Featured Adam's Telescope

From what I've read, there are two main arbitrary assumptions about the universe. 1) That the universe is isotropic, and 2) That it has no boundary* and no center, so the earth does not occupy a favored location.

These are assumptions only. 1) No one has seen enough of the universe, or has seen it from far enough away to say it's isotropic. And 2) No one has traveled far enough through the universe to see whether or not it has an edge. So, again these are assumptions, not observations.

An unbounded and isotropic model is the preferred model of the universe for the explanation of phenomena like that discovered by Edwin Hubble. Hubble discovered that the distant galaxies all appear to be accelerating away from the earth and each other at the same rate. Assuming the universe is unbounded we could put Hubble and his telescope on a body anywhere in the universe and he would observe the same thing.

But if the universe is bounded, the phenomenon he observed could only be viewed from somewhere very, very close to the center of the universe. And that is why the unbounded universe is the preferred model. Philosophy compels us to prefer it. Not observation:

The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

. . .

Expanding Universes of General Relativity Relativistic cosmology is a natural offshoot of Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, the cosmology is a superstructure, including other principles, and, if the present formulation were found to be inadequate, the failure would not necessarily affect the underlying theory. Relativity contributes the basic proposition that the geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent, in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of their location, will see the same general picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions.

Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology.
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/paper.pdf​

*That doesn't mean the universe is infinite. It means that 3D space is curved back on itself inside a four-or-more-dimensional existence. I'm told our spaceship would be like an ant on the surface of a large balloon. If we traveled far enough in one direction, we would eventually end up at our point of origin. That happened in the Star Trek Voyager episode, Threshold (S2E15).

The Big Bang might be simply the intersection of universes, kind of like a cone intersecting a plane. The ellipse formed by the intersection would our 3D space, and expansion occurs as the cone moves through the plane, but there would be no single point of origin in our universe. Of course every 3D representation breaks down at some point.

 

Now, in regard to Hawking's lecture. My first reaction was, this is just a competing creation story. So it's really a sermon more than it is a lecture. We have nothing from Hawking that is anything like an advance in medicine or technology. He is talking about origins, and his goal is to eliminate the need to invoke any action of a creator. The irony is that none of his theories have contributed one iota to the technology he uses to communicate, nor has it decreased his absolute dependence upon the mercy of others for his existence.

If there exists a real life example of the hardness of heart of atheism, Hawking is it.

He's basically saying, "This is how I read the stars. They are telling me there is no God." He is the anti-Apostle Paul, who said that creation tells us there is a God.

But the point of origin he described is not a singularity, as he said. He is saying the point is real but one has to realize that he is not saying the point can be located by observation. In other words, he is not saying we would see that point even if we knew where it was, because would see uniform expansion to seemingly originate from any point in space we occupy. That's the assumption of an unbounded universe as I understand it.

The point he was describing, as I gather from the lecture, did not contain mass, so it wasn't a singularity. The gravity (or curvature of space) created mass during inflation.

 

Then you would enjoy Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by D. Russell Humphreys, and Starlight, Time and the New Physics by John Hartnett.

Both will explain in laymen's terms how the theories of Relativity can be applied to a creationistic model and explain the observations of astronomers without having to invoke mythical dark matter and dark energy.

 

Back to the topic of this thread. What about Adam's point of view. Are our scriptures correct? Were the lights in the firmament created to be seen by him in the Garden?

Most here have said yes.

Is it reasonable, then, to conclude that their placement is precisely to be seen from the earth, and that the earth and the work therein is central to that purpose?

If so, then why is the simplest explanation for Hubbel's observations unwelcome?

 

It matters, because Cosmology is not about the sun, moon and the stars as mere physical realities, it's about ultimate things. It's about the origin and destiny, and ultimately, the meaning of the universe. If the simplest explanation of Hubble's observations is that the earth lies in the center of the expansion of our universe, why not accept that?

 

Some time ago, I read Nature's Destiny, a book by Michael Denton, in which he argues that the laws of nature are finely tuned for the support of life as it exists on earth, but not just life in general—human life.

He draws heavily from those things with which man has direct experience. He presents one compelling example after another, and one which is absolutely eloquent in its simplicity and accessibility is Fire and the Dimensions of the Human Body.*

What was Adam's direct experience with the sun, moon and stars? As far as observationally from his point of view, there was a greater light, a lesser light, and tiny pinpoints for the purpose of signs, seasons, days, and years.

In other words, they have meaning and purpose, and it is discernible in their appearance to the unaided eye, as viewed from earth.

