• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Modern cosmological science has theoretically not developed much since the perception of the Earth and Solar centered system.

Earth centered Solar System and Helio-centered Solar System

The History of the center of the Universe:
Excerpt:
“The center of the Universe is a concept that lacks a coherent definition in modern astronomy; according to standard cosmological theories on the shape of the universe, it has no center”.

Me: Everything in space are measured from the Earth as the center - just as the old Earth Centered method.

And:
”Historically, different people have suggested various locations as the center of the Universe. Many mythological cosmologies included an axis mundi, the central axis of a flat Earth that connects the Earth, heavens, and other realms together".

Me: This is partly nonsense. Of course, our ancestors had a picture of the Earth´s rotational axis, but their overall world perception had the Milky Way as the their largest local observable center and they observed the Milky Way itself to be a "flat disk", allegorically floating in the "Cosmic Sea" as an Island on the Earth.

For instants in Norse Mythology they also had the "Midgaard Serpent" to encircle Midgaard, the Earth and home for humans. This Serpent represents the observable Milky Way band all around and biting the tail, the Earth, thus indicating a knowledge of the spherical Earth.

The Size of the observable Universe
Excerpt:
“The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs[29] (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 m).[30] Assuming that space is roughly flat (in the sense of being a Euclidean space), this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.22×104 Gpc3 (4.22×105 Gly3 or 3.57×1080 m3).[31]

The figures quoted above are distances now (in cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was emitted”.
---------------------
Me: This is highly inconsistent. All modern cosmic distances to objects are assumed by the measurement of the time-constant of light measured from and around the Earth, but here, this concept is totally left out of the measured assumptive numbers and distances which doesn´t compute with the estimated age of their Universe since the assumed Big Bang. Inconsistent speculations and nothing more, is it.

Compared to the modern highly scientific theoretical speculations, our ancestors had the Universe to be infinite and containing “inside”-cyclical processes of eternal formation, dissolution and reformation, i.e. thus having the Universe it self to have no beginning or end.

In fact, modern cosmological and astrophysical science still has the Earth as their intellectual and theoretical center. They even don´t count the Earth and the entire Solar System to be connected with the Milky Way conditions in their theories of formation.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
You are attempting to answer scientific questions as if you were a definitive authority in cosmology while contradicting actual experts in the field. Hopefully you realize that current scientific consensus holds far more weight and validity than individual opinions that contradict established science.

I really wish some people would stop so casually and readily dismissing decades of expert research and studies in favor of their unqualified, often biased opinions. The malignant effects of this cavalier lack of respect or appreciation for the authority and reliability of peer-reviewed science have never been so pronounced as during a global pandemic.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Me: Everything in space are measured from the Earth as the center - just as the old Earth Centered method.
I don't think anyone in their right mind actually believes that Earth is the absolute "center" of the universe. That takes a particular kind of hubris and ignorance of very basic ideas - like the fact that space is just that - a bunch of space. To pretend you can even find "the center" given our current abilities to traverse it's entirety (just about no ability whatsoever) is pretty wacky. Anyone who even posits the suspected initial site of the "Big Bang" as a "center" doesn't really have a leg to stand on - because that could very well just be the center of the local presentation of the concentration of matter that we currently find ourselves a part of. We simply haven't traversed enough of "the universe" to make any sort of worthwhile determination like that we have "found the center."

What you're observing and describing seems more to me to be a simple part of the human condition. That is - we're stuck here for the moment. Everything we see, observe and do has nearly got to be from Earth as the staging ground. Sure, we've shot a few probes out into slightly deeper space and have gathered some intel from those - but that amount of penetration has so far been so slight as to be nearly insignificant. So, obviously, our knowledge and "mapping" of the universe is going to spread out from the Earth as a sort of knowledge-base "center." But that means nothing in the grand scheme. Absolutely nothing.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You are attempting to answer scientific questions as if you were a definitive authority in cosmology while contradicting actual experts in the field.
It seems that you´ve got my points were well, questioning the dogmatic authorities and its obvious inconsistences. Well done you :)
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I don't think anyone in their right mind actually believes that Earth is the absolute "center" of the universe.
Neither do I. I´m just pointing out that all modern cosmological measurements is connected to the Earth as the center and that there are some obvious inconsistencies in the measuring methods.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Neither do I. I´m just pointing out that all modern cosmological measurements is connected to the Earth as the center.
And as I stated - that makes perfect sense given the fact that we can't very well easily observe things from any and every point we want to out there in space, now can we? I'm just not sure what you think this means. You seem to think it is some kind of "gotcha" - that science needs to own up to something, or that lies are being propagated in some way. The point you are making (if it is truly only what you have replied with above) is a non-starter. Insignificant. Not worth discussing.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
In fact, modern cosmological and astrophysical science still has the Earth as their intellectual and theoretical center. They even don´t count the Earth and the entire Solar System to be connected with the Milky Way conditions in their theories of formation.


