Is the Earth at the Center of the Universe?

[Aaron]

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.

That's true. That means there is no center, and 3d space itself is expanding. But that's only if there is no center to the universe. That's a big if. It's a philosophical presupposition, not a scientific one. If I presuppose a center to the universe, then the observations of astronomers put us in it. Those are the only alternatives.

 

[Aaron]

Except that, blue shifts aren't observed except in our local cluster of galaxies. All of the distant galaxies are redshifted.

All of them.

 

[Scarlett O.]

That's true. That means there is no center, and 3d space itself is expanding. But that's only if there is no center to the universe. That's a big if. It's a philosophical presupposition, not a scientific one. If I presuppose a center to the universe, then the observations of astronomers put us in it. Those are the only alternatives.

I have to tell you that quite frankly, the topic of the dimensions of the universe is really too big (no pun intended) to truly comprehend. God is so great, so mighty, and so powerfully creative that compared to him, our understanding is limited.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Except that, blue shifts aren't observed except in our local cluster of galaxies. All of the distant galaxies are redshifted.

All of them.

Which would imply local gravitational forces at work. Local. Galaxies. It's almost an oxymoron, no? LOL!

 

[Aaron]

I have to tell you that quite frankly, the topic of the dimensions of the universe is really too big (no pun intended) to truly comprehend.

But we're told to study Creation, and learn from it. So it was created to be discerned. The stars were created to give light upon the earth and to discern times and seasons. They were created for us to look at from the surface of the earth, and to read. Philosophically, whether we're in the physical center or not, (and there is no scientific reason to suppose that we are not) the stars were meant to be looked at from our place. Philosophically, for the believer, the truth is that we occupy the meaningful place.

God is so great, so mighty, and so powerfully creative that compared to him, our understanding is limited.

That's true, too, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Scarlett O.]

But we're told to study Creation, and learn from it. So it was created to be discerned. The stars were created to give light upon the earth and to discern times and seasons. They were created for us to look at from the surface of the earth, and to read. Philosophically, whether we're in the physical center or not, (and there is no scientific reason to suppose that we are not) the stars were meant to be looked at from our place. Philosophically, for the believer, the truth is that we occupy the meaningful place.That's true, too, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying we will never know it all.

 

[Zaac]

No one is saying the universe is infinite.

Unlimited. was the word.

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. [/quote]

Not necessarily. Our galaxy is spinning. So there is a probability that other galaxies are also spinning. That could account for stars seemingly getting farther away.

 

[righteousdude2]

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?

Great discussion question. The earth could be at the center, based on the fact the if He created this planet and everything else at the same time, we'd definitely be at the core of existence. Of course, that may also be an egotistic view of the picture,.

 

[righteousdude2]

I don't disagree at all. I'm just saying we will never know it all.

That is so true with practically everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, when it comes to scripture, theology, etc. I think many of those who argue their heads off over Bible issues will be in for quite a few surprises. I prefer to take everything in scripture at face value. If God said it, by faith I don't question it. Instead I believe it, and live with it, looking forward heaven when all things will be explained and the HUMBLING of mankind will take place.

 

[thomas pendrake]

I understand it the concept of 4 space, non euclidean geometry is difficult if you are not Einstein. All of the above discussion makes that obvious. You are trying to use the rationalist Euclidean geometry to understand a Riemanian, empirical space. There is no "outside" to a closed space. There may be parallel universes, but they are neither inside nor outside.

Einstein was a person with an Asperger's type mind. He could visualize things you probably can't. Unless you are part of the autistic spectrum. A special gift from God.

 

[thomas pendrake]

Sorry, auto incorrect changed a word, should say "I understand that"

 

[thomas pendrake]

I've read that.

Yes, I've read that, too.

A good teacher could put it in laymans' terms.

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.

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.

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.

Hmmm, data crunching. As I understand it, you are saying that is the theory and fact both agree, that means that both are wrong. Because you are going to hold your breath until you turn blue, and that will make you right, no matter what God's reality is.
The General And Special theories are not "data crunching" anythings. They are very elegant descriptions of reality. They have mathematical formulae which can make numerical predictions of measurable quantities, allowing verification.

 

[thomas pendrake]

Let me suggest the book "Flatland" published about 1884. It has been used to help understand Relativity.

 

[Aaron]

I understand it the concept of 4 space, non euclidean geometry is difficult if you are not Einstein. All of the above discussion makes that obvious. You are trying to use the rationalist Euclidean geometry to understand a Riemanian, empirical space. There is no "outside" to a closed space. There may be parallel universes, but they are neither inside nor outside.

Einstein was a person with an Asperger's type mind. He could visualize things you probably can't. Unless you are part of the autistic spectrum. A special gift from God.

. . .

Hmmm, data crunching. As I understand it, you are saying that is the theory and fact both agree, that means that both are wrong. Because you are going to hold your breath until you turn blue, and that will make you right, no matter what God's reality is.

Boy, howdee! Yew gaht sum big wurds thair. Whut's thayat? Ukele lady an' gee, Ah'm uh tree?

Wanna talk about things too wonderful for me? I'm told of a man who was endowed with extraordinary wisdom and insight by God Himself, if you believe such things. This man confessed the unfathomable behavior of eagles and snakes and paramours.

Got an equation for those?

What about the abode of God and the angels? The Abyss? (If you can believe such things.)

A virgin birth? Can you imagine that? Holy Mackerel. What about the Magi and their astrology? And what's the equation for the Resurrection?

Shyoot. No wunder Hine-Stine diddun bother nun with theyem. Bess stick to the spyeed of laht.

Dude, I believe in angels and demons, Heaven, Hell, the Virgin Birth and Christ's death, burial and Resurrection. I believe your heart from conception is corrupt and your only hope to escape the wrath to come is to believe in the Creator of this universe, and the work that was done in it, for which work this vast universe was made. You think I'd have a problem with four or more dimensions?

 

[Aaron]

But, Ah noze mee sum maa-yath.

You just gotta keep both sides of the equal sign balanced, and tweak away until you have an equation that describes theories that can't be tested, like a fourth dimension, which is only needed to explain what astronomers have reported and stay faithful to the presupposition of an isotropic universe. (Howdyew lahk thayat wurd?)

But, if you believe such things, I'm told the sun, moon and stars were created for a purpose. But more than that, I'm told the earth is central to that purpose. They exist to give light upon the earth and to tell the times and seasons so we may number our days and apply ourselves to the work that is to be done here.

I'm told of purpose.

But I also believe astronomers are being truthful when they confess that the idea of purpose is too unthinkable. That the explanations must keep the earth somewhere insignificant. And I also believe those physicists who too can spin your head with big words and dusty slates full of equations, and who are open-minded enough to allow the idea of the earth in a special place, and their testimony that that model fits the data just as well—better, actually, unless you think the invocation of theoretical dark matter and energy makes for a better model. But that would be a preference, and not a conclusion forced by observation.