Scientists to unveil new Earth-like planet

[Enthusiastic Steward]

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

Well, I did have to look it up, but only because when I was talking about geosynchronous satellites earlier I looked that up and there are approximately 500-600 still in orbit. So if that's just the geosynchronous ones I knew the total had to be bigger.

In total accounting for satellites no longer in orbit about 6,600 have been launched. That's crazy.

[zorkuus]

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)

It opens up new questions and doesn't answer anything. You would need to explain your interdimensional space aliens, god or whatever you want to call it that created all this. You might aswell say: it's magic!

[Kuntantee]

Didn't read 25-page. Did they unveil?

[Fascinate]

You are making a distinction where none exists. Both are nutty. The sun does not rotate around the earth, so just off the bat the earth cannot be the "center". Among other reasons. No credible scientific organization sees the earth as the center.

You are only wanting it to be the center, and trying to find any evidence you can that supports it because you are trying to get it to agree with some story in the bible. Because you have linked the bible with only being true if science agrees with it. That is the mistake of many religious people. Never link your bible/holy texts on anything having to do with science, or gaps in science; Because the science may eventually change as it finds more information, and because the gaps will be filled sooner or later.

All in all, you created a problem for yourself, and now trying to convince other people of your delusion because otherwise, your holy text/understanding is wrong... and you just can't let that happen, psychologically.

There is definitely a distinction sorry you cannot see it. One lies in reality of our current world view and the other has literally nothing backing it up. Its actually a shame they get brought up in the same sentence, but so is life.

I have never read the bible, what i see is science failing (you got that part right) with no end in sight unless they backtrack real hard. Then i got to thinking, if we can actually put the earth in the center without it breaking our current laws....why couldnt a creator be a thing? My inspiration was my own, i only heard of michio kaku having the same thoughts after i came to mine.

Its cute that you thought you had me pegged tho, means you gave it a good bit of thought i am kind of blushing : )

[Fascinate]

No thought went into it. Mostly because that is how you come off from reading the comments on here. You are grasping at straws trying to prove a theory no one worth their salt seriously considered. Whatever need you have to prove your belief to others is just making you blind to any actual evidence.

As for science, all it is is conjecture and refutation. You are making a conjecture "the earth is the center of the universe", but have no evidence to back it up, and a heap of evidence going against it.

Like the fact that the sun does not go around the earth.

The thing is, there is evidence behind it....its called general relativity. When einstein stumbled upon this theory to explain gravity, he also opened the door to the possibility of earth occupying the center of the universe. There are no "heaps of evidence" going against it, which is quite ironic given the claims you have put on me "grasping at straws" when in actuality it is quite the opposite of others doing exactly that in this thread.

[May90]

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)

There is no possibility of Earth being the center of the Universe, according to the current theories, because the "center of the Universe" doesn't make sense geometrically. And even if the Earth was the "center of the Universe", it would have zero relevance to the question of whether we were created. And there is no logical basis behind either, because we have zero evidence of either, while we have a lot of evidence showing that likely it isn't the case.

Also... Dark matter doesn't have any relevance to expansion of the Universe. That expansion is caused by dark energy instead, which is just a fancy term for the "forces" that cause and sustain this expansion. And multiverses, as of now, are just theoretical gimmick, they are not required to explain anything we have observed.

With such glaring misconceptions, I'm surprised you've spent so much time posting here, while you could spend the same amount of time to get some basic knowledge on the subject you are so desperately lacking.

The thing is, there is evidence behind it....its called general relativity. When einstein stumbled upon this theory to explain gravity, he also opened the door to the possibility of earth occupying the center of the universe. There are no "heaps of evidence" going against it, which is quite ironic given the claims you have put on me "grasping at straws" when in actuality it is quite the opposite of others doing exactly that in this thread.

o_O

[Deleted]

I thought it was Isaac Newton that discovered Gravity.

I am learning a lot in this thread.

[Steelangel]

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.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to question my authority on this matter.

[Fascinate]

There is no possibility of Earth being the center of the Universe, according to the current theories, because the "center of the Universe" doesn't make sense geometrically. And even if the Earth was the "center of the Universe", it would have zero relevance to the question of whether we were created. And there is no logical basis behind either, because we have zero evidence of either, while we have a lot of evidence showing that likely it isn't the case.

Also... Dark matter doesn't have any relevance to expansion of the Universe. That expansion is caused by dark energy instead, which is just a fancy term for the "forces" that cause and sustain this expansion. And multiverses, as of now, are just theoretical gimmick, they are not required to explain anything we have observed.

