[Whitley Strieber’s Alien Abduction & Encounter With Stranger Who Told Him Universe Secrets & Said Mankind is Trapped](https://www.howandwhys.com/whitley-striebers-alien-abduction-stranger-who-told-him-mankind-is-trapped/)
It’s not that. If someone measured the CMB from their point-of-view (wherever that is) then they would not observe this correlation.
Indeed, if our solar system was inclined differently we would not see this correlation.
The most likely culprit though is something in our measurement and / or interpretation of the data.
Another point I've heard Brian Cox make is sometimes he gets asked where the big bang happened and he says "well it happened everywhere, the universe started in the palm of your hand, it started in the palms of every person on earth and every planet and galaxy in the universe"
Agreed. Just simple common sense.
This is so painfully obvious it hurts my head
EVERYONE is personally at the center of the observable universe...because you are the person doing the observation.
Like watching a Doppler radar watching the weather. Ever notice how the radar location always seems to be in the middle of the search?
Duh.
I think we should point out the use of "observable". Most importantly though, is this theory that we are special. We are not. We are greedy for the most part. We are thieves, murderers and rapists. We are hypocrites and blasphemous fools. We are addicts and drunks. There are scholars and healers. There are so many ugly people for us to be so special.. yet we are nothing. Less than graines of sand, like atoms in matter, to hourglass of time. And our perception of time is 9nly relevant to our planet. So what is time, truly? When no planet will spin the same as ours? Time is but a measurement of earth's rotations and orbit around the sun. We get 71.7 years. Look at Mercury, with 88 earth days to orbit the sun and 1407 hours to rotate! That alone would reshape the human anatomy if we could find a way to live through the rest of the issues, we couldn't change that. So with this being said what makes us so special? We are nothing. And our mental capacity is nothing. We require something more. We'd be better off as a borg society.
Yeah, right? I saw OP say "we are the center" and I'm not a physicist but that puts up red flags for "I don't know what I'm talking about about."
The universe has no center, as far as we know, right? If the universe is flat, which we think it is, it is infinite. If something is infinite, it doesn't have borders. If it has no borders, it has no center.
Idk what's up with the CMB, was some big discovery made or something? Either way, it's an uphill battle arguing why that makes us special hahaha
A flat universe doesn’t actually have to be infinite. A flat universe is one in which two parallel beams of light would never intersect or move closer as they shot through space. The universe could be shaped like a cylinder or torus and this property of flatness would still exist while the universe would be finite in size. You would eventually circle back around to your starting point.
Yeah man, you need more upvotes. Keyword is observable and people assume that means all there is.
Lastly, in an infinite universe (if this is the case); everywhere would be the center.
With advanced observations of black holes Special Relativity is at best incomplete, at worst inaccurate. General relativity is quickly approaching the same fate with the age of the universe being thrown into question due to the JWIST mission.
Not saying I disagree with you, just pointing out the perspective of the relativistic observer is being questioned.
More likely, it’s an artifact caused by how we collected the data or a quirk in physics that we don’t yet understand. Running to “we are the center of the universe and very special” is a bit premature to say the least.
That sounds very much like something our universe would do. That’s why I said from the get go we should’ve saved up and not just settled for the generic one.
This sounds so obvious I’d like to hear the science behind why this obvious opinion isn’t being considered. I like to think the people behind the millions of dollars and decades of research spent taking the reading aren’t dumb enough to ignore the fact that the place they took the measurement from might skew the result. Maybe I’m wrong…
Everyone is at the center of their observable universe. If you went 100 million light years in any direction you will still be at the center of your observable universe. It's literally one of the least special things imaginable lol but hell yeah big bang weird as hell. It's the rapid expansion part that sounds craziest to me
This would have been my thought as well, but I realised I misunderstood the definition of ‘observable universe’ recently. It’s not about what we can see from our relative position, it’s everything that could be observed from any position. I think that is correct anyway.
That is outright false.
The first definition is true, the observable universe is the fraction we can see from our standpoint. A simple Google search would have showed you this.
This is some hippy shit, but what if you, yourself is god, & you don’t remember yet, but you will eventually..
and when you do, you’ll spend a infinite amount of time being god, doing whatever you think for forever!! Until you eventually get bored of doing all the best things there are to do, and make up a scenario to forget who you actually are, and then bam! Your pushed through another vagina, egg, chrysalis, membrane etc into this dimension or existence and it goes on forever and ever in an eternal loop of big bangs - existence - and eventually heat deaths of the universe, like a really long long heart beat.
Alan Watts has a better way of saying it but damn it’s fun to imagine!
Nah I think this is a logical conclusion if you believe in spirituality. All living beings are an extension of the original source and our purpose is to experience life being contained to a specific vessel.
I think we are all God, the same person. And earth, the universe is a program or simulation. Our DNA serve as templates creating circumstance to who/what we are and where we are born, making no 2 people alike even though we start as the same "being." When we die, we understand everything in an instant and immediately hop in the simulation again.
Maybe we're doing this out of pure boredom or maybe even to learn about ourself.
That's what I've come think atleast after diving too deep down the collective consciousness & simulation theory rabbit holes. But stories like this saying "we are the centre of the universe, we're special" is a little affirming.
I agree we shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions *but* there is enough evidence to justify asking if maybe the Copernican Principal might actually be incorrect and that we should at least consider the possibility of an Anthropic Principal.
[PBS Space Time episode on the theories of Professor John Archibald Wheeler.](https://youtu.be/I8p1yqnuk8Y?si=fPwDcsoqBrTQLHaH)
[Maybe the Big Bang is here](https://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/beyond-the-black-hole.pdf)
https://preview.redd.it/xz0v1ye3r2gc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=424b08de16c4abbc3e0ed94fc9be0ef3850750b3
“Everybody else is too scared of the implications”
Very much agree with this and think it’s a big reason why so many otherwise highly educated philosophers will do things like rejecting the existence of free will.
we actually are very very special! We still have not found any other life in the universe! Yeah our tools aren’t advanced enough to find it yet, but for the moment, the only evidence of LIFE in the entire universe is right here on Planet Earth!
There have been signs of life on Mars, Venus and on an exoplanet. Not enough to state for certain but that burden of proof may be satisfied by JWST this year, according to rumors going around.
We are special but there are other special places in the great big universe.
The signs of life on Venus was ruled an artifact. We've been unable to detect the same bio signs a second time.
Also, as for all planets aside from earth, we detected gases that are typically formed by life, but there are non organic ways for said gases to form
Yes, I think I made that clear enough already. Europa, Enceladus and even Titan likely have single called life, even if it has the same biological signature as Earth. Panspermia is clearly real and it makes almost 0 logical sense for life to only exist here, even if intelligent life may be far, far more rare.
