Earth, center of the Universe..

 Actually Copernicus resurfaced, dident like that confining box and found a great place to be in.  Along with Galileo, Bruno, Newton, Ptolemy, even Napoleon had some very encouraging words to say.   

Your initial post seemed to provide evidence, the Hubble telescope is the center of the Universe. This post suggests God is the center of the Universe.

Is it reasonable to wonder if the Hubble telescope is God?

I'm unclear about the reasons new religions are formed but it sure sounds like this is a a pretty good reason.

A remaining task is to locate Heaven.

 Wow. I can't believe that one.  Sounds a bit rhetorical.

Hilarious!

 Thank you.  It just seems unsocialable of me to ignor any post unless it is vicious. Some people get hostile if you get off topic, and I wanted to avoid that.  As long as we can be mature adults we should be able to discuss anything (not pointing a finger) even racism or God.

 I respect any view. 

nice thread, keep it rolling Larry.

 OK..The expansion has stretched out as if it has an elastic quality to it.  As if it has a viscosity like gravity that controls the expansion.  So spacetime can be squeezed, stretched, twested, even broken and ripped apart.

 The "time" part of spacetime is mathematically more important then the "space" part of spacetime is. When the clock ticks, it ticks in direct proportion to the spacetime around the clock. The more spacetime is stretched the slower the ticks. The more spacetime is compressed the faster the ticks. Called warping.

 The Earth is in a deep gravity well and spacetime is stretched so our clock ticks slow for us.  But in other parts of the Universe gravity is weaker and spacetime is not stretched as much so the clock ticks faster giving an older Universe there.

 Relativity allows for different time configurations throughout the Universe.  So we can have a young Earth and an old Universe simultaneously.  It is like setting up a dozen clocks in a room, setting them all at 12 o'clock, turn them all on at once and some tick really fast wile others tick slowly and others tick at intermediate speeds, but their all ticking together in the same room.

 In a black hole spacetime is stretched to the max and time stops. 

 So is it possible that there may be some zone within our Universe that is younger than Earth? 

Just saw this today and thought of this conversation.  Also this.

Is anyone familiar with the term puddle thinking?  This is a lovely puddle we're in.

 If we just looked at time dilation alone the Universe is six times bigger then what we see.

+1. Had to look it up. Yes, exactly right. Thanks for bringing Douglas Adams into this thread.

Along those lines, here's an interesting and slightly disturbing observation:

"...relatively speaking temperatures have been remarkably stable. It could be suggested that the development of the modern world has been a result of this benign situation. A stable climate was needed for human civilisation to develop..."

Basically, you need stable seasons to develop argiculture, which leads to chess and computers and so on. It's not a coincidence that those of us on this thread are living during a very unusual period of Earth's history...this period contains the majority of all humans that have ever lived simply because it's so hospitable for us.

It's not that the Earth was suddenly tuned for human civilization, though, it's just an atypical period of the Earth's history. If you chose a million people at random and lined them up by height, you'd find some unusually short and tall people and either end. They'd be both unusual and completely expected. Just as a very large or infinite number of Universes (through the multiverse or infinitely occilating Universe) will contain apparently unusual universes like our own.

I heard another interesting explanation today. What if black holes spawn other universes? This would mean that the Universes that had the most black holes (rather than none at all, or just a few supermassive ones) would have the most offspring universe. Even though they might be improbable to occur through chance, the universes where matter was distributed into galaxies with black holes at the center would tend to spread, much like a rare adaptive mutation.

There's another explanation that I'm partial to: the Simulation Hypothesis. Why is the speed of light what it is? Perhaps we're all inside a simulation running inside a "computer" that exists in a Universe where the speed of light is a quadrillion times faster and there are a billion dimensions. Compared to their "real" universe, our simulation is relatively limited and slow. And why is it that you can't know both the position and motion of a particle? I'm thinking its that the data isn't stored in the simulation for optimization purposes, but just generated on the fly when observations are made.

All I know for sure is that if there is some sort of intelligent Creator or meta-Creator, they are so far outside our comprehension that it's impossible to ascribe any kind of human motivation to them. People who think that God's goal was humanity are indulging in puddle thinking, pure and simple.

Rev, you said:

<>"Scientists tell us that the distance from the Hubble telescope to the event horizon (edge of the Universe) is 13.73 billion light years. In all directions. They also tell us the Universe is 13.7 billion years old. So the earth is in the center.. . ."<>

One has to be carefull about what he says. . . depemding on the audience. . .

No good scientist can ascertain that that cipher of 13.73 billion applies IN ALL DIRECTIONS

Do not you see that the line of sight of the Hubble telescope ACTS AS A RADIUS IN A SPHERE. . .so the longest it can see in any direction is that13.7. . .

Is that enough proof to say that we are in the center of the Universe?

With their mpressive ciphers, if they do not speak right, scientists may look rather stupid.

tabor hello.   It is the scientist's that taught me that. .0001% the center.  If we just look at what we do know, that is the facts as they see it today.  Now if you want to talk about other Universe's or parallel Universe's it is speculation.

 There are many theory's on the internet.  But these theory's must be given to the worlds top mathematicians.  Mathematicians are skeptical, they refuse any theory until it can be proven.  They don't even have the math for parallel Universes.  The one's that claim it are betting they are real.

 In 1985 they said they were about to put in the last piece of the big bang puzzle into place.  Many scientist's would have bet their live's on it.  Once in place it upset the entire theory.

 We can not see what is beyond the micro-layer.  And it is the beginning of time,  the first galaxy's, first cepheilds.  The spiral and ellipitial galaxy's formed last in the center of the expanse.

 I tend to believe in other Universe's but it may always be beyond proving.

tabor..Also the micro-wave radiation edge of the universe is at equal distance all around us.  The Universe is icotropic. This means an equal amount of galaxy's and gas, and radiation in every direction.  Front, back, top, bottom, left, right.

Background Microwave Radiation is uniform throughout the universe and no indicator of the amount of mass in any particular direction.

collinsdanielp, Yes it is called black body radiation.  But there are other forms of radiation.  And the stars and galaxy's are very visable.

That point seems to go back to your original then, that we can see an equal distance in all directions, but now you are saying that every direction we look we see approxamately equal amounts of mass.  This does not mean we are the center of the universe.

collinsdanielp..If you read the threads you will find that I did say the Universe is icotropic.  As a sidebar, if we go into the 10th dimension we might see the history of the Universe.  We might be able to see the Universe moving along a path.  The actual center is in our distant past.  Today we have a prefered center.  If you reject the idea that the Universe had a beginning, well that's another debate.  Thanks for your input.

Do you mean isotropic? 

Sorry, I think I spelled it right on the last thread. Typo..