*[O]ur ability to handle and manipulate fire is also critically dependent on the basic design and dimensions of the human body being close to what they are. Our ability to handle fire is no trivial ability because it was only through the use of fire that technological advance 'was possible. Through fire came metallurgy and metal tools and eventually chemical knowledge. Because metals are the only natural conductors of electricity, the discovery of electromagnetism and electricity, even the development of computers, are all in the last analysis the result of our ancient conquest of fire.

...

That fire is itself a remarkable phenomenon has already been noted. That the chemical reaction between carbon and oxygen is manageable at all is the result of the relative chemical inertness of the carbon atom and dioxygen at ambient temperatures . . . It is only because of the slowness of the combustion of wood that fire can be handled by a large terrestrial organism on a planet like the earth.

Because the smallest sustainable fire is about 50 centimeters across, only an organism of approximately our dimensions and design-about 1.5 to 2 meters in height with mobile arms about 1 meter long ending in manipulative tools-can handle fire. An organism the size of an ant would be far too small because the heat would kill it long before it was as close as several body lengths from the flames. Even an organism the size of a small dog would have considerable difficulties in manipulating a fire. So we must be at least the size we are to use fire, to utilize metal tools, to have a sophisticated technology, to have a knowledge of chemistry and electricity and explore the world. It would appear that man, defined by Aristotle in the first line of his Metaphysics as a creature that "desires understanding," can only accomplish an understanding and exploration of the world, which Aristotle saw as his destiny, in a body of approximately the dimensions of a modern human.

Would an upright bipedal primate much larger than a modern human be feasible? Probably not. The design of a bipedal primate of, say, twice our height and several times our weight would be problematical to say the least. As it is, our upright stance puts severe strain on our lower back, especially on the intervertebral discs. Such a gigantic primate would almost certainly require thicker legs, suffer severe spinal problems, and be less nimble than modern man, and certainly no more capable of building a fire. Being the size we are is also essential in another way. It is very unlikely that a brain the size of a bee's, which contains less than a million nerve cells, would be large enough to support intelligence remotely like that of man . . . .

The handling of fire would also be very difficult in an organism without a highly developed sense of vision. And again, only a relatively large organism can possess a high-acuity eye. It turns out, then, that to utilize fire we need to be approximately the size we are for several reasons: to be able to physically manipulate the actual fire itself, to have a brain sufficiently large to support the intelligence required to control that physical manipulation, and to have an eye to see the fire. As well, we need to have manipulative organs somewhat close to the design of arms and hands in modern humans.


Fire and the Size of the Earth

There are some intriguing coincidences related to our biological design and our ability to utilize fire. A carbon-based organism of our size and design possessing an upright bipedal posture is only feasible on a planet of approximately the size and mass of the earth. It is the size of the earth (or more specifically, its total mass) which determines the strength of its gravitational field. This in turn limits the maximum size of large terrestrial organisms like ourselves. If the earth had only twice the diameter, its gravitational field would be eight times stronger and a large upright bipedal creature like ourselves would not be feasible. In a very important sense, then, the earth's size is fit for the design of a bipedal animal of the dimensions of a man and therefore fit for our ability to handle fire.

But this is not all. As we saw in chapter 4, if a planet is to possess a stable hydrosphere and atmosphere fit for life, it must of necessity also possess a mass and consequently a gravitational field very close to that of the earth and undergo the same geophysical evolution. As we saw, its gravity must be strong enough to retain the heavier elements but weak enough to permit the initial loss of the lighter volatile elements, such as hydrogen and helium. Consequently, earth's mass is also fit for the evolution of an atmosphere sim¬ilar to roday's, in density and composition, containing oxygen and therefore capable of sustaining fire.

So the mass of the earth is not only fit for an atmosphere capable of sustaining a complex biosphere and supporting fire, it is also fit for an organism of the weight, size, and dimension capable of utilizing it. The use of fire is of course dependent on additional environmental factors--on the availability of wood, for example, and relatively dry conditions. Unless these additional factors were also favorable, then despite all the physical and mental adaptations which makes us Homosapiens and despite the fitness of the earth as an abode for carbon-based life, neither fire, metallurgy, chemistry, nor any scientific progress would have been possible. ​

 

The question is about Adam's point of view, and God's revealed purpose in creating the stars.

To you, that proves the truth of the heliocentic model. Relativity says that there is no truth to either the heliocentric or geocentric models, or any other model.

Relative to the moon, the earth is at rest, yet the gravity of the moon moves the oceans on earth. According to physicists one could assume the earth to be at rest relative to the heavens, and phenomenon such as you described would still be the result due to the gravitational influences of all the bodies in revolution around it.

 

To say something about the motion of the earth is to say something about the sun.

Not according to Relativity (as it stands now, anyway. The theories are still being tuned.)

Einstein called it Mach's Principle.