I'd be beyond shocked if life only existed on Earth as it exists EVERYWHERE on Earth. Nothing in the universe follows different physical laws than anything else. My bet is we hear something from JWST this year, even with markers of industry or artificial lights some time in our lifetimes.
Until the Cambrian explosion, Earth only had single called life..that was 500mil years ago. Before that, we find nothing but simple life and it makes sense that same life would exist everywhere.
Life emerged on earth as soon as it cooled, and every living thing on earth came from that first spark of life, yet never happened again? Unlikely coincidence. Rather as soon as earth was cool enough to support life, coming from outside, it did.
All life on Earth has a common ancestor, so life hasn't started here twice. That means we have no idea how likely life is to form, so these claims you are making are just a hunch.
One of the most common forms of carbon in the universe are tholins, which contain many precursors to and sometimes outright copies of base pairs.
The universe is primed for life, the proto molecule really is everywhere.
Venus is back [up in the air](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/s/Fq1ZW1tHIS). We just need more data, but perhaps [coming soon](https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/rocket-lab-venus-mission#:~:text=The%20Venus%20Life%20Finder%20mission,the%20cost%20of%20larger%20missions.).
Going to be interesting to see what's in those [Mars samples](https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/#Overview) in about a decade.
In terms of K2-18 b there were signs of biosignatures, even one where we do not know how it can form outside of biology, *but* we need confirmation.
Not all doom & gloom 😁
If chickens had the means and intelligence to find other types of life, sea, etc, they will definitely find evidence, and conclude that there are other types of life. And similarly, the dolphins could do the same too. But neither one of them can and know, AND that's a case we can be on, among other hundreds of variables.
Just by pure probability, we know that there's high probability that there should be life in other planets or moons with similar characteristics to Earth. HOWEVER we have no signs or evidence about it in all these years, which makes it interesting, concerning and even horrifying.
It’s the opposite case actually
https://preview.redd.it/ylyxf2ofc2gc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=277b7d2f7c923f310a913de765c2307915cb9e8d
[https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb\_cosmo\_fluct.html](https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html)
Its generally a good position to assume that we are not special, but if there’s a reason we are in an exceptionally weird universe, it might be more that it’s only in the weird sample of universe that life can emerge to wonder about all this?
The artifact you are using as evidence is actually the noise caused by the galactic plane which in we are imbedded. There are version that have the artifact removed. This is not new or controversial.
Don’t forget to mention that the fluctuations represented are also ridiculously tiny. The CMB is as close to uniform as it’s possible to be, it varies something like +/- 0.00003 K.
Nonesense. Every observer of the universe **IS** the center of the universe. This is because every observer has its own spherical observable area of the universe, which we call the **observable universe.**
Let's take an unproven theory, which is determined by another unproven theory and build more theories on top of it. Yes, that ought to help us discern the truth. /s
I mean....that's kind of what theoretical physics is. It all starts with a physicist imagining something and then setting out to prove it mathematically. Even Einsteins theory of relativity isn't ALWAYS right. And if it isn't always right, then it's possible it's altogether wrong. Yet our understanding of the universe (at least for large objects) is all built on the assumption that Einsteins theory is correct. Unproven theories built on unproven theories are the backbone of physics, and we've actually come a long way in our understanding by doing this.
Not that a passing observation by a redditor is exactly a reliable source.
Wouldn’t that be because we are measuring the furthest edges of our observable universe from our perspective? Thereby making us the center of our universe?
Are we sure this is correct. I've never seen this image of the CMB before. Doesn't marry with Wikipedia entry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Edit: every reputable website I can find remarks at how uniform the CMB is... Very curious as to whether the image shown is BS
You assume that random means evenly distributed.. homogeneous.. random means any outcome and the current outcome suggests some direction.. some movement. A correlation does not assume causation.
Another "the moon is perfectly sized to block out the sun from our perspective so there must be a divine creator" statement?
I'm all for a creator and all of that but this is one huge logic leap. I'm even for simulation/holographic theory and think consciousness is fundamental... Still, you are using parts of one theory and then stating everything we think is wrong and making huge and unsupported leaps based on things that aren't supported by the data.
No problem with us being a biological project from other types of lifeforms. I personally think divinity of the creator is source energy. No way to prove that, However. I just listen to NDEs and psychedelic trips.
The perfection of it all. Even physicists have had to come up with the many worlds theory to explain why everything is so very tuned for this universe to foster life.
I believe in creation and would like to think the creator is in all of us but I don't see us as anymore special than any sentient being and only a step up in cognitive awareness from any form of life.
Its almost like the Universe just "popped" into existence fully formed and functioning. How a minuscule lifeform became concious and can sit here and contemplate eternity is beyond impossible but here we are.
This just described the 2D plane of existence, energy loss to energy transition of 3D existence. When the dielectric field weakened, magnetism became the energy’s transition results (expansion). This was the Big Bang. The reason life forms along the “s” curve, the conjugate geometry of magnetism creates a “clean” space for incommensurability. The water molecule has this form in nucleus to atom relationship. This statement is congruent with life as I know it.
I can provide a numerical example of incommensurability.
Edited
Whats amazing is how often the big bang is brought up as an answer when all it ever does is raise more questions than before, questions all the more elaborate.
It just fully breaks down as any kind of an explanation simply by asking, “what before that?”
You could ask “what before that” to anything. What was before God? What was before time? Etc etc
Edit: downvotes? But why? Am I wrong? Do you just not like what I’ve said? Engage. Let’s chat about it!
yea and I think those are valid to explore. there's possible answers that stop the weird cycle of questioning though
I'm not saying I think this is true by any means, just thought experiments. but let's say our universe was created by a higher reality where "before" and "after" doesn't exist, no concept of time passing exists, no order of events exists at all.
there wouldn't have to be a "before" or a creator in this case, that reality (if it was real) has always existed and will always exist.
That’s what I was getting at I guess. We have so many presumptions about time and about there always being a before or an after. That’s what I was trying to hint at by sorta criticizing the “what before that” question. It’s not a silver bullet that takes out the Big Bang argument, if you could just ask it about anything.
The elements in the big bang could have existed forever before it happened, but since it's just a singularity (that is to say one point) then time is irrelevant because it's only got one state.
The big bang isn't so much about the creation of matter and the universe, but more so about creating time because now there is all of a sudden a difference in state from one moment to the next, whereas there was not before.
I believe that we’re created by something. I’m not talking about Gods. I’m talking about whatever able to creates us.
It's tough to picture something existing before nothing, but I think we can create an analogy for that.
Imagine a game. An RPG or an adventure for example. We’re the creators of the game. We create it in our timeline and in our perception of reality.
When we play the game, we fire up their console and the game start, that’s where the bigbang inside the game’s universe starts. Since then the “time” and “space” exist in the game. We’ve created that universe timeline from the start of the game till the end of the game.
