The Universe has no identifiable center. All galaxies are moving away from each other as space continually expands. You accuse evolutionists of making wild assumptions, yet you make the wildest assumption of all: that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Geocentrism was disproven almost 400 years ago. At any point in the universe (or any particle in an explosion) it will look like all other points/particles are expanding away from you wherever you happen to be inside that explosion. Assuming that you are at the center of such an explosion is both invalid (for obvious statistical reasons) and myopic. You need to look at the big picture. Furthermore, if the Earth were subjected to a gravitational time dilation effect that compressed billions of years into thousands on the Earth, this would be directly detectible by the local distribution of matter on inter-galactic scales and the rate at which we observe thermonuclear processes (and all other chemical processes and gravitational effects) occurring in areas of the Universe outside the local time dilation, never mind the Doppler effects on all incoming lightwaves. None of these effects is observed. Furthermore, observations have detected no bounds to the Universe, indeed, the rate at which it is expanding is accelerating. If this acceleration continues, in 200 billion years the expansion rate will be so high that individual atoms will be tearing themselves apart. I didn’t read that anywhere in the Bible – I guess God left that part out? The Universe is a vacuum fluctuation. Look it up.
“The Universe has no identifiable center.”
“Geocentrism was disproven almost 400 years ago.”
The simplest method to judge and gauge or relative position in the Universe is to state that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that the Solar System in turn, revolves around the center of the Milky Way, etc etc etc...
But that does not disprove, it merely points out the unneeded complexity (in regards to mathematics and observation) of that system.
Like I said, “just to be a pain”. :)
Someone should have told Einstein and Hoyle:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics (New-York: Simon and Schuster), 1961.
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Once again, the notion that the universe has no center is based on an assumption, as stephen Hawking and George Ellis freely admit:
“However we are not able to make cosmological
models without some admixture of ideology. In the
earliest cosmologies, man placed himself in a
commanding position at the centre of the universe.
Since the time of Copernicus we have been steadily
demoted to a medium sized planet going round a
medium sized star on the outer edge of a fairly average
galaxy, which is itself simply one of a local group of
galaxies. Indeed we are now so democratic that we
would not claim that our position in space is specially
distinguished in any way. We shall, following Bondi
(1960), call this assumption the Copernican principle”
—Hawking, S.W. and Ellis, G.F.R., The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 134, 1973.
What is this “admixture of ideology” (or unproven assumption)? It is the Copernican principle. The notion that not only is the Earth not the center of our solar system, but that our solar system is mediocre, not unlike the other solar systems, that our galaxy is mediocre and not unlike other galaxies, and finally that the universe is homogeneous, has no center and no edge. In that sense, the Copernican principle is badly misnamed, because with the exception of heliocentrism, Copernicus didn’t subscribe to such unscientific rubbish (most people have forgotten that Copernicus held to a heliocentric universe...a far cry from the modern Copernican principle!). But the modern Big Bangers wanted to make sure that earth, our solar system, and our galaxy had no special place in the universe, even though the most simple, straightforward interpretation of the evidence suggest that we in fact do. So they ASSUMED that the universe has no center and no edge for religious and philosophical reasons, not because their scientific observation demanded it. But if you assume that our solar system is at or near the center of the universe, suddenly we occupy a very special place in the universe, suddenly we expand out of a white hole (instead of being sucked in to a black hole), suddenly time stands still on earth at the event horizon while billions of years go by for distant objects in the universe (thus allowing for the earth to be young and the universe to be old in terms of Gen. Rel.). And finally, the new cosmological model is backed up by a simple, straightforward interpretation of the observable facts, whereas, because of the prior religious and philosophical commitments (ie the Church of Darwin), the current proponent of the “Big Bang” cosmology runs into all sorts of problems, that the proposed non-isotropic model avoids altogether.