Thread: Earth the center of Universe?

I just thought of a funny thing. You know the priests used to say that the earth was the centre of the universe. Then it was proved wrong.
But with the Big Bang theory evry could be see as the centre of Universe because it expands in all directions!

Quite true! maybe they were right all along!

However, bare in mind that they also said the sun and planets orbited the Earth, something we know isn't the case. So, they were still wrong, even if they were right.

Originally Posted by thyristor

I just thought of a funny thing. You know the priests used to say that the earth was the centre of the universe. Then it was proved wrong.

Interesting point, but remember it was the priests, scientists, philosophers and everyone else who said this, not just the priests.

Originally Posted by thyristor

But with the Big Bang theory evry could be see as the centre of Universe because it expands in all directions!

You are joking, right? You are not seriously suggesting that Earth is really the centre of the universe, are you? This observation that (nearly) everything seems to expand from us, is NOT evidence for this. You would notice the same fact from every other point in the universe.

The universe is probably not a three dimensional entity and therefore does not have a centre in the sense that us 3d beings percieve it.

It's like asking where the centre of the world map is, it depends upon where you are and how you draw it, anywhere can be shown to be the centre of the earth's surface map.

I think the center of the Universe is the area where the Big Bang originally occured if it spread equally in all directions. However I've read somewhere that the expansion fo space decreases and increases at various times and at various points which then would put the center of our universe at somewhere completely different.

I've recently read a book caleld "The View from the Center of the Universe" and it argues in a round about way what you are trying to say but the reason isn't because space expands in all directions. The reason was because we are the center of our viewpoint of the universe just as someone from another star system would be the center from the viewpoint of their universe.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by thyristor

But with the Big Bang theory evry could be see as the centre of Universe because it expands in all directions!

You are joking, right? You are not seriously suggesting that Earth is really the centre of the universe, are you? This observation that (nearly) everything seems to expand from us, is NOT evidence for this. You would notice the same fact from every other point in the universe.

I said that every point could be seen as the center of the universe and therefore the earth as well could be seen as it.

Hubble shows the Earth to be at the centre of the Universe and hence it is.

This also means the Sun and the planets do revolve around the Earth.
Local observations may show otherwise but Hubble shows them to be wrong.

You could argue that the observer is at the centre of the universe, but then
that puts mankind at the centre of the universe.

This is a rather uncomfortable fact for many atheists cosmologists, it's the
last thing they want to hear, but unfortunately for them this is what science shows.

Hence they dream up all sorts of weird concepts to try and avoid reaching
the conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe and it always will be.

Furthermore there is nothing outside the observable universe, nothing can
travel faster than light, so nothing could ever have got there in the first place.
That is what science says.

So either the big bang is wrong or the Earth is at the centre, a case of choose
your poison for atheists cosmologists.

Originally Posted by wert

The universe is probably not a three dimensional entity and therefore does not have a centre in the sense that us 3d beings percieve it.

It's like asking where the centre of the world map is, it depends upon where you are and how you draw it, anywhere can be shown to be the centre of the earth's surface map.

Errr...no.

That old gem. The Universe is a three dimensional object, scientists can come
out with all sorts of bull to say otherwise, however they have to cast every
bit of known science into the dustbin to get that conclusion.

It's like this surface of a balloon analogy.....well unfortunately the universe
is nothing like the surface of a balloon. A surface is a 2 dimensional thing
and like it or not the universe is 3 dimensional one, you may even notice
some 3 dimensional object surrounding you, your computer for example.
It's not flat is it? That a bit of practical science for you.

So... cloud cuckooland analogys don't count.

I could equally say a straight line is analogous to a triangle, but
unfortunately it is not, so any conclusions drawn from that would be garbage.

Are all the planets, stars and galaxies flat and in the same plane?
No. So please pass the dustbin and put you burst balloon into it.

Originally Posted by esbo

You could argue that the observer is at the centre of the universe, but then
that puts mankind at the centre of the universe.

This is a rather uncomfortable fact for many atheists cosmologists, it's the
last thing they want to hear, but unfortunately for them this is what science shows.

Hence they dream up all sorts of weird concepts to try and avoid reaching
the conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe and it always will be.

Now, that's funny.

Originally Posted by esbo

Hubble shows the Earth to be at the centre of the Universe and hence it is.

No. Never did. How so? Explain!

Originally Posted by esbo

This also means the Sun and the planets do revolve around the Earth.
Local observations may show otherwise but Hubble shows them to be wrong.

Now, that is absurd. Even if the first point was true, this is not a logical conclusion from it.