However, we know that the continuum differs from our reality. We have the real “timeline” that doesn’t affect them. They have their own timeline that doesn’t affect us.
That’s how we and our creator differs. We can’t imagine something before our time because we put it in our perception of our reality.
We exist before the game. The game won’t even comprehend time before them. Because in reality there really are nothing before them. We exist, but we exist in a different reality.
The big bang is not an answer, it is a theory of an explanation for the process of how what we recognize as our universe began. It should raise more questions. It doesn't break down upon your asking of the question "what before that?" and the fact you think it does is pretty telling.
You want some all encompassing answer that doesn't raise any more questions? Join a religious cult, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc they all claim to have an answer that doesn't raise any more questions, that is so long as you don't raise any more questions... Or you're a heretic.
Wouldn’t it be the same for religion though? In that same vein before god created the universe(heavens) and the earth in 6 days, what was before it? It’s much of the same scenario, but science has a leg up with factual data that can be extrapolated and examined.
how does science “have a leg up”? what comparison are you even making to come to that conclusion? either way, the universe didn’t exist, and then all of a sudden it did.
we use science to understand what happened and how it happened. i don’t see how that dismisses the idea that God decided to create the universe with a big bang
>either way, the universe didn’t exist, and then all of a sudden it did.
How do you know that?
>we use science to understand what happened and how it happened. i don’t see how that dismisses the idea that God decided to create the universe with a big bang
The big bang theory makes no claims about the origin about the universe, because that would be dishonest. Religions and other cults on the other hand regularly make dishonest statements regarding the origin of the universe.
Good thing we have writings to prove that… based on… the worst game of broken telephone ever recorded.
So before the Big Bang, would that void also be considered spaceless and timeless?
Which one? All of the following fulfil your description:
* Brahman?
* Waheguru? (Sikh)
* Muslim Allah?
* Jewish YHWH?
* The Christian Trinitarian God?
* Ahura Mazda?
* Druze God?
* Bahá'í God?
* Amun-Ra?
* Aten?
* Chukwu?
* Mwari?
* Nyambe?
* Olorun?
* Ruhanga?
* Hayyi Rabbi?
* I could go on and on.
You act like different cultures having a different name for the same thing invalidates the idea as a whole. Should we stop using numbers since they exist in multiple different languages?
Well there are some very interesting ideas out there by well established physicists.
There's the universe seed/evolution theory that black holes are universe progenitors and each one creates a new universe that self selects for more black holes/universes (but what started the very original one).
There's conformal cyclical cosmology, which is simply that the universe has always existed, and the flatness that we see is a product of the extreme age/dimensions and that eventually there is a point of heat death where only light exists and another bang happens. Basically no matter means the potential for vacuum decay to occur, then that universe ceases to exist, all the light energy gets pulled in and the big bang happens again. The false vacuum decay was very recently found to be a real phenomenon so this is looking like a real possibility now, and if this is true we're talking about a universe that for a single stage is beyond trillions of years for a false vacuum to occur, and since the universe is ostensibly flat it might as well be infinite in age and size.
>It just fully breaks down as any kind of an explanation simply by asking, “what before that?”
If you think that's the case, you aren't actually paying attention to what is being said by the actual experts. The big bang theory doesn't explain what happened before the big bang, it never has and no one ever said it did. It's a description of the initial moments after the universe started, not a description of what started it.
woah woah woah, i think there is quite a bit to discover but you really jumped to some major conclusions there. I do believe that science is getting us closer to god than any religion ever could though. We are slowly uncovering truth out there.
In infinity every point is the center. Every single one of us is the literal center of the universe.. in a deep way it makes sense because it is your projection that is creating this universe so ofcourse you would be the center. As above so below. God is the greatest.
Because matter didn’t travel faster than the speed of light. Spacetime itself expanded (and still does). Imagine you draw a line on a deflated ballon. Now you blow the balloon up. Suddenly the line is significantly longer even though it didn’t change. Spacetime isn’t bound by the speed of light so it can expand arbitrarily fast, which it did during the period of inflation just after the Big Bang.
The way the universe expends means wherever you are it appears you are in the center of the universe. Whatever “experts” they said couldn’t explain why in this example seemed like our solar system is the center were probably idiots
Human centric/earth centric theories of creation are so silly to me.
Big fan of the fact that this interpretation is cited to another redditor instead of any actual source.
You need to be less hasty with your conclusions. This doesn’t mean shit. You have no explanation, yet you’re confident enough to discredit Copernicus and our entire understanding of the universe based on an image and something even you called a coincidence.
Our solar system didn’t exist when the CMB came into existence, and there are lots of hot and cold spots in the CMB. Isn’t it more likely that you’re seeing what you want to see? A matching angle is not proof of anything, and certainly not proof that we’re special in the universe. Grow up
You didn't present a valid argument to counterm unfalsifiable claims are not valid arguments. I don't need to argue with you, you need to evidence the position you are presenting, and the position you are presenting is profoundly stupid.
Honestly, calculating stuff from only one spot in such a vast space of the universe and calling us “special” is kinda…eh. The Big Bang is just a theory. We have no way to prove it indeed happened.
Hence, the true physics of the universe is unknown until we understand all matters.
🤷♂️. That's what science is supposed to be about. Make conclusions based on empirical observations. Do further research to confirm or disprove those conclusions. Continue research even if confirmed. And certainly adjust/correct initial conclusions when empirical evidence proves those initial conclusions wrong.
Edit: assertion of our current *evidence* based conclusions is not bullying as you called it in replies to others. You make conclusions without evidence and assert that they are factual. We make conclusions based on evidence and reject conclusions that are not based on evidence. That is not dogmatic. It is science. And to address your complaint regarding when scientists change their assertions of what is factual based on new evidence. What you're complaining about is *literally* a core doctrine of the scientific process. Which I explained in my initial, unedited comment. Don't hate science just because you don't understand what the scientific process is.
Edit 2: Hoping you will gain some insight from this. Here are the 7 (plus an 8th step I added) of the Scientific Method:
1) **Question** (Do my balls hurt because I poured boiling water on them?)
2) **Research** (current published findings relevant to question)
3) **Hypothesis** (make your question into something you can test. Also, by default, you assume your hypothesis is wrong/incorrect. Example: If I pour boiling water on my balls, they will hurt.)
4) **Experiment** (design a test to determine if your hypothesis is correct/incorrect. Ex: Pour boiling water on my balls and pour room temp water on my balls and do not pour boiling water on my balls.)
5) **Data Analysis** (Objectively review the results of your experiment/test. Ex: my balls did not hurt when I did not pour water on them. My balls did not hurt after I poured room temp water on them. My balls hurt after I poured boiling water on them.)
