# Is the Earth at the centre of the universe?



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I'm not sure why this issue should really matter to anybody now, whether you're religious or not. I know that many religious people understand cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity. But still, here goes. Kudos to the person who is first to spot the beautiful circular reasoning behind this argument:

*http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action*


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm not sure why this issue should really matter to anybody now, whether you're religious or not. I know that many religious people understand cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity. But still, here goes. Kudos to the person who is first to spot the beautiful circular reasoning behind this argument:
> 
> *http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action*


Rats. I'm too tired to study on this tonight. The way I fail to properly handle read posts, I'll lose this one when I quit the computer (very soon), so I saved the link to my harddrive. I'll probably post something brilliant tomorrow, but maybe not here where it should be. In which case, my apologies, _fsharp_.

[Edit: (at the beginning of a new day)

"We are generally not told that the redshift data shows a highly significant pattern that undermines this 'unbounded' assumption. That is, the amounts by which distant galaxies are redshifted are not randomly distributed-they cluster around certain numerical values. By Hubble's Law, this indicates that most of the visible matter of the universe is arranged in concentric circles, like the layers of an onion, surrounding our home galaxy, the Milky Way"

Wonderful. What 'redshift data' is this that atheist astronomers are fiendishly ignoring? I am forced to ignore it too, because none of it is in the article.

BTW the expansion of this religious homocentricity from geocentrism to 'galactocentrism' is a bigger leap than the author suggests with his 'home galaxy' references. He also chooses to ignore Sol's position within the 'home galaxy', perhaps because his awareness is now too, ah, _universal_ to notice such a minor detail.]


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Do I win money?



Some random schmo from that website committing the petitio principii said:


> What are these 'deepest worldviews'? They may be summed up as this: the universe is random and uncreated, with no God shaping its past, or possibly interfering in its future. But this is not a conclusion from the observed evidence, it is rather a premise (starting point) that determines how they will (mis)interpret the evidence. We are reminded of Romans 1 (v. 28), '… they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God …'.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Haha how cute, the people who say our ancestors rode dinosaurs are at it again.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Bleh. There are so many things wrong with this article.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> I'm not sure why this issue should really matter to anybody now, whether you're religious or not. I know that many religious people understand cosmology, quantum mechanics and relativity. But still, here goes. Kudos to the person who is first to spot the beautiful circular reasoning behind this argument:
> 
> *http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action*


that article must be one of the dumbest things i've ever read in my life.

did you know that Georges Lemaître, Belgian catholic priest, first proposed the concept which is now known as the Big bang?


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Dodecaplex said:


> Do I win money?


You don't win money, but you win _kudos_. That's almost as good.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> You don't win money, but you win *kudos*. That's almost as good.












Those things are delicious.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I thought I was the centre ot the universe-- I feel quite upset now !!!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I thought I was the centre ot the universe-- I feel quite upset now !!!


According to one of them biggy philosophers, you are.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

moody said:


> I thought I was the centre ot the universe-- I feel quite upset now !!!


it is geometrically possible for you to be at the center of the universe, there are two cases:

1) you actually are at the center
2) every point in the universe is the center of the universe

"Nature is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere" -Blaise Pascal


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Philip said:


> it is geometrically possible for you to be at the center of the universe, there are two cases:
> 
> 1) you actually are at the center
> 2) every point in the universe is the center of the universe
> ...


The article quotes Carl Sagan:

_'When the expansion of the universe was first discovered, many people naturally gravitated to the notion that the Milky Way was at the centre of the expansion, and all the other galaxies running away from us. We now recognize that astronomers on any galaxy would see all the others running away from them; unless they were very careful, they would all conclude that they were at the centre of the universe. There is, in fact, no centre to the expansion, no point of origin of the Big Bang, at least not in ordinary three-dimensional space'_

--but then does nothing at all (as far as I can tell) to refute his statement.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Looking for a visual illustration of the expansion of the universe, I came across this:


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Oh, and here's Conservapedia's scholarly article on cosmology:

*http://conservapedia.com/Cosmology*

If relativity has indeed been "debunked," let's see them come up with a simpler theory that works better.

Um--not going to happen.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Oh, and here's Conservapedia's scholarly article on cosmology:
> 
> *http://conservapedia.com/Cosmology*
> 
> ...


