The center of the universe

shnarkle

Well-known member
For thousands of years everyone regarded the earth as the center of creation and believed that the sun, moon, and stars revolved around it. Early in the 16th century Nicolaus Copernicus proved that this belief was wrong and that the earth revolved around the sun.
There was somewhat of a stormy reaction by scientists a few years ago when they discovered that background microwave radiation seemed to show an odd correlation to the earth.

They discovered a sort of curved spine of the universe with our solar system situated right in the middle. They called it "The Axis of Evil" because it doesn't quite fit with what they've already concluded with regards to the Big Bang, not to mention its relevance to a similar idea found in Genesis.


The problem is that the three main methods of weighing galaxies produce conflicting results.


They've studied some 1600 spiral galaxies and discovered that they all end up lining up and revolving around "The Axis of Evil"


So the problem seems to be that the axis of evil aligns with the plane in which the earth and the other planets orbit the sun which doesn't just create a problem for the so-called "Big Bang" theory, but introduces our solar system smack dab in the middle of this spine's plane.


Here's an interesting quote from Lawrence Krause:

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us..But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

 

rossum

Well-known member
The third, the one we usually mean when we speak of Heaven, is the heaven where God lives.
God is omnipresent, so God lives everywhere. There can be no separate heaven for Him to live., otherwise He would not be omnipresent. If God lives in heaven then we also live in heaven.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
There was somewhat of a stormy reaction by scientists a few years ago when they discovered that background microwave radiation seemed to show an odd correlation to the earth.

They discovered a sort of curved spine of the universe with our solar system situated right in the middle. They called it "The Axis of Evil" because it doesn't quite fit with what they've already concluded with regards to the Big Bang, not to mention its relevance to a similar idea found in Genesis.


The problem is that the three main methods of weighing galaxies produce conflicting results.


They've studied some 1600 spiral galaxies and discovered that they all end up lining up and revolving around "The Axis of Evil"


So the problem seems to be that the axis of evil aligns with the plane in which the earth and the other planets orbit the sun which doesn't just create a problem for the so-called "Big Bang" theory, but introduces our solar system smack dab in the middle of this spine's plane.


Here's an interesting quote from Lawrence Krause:

"The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we’re the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it’s telling us there’s something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there’s something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I’m certainly hoping it’s the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it’s wrong there’s still work left for the rest of us..But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

This is kind of funny. This is the first I've heard about this so I'm not sure this really even happened, but if it did, it wouldn't surprise me. It's about a 20 minute clip.

 

inertia

Super Member
What translation are you taking this quote from? I can't find one that states it like that.

Let's take a look at this quote:

References: Jeremiah 33:25 (the NET Bible), the New English translation, and the International Standard version to name a few.

This increased understanding comes from science not the Bible.

Only a small fraction of knowledge comes from physics and mathematics. There are no highly reliable equations to describe living organisms or how the process of thinking occurs, or even the economic dynamics within societies for example.

What's real is that all mathematical theories are incomplete and physics is necessarily coupled with mathematics like siamese twins.

Siamese Twins credit parenting firstcry.JPG

- Kurt Godel (1931, Princeton) "proved that any set of axioms you could posit as a possible foundation for math will inevitably be incomplete; there will always be true facts about numbers that cannot be proved by those axioms. He also showed that no candidate set of axioms can ever prove its own consistency".

That said, an understanding of our relationship to God and sin in our lives is supplied by the bible. Salvation from our sins is crucial.

Or everywhere expanded. The only approximation of any commonality between the creation described in the Bible and the Big Bang is in the use of the word "Stretched". There are no other details that indicate a common understanding.

What's described is that the stretching ( expanding ) of the "heavens" using fixed laws implies a universe that cools as the second law of thermodynamics dictates. A rather common and continued understanding since ancient times is that everything physical is bound to decay (Romans 8:21). It was later quantified in ~ 1850s by Clausius and Kelvin and even later by Maxwell and then Ludwig Boltzman et al.. Amazingly, entropy (S) was even put on Boltzmann's gravestone. - :geek:

Boltzmann.JPG
It may transcend physics as we currently understand it but I don't think that is the same as pointing to a "transcendent creation event"
whatever that might be.

There are a number of spacetime theorems that go beyond classic general relativity. Some are augmented with quantum mechanics while others employ scalar fields ( hyperfast expansion episodes ); still, in every working model spacetime has a beginning. Any model where the universe is stretched ( a necessary condition for life ) is traceable within a finite time period, and each and every "when" is traceable to an initial causal agent except at the point where time does not exist. Using verb-tense has no meaning here yet confirmations of general relativity continually show that the universe was brought into existence by an event requiring a causal agent that transcends matter and spacetime.

- This is what I mean when I use the phrase: "transcendent creation event".

I don't see any way to really verify "cosmic fine-tuning".

Oh, there are observations combined with cold-hard theory. Here is an example -

- Dark Energy: “the most extreme fine-tuning problem known in physics.” ( one part in 10^120 )

If the cosmological constant "lambda" that governs the universe's expansion is smaller than what we observe, then too much matter collapses into black holes and neutron stars. If lambda is greater galaxies and stars will not form. - Krauss, Caldwell, and Barnes

_______________________

*References:

Lawrence M. Krauss, “The End of the Age Problem and the Case for a Cosmological Constant Revisited,” Astrophysical Journal 501 (July 10, 1998)

Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski, “The Physics of Cosmic Acceleration,” Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 59 (November 2009): 397–429

Luke A. Barnes et al., “Galaxy Formation Efficiency and the Multiverse Explanation of the Cosmological Constant with EAGLE Simulations,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 477 (April 2018)
 
Top