The Center of this Universe

[juvenissun]

The Milky Way is the center of the universe. Agree? Because we can see 13+ billion light-years distance toward any direction.

If so, this is the place where the Big Bang started. does it have a theological meaning?

 

[Nathan45]

The Milky Way is the center of the universe. Agree? Because we can see 13+ billion light-years distance toward any direction.

If so, this is the place where the Big Bang started. does it have a theological meaning?

the milky way is not the center of the universe, it is the center of the visible universe.

The universe has no center in that there is no place you can point to in the sky and say "the big bang happened there". On an intergalactic scale everything is moving away from everything else at a rate determined by distance. There is no preferred frame of reference, if you were in another galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see just as much universe expanding away from you in exactly the same pattern.

The farther away another galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us.

Presumably, some galaxies are so far away that they are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us, so that they cannot be seen. ( we simply have to infer this from the pattern because obviously these galaxies arn't visible, and note that it is possible to go faster than the speed of light in this case because it's the actual universe that's expanding not just movement )

Also, it's worth noting that a lot of the very far away galaxies we see are farther away than 13 billion light years, as the light was emitted when they were much closer to us than they are now.

anyways...

let me try to draw it out for you:

Imagine that the universe is a series of dots, like this, expanding infinitely in any direction: ( imagine this dot matrix of mine expands infinitely in every direction, and that's representative of the universe)

..........
..........
..........
..........

Now, the big bang causes cosmic inflation, which means that given time, the dots will spread out:

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Note that there is no preferred center, this dot pattern of mine could extend infinitely and it would still work out. Galaxies are simply moving away from eachother at speeds directly related to their distance away.

 

[rhaegar]

There is no centre of the universe, just as the surface of a sphere has no centre.

 

[juvenissun]

the milky way is not the center of the universe, it is the center of the visible universe.

The universe has no center in that there is no place you can point to in the sky and say "the big bang happened there". On an intergalactic scale everything is moving away from everything else at a rate determined by distance. There is no preferred frame of reference, if you were in another galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see just as much universe expanding away from you in exactly the same pattern.

OK. Thanks. I have heard what you said many times. But I still don't get it.

So everywhere in the universe IS "A" center of the visible universe. This is what I could not comprehend. Even everything is flying away from everything else, should there still be A center, instead of infinite number of centers? The dots-on-balloon example is good to illustrate the concept of relative separation, but is not good enough to illustrate the actual expansion in 3D.

If we look toward one direction and see things 13 billion light-years away. And there is another galaxy located 5 billion light-years away from us along the same direction. How far can that galaxy see on the same direction? I guess you would say: 13 billion light-years. If so, why don't we see 15, or 16 billion light-years distance toward the same direction?

Assume we have beads packed in a ball and the the ball exploded. Where would the internal beads go? They could not go toward the center of the ball because there is no space there. Someone told me that the space is "added" to the interior of the expansion. But even so, the question in the OP still exist.

I think the factor of time MUST BE critical. But I don't know how would that solve the problem in the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

There is no centre of the universe, just as the surface of a sphere has no centre.

Yes, but it has two opposite sides along any direction.

 

[Assyrian]

If we look toward one direction and see things 13 billion light-years away. And there is another galaxy located 5 billion light-years away from us along the same direction. How far can that galaxy see on the same direction? I guess you would say: 13 billion light-years. If so, why don't we see 15, or 16 billion light-years distance toward the same direction?

Here's an analogy for you, you climb a mountain and you see the the world spread out in a circle around you for a hundred miles in every direction. It does not mean you live at the centre of a flat(ish) circular disk. If you climbed another mountain you would see yourself at the centre of another hundred mile radius disk. From your first mountain, your see the second mountain on the horizon, you know from it you could see another hundred miles. But even though you know ther is a further horizon, you still only see a hundred miles from your mountain.

But with the universe, the reason we do not see further is not bad eyesight, it is time. You ask how far could we see from the galaxy five billion light years away? Well if we could get a really really good telescope and read one of their astronomy books, or catch a Sky At Night broadcast on their equivalent of television, how far would they see? Only 8.7 billion light years. Because we are observing a galaxy not only five billion light years away, but five billion light years ago when the universe only had a radius of 8.7 billion light years. Of course the milky way they saw was nearer to them than they are to us now, but they still see a section of the universe we can't.

Yes, but it has two opposite sides along any direction.

Isn't it still an open question whether you would loop around on yourself if you kept travelling across the universe?





An why is a Beatle song playing in my head....
♪♪ Nothing's gonna change my world ♪♪

 

[Tinker Grey]

But with the universe, the reason we do not see further is not bad eyesight, it is time. You ask how far could we see from the galaxy five billion light years away? Well if we could get a really really good telescope and read one of their astronomy books, or catch a Sky At Night broadcast on their equivalent of television, how far would they see? Only 8.7 billion light years. Because we are observing a galaxy not only five billion light years away, but five billion light years ago when the universe only had a radius of 8.7 billion light years. Of course the milky way they saw was nearer to them than they are to us now, but they still see a section of the universe we can't.

