Could earth be the center of the universe?

[posthuman]

If all motion is relative, then the geocentric model works, too. The math to calculation positions of planets is just more complicated I suppose. (Calculating such things is not my thing.)

Just because it's possible to work out the necessary math so that when you walk to your kitchen, actually the entire universe moves around you while you stay perfectly still, until your refrigerator presents itself to you and a jar of pickles jumps into your hand, doesn't mean it has any likelihood of being reality.

the math for orbits of other planets if the earth is the center of the solar system requires them doing infinite epicycles ((loop-de-loops)) and changing direction unpredictably, as though there are no physical laws at all.
but with the sun as the center, a few simple and elegant equations describe all motion with incredible precision.

kinda an Occam's razor argument, sure - but the worldview that allows you to actually understand things, act on them and make basic predictions is a lot more worthwhile to actually implement than one in which all is chaos and there is no order or consistency.

Isaac Newton was a devoted Christian. in his view, the existence of these elegant laws of motion and discernable, ubiquitous order in the universe was proof of it having been created by a logical, sentient God - far more proof than may kind being the center of all things, which is honestly just vain humanism.

 

[posthuman]

Well the word universe is not in the Bible it's man made

fine, Kosmos then.

 

[posthuman]

Yup it's just heaven and earth that's it. Sun moon and stars in the firmament. That's it. The moon is it's own light. The sun it's own light. God is at the top of the firmament looking down on us. The sky is blue because the waters above.

does nobody screen these calls?

 

[posthuman]

So, if no one can figure out the edge, on what basis can you definitively say that the earth is not in the center of the expanding universe?

cosmic background radiation, largely.

 

[posthuman]

The earth was the first celestial body in all of the vast expanse that we see today and refer to as space.

the Bible says "the heavens ((plural))" before it says "and the earth"

no reason to believe that He created them void and empty, or to believe that the testimony of creation as we can understand it - which really seems to indicate the earth isn't the oldest or most central thing - is a testimony of lies.

the Bible also says that we can understand things about God by what we can understand of the natural world. that can't be true if what we can understand about the natural world is all a pack of lies.

 

[posthuman]

Have you ever read any of Frank Peretti's work? His "Piercing the Darkness" and "This Present Darkness" explain pretty much how I see the reality of our existence and all that surrounds us

been since i was a kid, so hazy memory, but i did really enjoy those

 

[posthuman]

Right. I'm not making any claim that it is, but it is possible that the earth was, as the Scriptures describe, the first physical form in all of the black inkiness that is the space surrounding us.

i disagree that's necessarily what the Bible describes..
the first description of the earth, actually, is that it is a formless, void thing with complex waters and spirit surrounding it, not an ideal geometry in the middle of nothingness.


... and even there the word earth means the same thing as a space or area, as dirt, as a territory, as something firm - and He later defines it to be the name of dry ground. so Genesis 1:1 and 2 might not even be describing a planet, but baryonic vs non-baryonic matter.

​

 

[posthuman]

Then He turns His attention to creating the heavens, which His word tells us declare His glory.

the Psalmist says when he thinks about the heavens, it makes him wonder what in the world mankind is, that God bothers to stoop down and notice us?

frankly if mankind is the center of the universe and all of the universe is so obviously created for our benefit, revolving around us and our whims, then the reaction of the Psalmist makes no sense. if that's the case he ought to be looking at the heavens thinking, wow, mankind is really special, nothing in the universe compares to us - why does God stoop down to pay attention to anything other than me? humanism.

this is a philosophical hole in the frisbee-earth nonsense big enough to orbit jupiter through, and every geocentricism has the same flaw.

​

 

[cv5]

cosmic background radiation, largely.

On the contrary....
WMAP and Planck satellite data both agree:
CMB readings indicate galacto-centricity.
Redshift data says the same thing.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...k-satellite-changed-our-view-of-the-universe/

 

[posthuman]

@tedincarolina all i can say at this point is God bless you and keep you.
I understand that you love God. So do i.
We are all unique and that's what makes our love for God beautiful like rainbow.

one thing i've understood about the differences between the eastern and the western church is that the east is fine with the existence of mysteries, in fact reacts to it with awe and reverence - while the west just tries to explain it all and winds up with a thousand wrong views.

 

[posthuman]

On the contrary....
WMAP and Planck satellite data both agree:
CMB readings indicate galacto-centricity.
Redshift data says the same thing.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23301-planck-shows-almost-perfect-cosmos-plus-axis-of-evil/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...k-satellite-changed-our-view-of-the-universe/

we haven't thrown away the Hubble equation: we adjusted the estimation of the Hubble constant with better empirical data.

this still shows 96.5% uniform expansion of space itself, and near perfect flatness - indicating no center ((i.e. without evidence of any kind of hot, compressed wave front at the 'edge'))

uniform inflation models all predict a little variation from Q fluctuations and initial conditions, and that was seen in the COBE data too. this is just more precise, perhaps confirming some of the resultant superstructure hypothesis that were floating around at least in the 1980's.

if anything the hints of slight directionality would put us as off-center observers.