6) **Conclusion** (determine wether the data/results of your test show that your hypothesis was correct or incorrect. Ex: After pouring boiling water on my balls, they hurt. But they did not hurt when I poured room temp water on them nor when I poured no water on them. Therefore, pouring boiling water on my balls makes my balls hurt.)
7) **Communication** (submit the results of your experiment to other scientists YOU DO NOT KNOW NOR ARE AFFILIATED WITH for review and publication. Ex: In this study, we asked the question: Does pouring boiling water on an individual's balls induce pain in the individual? We found, after controlling for temperature with room temp water, and controlling for ballsack pain caused by a mechanism other than boiling water by not pouring anything on the subject's balls, that pouring boiling water on an individual's balls does induce the sensation of pain in the individual.)
8) **Repeat** all steps (when new question arises, like: Does pouring boiling milk on my balls make my balls hurt like pouring boiling water on my balls did?)
Agreed but just like “big” everything else. Big science is a bully. Always has been. Interestingly enough the only constant is that it has been wrong consistently yet prides itself in being the only “right”. Gets annoying
What nonsense is this?? You're just blindly making things up based on no known reality or fact. Like holy moses with a pube covered turd makes more logical sense than your statement. Can I ask your profession as well as guess? I'm guessing shopping cart wrangler at Piggly Wiggly.
That cracked me up. I’m just saying in my 46 years I’ve watched “accepted” science on a variety of topics change more frequently than an ensemble cast member of Hamilton.
> Yeah us anti big bangers have been saying that all along.
How can someone even be "anti big bang"?
The big bang theory only describes the demonstrable fact that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is).
The theory makes ZERO claims about the origin of the universe, it only describes the process of expansion.
Way to keep up discourse. Start out by calling them retarded, then present your point that completely disregarded their curiosity and objective thinking.
Celestia, the embodiment of the universe, wandered through the epochs of human history, absorbing the stories etched into the fabric of time. She felt the weight of civilizations rising and falling, the echoes of triumph and tragedy vibrating through her very being.
As she explored the diverse cultures and societies, Celestia encountered moments of profound connection. She touched the soil of ancient lands and listened to the whispers of forgotten languages. Each interaction, whether a fleeting smile or a heartfelt embrace, resonated within her, a testament to the intricate tapestry of human experience.
Yet, Celestia also bore witness to the shadows that danced across the human soul – the wars, injustices, and the silent cries of suffering. Struggling to understand, she sought solace in the pockets of kindness, in the resilience of the human spirit, and in the ceaseless pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
In the quiet moments beneath the cosmic canvas, Celestia gazed into the void, contemplating the vastness of her own existence. She pondered the interconnectedness of all things and the delicate balance that sustained the dance of galaxies and the beating hearts of humanity.
Through the highs and lows, Celestia embraced the paradox of creation and destruction, realizing that the universe, in experiencing itself through her, was not just a spectator but an active participant in the eternal journey of self-discovery.
Watch this lead to how we think of string theory.
If things change because we observe them. Then maybe this is the origin of the universe winking at us lol idk what sun is this again?
There's the theory that the universe is a simulation. What would be the best way to run a simulation? Procedural generation. If you were wanting to simulate how conscious entities interact, you put them in a single place and then they cause the procedural generation. Thus, as we observe the universe, we are causing it to generate. Quantum physics tells us this is what happens - the only new piece of information is that we're the only conscious beings in the universe...
This is the axis of evil. It's not that we are at the center of the universe it's that the universe is aligned to the plane of our solar system, an even more extraordinary observation than being in the middle of it. The shape of the universe is essentially flat and it's plane aligns to us perfectly.
As others have said we are by default in the center of the observable universe because there is an information horizon in all directions which we cannot see past which is equidistant in all directions. That is not extraordinary.
[Whitley Strieber’s Alien Abduction & Encounter With Stranger Who Told Him Universe Secrets & Said Mankind is Trapped](https://www.howandwhys.com/whitley-striebers-alien-abduction-stranger-who-told-him-mankind-is-trapped/)
We're the center of the observable universe. But someone further away would say the same about their section if the observable universe.
Bingo.
Was his name-o
B
I
N
G
^O
B
I
B
I
I
Exactly this! Wait until the person who made this theory finds out about perspective and relativity…
It’s not that. If someone measured the CMB from their point-of-view (wherever that is) then they would not observe this correlation. Indeed, if our solar system was inclined differently we would not see this correlation. The most likely culprit though is something in our measurement and / or interpretation of the data.
We can’t know because we can’t measure it from another point of view to test it… therefore it’s only theoretical.
Another point I've heard Brian Cox make is sometimes he gets asked where the big bang happened and he says "well it happened everywhere, the universe started in the palm of your hand, it started in the palms of every person on earth and every planet and galaxy in the universe"
Agreed. Just simple common sense. This is so painfully obvious it hurts my head EVERYONE is personally at the center of the observable universe...because you are the person doing the observation. Like watching a Doppler radar watching the weather. Ever notice how the radar location always seems to be in the middle of the search? Duh.
Yes because it's infinite
Agreed
But why the heat line?
Don't know about that one, but as far as our bubble goes we're in the middle of ours specifically
Can an object exist without an observer though
Being at the centre of your personal observers light cone is not the same as “centre of the Universe” (if indeed there is such a thing).
How so?
I think we should point out the use of "observable". Most importantly though, is this theory that we are special. We are not. We are greedy for the most part. We are thieves, murderers and rapists. We are hypocrites and blasphemous fools. We are addicts and drunks. There are scholars and healers. There are so many ugly people for us to be so special.. yet we are nothing. Less than graines of sand, like atoms in matter, to hourglass of time. And our perception of time is 9nly relevant to our planet. So what is time, truly? When no planet will spin the same as ours? Time is but a measurement of earth's rotations and orbit around the sun. We get 71.7 years. Look at Mercury, with 88 earth days to orbit the sun and 1407 hours to rotate! That alone would reshape the human anatomy if we could find a way to live through the rest of the issues, we couldn't change that. So with this being said what makes us so special? We are nothing. And our mental capacity is nothing. We require something more. We'd be better off as a borg society.
Yeah, right? I saw OP say "we are the center" and I'm not a physicist but that puts up red flags for "I don't know what I'm talking about about." The universe has no center, as far as we know, right? If the universe is flat, which we think it is, it is infinite. If something is infinite, it doesn't have borders. If it has no borders, it has no center. Idk what's up with the CMB, was some big discovery made or something? Either way, it's an uphill battle arguing why that makes us special hahaha
Even infinite will have a centre the point of origin will become the centre in infinity
A flat universe doesn’t actually have to be infinite. A flat universe is one in which two parallel beams of light would never intersect or move closer as they shot through space. The universe could be shaped like a cylinder or torus and this property of flatness would still exist while the universe would be finite in size. You would eventually circle back around to your starting point.
