And the fact that the midpoint between these two is approximately 0.5x10^28cm?

Or that (if you choose to average the exponents on our arbitrarily chosen scale) the 'midpoint' is 10^-2.5cm (ie microscopic)?

EDIT: I wonder if he averaged -28 and +33 by mistake.

Is it not 10^2.5? It's a scale from -25 to +30, so I don't see how the mid-point can be a negative. This is apt to end in embarrassment for me, though, I... don't do well with maths.

If it's -25 and +30 the average is indeed 2.5. The numbers Stu Pidasso just quoted were -33 and +28 though. I was using them. Where are yours from?

From the ouroboros diagram. Highest number marked is 10³⁰, lowest is 10^-25.

Edit: I didn't actually see the Stu post you got those numbers from, never mind so.

So, just from observing the last few posts, something between the size of a molecule or the size of the Eiffel Tower may be the median size of stuff?

I mean, I'm not even sure what it would prove if humans were "at the center" cosmologically. We seem to be expanding our understanding at both extremes of the spectrum and expanding them at uneven rates. So any centricity(?) would largely vanish, even if it did exist, within a few decades.

Other than a "hey, this is kind of interesting, too bad it will only last until we gain a better concept of the universe." sort of thing, I don't get the point.

If God is only willing to prove himself in coincidental ways, at coincidental times, when looked at though bizarre filters, maybe he doesn't want us to believe.

Even if we were; a big "so what?" To make it mean something you've got to believe middle is good. Or its just scientifically what we must be from mass of universe. It really means absolutely nothing

The author actually seems legit enough after some research (webstalking), from perusing his web folder and doing some googling it seems to be a Joel Primack of the University of California, and he is indeed a recognized cosmologist. He seems to be a kaballist as well, judging from the presentations in his folder.

The chapter Stu linked is obviously from a book he wrote together with his wife "The view from the center of the universe", a book as far as I can see is lauded for containing some good science and scolded for needlessly introducing religious imagery and preaching new age spirituality.

I think its fairly clear which category this chapter falls under.

In a related point, my penis size is in the center of all observable genitals. So it must be a really important penis.

How many genitals are you observing??

Yes and when those hookers tell you the size of your penis is insignificant speck you will know that isn't true. No longer do you need to carry a sense of alienation and sometimes even despair that have for more than three centuries been a reaction to humanity’s demotion from the pinnacle of God’s creation to a tiny speck floating in endless space.

The assessment that humanity and the world we live in is essentially nothing on a cosmological scale simply isn't a fair assessment.

Stu what is your point? Even if we are the center cosmologically, why does that imply anything?

I dont think Lawdude wants his penis horrendously twisted tbh

Nice dodge.

No dodge because he made no point to dodge....However his troll post did reveal this thread has changed his worldveiw...at least slightly.

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. The biases appear in particular for emotionally significant issues and for established beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

To be a little serious (though my penis comment I think stands as the definitive response to your OP), I don't feel alienated or despairing just because humanity isn't the pinnacle of God's creation or, more fundamentally, just because we don't carry any real importance as compared to the vast scale of the universe and the amazing and cataclysmic processes that have been observed in outer space.

Why should I? My life is wonderful. It isn't made any less wonderful just because it doesn't amount to a hill of beans in relation to a black hole swallowing matter at the center of an enormous galaxy.

Again, as I've said before, this is nothing but egotism. It's not satisfying enough that we get to live and have all these interesting experiences. Some people apparently think they are entitled to have the whole universe ordered up on a platter for their personal benefit.

What goes on in your brain is a lot more wonderful then what is happening at supermassive blackhole. It certainly isn't less significant.

No, it's not "more wonderful". It's "more wonderful" to you. There's a difference.

It's more significant to me, but it's not more significant to the universe, or to its hypothesized creator.

To draw an analogy, living in the Los Angeles area, the Rodney King beating and its aftermath were extremely important to me. But in the global scheme of things, the Rawandan genocide, which did not touch me personally, was far more important. And the the authorities that are involved in global governance (e.g., the UN, NGO's, etc.), the Rawandan genocide was far more important than the Los Angeles riots, and rightfully so.

What is important to us and what would be important to God are two separate things. Again, what causes a person to conflate them is an exaggerated sense of one's own importance.

Actually, you didn't show that humanity is significant on a cosmological scale. You had to use a log scale in order to get us close to the center. If you look at the actual size of things instead of the log(size of things), we are clearly insignificant.

I did when I asked for your comments (wrt the cited -33 and +28 numbers):

It's a numerical coincidence based on our arbitrary choice of scale and an apparent miscalculation of average.

They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.
They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.

Plus, using just the visible universe is bogus. Most cosmologists will tell you that the "universe" (that collection of phenomena which we think resulted from the Big Bang) is actually much, much, much larger--if not infinite. For
example, I've read one physicist mention that it might be as large as 10^10^14 (inches/meters/miles/light-years, it doesn't really matter which of these you choose on that scale), and that the absolute minimum size as derived from the minimum curvature of the universe is many times greater than what we can see in the light cone.

Also, the universe is expanding. We can only "see" (more literally detect radiation) as far out as the age of the universe in light years, 15 billion or so. But in those last 15 billion light years, the universe has continued to expand, so it extends even farther out than we can detect.

But hey, we MUST be the most important thing in it, right! Otherwise our poor egos might be hurt.