Featured Is the Earth at the Center of the Universe?

According to the observations of astronomers, the galaxies are all moving away from each other at the same rate. If the expansion is in three dimensions, that places the earth at the center of the expansion.

Coincidence or purpose?

 

I can't open the link. Is it something about an unbounded universe, like dots on the surface of a balloon and such?

 

It opened. Yes, your source is describing an unbounded universe with no center. That is not a scientific conclusion, but one based on the arbitrary assumption of the cosmological principle (more on that later). If the universe has an edge, then it has a center, and the observations of astronomers puts us in the center.

If the universe does not have an edge, then it doesn't have a center and the observations of astronomers can be explained only by assuming that our three dimensional expansion occurs somewhat like dots printed on the the surface of a balloon. As the balloon expands the dots move away from each other at the same rate, but there is no center on the surface of a balloon and no dot occupies a special place.

But the assumption of an unbounded universe is just that. An assumption. The only way to verify it scientifically is to go to it. If you reach the edge, there is no telling what you might find. If the universe is unbounded, then your ending point is your point of origin.

Anyway. The cosmological principal is a philosophy, an assumption that there is no purpose or meaning in the earth's existence, that we occupy no special place in the universe, that matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe, that earths are evenly distributed, and life has been popping up all over the universe by natural causes and Evolution.

The assumption of a bounded universe is rejected by Naturalists, not because the assumption of an unbounded universe has better explanatory power, but because the alternative puts the earth in the center, and that smacks of purpose.

You're not arguing science, you're arguing philosophy.

 

Ahem.

 

We're not in the center of the solar system either, but our planet is unique in a number of ways, not the least of which is the presence of life, and, according to the Scriptures, was the stage upon which the Creator of the universe, performed His ultimate act of Divine Love.

I didn't say all galaxies are expanding from the center. I said astronomers have said they observe the galaxies moving away from each other at a constant rate. That puts us in the center. Were we not in the center (of a bounded universe), the rate of expansion would be fastest toward one point on the edge, and nearly zero to the opposite point.

Only two options: we are in the center of a bounded universe, and at the center of the expansion, or the universe is unbounded and there is no center. The second option needs a little more explanation. It means our 3d space is expanding into a fourth dimension. Much like 2d dots on the surface of a balloon.

So which is the correct option? Depends upon one's philosophy.

 

Noted, but at a uniform rate of acceleration. The implications are the same.

 

This is an honest answer. I'm going to point something out, but it is not a personal attack. AND, it is the premise we are conditioned to form. That is, that presumptions based on revelation are marginal and inferior to presumptions based on Naturalism.

 

The article you cite brings up another thing I want to point out. Dark matter and dark energy are imaginary. There was more reason to assume the luminiferous ether than there is dark matter or energy. Yet it was found that the assumption thereof was erroneous. And a host of assumptions were made about conditions on the other planets of our solar system which were found to be the exact opposite of the conditions found when we probed them.

I watched the BBC series, The Planets, on DVD. The most common phrase used when describing the reactions of scientists to the observations made with probes was "surprising." I wouldn't have noticed that had I watched one episode a week as it was originally aired, and had not months or years passed between the employment of the term by the writers themselves, they might have noticed it too, and corrected it. But watch the episodes back to back, and you walk away with the impression that the scientists' predictions were mostly wrong. It's because that in actuality, they know very little about the universe.

And that's what we need to keep in mind.

The great hailed victory of heliocentricity is not that we actually know more about ourselves, or that it has spawned new medicine, secured liberty, or provided bread for the hungry, it's that it has dethroned the theologian.

But only temporarily. If they want to maintain their victory, they need to stop looking at the sky.

 

The interesting thing about this statement is the specious mask of humility. The cosmos is infinitely more comprehensible than its Creator, Whose thoughts are not our thoughts, Whose ways as far out of our grasp as the furthest reaches of the heavens. (further, actually, unless you assign a finiteness to Him). The mind of man cannot—cannot—conceive of the things He has in store for those who love Him.

So what part of the revelation of Scripture concerning His wisdom, justice and judgment are you better able to comprehend than was Moses? What part of the union of mercy and truth and the kiss of righteousness and peace can you grasp that Matthew or Paul could not?

Our brains have grown so much. Surely you can tell me.

Lay that tired old argument about the diminutive mental capacities of the ancients aside. It is false and faithless. God could reveal to them the truth about Himself, but had to shade the truth about the stars?

1Co 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
​

Looks like they were written for us and our time.

Just pointing out the difference between assumptions based on philosophy, and those based upon observation, and had you read my post more carefully, you will see your statement directly contradicted.

I don't denigrate the pursuit of knowledge. Neither do the Scriptures. I encourage it. I urge it, but I caution against false assumptions and erroneous conclusions.

Maybe you can answer the question I posed elsewhere about heliocentricity. What beneficial science was advanced by that conclusion? What medicine? What instrument for music? What tool for farming and craftsmanship? What suffering has been eased? What peace has it enacted?

I don't denigrate the conclusion. I hail it, but I keep it in perspective. There is only one thing I have seen the observation employed to do thus far in regard to life on earth, and that is in the teaching of purpose and meaning.

It's really the only thing astronomy is good for in regard to life on earth. To view the declaration of the glory of God. That is, after all, the reason the stars were created, as signs for seasons, days and years. The sun was created to govern the day. The moon to govern the night.

Yes.

Me? Not personally, but the very issues in regard to cosmology are painfully evident in archaeology as well.

According to the video the later date is asserted again, on the basis of the assumptions of archaeologists and the conclusions of others based on incomplete and fragmentary histories. But the evidence appears to support the earlier date.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/us/nasa-new-horizons-pluto-flyby/

Mind-blowing Pluto has ice mountains and water

Even scientists working on the first mission to Pluto expected to find an old, pockmarked world.

But Pluto is turning out to be full of surprises.

"I'm completely surprised," said Alan Stern, principal investigator for NASA's New Horizons spacecraft.

. . .

"Who would have supposed that there were ice mountains?" said Hal Weaver, another New Horizons project scientist.

"It's just blowing my mind," he said.​