This would be true if we could be at that other galaxy as we see it now since, as you say, we see it as it was 8.7 bya. That is, there is a difference between what we see now and the way that other Galaxy actually is now.

So if we were able to instantaneously travel to that Galaxy as it is now, then we should be able to see 13.5 billion years in any direction. Correct?

 

[Terral]

Hi Juvenissun and Nathan:

The Milky Way is the center of the universe. Agree? Because we can see 13+ billion light-years distance toward any direction.

If so, this is the place where the Big Bang started. does it have a theological meaning?

I agree with your hypothesis, but not for any claims, evidence and conclusions offered in your Opening Post. :0) Nobody can see 13 billion light years away, but we can see light that has traveled to earth from distant galaxies some 13 billion years ago. Nathan is a thinker and has taken time to think these things through a bit, so please allow me to speak to his points in Post #2:

the milky way is not the center of the universe, it is the center of the visible universe.

You appear to be in agreement with Juvenissun by saying the Milky Way Galaxy “is the center of the visible universe,” but then discredit yourself by saying,

The universe has no center in that there is no place you can point to in the sky and say "the big bang happened there."

Either this Milky Way Galaxy is somewhere near the center of the universe, OR it is not. Since both of you are working with limited scientific resources, then supporting your hypothesis either way will be quite difficult indeed. Scripture gives ‘the answer’ on ‘where’ the center of the universe can be located, which is in the ‘expanse/firmament’ of Genesis 1:8 also known as ‘heaven’ (diagram = in red).That is where the waters above the expanse (heavens) and the waters below the expanse (earth) were joined back together to beget “heaven” in the first place. :0) The question then centers around ‘where’ in the visible universe a ‘center’ might also be found that corresponds to that heavenly center.

On an intergalactic scale everything is moving away from everything else at a rate determined by distance. There is no preferred frame of reference, if you were in another galaxy 5 billion light years away, you would see just as much universe expanding away from you in exactly the same pattern.

Your reasoning has a definite flaw. :0) Your first problem is that the “Big Bang Theory Of Creation Is A MYTH” (my thread). A previously existing perfect and mature universe (Gen. 1:1 = ‘eth Erets) was DESTROYED in Genesis 1:2 where our Big Bang originates and where the waters above the expanse and the waters below the expanses came to exist. The heavens above heaven (diagram = see Fig. 2) and the earth (this universe) below heaven are to be summed up IN Christ Jesus (Eph. 1:9-10), which tells us that New Jerusalem above (she is our mother), where Christ’s “Heavenly Kingdom” (2Tim. 4:18) contains that ‘administration’ (Eph. 3:9), is the true geographical center of this currently broken Adamic Universe (diagram = horizontal “Christ’s Mystery&#8221. Next, you are looking at a ‘Tabernacle Form’ of God, The Word and This Creation (diagram and diagram), when in truth this universe is held together IN Christ Jesus (F+S+HS) very much like this diagram shows:

Do you see the problem? :0) This universe (heavens, heaven and earth) is contained IN Christ like the yoke of the egg, while Christ Jesus (F+S+HS) is the white of the egg. Therefore, this Adamic Universe ‘definitely’ has a ‘center’ like the yoke of every egg has a center; even if that yoke is currently ‘broken’ into the three witnesses (like The Word = 1Jn 5:7-8) of heavens, heaven and earth.

Next problem: Everything in the visible universe is not going away from every other part and at different rates determined by distance. This illusion appears to be accurate, because this Milky Way Galaxy is indeed near the center of the visible universe. We know our galaxy is somewhere near the center of the Universe, because God chose this speck of dust to begin forming life ‘and’ His ‘son of God’ that represents this entire universe in one ‘man’ and that man is Adam. Gen. 2:7. Adam represents the blue sphere (heavens, heaven and earth) in the same exact way that Christ represents the red sphere (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) from God’s sacrifice of “The Word.” After all, God could not send His Perfect “Word” into this broken ‘triune’ universe, until He was pierced and sacrificed into becoming the Father (spirit), Son (blood) and Holy Spirit (water witness = diagram). That means Christ (F+S+HS) became “The Light” (Gen. 1:3), before God ever sent Him into this universe in the first place (John 1:4-9). The reason we know for certain that this Milky Way Galaxy ‘and’ our local planet Earth represent the ‘center’ of the visible universe is because the “True Tabernacle” above (Heb. 8:1+6*) is the geographic center of the heavens, heaven and earth ‘and’ the “Tabernacle of David” (Acts 15:16-18 = Tabernacle of Adam = diagram on left) is the ‘copy*’ of that Heavenly Tabernacle.

