red-shift & the center of the universe?

quote:

---

To make the earth only 6000 years old with the rest of the universe is 13.4 billion years old requires the earth to be moving so close to the speed of light that it is off by only 10^-13.

---

To be fair, there is a pervasive misunderstanding of Genesis here. The earth age is not given there as 6000; this applies only to speech endowed humans; measure the OT Calendar, which starts with Adam, for affirmation. The creation chapter of genesis is the first description of cosmology, but the days referred to in that chapter are not 24-hour earth days, but cosmic days - which are epochs of time. Here, the days are independent of the sunlight; the first 3 days are precedent of the sun's luminosity, which was ignited on the 4th cosmic day. This is scientifically plausable - the sun existed at one time in an embryotic stage w/o emitting light - thus there were no earthly days at one time - when both the earth and its sunstar existed.Having said that, one must be cautious about saying the earth could not be a centre, or better, a beginning point, meaning not in spacial means but in other means, such as being a unique factor in the universe. The latter deems all the universe as a backgrop. This too is scientifically plausable, despite the first impression of the estimated age of the universe and ther space bodies compared to that of the earth. An analogy:Imagine the earth as a marble with a diameter of 1 mile, and that it is 1 year old. It is surrounded by other, seemingly bigger and older marbles. The nearest measurable marbles are 100 miles in diameter and 100 years old: all being based on the estimated time factor. These are clearly bigger and older than the earth. But from who's pov? Now imagine measuring those surrounding marbles from a point outside the universe, or from a very great distance away.We will see those outer marbles traveling slowly in the first month of their moving away from the earth and reaching a distance of 5 miles; we see this being compounded in its accelaration as it moves further away from the earth, getting nearer towards the speed of light, and their distance is 10,000 miles from the earth in the second month; eventually reaching billions of miles and then light years.The question arises, but the stars are not moving at such speeds, nearing that of light. How do we know that? If we can see that far, we may see it does move at near light speed after a certain distance treshold - because of the acceleration factor, or subsequent to the speed of space expansion at increasingly accelerated speeds. Now if we estimate the age of the earth to be 5 B years, then the speed of a star travelling at speeds nearing light would not violate the earth preceding the stars out there. In the 2nd billionth year, that star could well be trillions of miles away, by virtue of its greater velosity. In the latter case, we would see that star as older than the earth, because of its estimated distance - but this will not be the case when we factor its accellerated velosity.If a dish was full of marbles, and all but one started to move away, at ever accelerating velosities, then their distance would not be the correct aging factor - by virtue of the variable velosities factoring. Here, we would have to know the ratio of the accelerating velosities to measure the time factors. This says that after a certain treshold, the outermost stars are moving away at near light velosity, in contrast to the stars in a closer treshold. here, the outermost stars would be traveling away from earth at near light distance - compared to almost a relative immobile earth. here, the light spectrum measurements would only tell us that star is moving away from earth at a very great distance: if that star is moving away from us at near light velosity - it's size and age measurements based on that velosity would become an incorrect deduction if it is used to scale either the age or the size of that star; yet this would be the reading from the light spectrum.

Your post betrays that you haven’t read all the factors. You’ve not looked hard enough. The Universe started at all points. It [the Universe] is expanding from all original points, e.g., all BB original points. There wasn’t even an outside. I’m not sure what this means, but if I am mistaking your position and I should have read your position to be that all points in the Universe are the center of the Universe I retract this post. But that would be an abuse of the intuitive meaning of the word center and in need of a more thorough explanation. If by “we” you mean the Universe itself, then “we” are everywhere within that expanded point.AbE: You are on the surface of a non-rotating, expanding sphere; where is the center? If you point down you are making the same mistake you make with your view of the Universe as a whole.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

Obviously, that is an anomoly; there is nothing which does not have a centre.

---

Incorrect. What is the "center" of the surface of a sphere? No, not the center of the sphere...the center of the surface. What is the center of the surface of a sphere? The question makes no sense because there is no boundary to the surface.

quote:

---

Can you think of any reason why one would not be able to see the centre?

---

I can think of plenty. I am a mathematician, after all. Here's a simple one: If we define "center" as "a point equidistant from all points on the boundary," then any object that has no boundary has no center.

quote:

---

My reading of all the factors says, we are in, and are, the centre.

---

But the math contradicts you. The universe is not bounded, thus it cannot have a "center" as defined above.But, let's have a different definition of "center." Let's define it as the point such that all other points are receding away from it. Even with that definition, the universe has no center: All points are receding from all other points. Since this would make every point the "center," the definition is therefore meaningless.

quote:

---

It is expanding from a certain original point, eg: the BB original point.

