-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Earth at the Center of the Universe?
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
Your premise is flawed.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=4E...al principle "center of the universe"&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=4E...al principle "center of the universe"&f=false
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.
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.
StFrancis
Member
We are not at the centre of the universe since we are at the edge of our galaxy. If our galaxies are expanding from the centre, then we are far away from the centre. I think that the centre of the universe is chaotic for now, with star births, exploding old stars and dangerous rays plus blackholes.
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.
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.
quantumfaith
Active Member
One correction Aaron, the data indicate that galaxies are expanding and moving away from each other NOT at a constant rate but rather an accelerating rate.
http://www.space.com/13866-nobel-prize-physics-accelerating-universe-dark-energy.html
Last edited:
djordjem87
New Member
I highly doubt that it is the centre of the universe although the thing you mentioned has some logical base. I believe it the perception, we cannot see entire space at any given time so to me it is kind of a lost cause to try proving something like this. If taken by the perception of religion, sure, God created the world to be the centre of universe but i like to question everything and leave an open window for some mysteries. We are not yet there. Still we are reaching to religion if something is inexplicable and that means we stagnate. Not saying religion is bad, on the contrary, if we do not believe we are empty, it is in the nature of people to have something spiritual to believe in.
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.
quantumfaith
Active Member
That is YOUR take Aaron. You want to place everyone who does not share your perspective in the same box. Revelation regarding cosmology was no where near the level of clarity, complexity and finality that you wish to assign to it. The revelation we have from scripture, a product of divine inspiration and the human element, was written from and for a time that physical understanding of the universe was much more limited. You seem to want to denigrate all science and the human pursuit of knowledge and understanding especially and whenever it does not to your narrow limits that YOU think scripture places upon it. And BTW, this too is not a personal attack. The presumptions regarding revelation are not marginal or inferior, but rather are limited by the knowledge and wisdom of the day in which they were authored......Now on to a totally different topic.....Have you by chance watched the video regarding the Exodus event titled: Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. Do YOU have a position of either an earlier date or later date regarding the Exodus event?
The Holy Spirit was not limited when He inspired the men to write what they did in the Bible concerning the universe.
quantumfaith
Active Member
But the Holy Spirit, due to his omniscience does understand the limitations and boundaries of humans.
That would include mine and even yours too.
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.
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.
I think the OP question is a good one, deserving of thoughtful consideration. Physically, I am under the impression (from schooling now 50 years out of date) that the earth sits in a rather sparely populated section of one of the swirl bands of one galaxy no where near the geographical center of the observable Universe. But lets look at the issue from a more theological viewpoint.
If all God desired would be to create our solar system, with the moon and Jupiter and our magnetic field providing protection for our life sustaining environment, why does the Universe appear so big? Certainly to an extent the visible star field of the night sky teaches of the galatic scope of our God. But the universe is way bigger than what we can see with our unaided eyes.
I think the answer is we do not know, because the bible does not tell us, why there seems to be more than would be necessary for our life sustaining environment.
Could God have created other solar systems endowed with those who also worship truth, justice, and mercy in the person of the revealed God?
If all God desired would be to create our solar system, with the moon and Jupiter and our magnetic field providing protection for our life sustaining environment, why does the Universe appear so big? Certainly to an extent the visible star field of the night sky teaches of the galatic scope of our God. But the universe is way bigger than what we can see with our unaided eyes.
I think the answer is we do not know, because the bible does not tell us, why there seems to be more than would be necessary for our life sustaining environment.
Could God have created other solar systems endowed with those who also worship truth, justice, and mercy in the person of the revealed God?
thomas pendrake
New Member
The General Theory of Relativity shows that the Universe is NOT 3 dimensional, but rather ( at least) 4 dimensional. Ultimately, the 4 dimensional space must be a 4 dimensional sphere. There is no edge, no center. Personally , I doubt that the Cosmological red-shift is the result of a 3 dimensional expansion, or not entirely. Besides, if you believe that the earth is flat and the sky is solid, there can be no expanding universe.