The farther away another galaxy is, the faster it is moving away from us.

Two galaxies on the same side of the expanding universe are traveling in the same relative direction, even though their radius lines are gradually separated to show them moving away from each other. The speed at which those two galaxies are traveling away from one another is far less than the speed both are traveling away from this Milky Way Galaxy. Suppose you pick a point on the edge of the expanding universe on the far side of these two galaxies about 15 billion light years away. Our two galaxies are approaching that point at great speeds, but is our galaxy moving towards or away from that stationary point? :0) That would depend on if our galaxy is in the same quadrant of the universe, OR if we are positioned on the far side of the center headed very much in the opposite direction. We know the universe is ‘temporal’ and nowhere near infinite, because by definition an infinite universe cannot possibly ‘expand’ nor ‘contract.’ An infinite universe would have nowhere to enlarge and must contract equally within the same infinite body. :0) Therefore, a finite universe ‘must’ by definition have a center and that place just happens to be the copy of the True Tabernacle right here in the Middle East (Gen. 15:18).

Presumably, some galaxies are so far away that they are moving faster than the speed of light relative to us, so that they cannot be seen.

Your summation is 100 percent correct. The light from stars born some 13 billion light years away today will not even reach this earth for another 13 billion years. :0) Likewise, a star to collapse upon itself today only 2 million light years away will remain visible to our telescopes for another 2 million years. At least, that would be the case except for the fact that God is going to remake everything (like Rev. 21:1+) again and again and again throughout the ‘ages to come’ (Eph. 2:7). The question then remains about whether people on this planet will even see the star light from distant stars displaying a blue-shift quality on their return to the center of the universe, so God can once again be ‘all in all’ (1Cor. 15:28) like He was in the beginning (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1 = diagram). The answer is ‘Yes,’ because God will snap His fingers and billions of years will pass, even though to us this will seem like the twinkling of an eye (like 1Cor 15:51-53). :0)

(we simply have to infer this from the pattern because obviously these galaxies aren't visible, and note that it is possible to go faster than the speed of light in this case because it's the actual universe that's expanding not just movement).

We agree. Our observations of the universe include traveling back in time to see the way galaxies appeared billions of years ago. The light from galaxies father away have yet to reach earth to become part of our Relative (heh) calculations. :0)

Also, it's worth noting that a lot of the very far away galaxies we see are farther away than 13 billion light years, as the light was emitted when they were much closer to us than they are now.

We agree again. These same galaxies might have a very different appearance today than they did billions of years ago.

anyways... let me try to draw it out for you:

Imagine that the universe is a series of dots, like this, expanding infinitely in any direction: ( imagine this dot matrix of mine expands infinitely in every direction, and that's representative of the universe)

..........
..........
..........
..........

Now, the big bang causes cosmic inflation, which means that given time, the dots will spread out:

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

Not exactly. The original ‘eth Erets (The Earth) creation of Genesis 1:1 was ONE THING and that one thing was ADAM. What you see in the cosmos is the remnant of his currently broken BODY (Eve half), that we know as the visible universe. The dots from your first illustration represent Adam’s broken body very near the time that Creation was made void and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Gen. 1:2. The deep is the last place that the heavens and earth touched with the ‘destruction’ of ‘eth Erets, and the first place they overlapped when ‘heaven’ was called to exist. The deep of your spirit and body is the place where your soul joins both together, or the place where the two seas (spiritual waters and physical waters) meet. All the galaxies in this universe were closer together some 13 billion years ago (your first illustration) and are separated by more space today (your last illustration), which in NO WAY begins to describe the perfect/mature ‘eth Erets of Genesis 1:1 ‘before’ your Big Bang.

Note that there is no preferred center, this dot pattern of mine could extend infinitely and it would still work out. Galaxies are simply moving away from each other at speeds directly related to their distance away.

No sir. Since this universe definitely has AN END, then extending anything ‘infinitely’ has no place in your descriptions whatsoever. Anything temporal is a drop of water to anything that is infinite by definition.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Nathan45]

OK. Thanks. I have heard what you said many times. But I still don't get it.

So everywhere in the universe IS "A" center of the visible universe. This is what I could not comprehend. Even everything is flying away from everything else, should there still be A center, instead of infinite number of centers?

No, because you can only see a limited distance. I like assyrian's mountain analogy.

For all we know, the universe might have an end somewhere, but we can't see far enough into the distance to see the end, because how far we can see is limited by the amount of time that has ocurred since the big bang and the speed of light.

To say the milky way is the center of the universe is like standing in the middle of the ocean and saying your boat is the center of the ocean, because you can see equal distance in all directions.

Furthermore, the direction the universe is expanding in is not a clue as to where the center of the universe is located at: it's expanding equally in all directions, proportional to the distance. The expansion pattern would look the same no matter where you were in the universe.

