Scientists to unveil new Earth-like planet

[Fascinate]

They are both in the "no evidence for but plenty against club".

No, this isn't true at all.

Relativity states it is possible earth can be in the center, by definition (more specifically, general relativity). Flat earth theory is something altogether different, something i wont even get into.

[Turaska]

It's all very well that they keep unveiling planets but why even bother? we can't get to them, not in our life time at least.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

its hard to fully express why i feel the way i do on an internet forum.

Is it also hard to express a simple yes or no?

[Kathandira]

Given that we know that life forms even in underwater geysers 10,000 km under surface, I don't think finding a primitive plant somewhere outside Earth would be that big of a find: sure, it would be talked about a lot for a few months, but I don't think it will change much long term. Now, finding a primitive animal - THAT would be something!

I would think it would hold importance if it was the first living thing to be found not on Earth. Even if it was a plant that lives the same way it does on Earth, it would punch a hole in the "Only Earth can support life" theory.

[May90]

No, this isn't true at all.

Relativity states it is possible earth can be in the center, by definition (more specifically, general relativity). Flat earth theory is something altogether different, something i wont even get into.

No, relativity states that physical laws are the same in any reference frame, which means that all reference frame are equal in this regard, which means all reference frame attached to any point in the Universe are equal, which means that there is no "center", since all points are equal in this regard. "Center" wouldn't make sense, because it would imply some kind of spherical Universe, and for it for the points on the edge of the sphere relativity principle couldn't be satisfied.

[ranzino]

It's all very well that they keep unveiling planets but why even bother? we can't get to them, not in our life time at least.

for later generations, you need something to aim for.

[May90]

I would think it would hold importance if it was the first living thing to be found not on Earth. Even if it was a plant that lives the same way it does on Earth, it would punch a hole in the "Only Earth can support life" theory.

I suppose. I just don't think it would affect humanity long-term much. While finding an animal would mean that there are probably other animals scattered across the Universe, and some of them might have evolved to be more intelligent than us. It would be a veeeery strong evidence in support of intelligent life besides ours.

[Kathandira]

I suppose. I just don't think it would affect humanity long-term much. While finding an animal would mean that there are probably other animals scattered across the Universe, and some of them might have evolved to be more intelligent than us. It would be a veeeery strong evidence in support of intelligent life besides ours.

No doubt. An animal would be far more exciting. But I thin a plant is still plenty exciting. Especially if it is living in conditions foreign to how life survives on Earth.

[Fascinate]

Look, I don't know where you learned anything about Einstein's relativity, because your understanding is at best at the level of someone who heard someone else describe a YouTube video they once saw.

The whole meaning of the Michaelson-Morely null result is that there -is- no stationary frame of reference. There is no dichotomy between "Rotating Earth and Stationary Universe" vs. "Stationary Earth and Rotating Universe" because both are completely untrue statements.

We may as well argue fiction at this point. Who is stronger? Superman or Goku?

The michaelson-morley experiments are not why i said either of those scenarios are possible. I actually have to bring into question your full understanding of general relativity if you disagree with me that a stationary planet and rotating universe are not a possibility.

Michaelson-morley experiments (as well as the thousands of other inferometer experiments) simply show we have NEVER measured that the earth is moving, well basically because relativity does not allow us to now does it?

[ranzino]

No doubt. An animal would be far more exciting. But I thin a plant is still plenty exciting. Especially if it is living in conditions foreign to how life survives on Earth.

But a plant would be a start ? we would for certain search all the planets and moons in solar system far and wide for some other clues.

[Fascinate]

No, relativity states that physical laws are the same in any reference frame, which means that all reference frame are equal in this regard, which means all reference frame attached to any point in the Universe are equal, which means that there is no "center", since all points are equal in this regard. "Center" wouldn't make sense, because it would imply some kind of spherical Universe, and for it for the points on the edge of the sphere relativity principle couldn't be satisfied.

No, again you are confused. The copernican principle states there cannot be a center, general relativity does no such thing.

[Adam Jensen]

It's all very well that they keep unveiling planets but why even bother? we can't get to them, not in our life time at least.

Because we're curious and we want to know.

[May90]

No, again you are confused. The copernican principle states there cannot be a center, general relativity does no such thing.

I just explained to you how it directly follows from relativity principle, and you decided to ignore the whole argument and go back to this?