Originally Posted by esbo

You could argue that the observer is at the centre of the universe, but then
that puts mankind at the centre of the universe.

I never would! There is no centre of the universe. Hence, Earth cannot be there either.

Originally Posted by esbo

This is a rather uncomfortable fact for many atheists cosmologists, it's the
last thing they want to hear, but unfortunately for them this is what science shows.

Hmm, and what about the believing cosmologists who disagree with you? Cosmology or science in general has nothing to do with being comfortable. Many scientific breakthroughs left uncomfortable feelings in the beginning, because it always means to leave something behind and welcome something new and unkown. This is one reason, why Copernicus' and Galilei's ideas had so much difficulties.

Originally Posted by esbo

Hence they dream up all sorts of weird concepts to try and avoid reaching
the conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

Wake up man! Science just does not work like this. For centuries, scientists thought that you are right. But then new results disagreed with this view, so it had to be changed. Science evolves without dogma. On the other hand, religion is pure dogma.

Originally Posted by esbo

The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe and it always will be.

Well, then come up with your evidence, and perhaps you can convince me. Just stating, that you are right and everybody else is wrong, is not very scientific.

Originally Posted by esbo

Furthermore there is nothing outside the observable universe, nothing can
travel faster than light, so nothing could ever have got there in the first place. That is what science says.

How do you know. Have you been there? Maybe you can't imagine it to be as modern science says. But this has never been a good tool to advance science. Quantum mechanics would never have had a chance with your dogmatism.

Originally Posted by esbo

So either the big bang is wrong or the Earth is at the centre, a case of choose your poison for atheists cosmologists.

I'd pick none of those.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by esbo

Hubble shows the Earth to be at the centre of the Universe and hence it is.

No. Never did. How so? Explain!

Originally Posted by esbo

This also means the Sun and the planets do revolve around the Earth.
Local observations may show otherwise but Hubble shows them to be wrong.

Now, that is absurd. Even if the first point was true, this is not a logical conclusion from it.

Originally Posted by esbo

You could argue that the observer is at the centre of the universe, but then
that puts mankind at the centre of the universe.

I never would! There is no centre of the universe. Hence, Earth cannot be there either.

Originally Posted by esbo

This is a rather uncomfortable fact for many atheists cosmologists, it's the
last thing they want to hear, but unfortunately for them this is what science shows.

Hmm, and what about the believing cosmologists who disagree with you? Cosmology or science in general has nothing to do with being comfortable. Many scientific breakthroughs left uncomfortable feelings in the beginning, because it always means to leave something behind and welcome something new and unkown. This is one reason, why Copernicus' and Galilei's ideas had so much difficulties.

Originally Posted by esbo

Hence they dream up all sorts of weird concepts to try and avoid reaching
the conclusion that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe.

Wake up man! Science just does not work like this. For centuries, scientists thought that you are right. But then new results disagreed with this view, so it had to be changed. Science evolves without dogma. On the other hand, religion is pure dogma.

Originally Posted by esbo

The Earth is at the centre of the observable universe and it always will be.

Well, then come up with your evidence, and perhaps you can convince me. Just stating, that you are right and everybody else is wrong, is not very scientific.

Originally Posted by esbo

Furthermore there is nothing outside the observable universe, nothing can
travel faster than light, so nothing could ever have got there in the first place. That is what science says.

How do you know. Have you been there? Maybe you can't imagine it to be as modern science says. But this has never been a good tool to advance science. Quantum mechanics would never have had a chance with your dogmatism.

Originally Posted by esbo

So either the big bang is wrong or the Earth is at the centre, a case of choose your poison for atheists cosmologists.

I'd pick none of those.

Is is quite simple really, we can see an equal distance in every
direction, our Universe is spherical, it is expanding away from us,
we are at the centre.

There is nothing outside our vision, and if there is it will never affect our
universe anyway.

The evidence shows us to be at the middle, you would expect it from the
laws of science too.

So there is the very hard observational evidence, backed up by
the simple science of it.

I think the evidence is much more on you to show we are not at the
cente, because basically you don't have a shred of observational evidence
for it. You may have some dreamt up theories but none of them stand up
to examination, I have seem some real flaky big bang theories, one of
which requires the universe to exist before it was created.
I don't think they thought it through properly somehow!!!