The dots-on-balloon example is good to illustrate the concept of relative separation, but is not good enough to illustrate the actual expansion in 3D.

It's perfectly adequate. relative separation can occur in 3d just as well as in 2d.

If we look toward one direction and see things 13 billion light-years away. And there is another galaxy located 5 billion light-years away from us along the same direction. How far can that galaxy see on the same direction? I guess you would say: 13 billion light-years.

If so, why don't we see 15, or 16 billion light-years distance toward the same direction?

because we can't see that far, the light hasn't had time to reach us, but it has had enough time to reach the galaxy 5 billion light years away.

( this is ignoring the fact that the universe isn't exactly 13 billion light years in radius, since the wavelength of the light over long distances expands with the universe, and the objects we're seeing have long since moved farther away )

Assume we have beads packed in a ball and the the ball exploded. Where would the internal beads go? They could not go toward the center of the ball because there is no space there.

The big bang is not really like an explosion. So the "internal beads" don't need to "go" anywhere.

it's an expansion of space-time. Like dots on the surface of a balloon

From the perspective of any particular galaxy, that galaxy is not moving, everything else is expanding away from it, and the speed of the expansion is directly related to the distance away. Just like dots on the surface of a balloon.

 

[Nathan45]

The expansion pattern would look the same no matter where you were in the universe.

and I'm going to quote this again because i think this is the key sticking point.

the expansion pattern would look the same no matter where you were in the universe. That's why we can't tell where the center is and why most scientists assume there isn't a center.

Basically: things are expanding away proportional to the distance they are away from us. if you actually draw it out on a graph, you'll find that there's no way to tell where the center is from this expansion pattern.

Let me draw my dot diagram again, this time i'll use X's and make some of them red and blue:

XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXOXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXOXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX

Let's say that anyone standing on the blue O's, can only see as far as the red X's and no farther.

Now let's expand it and see what happens:

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X O X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X O X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X

The key point is that there's no way, based on the expansion pattern, to tell where you are on this little graph. Based on the expansion pattern we see, we could easily be at any point in the grid, except near the edge ( if there is an edge ). You can see from my chart that the expansion looks identical no matter which blue dot you are located at.

it's key to understand that the big bang is not really like an explosion, it's an expansion of space. Everything just gets more spread out, it doesn't really "explode", per say.

 

[Terral]

Hi Nathan:

it's key to understand that the big bang is not really like an explosion, it's an expansion of space. Everything just gets more spread out, it doesn't really "explode", per say.

That assertion might sound funny to many scientists describing the Big Bang as an explosion:

University Of Michigan/Big Bang:

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

For you to say that the Big Bang ‘is not really like an explosion’ is really missing the mark, when even NASA scientists use statements like the “Most Powerful Explosion since the Big Bang” (NASA paper). To say the Big Bang is an ‘expansion of space’ explains how the ‘space’ reacted, but says nothing about the nuts and bolts of the actual universe itself. After all, what kind of Big Bang Theory excludes some kind of explosion? :0) Tracing the timeline backwards (Wiki) using General Relativity produces a ‘Singularity’ in what science calls ‘infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.’ These guys also think in ‘infinite’ terms (like Nathan), because they have no concept of the VAST differences between something finite (like this universe) and something truly INFINITE like God or even one ‘son of God’ from God’s Infinite Realm (far left). Therefore, everything that is very large and beyond a specific size or scale is said to be ‘infinite,’ when everything contained in this universe is certainly finite. This is the reason that Scripture says that heaven (Gen. 1:8) and the Highest Heaven (Gen. 1:2) cannot contain God (1Kings 8:27), because our Creator is truly INFINITE. :0) That is the reason that The Almighty sent His Three Witnesses (diagram and diagram = top of Figure 1) from Revelation 1:8. Christ Jesus is the “image of the Invisible God” (Col. 1:15), because everything in the Highest Heaven (Heaven of Genesis 1:1 = diagram) is ‘almost’ infinite.

To say the Big Bang is not even ‘like an explosion' seems a bit of a stretch (heh) to me . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Nathan45]

Terrel, if you would read your source more closely you'd see that it agrees with me:

From what you quoted:

"This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. "

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Terral, you may not realise it but the article you quoted agrees with Nathan.

Hi Nathan:

it's key to understand that the big bang is not really like an explosion, it's an expansion of space. Everything just gets more spread out, it doesn't really "explode", per say.