Wrong, cosmologists se everywhere as the centre of the universe... I.e. the big bang happened everywhere and has got bigger.


And definitely earth deeply connected with the milky way.

270619C3-8AC6-4309-A6CB036BE6A4EC66_source.jpg
 

SalixIncendium

अहं ब्रह्मास्मि
Staff member
Premium Member
Quick question: If a flat earth is the center of the universe, would that render the universe flat?

For the record, I didn't want to ask that question. I had to ask that question.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Quick question: If a flat earth is the center of the universe, would that render the universe flat?
No there would be something over the Earth in the Sky and then you automatically have a spherical 3 dimension.
 

JoshuaTree

Flowers are red?
Wrong, cosmologists se everywhere as the centre of the universe... I.e. the big bang happened everywhere and has got bigger.


And definitely earth deeply connected with the milky way.

View attachment 52134

Does the expansion of space have anything to do with the big bang? Isn't the empty space expanding, and more empty space accelerates the expansion, maybe through quantum fluctuations? So the bubble of space we can observe is within the scope of the big bang but we can only ever see a small bubble of the universe created by the big bang?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Does the expansion of space have anything to do with the big bang? Isn't the empty space expanding, and more empty space accelerates the expansion, maybe through quantum fluctuations? So the bubble of space we can observe is within the scope of the big bang but we can only ever see a small bubble of the universe created by the big bang?


Everything that was in the bb exists now. The bb kicked it all off. And yes, it seems that space is expanding (or the universe is creating more space). As yes it is unknown what the mechanism for universal expansion is, hence dark energy as a place holder

What can be seen goes as far as the cmb. Which is an artifact from a few hundred thousand years after the bb.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Modern cosmological science has theoretically not developed much since the perception of the Earth and Solar centered system.

Earth centered Solar System and Helio-centered Solar System

The History of the center of the Universe:
Excerpt:
“The center of the Universe is a concept that lacks a coherent definition in modern astronomy; according to standard cosmological theories on the shape of the universe, it has no center”.

Me: Everything in space are measured from the Earth as the center - just as the old Earth Centered method.

And:
”Historically, different people have suggested various locations as the center of the Universe. Many mythological cosmologies included an axis mundi, the central axis of a flat Earth that connects the Earth, heavens, and other realms together".

Me: This is partly nonsense. Of course, our ancestors had a picture of the Earth´s rotational axis, but their overall world perception had the Milky Way as the their largest local observable center and they observed the Milky Way itself to be a "flat disk", allegorically floating in the "Cosmic Sea" as an Island on the Earth.

For instants in Norse Mythology they also had the "Midgaard Serpent" to encircle Midgaard, the Earth and home for humans. This Serpent represents the observable Milky Way band all around and biting the tail, the Earth, thus indicating a knowledge of the spherical Earth.

The Size of the observable Universe
Excerpt:
“The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the observable universe is about 14.26 gigaparsecs (46.5 billion light-years or 4.40×1026 m) in any direction. The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs[29] (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 m).[30] Assuming that space is roughly flat (in the sense of being a Euclidean space), this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.22×104 Gpc3 (4.22×105 Gly3 or 3.57×1080 m3).[31]

The figures quoted above are distances now (in cosmological time), not distances at the time the light was emitted”.
---------------------
Me: This is highly inconsistent. All modern cosmic distances to objects are assumed by the measurement of the time-constant of light measured from and around the Earth, but here, this concept is totally left out of the measured assumptive numbers and distances which doesn´t compute with the estimated age of their Universe since the assumed Big Bang. Inconsistent speculations and nothing more, is it.

Compared to the modern highly scientific theoretical speculations, our ancestors had the Universe to be infinite and containing “inside”-cyclical processes of eternal formation, dissolution and reformation, i.e. thus having the Universe it self to have no beginning or end.