I agree that in the end it is a philosophical problem called "Cosmological Principle" which is like an extension of the "Copernican Principle" saying that the Earth has no exceptional role. As far as I am aware, there is no hard proof. But please consider this. If you say, there is a centre of the universe, then it must be limited - it must have a boundary in the 3D world. Since you oppose the view of an expanding balloon with the universe as its surface, this should be a logical conclusion. Now, it can be quite easily shown that such a universe is unstable and will collapse very rapidly because of self-gravity. You see, the matter at the edge of the universe only experiences gravity from within, so it is pulled inside. And this continues in a cascade until everything has collapsed. But the redshift of the most distant matter tells us otherwise. According to your view, the most distant galaxies should be at the edge of the universe. So they should be blue shifted- or at least the degree of redshift should decline the more you reach the edge of the universe. But this not what is observed. My conclusion is, there is no such thing as an observable edge of the universe, at least we don't see it. So, if there is no edge, then there can't be a centre. Another point, how do you explain the cosmic background radiation?

Well maybe the universe will collapse eventually and gravity has not yet
overcome the force of expansion. Additionally if the speed of expansion
is greater then the escape velocity it will expand forever, according to
this:-
http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s8.htm

I know it sounds a bit odd that something could escape gravity but the idea is, I think that once it reaches a certain speed although gravity is still acting on it it is never enough to make it stop, and it gets weaker quicker than
the speed decreases.

The microwave cosmic background radiation is pretty much uniform in
every direction which indicates we are central, otherwise there would be more from one side.

Originally Posted by thyristor

I just thought of a funny thing. You know the priests used to say that the earth was the centre of the universe. Then it was proved wrong.
But with the Big Bang theory evry could be see as the centre of Universe because it expands in all directions!

the universe is infinte but so there could be no center to somthing that has no edges.

Merely because we are the center of our observale universe does not mean that the sun and the planets revolve around Earth when it is fact that our planet and the other planets revolve around the Sun.

Originally Posted by unoscooter

Originally Posted by thyristor

I just thought of a funny thing. You know the priests used to say that the earth was the centre of the universe. Then it was proved wrong.
But with the Big Bang theory evry could be see as the centre of Universe because it expands in all directions!

the universe is infinte but so there could be no center to somthing that has no edges.

Scientists have a date for the age of the universe, we know how far
light can travel in that time, hence were can work out a maximum size based
on the speed of light.

That give is a finite size.

Or you can go for some kind of universe which started everywhere
but that gives problems, you have have no way to explain the expansion,
no big bang, so to speak.
You also have an infinite universe existing before the universe started,
quite a tricky little chicken and egg problem.

Most attempts I have seen at solving these issues require you to rewrite
the laws of science as you go along.

Oh, and an infinite universe is very big isn't it, I mean really big, even further the distance to the big furniture store, a very long way.

One problem for an infinite universe for anti-creationists is that it's a really big place, a big enough place to house God and heaven and Hell.
Big enough for several Gods infact, big enough for a God for everyone.

Yep if you go for infinity all hell breakes loose.

Oh dear, this is an old natural-philosophic problem. You neither can imagine a finite universe nor an infinite one. Both ideas have problems. Like often with topics that have very little to do with every day experience, the human mind is unable to process it. Just like quantum mechanics or the world of tiny little things. Who says, he/she really understands this? But even if you don't, you can draw very accurate conclusions from it. In order to be able to understand nature, you have to drop your homocentred view. This vast universe is not there just for us. What a waste would that be?

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

You neither can imagine a finite universe nor an infinite one.

Trick problem. Because an infinite universe requires less imagination than we'd like to extend to it. It just goes on and on, altogether consistent, featureless in totality. Just "imagine" here and now - see, you can't imagine, you just "get" it - that's the infinite.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

In order to be able to understand nature, you have to drop your homocentred view. This vast universe is not there just for us. What a waste would that be?

Another trick. Because if life is a part of the universe, it must be a factor. We have this modest habit of pretending life (e.g. us) is outside the universe (the infinite) or "insignificant" whatever that's supposed to mean when multiplied by infinity! Then our science is like oysters wondering what kind of mineral all that luminous white sand on the beach came from. While I agree it's silly to think the universe is about you, I think it's also silly to crop yourself out of the objective picture.

Originally Posted by Pong

Another trick. Because if life is a part of the universe, it must be a factor. We have this modest habit of pretending life (e.g. us) is outside the universe (the infinite) or "insignificant" whatever that's supposed to mean when multiplied by infinity! Then our science is like oysters wondering what kind of mineral all that luminous white sand on the beach came from. While I agree it's silly to think the universe is about you, I think it's also silly to crop yourself out of the objective picture.

I agree in the sense that life is an inevitable result of the evolution of the universe. I also agree that (human) life is part of nature. But this does not mean it has the purpose to create life in a hierarchical evolution to a final goal.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

But this does not mean it has the purpose to create life in a hierarchical evolution to a final goal.