And I thought the Uncyclodepia article about relativity was inaccurate.

*http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Relativity*


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Rats. Things were nicer back when _I_ was the center of the universe.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

This rock upon which we reside is not even the center of the planetary system of which it is a part of; let alone, the center of the Universe.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> This rock upon which we reside is not even the center of the planetary system of which it is a part of; let alone, the center of the Universe.


Shucks, anyone who followed "3rd Rock From the Sun" knows that.

Happy 2012, _kv_.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Here's another article from that site:

*http://creation.com/galactocentric-cosmology*

And here's what I would consider to be its most indefensible statement:

_"Because mankind is the focus of God's attention, the universe was specially created by God. It is a reasonable assumption that He placed us in the centre of His universe so we would see how great He is. That is, we are likely very near the centre of the universe filled with billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each"_

Well, personally, I would say that is *not* a reasonable assumption. In fact, I would call it grasping at straws. Think of all the wasted time and effort on God's part--why not create a universe that's a heck of a lot smaller--but _actually has a centre and edge_. It would get the job done without all that relativity, expansion of space, and other inconvenient stuff.

If I were doing it myself, I would take the easy option, and have the Sun orbit the Earth.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Fsharpmajor said:


> Here's another article from that site:
> 
> *http://creation.com/galactocentric-cosmology*
> 
> ...


I personally doubt that God created this universe (or any other), but If he did, I appreciate it. It gives our minds expansion room.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

@ whoever mentioned Uncyclopedia before, I got in trouble for using Uncyclopedia as one of my sources in a school assignment.

Here is a fact: there is no single point that is the "centre of the universe" as _everything_ in the universe is moving away from each other.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

But so what if we're not the physical centre of the universe when we still remain the emotional centre of god's plan? 

One of the things I find most frustrating about religion is that it quite clearly developed as a tool for describing certain truths about the world, and yet the constant, incessant chipping away at its false claims by science doesn't shake many people's faith. Well it should. The religion of today, whether it's the simplistic religion of a common church-goer, or the jargon-based nonsense of a professional theologian, is absolutely nothing like that same religion in its inception, or in the few ensuing centuries. Why? Because of this constant shift in interpretation saying, "well that's just a metaphor, and that, and that", and every time some new scientific discovery puts to shame a religious idea that _was always held to be an actual fact_, religious people just move it into the metaphor category and carry on believing whatever nonsense science can't or has not yet touched.

I saw an article in the Guardian just last week by some moron whose name I can't remember, and the tagline was practically: "so what if evolution is true? God still exists." It all just begins to sound petulant.

/rant


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> One of the things I find most frustrating about religion is that it quite clearly developed as a tool for describing certain truths about the world,...
> [...]


Religion almost certainly did not develop for that purpose. The penchant for explaining everything probably started sometime after the shamans took over the god>human interface, maybe/maybe not as an influence enhancement.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> I saw an article in the Guardian just last week by some moron whose name I can't remember, and the tagline was practically: "so what if evolution is true? God still exists." It all just begins to sound petulant.
> 
> /rant


Hah. The, ah, _security_ in that statement depends on what the sayer thinks God is responsible for.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

I think I'll throw this in, because it seems relevant:

*http://www.chiefrabbi.org/ReadArtical.aspx?id=1672*

My main problem--relating to the paragraph that mentions Ockham's Razor--is that, once an event (such as the birth of a universe where the physical constants are such that life such as ourselves can exist, and remark on how lucky we are) _*has already happened*, no matter that it might seem to be highly improbable_, the statistical probability of it happening is no longer meaningful. Let's say I won the lottery, when the odds were a billion to one against it. That doesn't mean that there are necessarily a billion universes in existence where I didn't win the lottery.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Religion almost certainly did not develop for that purpose. The penchant for explaining everything probably started sometime after the shamans took over the god>human interface, maybe/maybe not as an influence enhancement.


Then why, for centuries, were the gradual uncoverings of truths about our universe considered heresies? Religion may not have developed _solely_ for the purpose of describing the world, but that was certainly one of its core motives, and is why it set about persecuting anyone who offered alternatives.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Then why, for centuries, were the gradual uncoverings of truths about our universe considered heresies? Religion may not have developed _solely_ for the purpose of describing the world, but that was certainly one of its core motives, and is why it set about persecuting anyone who offered alternatives.