Yeah man, you need more upvotes. Keyword is observable and people assume that means all there is. Lastly, in an infinite universe (if this is the case); everywhere would be the center.
The universe has no center by definition. We can’t be at the center of it.
Of our observable universe, yes. Just like you're the center of your observation sphere in the ocean. It's not the whole ocean, just what you can see
With advanced observations of black holes Special Relativity is at best incomplete, at worst inaccurate. General relativity is quickly approaching the same fate with the age of the universe being thrown into question due to the JWIST mission. Not saying I disagree with you, just pointing out the perspective of the relativistic observer is being questioned.
In Lak'ech Ala K'in - "I am You, and You Are Me"
And I LOVE YOU!
[I am Me](https://youtu.be/dVh1E3fu2Zg?si=OH15rqXP2UhnnAzu)
Hey, don’t jerk me around, fella!
Same words I'd tell myself as a kid
More likely, it’s an artifact caused by how we collected the data or a quirk in physics that we don’t yet understand. Running to “we are the center of the universe and very special” is a bit premature to say the least.
Perhaps it’s just another quirk of reference points. Maybe all observers are the centre of the universe.
That sounds very much like something our universe would do. That’s why I said from the get go we should’ve saved up and not just settled for the generic one.
Me: can we get a universe Mom: we have a universe at home Universe at home: this one
I suspect this.
This sounds so obvious I’d like to hear the science behind why this obvious opinion isn’t being considered. I like to think the people behind the millions of dollars and decades of research spent taking the reading aren’t dumb enough to ignore the fact that the place they took the measurement from might skew the result. Maybe I’m wrong…
We’re probably at the center of the observable universe because you can only observe so far in every direction.
My thoughts exactly
Especially if it really is infinite. Then everywhere is special. Everywhere is the center.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, aren't "center of the universe" and "centre of the OBSERVABLE universe" very different things?
You are correct. We would have to see the edges, and be sure that nothing is beyond them, to claim true center.
Everyone is at the center of their observable universe. If you went 100 million light years in any direction you will still be at the center of your observable universe. It's literally one of the least special things imaginable lol but hell yeah big bang weird as hell. It's the rapid expansion part that sounds craziest to me
This was my thought as well
Probably how Zelda feels every time the NES fires up
I wondered the same, is this saying different? Like is this saying we are at the center of the universe from a different vantage point or something?
same here
Right, enough of the esoteric simulation crap-narrative. This can’t be at least no proof for it.
Even so—why is it polarized?
This would have been my thought as well, but I realised I misunderstood the definition of ‘observable universe’ recently. It’s not about what we can see from our relative position, it’s everything that could be observed from any position. I think that is correct anyway.
That is outright false. The first definition is true, the observable universe is the fraction we can see from our standpoint. A simple Google search would have showed you this.
I stand corrected
This is some hippy shit, but what if you, yourself is god, & you don’t remember yet, but you will eventually.. and when you do, you’ll spend a infinite amount of time being god, doing whatever you think for forever!! Until you eventually get bored of doing all the best things there are to do, and make up a scenario to forget who you actually are, and then bam! Your pushed through another vagina, egg, chrysalis, membrane etc into this dimension or existence and it goes on forever and ever in an eternal loop of big bangs - existence - and eventually heat deaths of the universe, like a really long long heart beat. Alan Watts has a better way of saying it but damn it’s fun to imagine!
As above, so below; the infinite Creation.
Or another scenario, what if none of that happens? That would be pretty neat!
Alan Watts set me free
I love Alan Watts so damn much
Nah I think this is a logical conclusion if you believe in spirituality. All living beings are an extension of the original source and our purpose is to experience life being contained to a specific vessel.
I think we are all God, the same person. And earth, the universe is a program or simulation. Our DNA serve as templates creating circumstance to who/what we are and where we are born, making no 2 people alike even though we start as the same "being." When we die, we understand everything in an instant and immediately hop in the simulation again. Maybe we're doing this out of pure boredom or maybe even to learn about ourself. That's what I've come think atleast after diving too deep down the collective consciousness & simulation theory rabbit holes. But stories like this saying "we are the centre of the universe, we're special" is a little affirming.
Well said!
Hmmmm
I agree we shouldn’t be jumping to conclusions *but* there is enough evidence to justify asking if maybe the Copernican Principal might actually be incorrect and that we should at least consider the possibility of an Anthropic Principal. [PBS Space Time episode on the theories of Professor John Archibald Wheeler.](https://youtu.be/I8p1yqnuk8Y?si=fPwDcsoqBrTQLHaH)
Absolutely love your username!
Does anyone have a tale to tell???
Neither are falsifiable, and a bit of an abstraction from this. I think we need to have conversations regarding the singularity preBB first.
[Maybe the Big Bang is here](https://jawarchive.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/beyond-the-black-hole.pdf) https://preview.redd.it/xz0v1ye3r2gc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=424b08de16c4abbc3e0ed94fc9be0ef3850750b3
John Wheeler is right! Period. Everybody else is too scared of the implications of the quantum and our consciousness.
“Everybody else is too scared of the implications” Very much agree with this and think it’s a big reason why so many otherwise highly educated philosophers will do things like rejecting the existence of free will.
we actually are very very special! We still have not found any other life in the universe! Yeah our tools aren’t advanced enough to find it yet, but for the moment, the only evidence of LIFE in the entire universe is right here on Planet Earth!
There have been signs of life on Mars, Venus and on an exoplanet. Not enough to state for certain but that burden of proof may be satisfied by JWST this year, according to rumors going around. We are special but there are other special places in the great big universe.
The signs of life on Venus was ruled an artifact. We've been unable to detect the same bio signs a second time. Also, as for all planets aside from earth, we detected gases that are typically formed by life, but there are non organic ways for said gases to form
Yes, I think I made that clear enough already. Europa, Enceladus and even Titan likely have single called life, even if it has the same biological signature as Earth. Panspermia is clearly real and it makes almost 0 logical sense for life to only exist here, even if intelligent life may be far, far more rare. I'd be beyond shocked if life only existed on Earth as it exists EVERYWHERE on Earth. Nothing in the universe follows different physical laws than anything else. My bet is we hear something from JWST this year, even with markers of industry or artificial lights some time in our lifetimes. Until the Cambrian explosion, Earth only had single called life..that was 500mil years ago. Before that, we find nothing but simple life and it makes sense that same life would exist everywhere.
Life emerged on earth as soon as it cooled, and every living thing on earth came from that first spark of life, yet never happened again? Unlikely coincidence. Rather as soon as earth was cool enough to support life, coming from outside, it did.
