. (Earth and lab)
But certain light has began it's journey supposedly quadrillion miles away, billion of years ago.......
What can we conclude about that specific starlight ?
Was there anything influencing the properties, path etc.of this specific starlight during all those ''years'' and ''distances'' ?

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on September 09, 2016, 01:08:31 PM

We can tell alot about far away things just by looking at their light.

Of course i am aware about this explaination.....but they've got it wrong with ''redshift'' vs ''presumed distances'' on several occasions.

My point is that in order to check the facts we have  a mere 400 years of cosmology and measurement to check the behaviour of light in a cotroled invironment. (Earth and lab)
But certain light has began it's journey supposedly quadrillion miles away, billion of years ago.......
What can we conclude about that specific starlight ?
Was there anything influencing the properties, path etc.of this specific starlight during all those ''years'' and ''distances'' ?

If something is blocking the light from a certain source then we wouldn't be able to see it. Since we can see things in the universe they are not blocked. And have you ever heard of gravitational lensing?

my opinion is;
our universe seems very similar to a cell..
cells are 99.9% empty space, with loads of speckles that make it act how it should

now, look up at the night sky

around 99.9% empty space with loads of speckles?


we could simply be a speck, living in a cell, making up a living being



no one knows, we could all be wrong

my opinion is;
our universe seems very similar to a cell..
cells are 99.9% empty space, with loads of speckles that make it act how it should

now, look up at the night sky

around 99.9% empty space with loads of speckles?


we could simply be a speck, living in a cell, making up a living being



no one knows, we could all be wrong

Right !

Mustafa Abdelkader (professor in Cairo) wrote an essay about the geocosmos in which he inverted the whole universe inside a concave earth.
Forget about the likes of Lord Steven Christ and his photoshop model, Abdelkader's take is so incredible fascinating that it is telling so very few know about it.

Even the most hardcore heliocentric defender who has read it must come to the conclusion that his model is mathematically equall on all accounts and it explains every observable phenomena, including orbiting satelites, equally correct as the current model.

This is of course a stumbling stone for those who exclude any other possibilty.........problem is, you can't shoot holes in his essay more than in our current model, because it is a perfect inversion based on mapping all data inside out.
Since our ''spaceships'' can't go anywhere significant there shouldn't be the slightest objection towards a model that perfectly explains every observable phenomena with equally possible building bricks.

Let's be honest. If we knew so much about the supposed universe and make up of planets and stars, etc, then why the hell are we struggling in working out Earth?

If a person is born encased inside a domed building and only allowed to see or walk limited places, then simply schooled about the stuff not seen, then that persons whole existence is based on the belief of those that indoctrinate them.

Let's be honest. If we knew so much about the supposed universe and make up of planets and stars, etc, then why the hell are we struggling in working out Earth?

If a person is born encased inside a domed building and only allowed to see or walk limited places, then simply schooled about the stuff not seen, then that persons whole existence is based on the belief of those that indoctrinate them.

Absolutely !!

I'm sorry, what are you rambling about?

I'm sorry, what are you rambling about?

Put away your lippstick and start reading instead 

Well, the thing is we can see into space. We can't see into the earth. So while we can easily tell how far away stars are and their composition, we can't as easily tell what is inside the earth.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on September 09, 2016, 01:02:18 PM

So are you saying since the universe is so extremely vast that we can't know or learn anything about it?

Indeed !!! We can never test our hypothesis about our universe.....that is exactly what's important to know for the avarage ''Joe''.
Remember that Tycho Brahe detested the notion of this absurd vast universe for several reasons.

What can we tell about the behaviour of light during it's quadrillion km long journey in outer space ?
Science is like a population screening that only asks three induviduals to make claims about the behaviour of the whole population.
Nothing can be concluded, when we are located in such a small part of a supposedly vast universe.......it would be bloody arrogant the claim otherwise.....
And they talk about dark matter, dark energy, the inflation of the early universe as if it were facts,.....that is so disturbing about all this.

Hypothesis are repeated so many times that i believe that many, many person's will talk about ''dark matter'' in a factual way.....which is ABSURD !

It's interesting that you bring up Tycho Brahe. You should read a bit more about him, say in Galileo Project > Science > Tycho Brahe.
What is amazing about Tycho Brake's work is that he achieved such accuracy without telescopse - all naked eye measurements, with very large instruments.

Tycho Brahe most certainly accepted as fact that the earth was a globe, and all his work was based on that. Nevertheless, he believed that earth was the centre of at least the solar system. But he discarded the Ptolmeaic idea of the moon, sun and all the planets orbiting the earth and as in the depiction of the Tychonic system on the right, Quote had the objects on blue orbits (the moon and the sun) rotate around the earth. The objects on orange orbits (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) rotate around the sun. Around all is a sphere of stars, which rotates.From: Wikipedia, Tychonic system Apparently, Brahe just accepted that the distance to the moon was as accepted at the time Quote from: Wikipedia Lunar Distance by Lunar eclipse[edit] Early attempts to measure the distance to the Moon exploited observations of a lunar eclipse combined with knowledge of Earth's radius and an understanding that the Sun is much further than the Moon. By observing the geometry of a lunar eclipse, the lunar distance can be calculated using trigonometry. The earliest account of an attempt to measure the distance to the Moon using this technique was by the 4th-century-BC Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos and later by Hipparchus, whose calculations produced a result of 59-67 R⊕. This method later found its way into the work of Ptolemy, who produced a result of 64 1/66 R⊕ at its farthest point.[31] From Wikipedia, Lunar distance (astronomy) R⊕ was used as a symbol for the radius of the earth, so 59-67 R⊕ is 376,000 to 427,000 km and 64 1/66 R⊕ is 408,000 km. Not at all far from modern figures.

Tychonic Universe By User:Fastfission - Own work, Public Domain

So, Brahe had little knowledge of the distances of the sun, planets and the stars
But, he took for granted that the distance to the sun was much greater than the distance to the moon
and that the stars must be much further away again, as he could no measure are parallax as he could with the planets.

Really I don't care what you think about any vast distances to the stars, it has no bearing on the shape of the earth.

Let's be honest. If we knew so much about the supposed universe and make up of planets and stars, etc, then why the hell are we struggling in working out Earth?

If a person is born encased inside a domed building and only allowed to see or walk limited places, then simply schooled about the stuff not seen, then that persons whole existence is based on the belief of those that indoctrinate them.

You perfectly well described situation during Dark Ages, before Renaissance.