I explained your error regarding sheep, so you are talking up goats?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I explained your error regarding sheep, so you are talking up goats?


Sorry, I didn't realise there was an explanation buried in your flippant remark. I'll go get my spade.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Sorry, I didn't realise there was an explanation buried in your flippant remark. I'll go get my spade.


 Flippant, you say! More like deep; maybe abysmally deep.

Seriously, however religion may have developed the Explanation Tool, religion was not developed as a tool for providing explanations. See the difference?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Flippant, you say! More like deep; maybe abysmally deep.
> 
> Seriously, however religion may have developed the Explanation Tool, religion was not developed as a tool for providing explanations. See the difference?


I see what you mean now. Sometimes I just need an extra nudge towards your wisdom.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I see what you mean now. Sometimes I just need an extra nudge towards your wisdom.


Hah! Sometimes my attempts at logical progressions resemble Brahms' melodies: both are apt to wander.

:tiphat:


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Hehe...I have been looking arround a bit i concervativepedia. Does americans really take this seriously?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

^sorry for generalising, but Americans think that the US is the centre of the universe.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ^sorry for generalising, but Americans think that the US is the centre of the universe.


They may not actually think they are the centre of the universe, but many of them do believe that they are the centre of all freedom and the progenitor of democracy. When I visited Philadelphia, I went to the National Constitution Center a few metres down from Independence Hall and watched a short film about the constitution. It was the most disgusting, propagandistic piece of history I have seen since clips from Nazi Germany. I was with 23 other Europeans from about 8 different countries at the time, and we all thought it was vile. It was dripping in sickeningly romantic music, voiced with the most pretentious tone reading the most egotistical, laughable statements about America basically being a shining beacon in an otherwise crap world. They certainly deserve credit for their revolutionary constitution, but for one of a small number of countries with a credible basis for modern democracy, their politics is hilariously dire and I would never wish to live there.

Sorry to all you lovely Americans.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

On the side, I would have to disagree with the article's conclusion that somehow the Big Bang Theory contradicts the theory of Creationism. I think the Big Bang Theory was a moment where time was created, and what scientists reluctantly (some refuse) admit was a moment were _infinite _energy converged on a single point for the creation of matter.



Polednice said:


> They may not actually think they are the centre of the universe, but many of them do believe that they are the centre of all freedom and the progenitor of democracy. When I visited Philadelphia, I went to the National Constitution Center a few metres down from Independence Hall and watched a short film about the constitution. It was the most disgusting, propagandistic piece of history I have seen since clips from Nazi Germany. I was with 23 other Europeans from about 8 different countries at the time, and we all thought it was vile. It was dripping in sickeningly romantic music, voiced with the most pretentious tone reading the most egotistical, laughable statements about America basically being a shining beacon in an otherwise crap world. They certainly deserve credit for their revolutionary constitution, but for one of a small number of countries with a credible basis for modern democracy, their politics is hilariously dire and I would never wish to live there.
> 
> Sorry to all you lovely Americans.


You're allowed to hold your own views, even to the point of insulting my own country, which you deem yourself above considering it that. I may be a 1st generation American, but I would never go back to my heritage country in Europe to live there. Europe is not my home. I know enough of the brilliance of America and what potential people have here to say that you simply say that out of _ignorance_. I don't believe the US is heaven and it never will be, but it sure has been blessed unlike any other country in history, and if you're going to be so bold as to compare our _pride_ to that of the Nazi's, let it be known that the US hasn't reached even the stage which was _before_ the rise of Naziism in Germany, which was _the elimination of religion as valued influence in overall society._


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> [...]
> ... and if you're going to be so bold as to compare our _pride_ to that of the Nazi's, let it be known that the US hasn't reached even the stage which was _before_ the rise of Naziism in Germany, which was _the elimination of religion as valued influence in overall society._


I think you are probably referring to the state of, mm,_ license_ in Berlin and the other large cities in the decade before the Nazis took official power. That does not equate to "overall society". The 'Roaring Twenties' was essentially an urban phenomenon on both sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I think you are probably referring to the state of, mm,_ license_ in Berlin and the other large cities in the decade before the Nazis took official power. That does not equate to "overall society". The 'Roaring Twenties' was essentially an urban phenomenon on both sides of the Atlantic.