 

[cv5]

Just because it's possible to work out the necessary math so that when you walk to your kitchen, actually the entire universe moves around you while you stay perfectly still, until your refrigerator presents itself to you and a jar of pickles jumps into your hand, doesn't mean it has any likelihood of being reality.

the math for orbits of other planets if the earth is the center of the solar system requires them doing infinite epicycles ((loop-de-loops)) and changing direction unpredictably, as though there are no physical laws at all.
but with the sun as the center, a few simple and elegant equations describe all motion with incredible precision.

kinda an Occam's razor argument, sure - but the worldview that allows you to actually understand things, act on them and make basic predictions is a lot more worthwhile to actually implement than one in which all is chaos and there is no order or consistency.

Isaac Newton was a devoted Christian. in his view, the existence of these elegant laws of motion and discernable, ubiquitous order in the universe was proof of it having been created by a logical, sentient God - far more proof than may kind being the center of all things, which is honestly just vain humanism.

But is the Sun the center of something? Not really.
As for orbits....a common misconception.
Helixes. Things arent simply rotating. They are twisting.
Everything is moving in a helical motion.

But yea.... simplifying the math is very much desirable.

You might not like the sound of this.....but Jerusalem may be the
center of the universe. Like....literally.
But no mere mortal could ever say for sure.

 

[posthuman]

CMB readings indicate galacto-centricity.
Redshift data says the same thing.

Hubble's premise, which is supported here, is that we would see the same shift, and ((down the line, the premise of inflation hypothesis)), we would see roughly the same CMB from any vantage point, normalized by distance.

this is supported by this data, but potentially also by us being very near the center. the only real test is to send CMB detectors a thousand light years away and triangulate.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

we haven't thrown away the Hubble equation: we adjusted the estimation of the Hubble constant with better empirical data.

this still shows 96.5% uniform expansion of space itself, and near perfect flatness - indicating no center ((i.e. without evidence of any kind of hot, compressed wave front at the 'edge'))

uniform inflation models all predict a little variation from Q fluctuations and initial conditions, and that was seen in the COBE data too. this is just more precise, perhaps confirming some of the resultant superstructure hypothesis that were floating around at least in the 1980's.

if anything the hints of slight directionality would put us as off-center observers.

I actually agree with a few things that each poster has submitted so far. But I agree with you that I don't think we're the actual center of the universe.

When this age and the next which is the Millennial Age is done, God will do over creation. BUT we will still live in the new earth. So that makes me wonder what we will be doing for all eternity? Maybe God will create life somewhere else in the universe and we're to serve God by teaching them about Him? I can't imagine we just stay on Earth and continue to just have normal jobs to pay bills and put food on the table - for all eternity! I'm hoping that we'll get to explore the universe He's made.


🍉

 

[posthuman]

But is the Sun the center of something? Not really.

a sizable local gravity well!

 

[posthuman]

You might not like the sound of this.....but Jerusalem may be the
center of the universe. Like....literally.
But no mere mortal could ever say for sure.

i know the tradition of the rabbis is that the rock in the holy of holies is the focal point of creation

 

[cv5]

we haven't thrown away the Hubble equation: we adjusted the estimation of the Hubble constant with better empirical data.

this still shows 96.5% uniform expansion of space itself, and near perfect flatness - indicating no center ((i.e. without evidence of any kind of hot, compressed wave front at the 'edge'))

uniform inflation models all predict a little variation from Q fluctuations and initial conditions, and that was seen in the COBE data too. this is just more precise, perhaps confirming some of the resultant superstructure hypothesis that were floating around at least in the 1980's.

if anything the hints of slight directionality would put us as off-center observers.

The thing is.....the later, better higher resolution satellite data
confirmed the older COBE data results.

The redshift data was the kicker.

Frankly, I am quite sceptical about standard model science.
They don't know what a wave is (it isn't), a field is, what magnetism
is, what gravity is, what light is (it sure ain't photon particles).
And they demand thet the "speed of light" is a constant (absurd)
And they think the cosmological constants are constant (they aren't).

 

[posthuman]

As for orbits....a common misconception.
Helixes. Things arent simply rotating. They are twisting.
Everything is moving in a helical motion.

i've had several orbital dynamics and an entire college's astrophysics catalogue of classes.

the helix has time as it's third axis. the thing with the pre-Newtonian geocentric orbit models is that it requires that helix to shrink and expand in an irregular way, and to have an infinite number of contracting/expanding fractal helices spawning from it....
epicyles changing with time.

observed apparent retrograde motion is extremely difficult to map from the assumption you are the center of all that exists. but it is amazingly easy, consistent, and in agreement with all kinds of basic mathematical forms describing all kinds of things in the creation, when you give up that assumption.

i've also had many modeling courses. here is a free $50k education summed up for you:
in the end the model that is able to make reliable predictions is the one you should use.

 

[posthuman]

The thing is.....the later, better higher resolution satellite data
confirmed the older COBE data results.

The redshift data was the kicker.

Frankly, I am quite sceptical about standard model science.
They don't know what a wave is (it isn't), a field is, what magnetism
is, what gravity is, what light is (it sure ain't photon particles).
And they demand thet the "speed of light" is a constant (absurd)
And they think the cosmological constants are constant (they aren't).

totally agree with all that!!

 

[posthuman]

geocentric orbit

laughing at how i just caught this had autocorrected to 'egocentric orbit'