Is the Earth at the Center of the Universe?

[Aaron]

The General Theory of Relativity shows . . . There is no edge, no center.

No it doesn't. The theory is a data cruncher. Enter a certain cosmology one will get a certain result. It doesn't verify assumptions, it applies them.

One thing suggested by the theories of General Relativity is the property of gravitational time dilation, verified by observations with atomic clock. Essentially, time passes "faster" where there is weak gravity and slower where there is strong gravity.

Assume a bounded universe, a supernatural intervention that rapidly expanded it early in its creation, and the theory would suggest billions of years toward the edge with merely thousands in the center.

 

[thomas pendrake]

No it doesn't. The theory is a data cruncher. Enter a certain cosmology one will get a certain result. It doesn't verify assumptions, it applies them.

One thing suggested by the theories of General Relativity is the property of gravitational time dilation, verified by observations with atomic clock. Essentially, time passes "faster" where there is weak gravity and slower where there is strong gravity.

Assume a bounded universe, a supernatural intervention that rapidly expanded it early in its creation, and the theory would suggest billions of years toward the edge with merely thousands in the center.

Actual experiments verify the time dilation effect. It also predicts apparent displacement of star positions when the stars are approaching being occluded by the sun. Again, verified by measurements during solar eclipses. It also predicts that the orbit of Mercury cannot be predicted by Newtonian physics, Yet again, verified.

I am not going to attept to teach you General Relativity. It is a graduate school Physics course, and the symbols needed for the ath are not available on this forum.

Actually, the predicted universe is a closed system. head off in any direction and you will eventually return to the same point....sorta. There is no center (but there is an apparent one everywhere.)
the rapid expansion "after the big bang" is not "supernatural" . God is the author of ALL natural law!

 

[Aaron]

Actual experiments verify the time dilation effect.

I've read that.

It also predicts apparent displacement of star positions when the stars are approaching being occluded by the sun. Again, verified by measurements during solar eclipses. It also predicts that the orbit of Mercury cannot be predicted by Newtonian physics, Yet again, verified.

Yes, I've read that, too.

I am not going to attept to teach you General Relativity. It is a graduate school Physics course, and the symbols needed for the ath are not available on this forum.

A good teacher could put it in laymans' terms.

Actually, the predicted universe is a closed system. head off in any direction and you will eventually return to the same point....sorta. There is no center (but there is an apparent one everywhere.)

I've read some pretty symbol-savvy physicists that say that you have to start out with the assumption that the universe is unbounded. It's like I said, you're taking your assumptions to the data crunching theory. An unbounded universe isn't suggested. The theory just tells you what to expect if it were. Same with the assumption of a bounded universe.

the rapid expansion "after the big bang" is not "supernatural" .

If memory serves, you need an expansion that is several orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light, and that can't be explained with any physics anyone knows. Neither can it be tested, because you have cosmology on one hand, and real science on the other.

God is the author of ALL natural law!

What do you know of God other than what you've read? On day two, He said let there be an expanse . . . that is, if you can trust what you read.

 

[thomas pendrake]

What do I know of God? What He has personally told me. Do you know God personally? I do.

 

[djordjem87]

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.

I would never consider it to be an attack. Of course. I have to say that I'm in a bit of blur when it comes to this distinction. Supernatural, so to say, versus Natural. I know what we are taught and that we blindly obey the laws of nature. I guess I wasn't very clear about this. I am not blinded by what we 'know' for sure nor am I small minded when it comes to religious beliefs. I actually feel that you need bravery and great courage to jump from common beliefs of what we learned to be logical and to believe in something beyond our imagination and reality that we know. Several times I said KNOW, because I believe that knowledge is slowing us down to finding whatever is to be found. Call it a revelation, New Testament a thought of God. It doesn't matter. I want to believe that we are wrong about many things considering the laws of nature.

 

[Aaron]

Observations of astronomers have confirmed a correlation between the structure of the cosmic background raditation and the earth's ecliptic plane, it's path around the sun.

 

[Aaron]

The structure is an axis separating hot and cold regions. The axis bisects the sphere of the background radiation and is in the same plane as earth's orbit around the sun.

 

[Aaron]

Astronomers have dubbed it "The Axis of Evil," because it violates the Copernican Principle.