No, I'm talking of how while America was still in a survival state, in Germany there was the rise of Freud and particularly Nietzsche, the was the one who declared that Europe had successfully killed religion.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Conservapedia is a great example of that law that says you can't tell whether someone is faking being a fundamentalist.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> On the side, I would have to disagree with the article's conclusion that somehow the Big Bang Theory contradicts the theory of Creationism. I think the Big Bang Theory was a moment where time was created, and what scientists reluctantly (some refuse) admit was a moment were _infinite _energy converged on a single point for the creation of matte
> 
> You're allowed to hold your own views, even to the point of insulting my own country, which you deem yourself above considering it that. I may be a 1st generation American, but I would never go back to my heritage country in Europe to live there. Europe is not my home. I know enough of the brilliance of America and what potential people have here to say that you simply say that out of _ignorance_. I don't believe the US is heaven and it never will be, but it sure has been blessed unlike any other country in history, and if you're going to be so bold as to compare our _pride_ to that of the Nazi's, let it be known that the US hasn't reached even the stage which was _before_ the rise of Naziism in Germany, which was _the elimination of religion as valued influence in overall society._


 I didn't compare your pride to Nazi propaganda, I compared an American propagandistic view of history with Nazi propaganda, but sometimes you prefer to read what you like rather than what is written.


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

Philip said:


> it is geometrically possible for you to be at the center of the universe, there are two cases:
> 
> 1) you actually are at the center
> 2) every point in the universe is the center of the universe
> ...


Philip and Pascal are absolutely right!

I remember being in Second Year Elecromagnetics class, studying the "electric field of an infinite line of charge". As the professor was doing the math, he stood roughly at the mid-point of the classroom front blackboard and said "I'm standing at the center of the line of charge". Then he took two steps to the right and said "And now, I also am at the centre of the line of charge. Why? Because it is _infinite _and there's as much of the line to my left as there is to my right.". He gave us that stare that Bill O'Reilly gives toi the camera, as if to say "Prove me wrong!". And of course you can't, because he's _mathematically _right - if you accept the concept of infinity (you know, that sleeping "8" symbol...).

If you apply that reasoning then we are at the center of the universe regardless of where we physically (absolutely) are, as the universe is infinite, and there is "as much universe" in every radial direction!

That's my story and I stick to it!

The _medieval _concept af the Earth Centered Universe is wrong, however, as the Universe does not gravitate aroud the Earth...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> No, I'm talking of how while America was still in a survival state, in Germany there was the rise of Freud and particularly Nietzsche, the was the one who declared that Europe had successfully killed religion.


You think that the ideas of either of those guys were accepted by 'overall society'?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Intellectual history (i.e. the history of science, philosophy and theology) used to be a big interest of mine, but one of the reasons that I am not as interested in it as I used to be is that now I am more skeptical about the importance of ideas. I don't mean to adopt an extreme view and say they don't matter, but if we want to look at reasons that religion died in Europe, I doubt we can trace it to any meaningfully small group of influential intellectuals. It's going to be more fundamental: something like disillusionment with the aristocracy/establishment following the major wars, the increasing power of the secular state, the increasing security of the capitalist welfare state, and so on. At least sometimes the intellectuals really will move the society, but not as often as fundamental changes making some intellectuals' ideas seem more plausible and thus more popular.

(Sorry for the wall of text there, but I'm just not sure where to break that paragraph.)


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

science said:


> Intellectual history (i.e. the history of science, philosophy and theology) used to be a big interest of mine, but one of the reasons that I am not as interested in it as I used to be is that now I am more skeptical about the importance of ideas. I don't mean to adopt an extreme view and say they don't matter, but if we want to look at reasons that religion died in Europe, I doubt we can trace it to any meaningfully small group of influential intellectuals. It's going to be more fundamental: something like disillusionment with the aristocracy/establishment following the major wars, the increasing power of the secular state, the increasing security of the capitalist welfare state, and so on. At least sometimes the intellectuals really will move the society, but not as often as fundamental changes making some intellectuals' ideas seem more plausible and thus more popular.
> 
> (Sorry for the wall of text there, but I'm just not sure where to break that paragraph.)