---

No, that isn't what the math says. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.

quote:

---

If we imagine this first point to be a marble

---

Why on earth would we do that?

quote:

---

I see no aternative to this. The universe started at some point.

---

Indeed. But what makes you think you understand the geometry of the universe? You haven't been able to figure out the geometry of an object without a center and that's trivial.

quote:

---

Basically, we are now asking, where is the centre of the centre; a cyclical question.

---

Indeed. Do you not see why your claim that we are in the center is incorrect? The universe doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

The BB beginning is the centre

---

Incorrect. There is no center.

quote:

---

To be fair, there is a pervasive misunderstanding of Genesis here. The earth age is not given there as 6000

---

Incorrect. It is quite literally given there as just under 6000 years, though you have to do the math for yourself:If you look at Genesis 5, it counts up the generations from Adam to Noah of 956 years.Genesis 8 says that Noah was 601 when the flood was over (1557 years total).Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham or 1849 total).Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (2354 years).1 Kings 6 says that the building of the Temple of Solomon was begun 480 years after the Exodus (2834 years).It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the earth is 5794 years old.

quote:

---

this applies only to speech endowed humans

---

There is no mention of speech as a defining characteristic of chronology. Instead, Genesis clearly states that humans were created on the sixth, literal day and that Adam was the first. Thus, by simply adding up the specific chronologies listed in the Old Testament, we get an age from Adam to Solomon's Temple with the universe being created five literal, 24-hour days before that.

quote:

---

the sun existed at one time in an embryotic stage w/o emitting light

---

Incorrect. Jupiter is not a sun and yet it emits light. The earth isn't even made of gas and it emits light.

quote:

---

Having said that, one must be cautious about saying the earth could not be a centre

---

Well, of course we're careful. We did the math and the math shows that it isn't the center. The universe has no center.

quote:

---

Now if we estimate the age of the earth to be 5 B years, then the speed of a star travelling at speeds nearing light would not violate the earth preceding the stars out there. In the 2nd billionth year, that star could well be trillions of miles away, by virtue of its greater velosity.

---

Huh? You're having the stars moving closer and then suddenly reversing and receding back from whence they came? What stopped them? What made them reverse?But if you're having them go in one direction, your scenario requires them moving faster than the speed of light, which cannot be done.The math clearly indicates that there is no center to the universe.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

The Universe started at all points.

---

No dif whatsoever. Focus on the part that says 'the universe began'. If it started at all points, those also represent a point, if not in its immediate event, then in its triggering.Now we really don't know much about origins of any kind or any level. But IMHO, if the universe began at many points, it inclines to a behind-the-scene mechanism which would have to trigger it to do so, even more than if it began with just one point, as an anomoly, by itself or by a freak accident. Because it infers an intergration. Yes/no?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

None of that was a humble opinion.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I'm not a mathematician, but not bad at it. I think the preamble must be given first, when talking universe. So here, my preamble of which universe is, that the universe is FINITE.This means, correct me if I'm wrong, all definitions and constructionism must allign with that factor. This says, the outer, circumferential layer of the universe would have a centre.The rest of your maths is based on a premise the universe has no boundaries: this violates the finite premise. Don't you mean, we are not yet able to discern the boundaries, but that it does/must exist?

I should correct myself. Only my part was humble. Do you unhumbly disagree that many points acting in concert infers an intergratiion?

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

I think the preamble must be given first, when talking universe.

---

That's not science. That's religion. We don't assume it. We conclude it.

quote:

---

So here, my preamble of which universe is, that the universe is FINITE.

---

Indeed, but that doesn't mean there is a center. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it has no center.

quote:

---

This means, correct me if I'm wrong, all definitions and constructionism must allign with that factor.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:

---

This says, the outer, circumferential layer of the universe would have a centre.

---

Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it has no center.

quote:

---

The rest of your maths is based on a premise the universe has no boundaries

---

Incorrect. We conclude the universe is finite, we do not assume it.

quote:

---

this violates the finite premise.

---

Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it has no center.

quote:

---

Don't you mean, we are not yet able to discern the boundaries, but that it does/must exist?