Although it is intriguing that the fine tuning of the fundamental constants seem to create a 'universe pregnant with life', to quote Nobel laureate Christian de Deuve's poetic description. For me the fundamental question science must ask is why emergent properties?

Originally Posted by esbo

Scientists have a date for the age of the universe, we know how far
light can travel in that time, hence were can work out a maximum size based
on the speed of light.

That give is a finite size.

Or you can go for some kind of universe which started everywhere
but that gives problems, you have have no way to explain the expansion,
no big bang, so to speak.
You also have an infinite universe existing before the universe started,
quite a tricky little chicken and egg problem.

Most attempts I have seen at solving these issues require you to rewrite
the laws of science as you go along.

Oh, and an infinite universe is very big isn't it, I mean really big, even further the distance to the big furniture store, a very long way.

One problem for an infinite universe for anti-creationists is that it's a really big place, a big enough place to house God and heaven and Hell.
Big enough for several Gods infact, big enough for a God for everyone.

Yep if you go for infinity all hell breakes loose.

first of all have a date of the universe because they are looking at the observible universe. the universe is still infinite. and yes an infinite universe would be very big but that does not mean it will effect thing outside the univrse because you are forgetting that the universe is making its own space thats what it does. so in theory one could make a universe in there basement and it grow to become infinte in size but it still would not effect our universe.

so if we are in an finite universe and i was to go in a space to the edge of the universe is there just going to be a giant wall that says nothing else beyond this point. there has to be somthing beyond every point in the universe so it must be infinite. it is the only logical out come.

The argument that the universe has no center:

a. The universe is isotropic (looks the same in all directions on large scales).

b. The universe is homogeneous (looks uniform in all directions on large scales).

a + b => "cosmological principle" --> the universe looks the same in all directions for all observers.


The cosmological principle implies that there is no edge to the universe.

If there is no edge, then there cannot be a center.


Cheers

When we look into space, we look ever deeper into the past. That is why we seem to be at the centre of the Universe, that we see the same in every direction.

Space would have a boundary, the limit of how much it has expanded so far. The fact that all EMR and gravity are limited to light speed suggests that space might be limited by that speed too.

Originally Posted by BumFluff

I think the center of the Universe is the area where the Big Bang originally occured if it spread equally in all directions.

I think you are right about the area of Big Bang being center of the Universe.
Even if the Universe doesn't expand at the same rate in all places/directions, the place of the Bang should be considered to be the center as it is the common point of initiation of the motion of all other bodies/objects in the Space.

I think modern science has missed something important regarding lightwaves in vacuum over gigantic distances crossing eachother countless times (light at any pin-point in universe must come from all directions), distorted by gravity and whatever else there´s out there.
And no I dont know what.. nor can I guess.
I think a permanent orbital spacestation to conduct proper research is needed for further understanding.

Why do I feel this way? Because I just feel modern cosmonology has to many logical loops and errors. Infinite expanding universe or finite or not, centers or not.. just dont seem to add up. We seem to be missing one (or more) pieces of the puzzle.
So why is that, well because basicly everything we think we know about the universe is based on lightwaves.

Just an example from the top of my head.
What if every solarsystem is surrounded by "something", like Earth´s atmosphere, distorting the light in unknown ways. That would greatly impact our observations about the universe.

But this is just me, having a hunch..

You have to remember that the big bang should not be thought of as a classic explosion scenario. The big bang, by definition, is the creation event of matter and space-time. That would mean that everywhere is the centre of the universe. The idea of the big bang being the origin of space-time is a direct result of the observed additive increase in the apparent velocity that distant galaxies are receding from us. You would observe a similar effect when you inflate a balloon with a bunch of black dots on it. The black dots would not be moving relative to the rubber of the balloon, but the dots would appear to be moving away at an increasing rate the further you go from an arbitrarily chosen reference dot (solar system). A 3d analogy is the rising dough of raisin bread. The relative observed speed between raisins behave somewhat similar to the observed expanding universe. If you reverse this inflation you get to the estimated age of the universe, somewhere between 13.7 and 14.1 billion years. So, as stated before by others as well, no pinpoint centre of the universe exists according to big bang theory.

twixly:

The speed of light does not change when light from different sources undergo interference in the vacuum of space. The degree of red-shift (the shift of recognisable interference patterns towards the red spectrum) is the way distance is calculated, but infra-red light propegates at the exact same speed of gamma radiation in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

twixly:

The speed of light does not change when light from different sources undergo interference in the vacuum of space. The degree of red-shift (the shift of recognisable interference patterns towards the red spectrum) is the way distance is calculated, but infra-red light propegates at the exact same speed of gamma radiation in a vacuum.

