Intelligent Design

Another example of our earthly uniqueness

Spread the love

We are orbiting a yellow dwarf star:

On the grand cosmic scale, our little corner of the Universe isn’t all that special – this idea lies at the heart of the Copernican principle. Yet there’s one major aspect about our planet that’s peculiar indeed: Our Sun is a yellow dwarf.

Because our home star is what we know most intimately, it would be tempting to assume that yellow and white dwarf stars (FGK dwarfs) are common elsewhere in the cosmos. However, they’re far from the most multitudinous stars in the galaxy; that particular feather belongs in the cap of another type of star – red dwarf (M dwarfs).

Not only do red dwarfs make up as much as 75 percent of all stars in the Milky Way, they are much cooler and longer-lived than stars like the Sun. Much, much longer lived.

We expect our Sun to live around 10 billion years; red dwarf stars are expected to live trillions. So long, in fact, that none have yet reached the end of their main sequence lifespan during the entire 13.4 billion years since the Big Bang.

Since red dwarfs are so abundant, and so stable, and since we shouldn’t automatically consider ourselves to be cosmically special, the fact we’re not orbiting a red dwarf should therefore be somewhat surprising. And yet, here we are, orbiting a not-so-common yellow dwarf.

Michelle Starr, “The Red Sky Paradox Will Make You Question Our Very Place in The Universe” at ScienceAlert (December 27, 2021)

Don’t want to spoil the ending of the story.

6 Replies to “Another example of our earthly uniqueness

  1. 1
    Joe Schooner says:

    Yellow dwarf stars may not be the most dominant stars, but there are still 10 billion of them in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

    Yes, red dwarfs constitute 75% of the stars in the galaxy but they are much cooler (dimmer) than the sun. As such, the habitable zone, where liquid water is possible, would be much closer to the star than the earth is to the sun. This would expose them to much higher radiation as well as a greater propensity to become tidally locked.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    The fact that the sun is a yellow dwarf is just one of a multitude of parameters that must be taken into consideration when ascertaining whether or not the earth and solar system are a ‘freaking oddball’, as Michelle Starr put it in her article.

    I know that at least four books that have been written on this subject. And all of these books have found, (when looking at many of the ‘odd’ parameters that make life possible on earth, instead of just looking at the one parameter of what type of star we have), that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support life in this universe.

    In 2003 Peter D. Ward and Donal Brownlee wrote, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe

    Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
    https://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896

    “If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our ‘Garden of Eden’, that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”
    – Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)

    In 2004 Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richard wrote, “The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery”

    The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery
    Contrary to popular belief, Earth is not an insignificant blip on the universe’s radar. Our world proves anything but average in Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards’ The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery.,,,
    https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654

    In 2014 David Waltham wrote, “Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional-and What That Means for Life in the Universe”

    Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional-and What That Means for Life in the Universe
    https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Planet-Earth-Exceptional-Universe/dp/0465039995

    “Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”
    – David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional — and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)

    And in 2016 Hugh Ross wrote, “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home”

    Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home
    – Most of us remember the basics from science classes about how Earth came to be the only known planet that sustains complex life. But what most people don’t know is that the more thoroughly researchers investigate the history of our planet, the more astonishing the story of our existence becomes. The number and complexity of the astronomical, geological, chemical, and biological features recognized as essential to human existence have expanded explosively within the past decade. An understanding of what is required to make possible a large human population and advanced civilizations has raised profound questions about life, our purpose, and our destiny. Are we really just the result of innumerable coincidences? Or is there a more reasonable explanation?
    This fascinating book helps nonscientists understand the countless miracles that undergird the exquisitely fine-tuned planet we call home–as if Someone had us in mind all along.
    https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801075432/

    In fact, Dr. Hugh Ross, and his team, have studied this question extensively and have found that there are a total of 816 known parameters which have to be met for any planet to be able to host intelligent life In this universe.

    Individually, these parameters, and/or limits, are not that impressive, but when we realize that ALL of these limits have to be met at the same time, and on the same planet, and that not one of the parameters can be out of its life permitting range for any extended period of time, then the probability for a world which can host advanced, intelligent, life in this universe becomes very extraordinary.

    Here is the final summary of Dr. Hugh Ross’s ‘conservative’ estimate for the probability of finding another planet in this universe that is capable of supporting intelligent life. (Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’?)

    Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle
    http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfron.....3_ver2.pdf

    To put this in perspective, the entire universe itself is estimated to only have 10^80 particles in it. Thus the probability of a planet ‘accidentally’ meeting all the conditions that are necessary to support intelligent life in this universe is far less likely than that of a blind folded man finding a specific particle in the universe in a single random pick.

    Moreover, (directly contrary to the unwarranted atheistic assumption that life will just magically appear on any planet that is capable of supporting life), the probability against ‘simple’ life spontaneously appearing on any life supporting planet makes the 1 in 10^1032 estimate for any planet to be able to support intelligent life in this universe look like child’s play.

    For instance, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, Harold Morowitz, of Yale University, found that the probability of life spontaneously forming, under “ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment)”, would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Harold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html
    Of related note: Harold Joseph Morowitz was an American biophysicist who studied the application of thermodynamics to living systems. Author of numerous books and articles, his work includes technical monographs as well as essays. The origin of life was his primary research interest for more than fifty years.

    Likewise Ilya Prigogine, who was an eminent chemist and physicist who received two Nobel Prizes in chemistry. stated that “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”

    “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
    – Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28.

    Thus it is a gargantuan unwarranted assumption on the part of atheists that life is, basically, inevitable on any planet that happens to be capable of supporting life in this universe.