---

No. I mean it has no boundary.You do understand the difference between finite/infinite and bounded/unbounded? No, not the difference between finite and infinite and then, as a completely separate set, the difference between bounded and unbounded. I mean the difference between the concept of infinity and the concept of boundedness."Boundedness" refers to the ability to draw a ball around a point and have it contain both points within and without the set. A point that can have a ball drawn around it such that all points within the ball are in the set is considered in the "interior." A point that can have a ball drawn around it such that none of the points within the ball are in the set is considered to be in the "exterior." A point that cannot have a ball drawn around it without it containing both points in the interior and points in the exterior is considered to be in the "boundary."You will note that this doesn't refer to a set being finite or infinite. It only has to do with being able to define a metric. The surface of a sphere is finite, but it has no boundary and thus is unbounded.The universe does not have a boundary. It is, however, only so big.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

IamJoseph writes:

quote:

---

If it started at all points, those also represent a point

---

Incorrect. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space.The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.

quote:

---

But IMHO, if the universe began at many points, it inclines to a behind-the-scene mechanism which would have to trigger it to do so

---

Why?

quote:

---

Because it infers an intergration. Yes/no?

---

No.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

But, let's have a different definition of "center." Let's define it as the point such that all other points are receding away from it. Even with that definition, the universe has no center: All points are receding from all other points. Since this would make every point the "center," the definition is therefore meaningless.

---

'Receding away from it' violates the finite premise. It says there were other points to recede from. This is not what I inferred.

quote:

---

The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space. The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.

---

I certainly agree with the first clause and the second one. This says there was a beginning, that all of the universe began from that point, and there was nothing else outside of that point. It defines Finite.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we imagine this first point to be a marble
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Why on earth would we do that?

---

All of science does that. We assume, then if it works, we presume. Then someone else knocks it down. Science is transitory.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see no aternative to this. The universe started at some point.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Indeed. But what makes you think you understand the geometry of the universe? You haven't been able to figure out the geometry of an object without a center and that's trivial.

---

In a finite universe, everything must have a centre. This does not depend on its discerning. Only 5000 years ago, the Babylonians never knew of Egypt.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, we are now asking, where is the centre of the centre; a cyclical question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Indeed. Do you not see why your claim that we are in the center is incorrect? The universe doesn't have a center.

---

What is your definition of a boundaryless universe, and does it allign with a finite universe? We cannot identify the BB, yet we hold it to be correct. This says the same applies to a boundary. One cannot have a beginning w/o an end, and in a finite realm, everything within it is also finite.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BB beginning is the centre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. There is no center.

---

How do you know that? What is the basis of this premise?

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, there is a pervasive misunderstanding of Genesis here. The earth age is not given there as 6000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. It is quite literally given there as just under 6000 years, though you have to do the math for yourself:

​

If you look at Genesis 5, it counts up the generations from Adam to Noah of 956 years.

​

Genesis 8 says that Noah was 601 when the flood was over (1557 years total).

​

Genesis 11 has the generations of Noah to Abraham (292 years from the end of the flood to Abraham or 1849 total).

​

Genesis 12 tells us Abraham was 75 when god made his covenant with him (1924 years)

​

Galatians 3 says that the Exodus happened 430 years after the covenant (2354 years).

​

1 Kings 6 says that the building of the Temple of Solomon was begun 480 years after the Exodus (2834 years).

​

It is generally considered that the Temple of Solomon was begun in 956 BCE so this means that the earth is 5794 years old.

---

You started right - the calender begins with Adam's generation, meaning with Adam, meaning not before. The OT New year begins with the birth of Adam, and all accounting adds up correctly. But the creation days are not included in that accounting. My point.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this applies only to speech endowed humans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

There is no mention of speech as a defining characteristic of chronology. Instead, Genesis clearly states that humans were created on the sixth, literal day and that Adam was the first. Thus, by simply adding up the specific chronologies listed in the Old Testament, we get an age from Adam to Solomon's Temple with the universe being created five literal, 24-hour days before that.

---

Genesis does not give any description of how man was blessed/endowed to make him the dominant species. The oral law, which has equal status as the written, says that. And this is vindicated: speech is the only unique factor seperating humans from all else.Genesis says humans were created in the 6th cosmic, not literal, day. You have disregarded that the sun's luminosity does not impact on these creation days, so the 24 hour day is not applicable.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the sun existed at one time in an embryotic stage w/o emitting light
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Incorrect. Jupiter is not a sun and yet it emits light. The earth isn't even made of gas and it emits light.

---

No impact: Jupiter does not predate the sun. There was a time when the sun's luminosity had not yet occured, while the sun was existant. The creation days fall into that category.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having said that, one must be cautious about saying the earth could not be a centre
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Well, of course we're careful. We did the math and the math shows that it isn't the center. The universe has no center.