That assertion might sound funny to many scientists describing the Big Bang as an explosion:

University Of Michigan/Big Bang:

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of theBig Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe

For you to say that the Big Bang ‘is not really like an explosion’ is really missing the mark, when even NASA scientists use statements like the “Most Powerful Explosion since the Big Bang” (NASA paper). To say the Big Bang is an ‘expansion of space’ explains how the ‘space’ reacted, but says nothing about the nuts and bolts of the actual universe itself. After all, what kind of Big Bang Theory excludes some kind of explosion? :0) Tracing the timeline backwards (Wiki) using General Relativity produces a ‘Singularity’ in what science calls ‘infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.’ These guys also think in ‘infinite’ terms (like Nathan), because they have no concept of the VAST differences between something finite (like this universe) and something truly INFINITE like God or even one ‘son of God’ from God’s Infinite Realm (far left). Therefore, everything that is very large and beyond a specific size or scale is said to be ‘infinite,’ when everything contained in this universe is certainly finite. This is the reason that Scripture says that heaven (Gen. 1:8) and the Highest Heaven (Gen. 1:2) cannot contain God (1Kings 8:27), because our Creator is truly INFINITE. :0) That is the reason that The Almighty sent His Three Witnesses (diagram and diagram = top of Figure 1) from Revelation 1:8. Christ Jesus is the “image of the Invisible God” (Col. 1:15), because everything in the Highest Heaven (Heaven of Genesis 1:1 = diagram) is ‘almost’ infinite.

To say the Big Bang is not even ‘like an explosion' seems a bit of a stretch (heh) to me . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

The Wikipedia article you refer to makes the same point.

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

Describing the Big Bang as an explosion is just an analogy and a very limited one at that.

If you google: Big Bang Explosion
The very first link you get is,

Was the Big Bang an Explosion? A look at how the universe was formed
The "Big Bang" is commonly described as an explosion, but this is not really a good analogy. In fact, the universe was created through an expansion of ...
astrophysics.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_universe_and_the_big_bang

 

[shernren]

To misuse a deep analogy: saying that the Big Bang was an explosion is a little bit like saying submarines can swim.

 

[Terral]

Hi Nathan:

Someone is not reading my posts. :0)

Terrel, if you would read your source more closely you'd see that it agrees with me:

From what you quoted:

"This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. "

If you read Post #11 above, I cited and highlighted these comments from paragraph number two ‘and’ provided commentary on the same. Nathan’s original statement says,

it's key to understand that the big bang is not really like an explosion, it's an expansion of space. Everything just gets more spread out, it doesn't really "explode", per say.

University Of Michigan:

THE BIG BANG

One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What existed prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurrence was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

Nathan says, “that the big bang is not really like an explosion, it's an expansion of space” and the source says, "About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang." But somehow these people agree with Nathan. :0) Please stop trying to have it both ways. Reversing the Big Bang Timeline takes all matter in this universe back to a “singularity” (Wiki), which means at all matter in this universe was at some point “one thing.” If you want to insist that the Big Bang is not even like an explosion, then please describe what your Big Bang ‘is like’ if not the “tremendous explosion” that “started the universe.”

The fact is that the Big Bang ‘does’ include a tremendous explosion, but the scientists and I disagree about this marking the ‘creation’ of anything at all. God created the perfect and mature ‘eth-Erets (the Earth) in Genesis 1:1 that was DESTROYED in Genesis 1:2, which beget the “Big Bang” and scattered debris that we can observe in this now broken universe. There is no such thing as any ‘six days of creation.’ Those six days of Genesis 1 are days that God ‘reconstituted’ the galaxy chains, galaxies, suns, planets and moons from the debris of this broken universe that continues to fly apart from the initial EXPLOSION that took place in Genesis 1:2 with the Big Bang. The point is that the spirit and physical matter of the original ‘eth-Erets Singularity Expression will someday return to the source to become restored like Humpty Dumpty, so that God can once again become “all in all.” 1Corinthians 15:28.

Science seems to think that this universe will continue flying apart, when the summing up of all things in the heavens and earth (Eph. 1:9-10) requires these same things to become reunited (married) back together into singularity expressions that existed in the time of Genesis 1:1. Since that original singularity was composed of “incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding” (Wiki), then we are obviously talking about some kind of ‘explosion.’ Period.

The fact that the universe is expanding means this creation must be 'temporal' and 'finite,' because if 'infinite' (NOT) this creation would have no place to expand. :0) Since all things in this universe originated from a singularity, then the same must have a 'center' from where these things began flying apart in the first place.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Assyrian]

So, basically you have latched onto the idea of the Big Bang being an explosion, and you are not going to let go of that idea, now matter how much anyone explains the Big Bang to you, because you think the idea of an 'explosion' somehow fits your idea that there was an explosion on earth in Gen 1:2?

Of course there is nothing in Genesis that says God created an perfect and mature earth in Gen 1:1, or that it was destroyed in an explosion in 1:2. What you have is a novel variation on the gap theory which sees the earth in 1:1 as the the whole universe which was destroyed between 1:1 and 1:2 rather than just the planet. But neither the destruction of the universe or the planet are mentioned in Genesis.

