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.
“==The Universe has no identifiable center. All galaxies are moving away from each other as space continually expands.
Once again, the notion that the universe has no center is based on an assumption, as stephen Hawking and George Ellis freely admit:”
Did you take the special “Bill Clinton: How I parse words to completely alter their meaning in order to commit crimes in front of the whole nation and get away with them” class? I didn’t say the Universe HAD no center - I said it had no presently-IDENTIFIABLE center. Again, you are using the classic tools of the Creationist - parse words and twist meanings and post out-of-context quotes to construct a false argument. If you had the slightest inkling of cosmology you would never make such a bizarre statement as the Earth is the center of the Universe. If the Universe did not come from the Big Bang, then please explain the 2.7 degree Kelvins microwave background radiation that was PREDICTED by Big Bang theory in 1948 and subsequently discovered in 1964. Please explain why the galaxies are flying apart and the cosmological redshifts that are observed. It is YOU who is making assumptions that are contradictory to all the empirical evidence, and, indeed, common sense. I already pointed out the problems in your theory about the gravitational time dilation local to Earth in a previous post. There is NO observational evidence to support your contention. I have come to a conclusion: Your profound obtuseness cannot possibly be explicable by an intellectual deficit; my hypothesis at this point is that you are a sadistic troll who takes sick pleasure in wasting the time of others with twisted logic and grotesquely fallacious arguments. It is a greater intellectual faux pas to deny the fact of evolution than it would be to insist that the Apollo astronauts never walked on the moon. In terms of sheer evidential volume, there is more evidence to support the former proposition than there is for the latter.