---

The earth is the centre of life in the known universe, possessing many factors not seen elsewhere; one can make an analogy with the earth's properties clearly catering to life in an anticipatory mode. Here, the metaphor, 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' applies.Now with regard to imperical factors, such as the universe geometry, we cannot say there is no centre or no boundaries - this requires a defined mapping of both the beginning and end points. Else a piece of string has no centre - but it does! The geometry theoroms agree with this premise: one must have certain known factors before one can conclude the unknown factors. Example: we cannot fathom the centre of a spheare w/o the given data of its radius or some other factors; we cannot fathom the area of a 2-D circle w/o at least two given factors.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now if we estimate the age of the earth to be 5 B years, then the speed of a star travelling at speeds nearing light would not violate the earth preceding the stars out there. In the 2nd billionth year, that star could well be trillions of miles away, by virtue of its greater velosity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? You're having the stars moving closer and then suddenly reversing and receding back from whence they came? What stopped them? What made them reverse?

---

Based on the hypothesis of its acceleration, it would expand at speeds which would not correlate with our measurements of earthly times. We end up having different velosities, which in turn impact on light spectrum readouts. Here, far does not mean time equivalence, because a greater velosity would cover more time than what we would encompass in a less time frequency. However, like many science theories in the past, the light shift theory would suffice for our current limited requirements.

quote:

---

But if you're having them go in one direction, your scenario requires them moving faster than the speed of light, which cannot be done.

---

I said nearing light velosity, and this is sufficient to cause a variation of time based on light spectrum shift sighting.

quote:

---

The math clearly indicates that there is no center to the universe.

---

That clearly violates the finite premise.

quote:

---

The Big Bang happened everywhere at once.

---

And there was no where or everwhere or space. I undertsand this, and I am not contradicting it. I understand that even the word, 'point' is irrelevent here. But we cannot fathom such a scenario, thus we make mataphoric descriptions as bridges between the knowable and unknowable.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But IMHO, if the universe began at many points, it inclines to a behind-the-scene mechanism which would have to trigger it to do so
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Why?

---

An intergration can be defined, in connection with this debate, as thus:If we locate a key on Jupiter, we cannot conclude this is absolute proof of intelligent life - because it could have occured by accident over billions of years. However, if we also find a lock which exactly fits that key - we can rightly conclude it is not an accident. IOW, the key and lock have a connective factor, and this signifies an intergration, which does not allign with an accident but a purposeful and intentional occurence. You have to draw the lines of acceptable differentials?Now if all points started the universe, it means all those points are acting in concert, as opposed exact accidents occuring simultainiously [the key-lock analogy]. Here, one causes a slight of hand casino science by offering a premise the points are irrelevent because there was either not one point, no points or many points. But my premise is limited to the factor of two or more than one connected occurences signifies an intergration, and this in turn negates an accident or random occurence. Else all definitions loose their meaning - thus it is casino science and maths, and goes into a circular mode - the proof it is the wrong path.

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it infers an intergration. Yes/no?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

No.

---

First you must define the difference between an accident and what is not so. My premise is an intergration is the antithesis of an accident.

It is in no way humble to invent a behind-the-scenes mechanism for the Universe based on ones opinion.On the other hand it is not my opinion that a 3-D marble model of the Universe is inadequate to the task given it.Nor is it my opinion that the surface of a sphere is without center or bound; therefore, a more adequate model. Are raindrops acting in concert when they all fall in the same direction?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

IamJoseph responds to me:

quote:

---

'Receding away from it' violates the finite premise.

---

Incorrect. As you have no doubt heard, imagine the universe a balloon. If you blow air into the balloon, the surface expands, all points receding away from all others.And even though the surface of the balloon is finite, it has no center.

quote:

---

This says there was a beginning, that all of the universe began from that point, and there was nothing else outside of that point. It defines Finite.

---

Incorrect. You are again confusing "infinite" with "unbounded." The two are not connected. You can have:Bounded, infinite sets (the set of all numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive)
Unbounded, infinite sets (the set of all numbers between 0 and 1, exclusive)
Bounded, finite sets (the surface of a square)
Unbounded, finite sets (the surface of a sphere)[referring to considering the universe to be a marble]

quote:

---

All of science does that.

---

No, it doesn't. The universe is not a sphere.

quote:

---

In a finite universe, everything must have a centre.

---

Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center. You have had this pointed out to you at least half a dozen times. Are you doing to actually acknowledge it or do we need to have another turn on the merry-go-round?

quote:

---

What is your definition of a boundaryless universe

---

A universe without a boundary, of course. You do know what a boundary is, yes? To have a boundary, you must have an exterior point. But there are no exterior points. Thus, the universe has no boundary.The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. There is no center.