When does the bible say the first heaven and earth are destroyed? Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Science seems to think that this universe will continue flying apart,

Not sure they have worked that one out yet.

when the summing up of all things in the heavens and earth (Eph. 1:9-10) requires these same things to become reunited (married) back together into singularity expressions that existed in the time of Genesis 1:1. Since that original singularity was composed of “incredibly high energy density, huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding” (Wiki), then we are obviously talking about some kind of ‘explosion.’ Period.

I don't know of any form of explosion that involves space itself expanding.

The fact that the universe is expanding means this creation must be 'temporal' and 'finite,' because if 'infinite' (NOT) this creation would have no place to expand. :0)

Infinity is quite an obscure area of mathematics, I hate to say this, but there are different size infinities. The number of even numbers is infinite, but the number of integers, all the positive and negative numbers is twice a big as the number of even numbers. Then we could look at rational numbers. There is an infinite number of fractions just between 0 and 1. There is another infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2. So the total number of rational numbers is not just infinite, it is infinitely bigger than the number of integers.

However I think the current understanding is that the universe is finite.

Since all things in this universe originated from a singularity, then the same must have a 'center' from where these things began flying apart in the first place.

The problem is that the centre was and always has been the whole universe. This is why you need to drop the idea of an explosion. It is not things flying apart in space, it is space itself that is expanding.

 

[Terral]

Hi Assyrian:

You appear to be directing your comments to me.

So, basically you have latched onto the idea of the Big Bang being an explosion, and you are not going to let go of that idea, now matter how much anyone explains the Big Bang to you, because you think the idea of an 'explosion' somehow fits your idea that there was an explosion on earth in Gen 1:2?

Please begin condescending to someone else and stop insulting my intelligence with nonsense about anyone explaining the Big Bang to me. If you really believe the Big Bang is NOT even like an explosion (you guys are ridiculous), then go right ahead and start explaining how that works. :0) You appear to be describing something other than a Big BANG and something without an explosion. In that case, then tell us the phrase describing your Big Non-explosion. :0)

Of course there is nothing in Genesis that says God created an perfect and mature earth in Gen 1:1 . . .

Sure there is:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.

Scripture says that God created ‘eth-Erets and there is nothing about any Big Bang. :0) All of that came to exist during the events of Genesis 1:2:

“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Genesis 1:2.

The Earth of Genesis 1:1 is the Singularity (Wiki) from ‘before’ the Big Bang.

Wiki >> Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity.

A singularity originates from A POINT and not from a myriad of locations. The center of the visible universe is at the central location of the original singularity expression that existed BEFORE the Big Bang. You guys are attempting to split hairs over a Big Bang that excludes an initial explosion, when that is precisely the method through which science explains the Big Bang. Let’s see if the people at Eberly College of Science and Penn State agree with you guys:

Eberby College Of Science

The idea that the universe erupted with a Big Bang explosion has been a big barrier in scientific attempts to understand the origin of our expanding universe, although the Big Bang long has been considered by physicists to be the best model. As described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the origin of the Big Bang is a mathematically nonsensical state -- a "singularity" of zero volume that nevertheless contained infinite density and infinitely large energy. Now, however, Bojowald and other physicists at Penn State are exploring territory unknown even to Einstein – the time before the Big Bang -- using a mathematical time machine called Loop Quantum Gravity. This theory, which combines Einstein's Theory of General Relativity with equations of quantum physics that did not exist in Einstein's day, is the first mathematical description to systematically establish the existence of the Big Bounce and to deduce properties of the earlier universe from which our own may have sprung. For scientists, the Big Bounce opens a crack in the barrier that was the Big Bang.

These scientists are on the right path to understanding the perfect/mature universe of Genesis 1:1 that became formless and void in Genesis 1:2 where the Big Bang took place about 13 billion years ago.

. . . or that it was destroyed in an explosion in 1:2. What you have is a novel variation on the gap theory which sees the earth in 1:1 as the the whole universe which was destroyed between 1:1 and 1:2 rather than just the planet. But neither the destruction of the universe or the planet are mentioned in Genesis.

Lord-Have-Mercy . . . These things do not exist in Assyrian’s ‘interpretation’ of Genesis 1, but they are present in mine. :0) Nobody needs to invent any gap theory, if you simply read God’s Word the way “He” intended from the beginning. Our physical earth came to exist with the sun and moon in Genesis 1:13-17. Genesis 1+2 have gaps EVERYWHERE, but not for people cramming everything into a mere 6000 years; which is complete nonsense.

When does the bible say the first heaven and earth are destroyed? Rev 21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.

Not sure they have worked that one out yet.

Revelation 21 is talking about the ‘present’ heaven and earth that God remade in the aftermath of the original ‘eth-Erets (Gen. 1:1) becoming formless and void (Gen. 1:2). I am not sure that you have worked that one out yet. :0)

I don't know of any form of explosion that involves space itself expanding.