Well, that´s just it. Everything out in space is highly theoretical. Obviously.
And our knowledge is all based on lightwaves basicly.
Could be science is on track on this whole deal, I dont know.
Like I said I just have this hunch.

But we have to stay openminded to the fact that there might be "stuff" out there that we cannot learn from down here on Earth. It´s a big universe.
Only way we ever will know is if we go there, or else it´s theory. Could be right, could be wrong. Sure it´s likely what we see is what there is.. but lets stay openminded still.

Well, that´s just it. Everything out in space is highly theoretical. Obviously.

Yes, but theoretical is all we have with ANY predictive and explanatory scientific framework. It does not automatically mean that this framework is flimsy and whimsical, but it does still leave the possibility of amendments to established theories I agree.

It will be interesting to see what we come up with with more tools to observe our universe. What we know now is limited to what we can observe and theorize based on those observations. Before, the world was flat, even though it wasn't, because that's what they could observe with what they had at the time. Right now, the universe has no edges, no center, because that's what we can observe. At some future point we may be able to observe things in a different way, and therefore come up with some other conclusion. Interesting idea about the "atmosphere" around our galaxy. Who knows?

Originally Posted by MNSciGuy

It will be interesting to see what we come up with with more tools to observe our universe. What we know now is limited to what we can observe and theorize based on those observations. Before, the world was flat, even though it wasn't, because that's what they could observe with what they had at the time. Right now, the universe has no edges, no center, because that's what we can observe. At some future point we may be able to observe things in a different way, and therefore come up with some other conclusion. Interesting idea about the "atmosphere" around our galaxy. Who knows?

This is not entirely true. In ancient times, scientific knowledge was mostly not based on observations but on theoretical contemplation. It is a very modern concept to test theories by observation or experiments. Therefore, it is not a big wonder that most of the ancient "truths" have been abandoned. The idea of the earth being flat or being in the centre of a hierarchy of concentric spheres was little more but an idealistic and philosophic vision.

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by MNSciGuy

It will be interesting to see what we come up with with more tools to observe our universe. What we know now is limited to what we can observe and theorize based on those observations. Before, the world was flat, even though it wasn't, because that's what they could observe with what they had at the time. Right now, the universe has no edges, no center, because that's what we can observe. At some future point we may be able to observe things in a different way, and therefore come up with some other conclusion. Interesting idea about the "atmosphere" around our galaxy. Who knows?

This is not entirely true. In ancient times, scientific knowledge was mostly not based on observations but on theoretical contemplation. It is a very modern concept to test theories by observation or experiments. Therefore, it is not a big wonder that most of the ancient "truths" have been abandoned. The idea of the earth being flat or being in the centre of a hierarchy of concentric spheres was little more but an idealistic and philosophic vision.

True, but to some extent they had no way of knowing whether or not the earth was really flat. People now refuse to believe most scientific things without facts, whereas then they just accepted it. If you proposed the earth was indeed rhombus shaped now, people would want proof, just as they have proof the earth is a sphere.

stated below is the definition of the center of somthing. so how can you have the center of somthing, the universe, if it has noedges or sides.

cen·ter [séntər]
noun (plural cen·ters)
1. middle point or part: the middle point, area, or part of something that is the same distance from all edges, ends, or opposite sides
2. mathematics middle of circle or sphere: the interior point that is the same distance from all points on the circumference of a circle, the surface of a sphere, or the vertices of a polygon

Originally Posted by unoscooter

stated below is the definition of the center of somthing. so how can you have the center of somthing, the universe, if it has noedges or sides.

cen·ter [séntər]
noun (plural cen·ters)
1. middle point or part: the middle point, area, or part of something that is the same distance from all edges, ends, or opposite sides
2. mathematics middle of circle or sphere: the interior point that is the same distance from all points on the circumference of a circle, the surface of a sphere, or the vertices of a polygon

Easy. Every point is central. Take any point you like, everything is all around it.


***


We like to think of round Earth as a great paradigm revolution. It makes for dramatic Columbus movies.

The "flat Earth" was largely popularized by Copernicus of all people. He (pre-emptively) slammed those foolish types who, he wrote, would think the Earth flat. And so flat-Earth became an officially recognized position one could hold. Before his time, there is no evidence many people believed in flat Earth, and the notion certainly had no following.

To anyone at sea, the Earth's surface is apparently and verifiably convex. It does not take a bright seaman, either, to figure out that "down" conforms to this curvature.

I guess most folks never put much speculation to it.

if the universe goes on forver, then thre is no center