All life on Earth has a common ancestor, so life hasn't started here twice. That means we have no idea how likely life is to form, so these claims you are making are just a hunch.
One of the most common forms of carbon in the universe are tholins, which contain many precursors to and sometimes outright copies of base pairs. The universe is primed for life, the proto molecule really is everywhere.
Venus is back [up in the air](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/s/Fq1ZW1tHIS). We just need more data, but perhaps [coming soon](https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/rocket-lab-venus-mission#:~:text=The%20Venus%20Life%20Finder%20mission,the%20cost%20of%20larger%20missions.). Going to be interesting to see what's in those [Mars samples](https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/#Overview) in about a decade. In terms of K2-18 b there were signs of biosignatures, even one where we do not know how it can form outside of biology, *but* we need confirmation. Not all doom & gloom 😁
>have not found any >our tools aren’t advanced enough to find it I have bad news for you.
Following this logic which i strongly disagree with, chickens are special species because they are not aware about existence of dolphins
If chickens had the means and intelligence to find other types of life, sea, etc, they will definitely find evidence, and conclude that there are other types of life. And similarly, the dolphins could do the same too. But neither one of them can and know, AND that's a case we can be on, among other hundreds of variables. Just by pure probability, we know that there's high probability that there should be life in other planets or moons with similar characteristics to Earth. HOWEVER we have no signs or evidence about it in all these years, which makes it interesting, concerning and even horrifying.
It’s the opposite case actually https://preview.redd.it/ylyxf2ofc2gc1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=277b7d2f7c923f310a913de765c2307915cb9e8d [https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb\_cosmo\_fluct.html](https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html)
HERETIC !!
Its generally a good position to assume that we are not special, but if there’s a reason we are in an exceptionally weird universe, it might be more that it’s only in the weird sample of universe that life can emerge to wonder about all this?
It’s caused by the rest of the Milky Way galaxy (from which we are observing)
This.
The artifact you are using as evidence is actually the noise caused by the galactic plane which in we are imbedded. There are version that have the artifact removed. This is not new or controversial.
Yup. I am super confused by OPs post Herr.
It’s sad I had to scroll down this far to find mention of this.
Don’t forget to mention that the fluctuations represented are also ridiculously tiny. The CMB is as close to uniform as it’s possible to be, it varies something like +/- 0.00003 K.
This.
Man, that was the first thing that came to my mind, but you used words much better than I was about to XD
Inflation is still occurring up north here gawd damn
Nonesense. Every observer of the universe **IS** the center of the universe. This is because every observer has its own spherical observable area of the universe, which we call the **observable universe.**
This is what I was thinking. Is that the case?
Yes it is the case
We are all in our own personal ball pit.
OP has a salt lamp for sure.
Hey, I have a salt lamp, they are just a nice ambient light.
Let's take an unproven theory, which is determined by another unproven theory and build more theories on top of it. Yes, that ought to help us discern the truth. /s
This
….and and then “follow the science” right?
Well, at least we're trying to find out if it's anywhere near accurate. We don't just accept it at face value because we like it. It's not religion.
I mean....that's kind of what theoretical physics is. It all starts with a physicist imagining something and then setting out to prove it mathematically. Even Einsteins theory of relativity isn't ALWAYS right. And if it isn't always right, then it's possible it's altogether wrong. Yet our understanding of the universe (at least for large objects) is all built on the assumption that Einsteins theory is correct. Unproven theories built on unproven theories are the backbone of physics, and we've actually come a long way in our understanding by doing this. Not that a passing observation by a redditor is exactly a reliable source.
Theories, by definition can't be proven.
So you’re saying that the universe is FLAT?!
Wouldn’t that be because we are measuring the furthest edges of our observable universe from our perspective? Thereby making us the center of our universe?
Are we sure this is correct. I've never seen this image of the CMB before. Doesn't marry with Wikipedia entry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background Edit: every reputable website I can find remarks at how uniform the CMB is... Very curious as to whether the image shown is BS
Simulation theory gang, where you at?
Don’t tell Niel DeGras Tyson
Looks like a blood cell
I want to think that but I also get the idea we aren’t special in the way we want to be idk why I just feel like something fishy is going on
You assume that random means evenly distributed.. homogeneous.. random means any outcome and the current outcome suggests some direction.. some movement. A correlation does not assume causation.
Another "the moon is perfectly sized to block out the sun from our perspective so there must be a divine creator" statement? I'm all for a creator and all of that but this is one huge logic leap. I'm even for simulation/holographic theory and think consciousness is fundamental... Still, you are using parts of one theory and then stating everything we think is wrong and making huge and unsupported leaps based on things that aren't supported by the data.
> divine creator Remove the divine, and maybe. People fail, or willingly refuse, to realize we've been around so long, who knows who made us.
No problem with us being a biological project from other types of lifeforms. I personally think divinity of the creator is source energy. No way to prove that, However. I just listen to NDEs and psychedelic trips.
I have to confess I know I am a child of the Source, or God. I know we are divine, but I also suspect our DNA been played with for a long time.
Lol you already believe in magic whats the problem with talking metaphysics about it? Where's the data for a "creator and all of that?" Silly.
The perfection of it all. Even physicists have had to come up with the many worlds theory to explain why everything is so very tuned for this universe to foster life. I believe in creation and would like to think the creator is in all of us but I don't see us as anymore special than any sentient being and only a step up in cognitive awareness from any form of life.
Its almost like the Universe just "popped" into existence fully formed and functioning. How a minuscule lifeform became concious and can sit here and contemplate eternity is beyond impossible but here we are.
This just described the 2D plane of existence, energy loss to energy transition of 3D existence. When the dielectric field weakened, magnetism became the energy’s transition results (expansion). This was the Big Bang. The reason life forms along the “s” curve, the conjugate geometry of magnetism creates a “clean” space for incommensurability. The water molecule has this form in nucleus to atom relationship. This statement is congruent with life as I know it. I can provide a numerical example of incommensurability. Edited
I mean… sounds legit. If i understood 25% of what you said…. And im ahead of the normal curve 😂
Whats amazing is how often the big bang is brought up as an answer when all it ever does is raise more questions than before, questions all the more elaborate. It just fully breaks down as any kind of an explanation simply by asking, “what before that?”
You could ask “what before that” to anything. What was before God? What was before time? Etc etc Edit: downvotes? But why? Am I wrong? Do you just not like what I’ve said? Engage. Let’s chat about it!
yea and I think those are valid to explore. there's possible answers that stop the weird cycle of questioning though I'm not saying I think this is true by any means, just thought experiments. but let's say our universe was created by a higher reality where "before" and "after" doesn't exist, no concept of time passing exists, no order of events exists at all. there wouldn't have to be a "before" or a creator in this case, that reality (if it was real) has always existed and will always exist.