With such glaring misconceptions, I'm surprised you've spent so much time posting here, while you could spend the same amount of time to get some basic knowledge on the subject you are so desperately lacking.


o_O

I honestly cant believe you are still here lol. The amount of things you have said in this thread that are wrong....simply mind boggling for someone who claims to have been in the field going on 10 years.

As for your O.o:
General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[2] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation

Bolded the important part. Ill give you some time to figure out why that allows earth to be in the center. Ill be back in 2035, maybe you will have figured it out by then?

[Annoying]

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

There's a handful of decent ways to visualize them. I prefer http://stuffin.space/ -- simply amazing.

[Fascinate]

I'm sorry, but you don't get to question my authority on this matter.

You represent why science is still stuck right now, ego's run amuck and the unwillingness to think freely. You are probably a good person usually, but when it comes to your sacred craft how dare anyone challenge those ideas (kinda sounds like a classic closed minded religion the more i think of it).

[May90]

I honestly cant believe you are still here lol. The amount of things you have said in this thread that are wrong....simply mind boggling for someone who claims to have been in the field going on 10 years.

As for your O.o:
General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915[2] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation

Bolded the important part. Ill give you some time to figure out why that allows earth to be in the center. Ill be back in 2035, maybe you will have figured it out by then?

I think, at this point, you are just saying random things to try to get others to leave and to claim victory by abandonment. Whatever, if it makes you feel better...

You represent why science is still stuck right now, ego's run amuck and the unwillingness to think freely. You are probably a good person usually, but when it comes to your sacred craft how dare anyone challenge those ideas (kinda sounds like a classic closed minded religion the more i think of it).

Science isn't stuck. People who refuse to educate themselves about it are. We are doing interesting work, learning new things about the world, right now; in fact, I just returned from a meeting on the recent updated classification of CEMP stars an hour ago. You haven't contributed much to anything though... I wonder why.

[Steelangel]

You represent why science is still stuck right now, ego's run amuck and the unwillingness to think freely. You are probably a good person usually, but when it comes to your sacred craft how dare anyone challenge those ideas (kinda sounds like a classic closed minded religion the more i think of it).

Perish the thought. It's just that I take umbrage that someone who does not actually understand the theories that he is espousing is going to project his inadequacies on me.

[Fascinate]

Perish the thought. It's just that I take umbrage that someone who does not actually understand the theories that he is espousing is going to project his inadequacies on me.

Do you realize what you sound like?

Perish the thought! You inadequate swine! Come on man, you aren't helping your case...

[Forogil]

For anyone wishing to understand how science works - instead of having the universe revolving around them:
https://palereddot.org/peer-review-o...ic-literature/

It is likely that the paper about this will soon be accepted, and it is likely that the paper contains some evidence for this planet. But not yet. They also claim that they didn't leak this story.

[Kuntantee]

For anyone wishing to understand how science works - instead of having the universe revolving around them:

You should read PHD Comics. Peer-review is hilariously unprofessional.

[Steelangel]

Come on man, you aren't helping your case...

At this juncture, there is no case to be made. You have built your world-view on a structure that shares nothing in common with the words that you use. Like new age charlatans, you have adopted the words of science without appreciation of what they mean in their intended context. To the uninitiated, you could sound reasonable, as your arguments are reasoned. But they are reasoned from false premises, misapprehensions, and willful ignorance of source material.

When presented with facts to rebut your arguments, you double down on tautology.

When cornered on previously stated positions, you dissemble.

No amount of evidence could be presented to cause you to rethink your belief system because you reject anything that contradicts your preconceived---and incorrect---assumptions.

You fashion yourself as a free thinker, but are in fact nothing more than a classical pseudoskeptic who revels in arguments from ignorance.



No, you don't get the right to claim that I am ignorant, because your own words have condemned you.

[May90]

There is this weird psychological phenomenon, when a person replaces reality with some virtual image, contradicting any evidence - and, considering themselves open-minded, sees everyone who doesn't buy their image as close-minded fools, or, even worse, "sheeple". They know, they very clearly know, that this image is based on deliberate ignorance - and yet, for some reason, they want to believe in it, and can't stand others believing otherwise.

Of course, such people rarely become scientists. Hence we don't see much of them on conferences or at research institutes. They are plentiful online though. What they are trying to accomplish, I've never managed to figure out...

[Hammerfest]

NASA to unveil a new planet?

Wow, that's a first.

[Forogil]

NASA to unveil a new planet?

What does NASA have to do with this story? (They have found lots of planets, of course, but I don't see them linked to this one.)