Many scientists call that the Big Bang, as everything in this universe came from a singularity. Time and space are part of that equation . . . The Wiki information says,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. General relativistic cosmologies, however, do not actually ascribe any 'physicality' to space.

You guys would rather make condescending comments in my direction rather than simply state your case for the Big Bang that is “not like an explosion” and space that does not expand. God reconstituted the 'physical' remains of the now broken universe, so the 'matter' behaves differently than the space in between. The funny part is that if God did not begin remaking things from the remains of the previous 'eth-Erets Creation, then nobody would be here to make any observations about how space and matter behave the same way. :0)

Infinity is quite an obscure area of mathematics, I hate to say this, but there are different size infinities.

And hopefully this has something to do with finding the ‘center of the universe.’ Lordy . . .

The number of even numbers is infinite, but the number of integers, all the positive and negative numbers is twice a big as the number of even numbers.

This is ridiculous and insulting at the same time. Men use numbers to count things, but the number of things to count in a ‘finite’ universe is finite. Therefore, the fact that you can continue counting to infinity seems very unimportant to locating the center of the universe.

Then we could look at rational numbers.

And we can look at the rational and irrational people adding comments to this discussion. :0)

There is an infinite number of fractions just between 0 and 1. There is another infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2. So the total number of rational numbers is not just infinite, it is infinitely bigger than the number of integers.

Since this universe is finite, then imagine all the wasted integers. :0)

However I think the current understanding is that the universe is finite.

Obviously the universe is finite, because an infinite universe could not expand. ‘Eth-Erets (The Earth) that is now broken (heavens, heaven and earth) is a mere representation (matrix) of something that is infinite (Adam) in God’s Infinite Realm where ‘all’ the sons of God are infinite like our Creator. Relativity and Quantum do not reconcile ‘here,’ because this universe remains BROKEN. :0)

The problem is that the centre was and always has been the whole universe.

That is more nonsense. Reversing the Big Bang Timeline reveals the original SINGULARITY that is very small in comparison to the present enlarging universe. I suppose if you want to enlarge your point to include everything in this universe (heh), then the center is anywhere you want to start counting. :0)

This is why you need to drop the idea of an explosion. It is not things flying apart in space, it is space itself that is expanding.

You say to drop the idea of a Big Bang explosion, but then offer nothing else. Backtrack along the Big Bang Timeline to the ‘point’ of the singularity and try to explain that process apart from the Big Bang explosion. :0) Good Luck. You have what is described as something with infinite density and temperature going Bang! An interesting side note to Hubble’s Law says,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Big_bang_theory_assumptions

Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican Principle—or the universe is uniformly expanding everywhere.

If the universe is uniformly expanding from everywhere, then retracing the timeline backwards to a singularity is utter foolishness. In that case this universe was derived from a myriad of singularities that existed in the beginning and we are looking at that many Big Bangs. The Copernican Principle is like your theory that is based upon what is “not.” :0) The reason everything in this universe appears to be moving away from us in every direction at increasing speeds, based upon relative distance, is because we are very near the center of the expanding universe; because that is the location where the Lord God (Christ) decided to form His ‘son of God’ representing this entire universe in one man (Gen. 2:7). Now ‘that’ is ‘my’ interpretation of Genesis 1+2, which you should expect to read in ‘my’ Genesis posts on this Board. You give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide. 1Cor. 11:19. The Lord God will settle all disputes and hand out rewards for good works at the Judgment. 2Cor. 5:10.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Assyrian:

You appear to be directing your comments to me.

Yours was the post before mine, so yes.

Please begin condescending to someone else and stop insulting my intelligence with nonsense about anyone explaining the Big Bang to me. If you really believe the Big Bang is NOT even like an explosion (you guys are ridiculous), then go right ahead and start explaining how that works. :0)

Condescension is more your style from what I have read of you posts, but if you are interested in learning about the Big Bang I suggest you go back to Nathan's post and try to get to grips with what he is saying rather than argue about whether it is an explosion or not.

You appear to be describing something other than a Big BANG and something without an explosion. In that case, then tell us the phrase describing your Big Non-explosion. :0)

The Big Bang was a nickname given to the theory by one of its opponents, Fred Hoyle. It was meant mockingly, but sounded much better than 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The name stuck. But you should not base your understanding of the theory on a nickname given by an opponent of the theory.

Of course there is nothing in Genesis that says God created an perfect and mature earth in Gen 1:1 . . .

Sure there is:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.

Again, nothing about the earth being mature and perfect

Scripture says that God created ‘eth-Erets and there is nothing about any Big Bang. :0) All of that came to exist during the events of Genesis 1:2:

“The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Genesis 1:2.

Nothing about a Big Bang there either.

The Earth of Genesis 1:1 is the Singularity (Wiki) from ‘before’ the Big Bang.

