Talk:Galactocentricity

Needs to actually debunk that the Milky Way is in the center
Yep. 03:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are leaping to comclusions. ;) Just because the Creationists say something, doesn't make it wrong. As far as I learned, the word is still out. We don't know, and since space-time and the dimensions business isn't as straightforward as common folk physics suggests, it might be entirely counter-intuitive. There may be no such property as a “centre”. There's noneuclidean space and all sorts of twisted things that don't go well together with a bronze age world view (biblical beliefs are generally euclidean, with a neat directions and above and below (notice how notions of up and down make no sense with a globe). it might be like trying to determine the beginning of a Moebius strip. Also, it seems like we are in the position of a (quasi-fixed) microphone. We can only pick up things from a certain radius, making it seem as if we were the centre of everything. Give it a crack ;) ~ Aneris 05:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Worked in which seems to be the sound mainstream view, and added even a small animation I made. I was maybe a tad too careful (↑↑↑) above. There is potentially more to cover especially also redshift quantization (which should probably be its own article). Here's another Creationist website perhaps with other claims that need debunking. On the face of it, Creationists love the smoke and mirror of diagrams and perhaps this article needs to have an "in depth" section, too, that is more technical. ~ Aneris 14:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Christian geometry?
"Objects without centres or edges are possible in curved so-called Non-Euclidean geometry, a discovery which already upset the Christian mythology hundreds of years ago." Really? Serious question.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк)
 * Depending on who you ask, of course. But as a matter of fact, yes. You cannot "ascend" to heaven on a globe. Christian mythology 1.0, like many others (some are actually fancy), was based on rather common intuitions that naturally assume a landscape more like a tiny model on a table. There's an "above", "to the sides", and a "below" the table and these are mythical places where the supernatural resides, including supernatural players who control what's going on from time to time, like on board of chess. This understanding is shattered with a different geometrical conception. I thought the article makes that clear, but perhaps it needs improvement. I also found . ~ Aneris 16:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weirdly and confirmation bias strikes again, I'm sure nobody has heard "Non-euclidean geometry" for a while. Just when I jotted it down here, it's in the news thanks to B.o.B. and his weird flat earth beliefs: Neil DeGrasse Tyson Demolished B.o.B With A Series Of Truth Bombs On 'The Nightly Show'. I think it shows it rather nicely, how important geometrical conceptions are. ~ Aneris 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A sphere isn't innately Non-Euclidean, and Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't preclude a "centre"
I'm probably being a little pedantic here, and I don't want to be misconstrued to be advocating for geo/galactrocentricity, but I take issue with the line that claims: "However, none of this is possible on a spherical earth, which obeys Non-Euclidean geometry." There is nothing about a sphere that is innately Non-Euclidean in nature, a sphere can be represented in Euclidean space. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's our abstraction of the surface of the Earth as a plane that is Non-Euclidean. (i.e. 2D Spherical, 3D Elliptical) It's not 'wrong', it just assumes a human perspective.

On that thought... It's been a long time since I've studied relativity, but my understanding is that an inertial frame of reference is a innately tautological concept (albeit useful), in that without the existence of "absolute space" any inertial frame can only be defined in reference to another inertial frame. I would argue that a Non-Euclidean interpretation of the Earth actually could allow for any point on it's surface to be defined as "the centre" (0,0), and if we accept the impossibility of defining a truly inertial frame, who is to say that any arbitrarily defined "centre" of the Earth is not God's chosen non-inertial frame of reference? Theoretically Heaven could be described as existing 'above' whatever this new theological centre of the earth is, as in some location in the universe that happens to rest along the line (r,0,0).

Yeah, it requires an ungodly number of fictitious forces, but if I was a fundie attempting to assert that Earth and Humanity were chosen by god I'd probably just redefine the centre with a hand-wave, rather than trying to force some crank physics. MVHVTMV (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In super-short: flat spacetime is the droid you're looking for. I think.
 * In not-quite-as-short, watch the following videos from PBS Spacetime in order:


 * 1) Is Gravity An Illusion?
 * 2) Can a Circle Be a Straight Line?
 * 3) Curvature Demonstrated + Comments
 * 4) Can You Trust Your Eyes in Spacetime?
 * 5) SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT + Flat Spacetime Geometry Comments (Time annotation skips you to the relevant part right away)
 * 6) General Relativity & Curved Spacetime Explained!
 * They're meant to be viewed in order, and will go through the basics of the basics, yet keep things challenging and mathematical enough. Sorry for the link dump, but it's one of the best quickly accessible and trustworthy physics rundowns I know on a topic this specific. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've only watched the first so far and it pretty much matches up to what I remember aside from the specifics about geodesics but I'll give the rest a watch later tonight.


 * To be clear though, when I mentioned "the impossiblity of defining a truly inertial frame" I don't mean that it's impossible to define the qualities of an inertial frame, but was referring to the difficulty of measuring/establishing a perfect universal inertial frame. My understanding is that a perfect inertial frame can only exist in idealised Minkowski space. I know the differences between Minkowski and Asymptotically-flat spacetime are negligible, but a frame defined in real Asymptotically-flat spacetime is still *technically* not a perfect inertial frame.


 * This wasn't really meant to be more than an exercise in pedantry haha --MVHVTMV (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Logically
...'anywhere you want' can be the centre of the universe, as 'you the observer' relate the rest of everything to yourself. (minimalist version of Einstein's relativity). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the solipsisitic sense, perhaps — but not in the sense (which, in my use, is just meant to denote "the thinkin' man's objectivity"). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Reductio ad simplissimus maximus can be a useful comment on the validity or otherwise of an argument as you put the other person on the defensive. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Origins Section, Greater/Lesser light discussion
Allow me to point out that just because the Bible refers to the moon in that specific passage as a "lesser light" doesn't mean that it necessarily implies that the moon's light is emitted from itself, it's only referring to the fact that the night is indeed made less dark by the moon's existence

Additionally, the author of that section of Genesis referred to the sun and moon in such ways simply to establish that they are mere lights in the sky, as opposed to gods as was believed by neighboring peoples at the time (think Ra and Thoth for the Eyptians).
 * With how much ways that passage can be interpreted due to the overall vague nature of the Bible, I don't think yours is necessarily a bad or misguided one, but from the way the article is written, other people may also interpret it as a light emitter since it was directly compared with the sun aka the greater light. We could note what you wrote down in the passage though. 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)