I don't know what killed Religion in Europe, but I do know what killed Religion in my home Province of Quebec, and it was the *all-too-cozy relationship Religion and Politics* (and politicians) had. The standard sermon from the pulpit in the 1930's and 40's the day before a general election usually was "Remember: the Sky is Blue and Hell is Red" (If yu look at a political map of the US on CNN, you will get this _colourful _statement...)

Intellectuals, yes, but political change in the early 1960's and changes in ideas in the 1950's paved the way for the decline in attendance in churches, as well as a lack of connection between Church doctrine and modern living (think of topics like contraception, for example).

As an aside, I have prepared a blog oin Tuesday on a musical figure from my home province, and the same currents I discuss in the previous paragraph conspired in a large way in his works being ignored and forgotten. Stay tuned!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

oskaar said:


> Hehe...I have been looking arround a bit i concervativepedia. Does americans really take this seriously?


It first came to my attention when it was criticized by New Scientist for declaring that Einstein's theory of relativity is a liberal conspiracy:

*http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19303-emc2-not-on-conservapedia.html?full=true*

Essentially, it has an alternative scientific method, which consists of flatly insisting that any theory it doesn't happen to like is untrue, all the while requiring no empirical evidence for that claim.

It also has a lot of Bible-quoting articles regarding the strict logical basis for hating everything which isn't exactly like it.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I get stomack problems with all this. If I had dived deeper into concervapedia, I might get really sick. Bush`s years in office made me sick... Anti-tollarance make me sick...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Olga Neuwirth's Instrumental-Inseln is for ensemble centrally positioned in space




Sorry that is all I can contribute to this thread


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

also, people need to wrap their heads around the possibility of an unbounded, yet finite universe.

in other words, even with a finite volume, it is still possible for the universe to have no center and no edge. geometrically this requires a fourth dimension of space.

i like this view because it solves the two following problems: if the universe is infinitely big, how can it be expanding? answer: is it not infinitely big; if it isn't infinite, what is it expanding into, ie. what is beyond? answer: there is no edge, you eventually get back to the starting point if traveling in a straight line.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Mind-**** time!


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

oskaar said:


> I get stomack problems with all this. If I had dived deeper into concervapedia, I might get really sick. Bush`s years in office made me sick... Anti-tollarance make me sick...


Don't worry too much about Conservapedia. If you want to read trustworthy information and opinions about science and science-related issues, from the American point of view, use this:

*http://www.scientificamerican.com/*


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Thanks! I know ther is so many great americans, and so much great to say about America.... But the extremely powerful conservatism, the "rifle" club, the tea party, the fanatic dogmatic and double valued religions, the ME FIRS thinking... All is very powerfull in the worlds must important and influating nation. And that is scaring.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The thing that I find most frightening about America is not just the fact that there are vocal, crazy conservatives. They exist in all countries. What scares me more is that the most uneducated, prejudice-filled morons are in the running for Republican leadership and are getting substantial backing. Some of the things that these candidates have said would only come out of the mouth of the BNP here in the UK. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I agree with you Polednice... It dont help much that 45 persent of american are sensible great persons, if 55 persent are not, and politcians have to reach this 55 persent with the most populistic tactics. The readnecks in texas rule the world....

Even as a democrat, you have to addapt to wat I call "The dark age america"


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

But I must say that the most probable Republican, Rodney, scares me far less than what Bush did ... It's a little uplifting.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Conservatism is in every country, yes, but these forces influate the world situation in much bigger scales than in other countries..... Veto in congress lead to veto in UN, and the world goes no further


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

oskaar said:


> Thanks! I know ther is so many great americans, and so much great to say about America.... But the extremely powerful conservatism, the "rifle" club, the tea party, the fanatic dogmatic and double valued religions, the ME FIRS thinking... All is very powerfull in the worlds must important and influating nation. And that is scaring.


The level of incomprehension about the US exhibited in this thread is rather startling. I hadn't realized that we were so different from people living in the Old World.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Most peaple may not be so different.. I know many nice americans! But the power of conservative forces, influenting the leaders of the most powerful nation, influenting the world, or settinng the brakes down... when it comes to climate, powerty, midlle east+++ That is what I am talking about.

It is not incomprehension I think...You only have to watch the scene to see the picture.
See the vetos from USA in UN for a start.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"It is not incomprehension I think"

Well yeah, it is.


----------