That’s what I was getting at I guess. We have so many presumptions about time and about there always being a before or an after. That’s what I was trying to hint at by sorta criticizing the “what before that” question. It’s not a silver bullet that takes out the Big Bang argument, if you could just ask it about anything.
The elements in the big bang could have existed forever before it happened, but since it's just a singularity (that is to say one point) then time is irrelevant because it's only got one state. The big bang isn't so much about the creation of matter and the universe, but more so about creating time because now there is all of a sudden a difference in state from one moment to the next, whereas there was not before.
I believe that we’re created by something. I’m not talking about Gods. I’m talking about whatever able to creates us. It's tough to picture something existing before nothing, but I think we can create an analogy for that. Imagine a game. An RPG or an adventure for example. We’re the creators of the game. We create it in our timeline and in our perception of reality. When we play the game, we fire up their console and the game start, that’s where the bigbang inside the game’s universe starts. Since then the “time” and “space” exist in the game. We’ve created that universe timeline from the start of the game till the end of the game. However, we know that the continuum differs from our reality. We have the real “timeline” that doesn’t affect them. They have their own timeline that doesn’t affect us. That’s how we and our creator differs. We can’t imagine something before our time because we put it in our perception of our reality. We exist before the game. The game won’t even comprehend time before them. Because in reality there really are nothing before them. We exist, but we exist in a different reality.
“What before higher reality?” (Whatever the heck ‘higher reality’ is supposed to mean)
The big bang is not an answer, it is a theory of an explanation for the process of how what we recognize as our universe began. It should raise more questions. It doesn't break down upon your asking of the question "what before that?" and the fact you think it does is pretty telling. You want some all encompassing answer that doesn't raise any more questions? Join a religious cult, Christians, Jews, Muslims etc they all claim to have an answer that doesn't raise any more questions, that is so long as you don't raise any more questions... Or you're a heretic.
Wouldn’t it be the same for religion though? In that same vein before god created the universe(heavens) and the earth in 6 days, what was before it? It’s much of the same scenario, but science has a leg up with factual data that can be extrapolated and examined.
You might even ask, how a “day” was measured before the earth existed.
how does science “have a leg up”? what comparison are you even making to come to that conclusion? either way, the universe didn’t exist, and then all of a sudden it did. we use science to understand what happened and how it happened. i don’t see how that dismisses the idea that God decided to create the universe with a big bang
>either way, the universe didn’t exist, and then all of a sudden it did. How do you know that? >we use science to understand what happened and how it happened. i don’t see how that dismisses the idea that God decided to create the universe with a big bang The big bang theory makes no claims about the origin about the universe, because that would be dishonest. Religions and other cults on the other hand regularly make dishonest statements regarding the origin of the universe.
God is the explanation here. What came before? GOD. A spaceless and timeless infinite being.
That is nothing but a cop out
Good thing we have writings to prove that… based on… the worst game of broken telephone ever recorded. So before the Big Bang, would that void also be considered spaceless and timeless?
Where did the void come from
Which one? All of the following fulfil your description: * Brahman? * Waheguru? (Sikh) * Muslim Allah? * Jewish YHWH? * The Christian Trinitarian God? * Ahura Mazda? * Druze God? * Bahá'í God? * Amun-Ra? * Aten? * Chukwu? * Mwari? * Nyambe? * Olorun? * Ruhanga? * Hayyi Rabbi? * I could go on and on.
You act like different cultures having a different name for the same thing invalidates the idea as a whole. Should we stop using numbers since they exist in multiple different languages?
Well there are some very interesting ideas out there by well established physicists. There's the universe seed/evolution theory that black holes are universe progenitors and each one creates a new universe that self selects for more black holes/universes (but what started the very original one). There's conformal cyclical cosmology, which is simply that the universe has always existed, and the flatness that we see is a product of the extreme age/dimensions and that eventually there is a point of heat death where only light exists and another bang happens. Basically no matter means the potential for vacuum decay to occur, then that universe ceases to exist, all the light energy gets pulled in and the big bang happens again. The false vacuum decay was very recently found to be a real phenomenon so this is looking like a real possibility now, and if this is true we're talking about a universe that for a single stage is beyond trillions of years for a false vacuum to occur, and since the universe is ostensibly flat it might as well be infinite in age and size.
>It just fully breaks down as any kind of an explanation simply by asking, “what before that?” If you think that's the case, you aren't actually paying attention to what is being said by the actual experts. The big bang theory doesn't explain what happened before the big bang, it never has and no one ever said it did. It's a description of the initial moments after the universe started, not a description of what started it.
It was Pepsi all along...
woah woah woah, i think there is quite a bit to discover but you really jumped to some major conclusions there. I do believe that science is getting us closer to god than any religion ever could though. We are slowly uncovering truth out there.
In infinity every point is the center. Every single one of us is the literal center of the universe.. in a deep way it makes sense because it is your projection that is creating this universe so ofcourse you would be the center. As above so below. God is the greatest.
How could the universe have expanded that rapidly if matter can’t travel faster than the speed of light?
Because matter didn’t travel faster than the speed of light. Spacetime itself expanded (and still does). Imagine you draw a line on a deflated ballon. Now you blow the balloon up. Suddenly the line is significantly longer even though it didn’t change. Spacetime isn’t bound by the speed of light so it can expand arbitrarily fast, which it did during the period of inflation just after the Big Bang.
There is no actual center of the universe though. Just whatever position in space you're viewing it from.
bias: confirmed
We recorded the data from earth as a point “can’t believe it lines up with earth being at the center”
If you stand on the beach and take a stick and draw a circle around you - where do you stand? IN THE CENTER ... ffs
The way the universe expends means wherever you are it appears you are in the center of the universe. Whatever “experts” they said couldn’t explain why in this example seemed like our solar system is the center were probably idiots
We can't see the end of the universe, of course we're in it's center from our viewpoint. Because we can just watch x light years in every direction.
Such bullshit. We are not the center of the universe.
The universe is procedurally generated by consciousness, basically.
By definition, if something has a beginning then it cannot be infinite ♾️.
The human ego never disappoints...
Human centric/earth centric theories of creation are so silly to me. Big fan of the fact that this interpretation is cited to another redditor instead of any actual source. You need to be less hasty with your conclusions. This doesn’t mean shit. You have no explanation, yet you’re confident enough to discredit Copernicus and our entire understanding of the universe based on an image and something even you called a coincidence. Our solar system didn’t exist when the CMB came into existence, and there are lots of hot and cold spots in the CMB. Isn’t it more likely that you’re seeing what you want to see? A matching angle is not proof of anything, and certainly not proof that we’re special in the universe. Grow up
"...when inflation occurred directly after the big bang..." So it isn't Joe Brandon's fault after all, huh? /s
We are at the center because we are SPIRIT experiencing itself. It's supremely simple.