As for Copernican Principle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

"Under the modified Copernican principle neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favored position in the universe.[1] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."

See, it only says that there is nothing special about Sun or Earth in particular. It doesn't say anything about there not existing the center at all, it just claims that Earth and Sun are not at the center.

[Adam Jensen]

I just don't understand the mindset of the earth being the center of the universe. This is irrefutably wrong. I don't care if it "can be" true in relativity. It isn't true. We know the Earth moves around the Sun, we know the Sun is the center of the Solar system and that Earth and the planets and the asteroids and the comets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun. And we know the sun is not the center of the galaxy, but merely a star in transit on one of the arms of the the Milky Way, as the Milky Way spins around the super massive black hole Sagittarius A*. And we know Sagittarius A* is not the center of the universe because the galaxies beyond our cluster aren't orbiting the Milky Way.

The only way we can ever be defined as the center of the universe is if you define it as the center of our point of view. That is the only definition in which we are the center of the universe. Otherwise, geometrically, it makes no sense to declare the Earth the center of anything except maybe the orbit of the Moon and about 500 artificial satellites.

[Fascinate]

I just explained to you how it directly follows from relativity principle, and you decided to ignore the whole argument and go back to this?

As for Copernican Principle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

"Under the modified Copernican principle neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favored position in the universe.[1] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe."

See, it only says that there is nothing special about Sun or Earth in particular. It doesn't say anything about there not existing the center at all, it just claims that Earth and Sun are not at the center.

You literally just linked a wiki article so first off you had no idea what it meant. Secondly (and even more embarrassingly for you?) it says plain as day: neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favored position

I dont even know what to say to you other than, stop?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

about 500 artificial satellites.

Captain Nitpick to the rescue!

There are about 3,600 artificial satellites in orbit.

Thanks, Captain Nitpick!

[May90]

You literally just linked a wiki article so first off you had no idea what it meant. Secondly (and even more embarrassingly for you?) it says plain as day: neither the Sun nor the Earth are in a central, specially favored position

I dont even know what to say to you other than, stop?

1. It has a reference to a reputable source.
2. Yes, that's what it says. It doesn't say that there is no central position, it says that the Sun and the Earth aren't at a central position.
3. Jesus Christ...

[Adam Jensen]

Captain Nitpick to the rescue!

There are about 3,600 artificial satellites in orbit.

Thanks, Captain Nitpick!

That's . . . 3100 more than I thought. Well then . . . I didn't realize it was that many.

[Fascinate]

I just don't understand the mindset of the earth being the center of the universe. This is irrefutably wrong. I don't care if it "can be" true in relativity. It isn't true. We know the Earth moves around the Sun, we know the Sun is the center of the Solar system and that Earth and the planets and the asteroids and the comets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun. And we know the sun is not the center of the galaxy, but merely a star in transit on one of the arms of the the Milky Way, as the Milky Way spins around the super massive black hole Sagittarius A*. And we know Sagittarius A* is not the center of the universe because the galaxies beyond our cluster aren't orbiting the Milky Way.

The only way we can ever be defined as the center of the universe is if you define it as the center of our point of view. That is the only definition in which we are the center of the universe. Otherwise, geometrically, it makes no sense to declare the Earth the center of anything except maybe the orbit of the Moon and about 500 artificial satellites.

Clearly you do not understand general relativity either. The earth possibly being in the center is not in question here, that discussion is over there is definitely a possibility of that if you hold any stake in our current theories of the universe. The question comes in for me is if we were created, the mere fact our theories allow an earth centered universe tell me something. If i was a betting man, im throwing all my chips down on us being created. Again no religious mumbo jumbo from me, just on a pure logical basis i truly believe there is a higher chance that we were created than trying to bring dark energy and multiverses into the equation (if you move the earth to the center in general relativity, there is no need to explain our expansion with dark matter)

[Forogil]

Technically you could set up a coordinate system such that earth is stationary and everything else moves - before Einstein and general relativity.
There would be lots of centrifugal forces etc, and it just creates an unnecessary mess. You could equally well create one around the moon, or the moon Io - so it doesn't prove that earth is the center; just that you can select any coordinate system you want.

With general relativity I am not 100% sure that you can do it - or even create any global coordinate system that covers everything.
And in addition to normal centrifugal forces you get minor strange rotations of the tensor-fields - making it even stranger.