In fact, modern cosmological and astrophysical science still has the Earth as their intellectual and theoretical center. They even don´t count the Earth and the entire Solar System to be connected with the Milky Way conditions in their theories of formation.

My understanding is that the universe has no center or edge.
I think this is what you are saying too?
In which case the "center" of the universe is just an arbitrary designation used for reference.
To say the Earth is the center is neither right nor wrong it is just a self-centered reference point for convenience.

I'd suppose as long as this is understood, there is no foul.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
My understanding is that the universe has no center or edge.
I think this is what you are saying too?
Correct.
To say the Earth is the center is neither right nor wrong it is just a self-centered reference point for convenience.
Correct too :)
I'd suppose as long as this is understood, there is no foul.
Oh yes there are and lots of them too.

The very idea of a beginning with a Big Bang and an expansion, is asserted from light year distance measuring's from the Earth to the cosmic objects, thus de facto having the Earth as the cosmic center.

Measuring cosmos via a Standard Candle Light is foul too as "luminescence" itself cannot be a constant anywhere in cosmos and I´m sure the standard cosmology assumed expansion - and especially the increasing expansion - certainly is a foul measuring method, causing the foul impression of an universal expansion.

Besides this, some Supernova (Candle Light) stars seems to be able to explode several times in a row, which in itself debunks the very candle light idea - as well as debunking the nucleosynthesis model of formation of heavier metals too.
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
The very idea of a beginning with a Big Bang and an expansion, is asserted from light year distance measuring's from the Earth to the cosmic objects, thus de facto having the Earth as the cosmic center.
Where else could we measure from?! Even with probes and satellites, we're not able to extend our viewpoint beyond our solar system and not really beyond the core of the solar system.

That doesn't mean Earth is being treated as the centre of anything though. Even though we can only take measurements from here, those measurements can be used to extrapolate distances between other points. For example, we know the distance between the Sun and Pluto (and significantly, how that changes due to elliptical orbits) but since we can't measure that distance directly, we instead work out the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun then the Earth and Pluto and can use those to calculate the distance between the Sun and Pluto. You could do the same thing from pretty much any other relative position (indeed, the motion of the objects means we can effectively measure from different relative points) and it wouldn't make any difference to the result. The position of Earth isn't being treated as the centre of anything, it isn't relevant at all.

It's also worth noting that for objects beyond the solar system, the Sun will generally be the point we're measuring out from, not the Earth (which makes little practical difference at those scales of course but is relevant to your claims).

Measuring cosmos via a Standard Candle Light is foul too as "luminescence" itself cannot be a constant anywhere in cosmos
What makes you say it can't be constant. If you said it might not be you could have a point but I'm not sure it's an unreasonable working assumption unless there is a good reason to suggest how it could vary.

Regardless, none of that would be making the Earth the centre of the universe in any way. Again, it just happens to be where we are measuring from. If all the cosmologists where magically shifted to some other part of the universe, they would carry out their measurements and work out their conclusions in exactly the same way.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
The actual center of the universe is the source.

The center of a child’s universe is always his or herself. However, it is very difficult to understand the workings of the universe with that model and very close to impossible to travel in it. Thankfully, the source provides constant analogous pictures as maps to locate the center. As we mature, we start to recognize the analogies and begin to discover at least the direction of the source.

Happy viewing.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
The very idea of a beginning with a Big Bang and an expansion, is asserted from light year distance measuring's from the Earth to the cosmic objects, thus de facto having the Earth as the cosmic center.
That doesn't mean Earth is being treated as the centre of anything though.
Of course NOT the factual center, but the measurement method from and around the Earth, make the illusion of an expansion because of counting on a light constant coming from a luminous "candle star" which light isn´t constant and where the light is "slown down" and dispersed on its way to the telescopes.

Native said:
Measuring cosmos via a Standard Candle Light is foul too as "luminescence" itself cannot be a constant anywhere in cosmos.
What makes you say it can't be constant. If you said it might not be you could have a point but I'm not sure it's an unreasonable working assumption unless there is a good reason to suggest how it could vary.
I´m pretty sure there is no cosmic light constants at all and this causes the calculative impression (and illusion) of an expanding universe.

When standard cosmology speaks of "exploding supernovas", this is simply a momentary discharge of light, and this is why these "supernovas" can "explode" several times in a row, hence there is no cosmic candle light constants there too.

A Big Bang is basically a scientific flaw and science fiction.
 
Top