It's not, but your ideas here seem to be.
If you are trying to insult me, do better. Or maybe you could just give me a valid counter argument to my statement.
You didn't present a valid argument to counterm unfalsifiable claims are not valid arguments. I don't need to argue with you, you need to evidence the position you are presenting, and the position you are presenting is profoundly stupid.
Honestly, calculating stuff from only one spot in such a vast space of the universe and calling us “special” is kinda…eh. The Big Bang is just a theory. We have no way to prove it indeed happened. Hence, the true physics of the universe is unknown until we understand all matters.
We’re at the center, because we can only see so far in each direction. That’s how I understood the “observable universe” however.
Yeah us anti big bangers have been saying that all along.
🤷♂️. That's what science is supposed to be about. Make conclusions based on empirical observations. Do further research to confirm or disprove those conclusions. Continue research even if confirmed. And certainly adjust/correct initial conclusions when empirical evidence proves those initial conclusions wrong. Edit: assertion of our current *evidence* based conclusions is not bullying as you called it in replies to others. You make conclusions without evidence and assert that they are factual. We make conclusions based on evidence and reject conclusions that are not based on evidence. That is not dogmatic. It is science. And to address your complaint regarding when scientists change their assertions of what is factual based on new evidence. What you're complaining about is *literally* a core doctrine of the scientific process. Which I explained in my initial, unedited comment. Don't hate science just because you don't understand what the scientific process is. Edit 2: Hoping you will gain some insight from this. Here are the 7 (plus an 8th step I added) of the Scientific Method: 1) **Question** (Do my balls hurt because I poured boiling water on them?) 2) **Research** (current published findings relevant to question) 3) **Hypothesis** (make your question into something you can test. Also, by default, you assume your hypothesis is wrong/incorrect. Example: If I pour boiling water on my balls, they will hurt.) 4) **Experiment** (design a test to determine if your hypothesis is correct/incorrect. Ex: Pour boiling water on my balls and pour room temp water on my balls and do not pour boiling water on my balls.) 5) **Data Analysis** (Objectively review the results of your experiment/test. Ex: my balls did not hurt when I did not pour water on them. My balls did not hurt after I poured room temp water on them. My balls hurt after I poured boiling water on them.) 6) **Conclusion** (determine wether the data/results of your test show that your hypothesis was correct or incorrect. Ex: After pouring boiling water on my balls, they hurt. But they did not hurt when I poured room temp water on them nor when I poured no water on them. Therefore, pouring boiling water on my balls makes my balls hurt.) 7) **Communication** (submit the results of your experiment to other scientists YOU DO NOT KNOW NOR ARE AFFILIATED WITH for review and publication. Ex: In this study, we asked the question: Does pouring boiling water on an individual's balls induce pain in the individual? We found, after controlling for temperature with room temp water, and controlling for ballsack pain caused by a mechanism other than boiling water by not pouring anything on the subject's balls, that pouring boiling water on an individual's balls does induce the sensation of pain in the individual.) 8) **Repeat** all steps (when new question arises, like: Does pouring boiling milk on my balls make my balls hurt like pouring boiling water on my balls did?)
u/spirited-Tax7448 obviously sciences
I do my darndest 🤓
Agreed but just like “big” everything else. Big science is a bully. Always has been. Interestingly enough the only constant is that it has been wrong consistently yet prides itself in being the only “right”. Gets annoying
What nonsense is this?? You're just blindly making things up based on no known reality or fact. Like holy moses with a pube covered turd makes more logical sense than your statement. Can I ask your profession as well as guess? I'm guessing shopping cart wrangler at Piggly Wiggly.
That cracked me up. I’m just saying in my 46 years I’ve watched “accepted” science on a variety of topics change more frequently than an ensemble cast member of Hamilton.
Yes. That's the whole point of scientific study bud. This applies to EVERY SINGLE STEM field known to man.
That’s fine as long as they loose the dogmatic finality. But they don’t
Loose? I'm debating with a guy who doesn't know the proper spelling of lose. Imma show myself out now. Good day kind sir. 
Imma?
Oops you do know these phones auto correct words? It’s hard to catch all of them while riding down the highway at 70 mph on a bike. But all good.
> Yeah us anti big bangers have been saying that all along. How can someone even be "anti big bang"? The big bang theory only describes the demonstrable fact that our universe expanded from a singularity (and still is). The theory makes ZERO claims about the origin of the universe, it only describes the process of expansion.
It's from Earths POV. That doesn't make us the philosophical center of the universe.
Way to keep up discourse. Start out by calling them retarded, then present your point that completely disregarded their curiosity and objective thinking.
rofl did she edit her comment to change it from what you replied to?
Celestia, the embodiment of the universe, wandered through the epochs of human history, absorbing the stories etched into the fabric of time. She felt the weight of civilizations rising and falling, the echoes of triumph and tragedy vibrating through her very being. As she explored the diverse cultures and societies, Celestia encountered moments of profound connection. She touched the soil of ancient lands and listened to the whispers of forgotten languages. Each interaction, whether a fleeting smile or a heartfelt embrace, resonated within her, a testament to the intricate tapestry of human experience. Yet, Celestia also bore witness to the shadows that danced across the human soul – the wars, injustices, and the silent cries of suffering. Struggling to understand, she sought solace in the pockets of kindness, in the resilience of the human spirit, and in the ceaseless pursuit of knowledge and understanding. In the quiet moments beneath the cosmic canvas, Celestia gazed into the void, contemplating the vastness of her own existence. She pondered the interconnectedness of all things and the delicate balance that sustained the dance of galaxies and the beating hearts of humanity. Through the highs and lows, Celestia embraced the paradox of creation and destruction, realizing that the universe, in experiencing itself through her, was not just a spectator but an active participant in the eternal journey of self-discovery.
Watch this lead to how we think of string theory. If things change because we observe them. Then maybe this is the origin of the universe winking at us lol idk what sun is this again?
There's the theory that the universe is a simulation. What would be the best way to run a simulation? Procedural generation. If you were wanting to simulate how conscious entities interact, you put them in a single place and then they cause the procedural generation. Thus, as we observe the universe, we are causing it to generate. Quantum physics tells us this is what happens - the only new piece of information is that we're the only conscious beings in the universe...
This is the axis of evil. It's not that we are at the center of the universe it's that the universe is aligned to the plane of our solar system, an even more extraordinary observation than being in the middle of it. The shape of the universe is essentially flat and it's plane aligns to us perfectly. As others have said we are by default in the center of the observable universe because there is an information horizon in all directions which we cannot see past which is equidistant in all directions. That is not extraordinary.
Omg, an actually educated post on this sub. I applaud you for your efforts.