---

​

How do you know that? What is the basis of this premise?

---

The mathematics tells us so. Because all points are receding from all other points, then the universe cannot have a center.The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

the calender begins with Adam's generation, meaning with Adam, meaning not before.

---

Adam was the first man. The first humans were created on the sixth day. The days in Genesis 1 are literal days. Therefore, the universe was created five days before the creation of Adam. Since about 6000 years have elapsed since the creation of Adam and now, the Bible quite literally says that the universe is only about 6000 years old.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

Genesis does not give any description of how man was blessed/endowed to make him the dominant species.

---

Um, it certainly does. God simply decrees it.However, he doesn't decree it by giving Adam speech nor does he make any deal out of Adam having speech. After all, the serpent could talk, too.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

Genesis says humans were created in the 6th cosmic, not literal, day.

---

Incorrect. Genesis says humans were created on the sixth literal day. That's what the phrase "evening and morning" means: A literal, 24-hour day.If you're going to say that the days aren't literal days, then you have even bigger problems: You have plants, which depend upon the sun for life, being created long before the sun was there to feed them. You have flowering plants, which depend upon insects for life, being created long before the insects were there to pollinate them. Ignoring the blatant contradictions to the historical record on the order of when things appeared, the only way the Biblical chronology could possibly result in what we see is for the days to be quite brief...shorter than length of time it takes a plant to die for lack of sunlight, certainly less than a year.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

No impact: Jupiter does not predate the sun.

---

They're about the same age, but you're missing the point: You said that the sun existed without emitting light. That's not true. The nebula from which the solar system formed emitted light before the sun started fusing. Jupiter is not big enough to fuse, so it isn't a star...but it still emits light.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

The earth is the centre of life in the known universe

---

Assuming that to be true, what does that have to do with anything?Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

one can make an analogy with the earth's properties clearly catering to life in an anticipatory mode.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Life has changed the earth to make it more amenable to life. There didn't used to be all this oxygen in the atmosphere, for example. And then, there didn't used to be this little oxygen in the atmosphere. Life changed the structure of the atmosphere both times and in so doing, completely changed the way life existed.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

we cannot say there is no centre or no boundaries

---

We certainly can. That's what the math says.

quote:

---

this requires a defined mapping of both the beginning and end points.

---

Incorrect. Since the universe has no boundary, there are no "beginning" or "end points."The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

Else a piece of string has no centre - but it does!

---

Indeed. And if the universe were akin to a piece of string, it would have one. But it isn't, so it doesn't.The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

one must have certain known factors before one can conclude the unknown factors.

---

Indeed. And it is because we have made measurements of the universe that we conclude that it has no center. All points in the universe are receding from all others. Thus, there is no center.The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

Based on the hypothesis of its acceleration, it would expand at speeds which would not correlate with our measurements of earthly times.

---

Huh? You do know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, yes?Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

However, like many science theories in the past, the light shift theory would suffice for our current limited requirements.

---

Ahem. The speed of light is a constant. Even though the universe is expanding, the speed of light has not changed. This is a bit of a problem with regard to observation of the universe: Because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, there will come a point when the light from other galaxies will not be visible because we will always be further away than what the light can traverse.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

I said nearing light velosity, and this is sufficient to cause a variation of time based on light spectrum shift sighting.

---

Incorrect. It doesn't matter how fast you are going. The Lorentz transformations are always in effect. For the earth to experience a time dilation sufficient for it to be 6000 years old while the rest of the universe is about 13.7 billion would require it moving so close to the speed of light that it would differ from it only by one part in 10^13...and that would tear the earth apart and decompose it into photons.Oh, and the surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The math clearly indicates that there is no center to the universe.

---

​

That clearly violates the finite premise.

---

Incorrect. The surface of a sphere is finite and yet it doesn't have a center.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Are raindrops acting in concert when they all fall in the same direction?

---

Yes. Even if each one is differentially individualistic. In the event of falling to the earth as raindrops, these are all acting in concert. And it does mean a hovering behind the scene mechanism applies. What alternative?

quote:

---

It is in no way humble to invent a behind-the-scenes mechanism for the Universe based on ones opinion.

---

I gave reasonings, as opposed just saying this is my opnion, or my invention. One can say an event which appears complex can be a random accident. One can even say, this can be repeated a trillion times and still it signifies a random accident. I grant you that. But is there if a common denominitor underlying all those events - the accident premise becomes non-science and non-mathematical. I gave an analogy of a lock and key. It is not just my opinion or my invention.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.