    As well, the assumption that intelligent life is, basically, inevitable on any given planet that can host life in this universe is also another gargantuan unwarranted assumption on the part of atheists.

    Shoot, Darwinists don’t even know how human intelligence ‘evolved’ on this planet, much less can they possibly know how it could have possibly originated on another planet

    As a who’s who list of leading Darwinists themselves honestly confessed, we have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Barrow and Tippler, in their book “The Anthropic Cosmological Principle”, estimated that there were 16 steps that were necessary during the course of human evolution. They calculated that ‘the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.’

    16 Steps to Generating Advanced Life | Dr Hugh Ross – July 13, 2017
    Excerpt: Naturalists, materialists, deists, and most theistic evolutionists would answer that the chemicals on early Earth spontaneously self-assembled into a simple cell that was able to reproduce. From there, the cell’s daughters evolved to produce all the life-forms that have ever existed throughout the past 3.8 billion years. Such a history requires that life make at least 16 transitional steps in order to generate advanced life-forms.,,,
    ,,, Evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala notes that, from a Darwinian perspective, each step is highly improbable. Taking into account just a few of these steps, Ayala determined that the probability of intelligent life arising from bacteria to be less than one chance in 10^1,000,000.(1)
    Physicists John Barrow, Brandon Carter, and Frank Tipler calculated the probability of all 16 steps occurring to be less than one chance in 10^24,000,000.(2) To get a feel for how miniscule this probability is, it is roughly equivalent to someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where that individual purchases just one lottery ticket each time. Realistically, this probability is indistinguishable from someone winning the California lottery 3,000,000 consecutive times where the individual purchases no tickets at all.
    https://bcooper.wordpress.com/2017/07/13/16-steps-to-generating-advanced-life-dr-hugh-ross/

    William Lane Craig, after reviewing Barrow and Tipler’s book, stated that, “They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.” ”

    “In Barrow and Tippler’s book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God.”
    – William Lane Craig – If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUxm8dXLRpA

    As well, there are several lines of empirical evidence that overturn the Copernican principle itself. (Including evidence from General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, which are our two most powerful theories in science).

    ,,, (contrary to what is still popularly believed),, the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been decisively overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science, (as well as by several other lines of empirical evidence)
    August 2021
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/privileged-address-an-excerpt-from-neil-thomass-taking-leave-of-darwin/#comment-736493

    One of the most fascinating, even exciting, lines of evidence that we now have, that overturns the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, are the anomalies that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

    Specifically, anomalies in the CMBR, (anomalies that were recently discovered by both the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly and surprisingly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we also find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,

    A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies
    – Ashok K. Singal
    Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015)
    Abstract
    We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon?
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2

    And it is these large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, (via supplying us with proper x, y, and z coordinates), which overturn the Copernican principle and support the antiquated, and quaint, ‘medieval’ Theistic belief that the earth should be considered ‘central’ in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    – illustration
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
    – article
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Thus, directly contrary to what atheists, and others, have erroneously presupposed with the Copernican principle, the observational evidence that we now have in hand from cosmology, (and even from our best scientific theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), now reveals teleology, i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, that specifically included the earth from the beginning of the universe. The earth and the solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not the result of some random quantum fluctuation at the beginning of the universe as atheists have erroneously presupposed within their (ad hoc) ‘inflation’ model(s).

    Genesis 1:1
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

    Isaiah 45:18-19
    For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”

  4. 4
    jerry says:

    I’m just repeating BA77’s list of books for myself. I have been summarizing lots of comments for myself in different places as I delineate all the issues in ID for something I’m doing. So I’m not adding anything new.

    2003 Peter D. Ward and Donal Brownlee wrote, Rare Earth Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe?https://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/dp/0387952896

    2004 Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richard wrote, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery.,,,?https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654

    2014 David Waltham wrote, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional-and What That Means for Life in the Universe?https://www.amazon.com/Lucky-Planet-Earth-Exceptional-Universe/dp/0465039995

    2016 Hugh Ross wrote, “Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home ?https://www.amazon.com/Improbable-Planet-Earth-Became-Humanitys/dp/0801075432/

  5. 5
    awstar says:

    from BA:

    Thus, directly contrary to what atheists, and others, have erroneously presupposed with the Copernican principle, the observational evidence that we now have in hand from cosmology, (and even from our best scientific theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), now reveals teleology, i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, that specifically included the earth from the beginning of the universe. The earth and the solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not the result of some random quantum fluctuation at the beginning of the universe as atheists have erroneously presupposed within their (ad hoc) ‘inflation’ model(s).

    This idea wouldn’t be so foreign to those of us living in the 21st century, if the scientist/philosophers who shaped the paradigm since Copernicus had been more forthright in stating the scientific truth that there is no way of telling whether the earth is stationary or revolving around the sun and much less obvious of telling whether the earth is standing still in space with the universe revolving around it, rather than rotating around its axis.

    “There was just one alternative [to the Michelson-Morley experiment]; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil…
    Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.

    “Obviously, it doesn’t matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. ”

    As cited in William G. V. Rosser’s, An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, 1964, p. 454, from Dennis Sciama’s, The Unity of the Universe, 1959.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Awstar, these following quotes may interest you as well,

    As the late Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

    “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.
    Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.”
    Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

    And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”

    “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
    – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55

    And as Fred Hoyle, who discovered stellar nucleosynthesis, himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”

    “The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
    – Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.

    And even as the man himself, Albert Einstein, stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”

    “Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
    – Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);

    There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, nor any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.

    As Einstein himself noted,

    “One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.”
    –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921

    “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*”
    –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

    “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,
    If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”
    Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

Leave a Reply