 

[thomas pendrake]

I would never consider it to be an attack. Of course. I have to say that I'm in a bit of blur when it comes to this distinction. Supernatural, so to say, versus Natural. I know what we are taught and that we blindly obey the laws of nature. I guess I wasn't very clear about this. I am not blinded by what we 'know' for sure nor am I small minded when it comes to religious beliefs. I actually feel that you need bravery and great courage to jump from common beliefs of what we learned to be logical and to believe in something beyond our imagination and reality that we know. Several times I said KNOW, because I believe that knowledge is slowing us down to finding whatever is to be found. Call it a revelation, New Testament a thought of God. It doesn't matter. I want to believe that we are wrong about many things considering the laws of nature.

"Blindly obey" the laws of Nature implies that it is a matter of choice. A planet does not choose to follow an orbit. Obey is probably not a good word to use when we tqalk about the laws of nature. We can choose to break the traffic laws, or to steal. We cannot choose to react to gravity, or follow the laws of motion.

 

[Aaron]

There is a dipole in background radiation. A line connecting the poles goes through the center of the spherical representation. It passes through the earth's equator.

 

[Aaron]

Twice a year.

 

[Aaron]

Just kidding.

 

[Aaron]

It can be plotted through the equator at any time. Biggrin Seriously.

 

[InTheLight]

Enjoying your conversation with yourself, I see...

 

[Zaac]

If the universe is expanding, what's the space in which it is expanding called? Wouldn't that mean that there is something outside the universe?

 

[Scarlett O.]

If the universe is expanding, what's the space in which it is expanding called? Wouldn't that mean that there is something outside the universe?

No, not really. If the universe is unlimited and defined by everything that there is then even in our primitive understanding of expanding - it's all the universe. What you are calling inside and outside - it's all universe.

 

[Zaac]

No, not really. If the universe is unlimited and defined by everything that there is then even in our primitive understanding of expanding - it's all the universe.

Huh? Is there a Biblical basis for you believing the universe to be unlimited? Wouldn't that make the universe rival its Creator?

What you are calling inside and outside - it's all universe.

If it's all the universe, we can't very well say that it's expanding if it, the inside and outside,
is the universe.

I have never seen any Biblical evidence that the universe was anything other than finite.Or that when God created everything, that He created it any other way but perfectly.

Perhaps it is a mistake to try to define the universe in terms of unlimited space but rather in terms of time weaving a history while pushed up against eternity?

Maybe that would explain the seeming advanced age of the light from the stars because what we are calling space (universe) is actually time (the eternity stream) stretching right up to God's throne from which He created it.

Think about it. If the Earth is only 6000 years old, then there is probably a spacial barrier out there that encapsulates everything that was created at that 6000 year old point.Everything past that point could be viewed as having been before God spoke our heavens and earth into existence.

This again could account for the seemingly billions year old light from some stars. And for an eternal God, light from billions upon billions of years ago isn't that big a stretch when you're talking eternal and always has been.

 

[Aaron]

No one is saying the universe is infinite. What is being observed is a red shift in the light reaching earth from distant galaxies on all sides, and the distance between the galaxies on all sides growing at an equal rate. Unless the earth is at the center of this expansion, that means that 3d space itself is expanding. If the earth is at the center of the expansion, then the distant galaxies are simply moving away from a relatively stationary earth inside 3d space.

 

[Aaron]

Naturalistic scientists prefer the expanding 3d space view, because if the earth is not in a special place, then purpose and design are more easily dismissed philosophically. The alternative view is rejected, not because of a lack of explanatory power, but because purpose and design would be the most likely cause of earth's special location in the center.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Neither red shifts nor blue shifts, to me, can prove that the earth is in the center of the universe.

If I took a large and flat piece of latex and glued some fleas to it and then grabbed some friends and we began stretching that rubbery latex out from all four corners, EVERY flea is going to see all the other fleas expanding away from him in an equidistant path.

Each flea, from his perspective, is going to think that he is in the center of the "universe" when in fact it only appears that way because of the expanding illusion.

I think if we were on Mars or Orion's belt or even a black hole millions of light years away, we would take our spectroscopes and see red and blue shifts and experience the same effect of believing we were the center of it all.