Is Earth the Center of the Entire Universe?

Here's a review of the full movie, for those of us who don't want to shell out just to be able to see what's in it: variety.com...

For most of its first hour, “The Principle” offers a fairly straightforward history of cosmological thought, stretching from Ptolemy to Tycho, Copernicus to Einstein. Narrated by “Star Trek: Voyager” star Kate Mulgrew, the film invites a clutch of figures ranging from major physicists to outright skeptics and religious thinkers to comment. (Mulgrew distanced herself from the film post-facto, as did such bold-name interview subjects as Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, George F.R. Ellis and Max Tegmark. Even John Hartnett, an avowed biblical creationist who espouses a “galactocentric” model, has complained that the film misrepresents some of his views.)

Toward the end, however, it begins to make its case, applying sly ridicule to contempo cosmological ideas like dark matter and multiverses, while arguing that recently discovered temperature patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background seem to align with the Earth – these presumably being the “astonishing new scientific observations” promised by the film’s publicity materials. From here, the pic begins to sketch a vague conspiracy narrative of a scientific community too wedded to its own pet theories (and sweet, sweet grant money) to acknowledge non-Copernican views, and then, somewhat incongruously, ends by pleading for a more harmonious relationship between science and religious faith.

This reviewer makes absolutely no claim to know more than the rough rudiments of modern cosmological theory; nor has he read the neo-geocentric literature in question. (For whatever the ultimate principles and properties of space-time may turn out to be, his allotment of it is certainly limited.) Yet it’s easy to see a skewed argument in the making.

For one, specific scientific objections to the notion that the CMB proscribes a geocentric model are hardly given an airing. And it’s hard not to notice that complicated concepts like the Lorentz transformation and “quantum foam” are summarized in layman’s terms, while arguments for a non-Copernican worldview invoke such terms as “anisotrophies,” “quadropole” and “ecliptic” without much in the way of catch-up.

originally posted by: wildespace
Here's a review of the full movie, for those of us who don't want to shell out just to be able to see what's in it: variety.com...

For most of its first hour, “The Principle” offers a fairly straightforward history of cosmological thought, stretching from Ptolemy to Tycho, Copernicus to Einstein. Narrated by “Star Trek: Voyager” star Kate Mulgrew, the film invites a clutch of figures ranging from major physicists to outright skeptics and religious thinkers to comment. (Mulgrew distanced herself from the film post-facto, as did such bold-name interview subjects as Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, George F.R. Ellis and Max Tegmark. Even John Hartnett, an avowed biblical creationist who espouses a “galactocentric” model, has complained that the film misrepresents some of his views.)

Toward the end, however, it begins to make its case, applying sly ridicule to contempo cosmological ideas like dark matter and multiverses, while arguing that recently discovered temperature patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background seem to align with the Earth – these presumably being the “astonishing new scientific observations” promised by the film’s publicity materials. From here, the pic begins to sketch a vague conspiracy narrative of a scientific community too wedded to its own pet theories (and sweet, sweet grant money) to acknowledge non-Copernican views, and then, somewhat incongruously, ends by pleading for a more harmonious relationship between science and religious faith.

This reviewer makes absolutely no claim to know more than the rough rudiments of modern cosmological theory; nor has he read the neo-geocentric literature in question. (For whatever the ultimate principles and properties of space-time may turn out to be, his allotment of it is certainly limited.) Yet it’s easy to see a skewed argument in the making.

For one, specific scientific objections to the notion that the CMB proscribes a geocentric model are hardly given an airing. And it’s hard not to notice that complicated concepts like the Lorentz transformation and “quantum foam” are summarized in layman’s terms, while arguments for a non-Copernican worldview invoke such terms as “anisotrophies,” “quadropole” and “ecliptic” without much in the way of catch-up.

Awesome find, thank you dude.

originally posted by: wildespace
Well, the post above shows that our galaxy is on the edge of a giant Laniakea supercluster.

originally posted by: RazielBlaze
This is not proof against the data he is presenting, no where does he talk about this.

If I remember right this was made by the Hawaiian scientists showing the pathways of our galaxies.

The data he is referring to is the background microwave radiation. To this is what I would like to see data against.

In the film, John Hartnett of Australia's University of Adelaide claimed that the structure of the universe was concentric shells that were all around Earth on which galaxies resided, with Earth being the center of those shells. The image above refutes that claim made in the film.


As for the claim that the Earth seems to be in the middle of the background radiation, here's a thought experiment to consider:

If I were in a forest, and could see individual trees all around me, but only as far as 100 meters until I can see no further past the trees, does that necessarily mean that I was in the exact center of a 200 meter diameter forest?

originally posted by: soylent green is people
If I were in a forest, and could see individual trees all around me, but only as far as 100 meters until I can see no further past the trees, does that necessarily mean that I was in the exact center of a 200 meter diameter forest?

You quite literarily wouldn't be able to see the wood for the trees.

Which I think what the authors and producers of the film were afflicted with. They are Christians that put the idea of God and Creation before anything else, and look at the universe and science through that lens. Check out this supportive review that they shared on their Facebook page: www.naturalphilosophy.org...

A few quotes of note:

This is the best science documentary film that I have ever seen. It puts physical science into its correct and proper place behind philosophy, logic, and religion, instead of superior to them, in terms of the definition of what is truth.

That story is that scientists adhere to a code that restricts them from investigating whether God created the universe.

Suppose that we agreed to rewrite the biblical book of Genesis based upon the discoveries of modern science, how would we go about doing that and keep a place for God in the conversation? This is the underlying question asked by the film.

The clear answer to the question is, that there is no place for God in a scientific theory of the creation of the universe and why we exist, according to cosmologists. That is a very obvious problem revealing that what cosmologists have to say, ought to be examined with extreme caution and skepticism.

Clearly, because God and Creation are not part of the equation as far as science is concerned, science is wrong...

a reply to: Astyanax
Are you a Ph d ?

originally posted by: intrptr

Well, if the Universe is infinitely large (goes on forever) then everywhere and anywhere is the center of the Universe

How does something infinite expand?

a reply to: wildespace

thats always what happens in those kinds of movies. questions are overlooked, evidence is cherry picked, conclusions are inferred from minimal investigation and the conclusion is set in place well before all the angles have been examined. the point isnt to explore, its to explain why exploring isnt necessary. in a word, self-defeating.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: intrptr

Well, if the Universe is infinitely large (goes on forever) then everywhere and anywhere is the center of the Universe

How does something infinite expand?

How does a tree grow?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: intrptr

Well, if the Universe is infinitely large (goes on forever) then everywhere and anywhere is the center of the Universe

How does something infinite expand?

How does a tree grow?

comparing the growth of a tree with infinity is apples and gummy bears dude.

a reply to: intrptr

So infinity grows now?

Either the universe is expanding or it is infinite. It can't be both, so which is it?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Then answer his question…

a reply to: Bone75

Why can't it be both? If you have an infinite quantity of something, and add 1 to it, it's expanded, but it's still infinity...

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then answer his question…

how does something infinite expand?

it doesnt. you cannot add to something that is by definition limitless.

and lets not continue to make the mistake of assuming the universe is infinite. this is not fact and should not be treated as though it were.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: intrptr

So infinity grows now?

Either the universe is expanding or it is infinite. It can't be both, so which is it?

Parts of the Universe are obviously… 'moving'.

But to a bug on a branch, his perspective is limited, the tree has always been there and no growth is visible. Maybe he sees branches moving in the breeze and thinks its expansion or growth.

I know, poor analogy, off the top of my head.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then answer his question…

how does something infinite expand?

it doesnt.

That was my first answer, but I realized our perspective is skewed. See my other reply about tree branches blowing in the wind.

a reply to: TzarChasm

and lets not continue to make the mistake of assuming the universe is infinite. this is not fact and should not be treated as though it were.

It has to be infinite, unless you can show me the barrier. Then, whats outside that?

You've been conditioned to accept limits.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: wildespace

thats always what happens in those kinds of movies. questions are overlooked, evidence is cherry picked, conclusions are inferred from minimal investigation and the conclusion is set in place well before all the angles have been examined. the point isnt to explore, its to explain why exploring isnt necessary. in a word, self-defeating.

I pretty much think everything is like that even scientific documents for the most part.

originally posted by: enament
I pretty much think everything is like that even scientific documents for the most part.

"Scientific documents" are summaries of actual, factual observations; apart from those that are clearly labelled as hypothetical in nature (as in cutting edge research). And even those are still wholly consistent with other observations.

a reply to: admirethedistance

People aren't 100% sure the universe is truly infinite, the possibility gaining support is multiple universes, although does a growing universe have a stopping point?
Everything we know about the universe is only an educated guess based on math and what we are able to observe, every opinion about it changes often, there are only accepted theories.

People at one time accepted flat earth as fact and anyone who disagreed with it was put to death. today we just ridicule and discredit them and also make fun of them just as they did when people thought the earth was round when others thought it was flat.

a reply to: enament

Well heck ene,,, yesterday I was about to join in with this thread but as you suggest today in another thread which has been closed, the waters got choppy almost immediately. And honestly, honestly, it appeared to me then that you had jumped rather quickly on the first replier for not reading the whole thing before answering. Well,, then some of the other replies were not really responsive to your quest for discussion so I dropped what I had written and went away.

However, having read some of the replies since then, you have received a number of good replies, and, what else could you hope for anyway.

Sure, people used to think that this was the center of it all. Then our observations began suggesting that 'here' is not the center of it all and along with that began tossing out the spiritual, moral social, cultural modes that had sprung from that geocentric misconception.

But you know what? I am intrigued by the notion that this place IS the center. Imagine if we were reallly to find that it is but we had tossed our antiquated religions based on the old understanding of it and then we had to try to understand it all again, just in a new light.

Take the Big Bang. I once believed in the BB, that all the material in the universe came from that one singularity. But you know what? In the last decade or so we are finding out that man oh man, there is just way more stuff than we thought at first and as tough as it was to think that everything came from the BB before , now it is even harder.

So I have wondered if the BB might not have been a physical event, Physical from this side of it, from the other side of it who knows. But what it were a consciousness event. What if there was a point when this huge sphere of notingness we now call our universe, suddenly had a portal pop open in it into which consciousness could flow and have a look around. And what if that portal was right here. Right here in you and me and all of us.

I'm as glad as anyone that we are tossing those old religious dogmas about who we are. But I must say that the trend towards this atheistic we are only meatsack dreams on a little speck drifting somewhere in a huge meaningless blend of nothing and nothings progeny is not making me happy. Actually, I am excited about entertaining the idea that we are indeed, in some manner the center of consciousness in this never ending vastness.

There, is that the kind of reply you were hoping to recieve?