Wiki >> Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[20] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity.

Again, there is no indication in Genesis that the earth of Gen 1:1 was or became a singularity. You are also reading 'the earth' as the entire universe, when its meaning in Hebrew ranged from the earth as opposed to the heavens above, land as opposed to sea, or an individual region.

A singularity originates from A POINT and not from a myriad of locations. The center of the visible universe is at the central location of the original singularity expression that existed BEFORE the Big Bang. You guys are attempting to split hairs over a Big Bang that excludes an initial explosion, when that is precisely the method through which science explains the Big Bang.

Again the theory of the Big Bang does not say there is a centre of the explosion in the centre of the visible universe. The whole universe is expanding.

Let’s see if the people at Eberly College of Science and Penn State agree with you guys:

Eberby College Of Science

These scientists are on the right path to understanding the perfect/mature universe of Genesis 1:1 that became formless and void in Genesis 1:2 where the Big Bang took place about 13 billion years ago.

Where do they say the centre of the visible universe was the location of the singularity? Bear in mind they are explaining an alternative model the Big Bounce rather than the Big Bang. Try to get you explanations of the Big Bang from sites explaining the Big Bang. Of course they do speak of a universe before the Big Bang, an idea the Big Bang never addressed. But the fact that some highly speculative cosmologies talk of earlier universes, is no use to you unless you can show an earlier universe in Genesis.

Lord-Have-Mercy . . . These things do not exist in Assyrian’s ‘interpretation’ of Genesis 1, but they are present in mine. :0) Nobody needs to invent any gap theory, if you simply read God’s Word the way “He” intended from the beginning. Our physical earth came to exist with the sun and moon in Genesis 1:13-17. Genesis 1+2 have gaps EVERYWHERE, but not for people cramming everything into a mere 6000 years; which is complete nonsense.

I am glad you realise this is your interpretation. Your problem is thinking it must be the way God intended it to be read. Perhaps you are right, but you will have to show from solid exegesis that it is the way it should be read. Specifically, you would need to show why you read an entire destruction and recreation of the universe into the gap, insisting it is the way it was meant to be read, when there is no mention of it in the text.

I have no problem with gaps in the account, I came to TE with a version of the 'intermittent day' interpretation. If you say there are gaps everywhere in Gen 1&2, does that mean you don't see the rest of Gen 1:2-31 as six consecutive days?

Revelation 21 is talking about the ‘present’ heaven and earth that God remade in the aftermath of the original ‘eth-Erets (Gen. 1:1) becoming formless and void (Gen. 1:2). I am not sure that you have worked that one out yet. :0)

Except Revelation calls it the first heaven and the first earth. I agree they are the present heaven and earth, but the present heaven and earth are the first ones, the ones God created back in Gen 1:1.

Many scientists call that the Big Bang, as everything in this universe came from a singularity. Time and space are part of that equation . . . The Wiki information says,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common and useful analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. General relativistic cosmologies, however, do not actually ascribe any 'physicality' to space.

You guys would rather make condescending comments in my direction rather than simply state your case for the Big Bang that is “not like an explosion” and space that does not expand.

So we have the Big Bang as an explosion is 'not really a good analogy'.
And 'space expanding' is a 'useful analogy'.
Which are you going to use?

God reconstituted the 'physical' remains of the now broken universe, so the 'matter' behaves differently than the space in between. The funny part is that if God did not begin remaking things from the remains of the previous 'eth-Erets Creation, then nobody would be here to make any observations about how space and matter behave the same way. :0)

The universe cartainly came from a singularity, and the bible tells us God created it all, but earlier universes are speculative in science and unmentioned in scripture.

You keep referrring to the earth in Gen 1:1 as eth-Erets (incidentally you are leaving out the conjunction and the definite article). Do you think this Hebrew wording has some special significance other than how it is translated in our bibles 'the earth' as a second subject of 'God created'?

And hopefully this has something to do with finding the ‘center of the universe.’ Lordy . . .

You brought up the question of a finite vs infinite universe.

This is ridiculous and insulting at the same time. Men use numbers to count things, but the number of things to count in a ‘finite’ universe is finite. Therefore, the fact that you can continue counting to infinity seems very unimportant to locating the center of the universe.

How will you ever learn anything if you think people are being ridiculous and insulting every time they correct a misunderstanding of yours.

And we can look at the rational and irrational people adding comments to this discussion. :0)

Since this universe is finite, then imagine all the wasted integers. :0)

Isn't God lavish in his creation...

Obviously the universe is finite, because an infinite universe could not expand.

IIRC Hoyle's idea of the universe, the idea before the Big Bang was a universe that was infinite and expanding.

‘Eth-Erets (The Earth) that is now broken (heavens, heaven and earth) is a mere representation (matrix) of something that is infinite (Adam) in God’s Infinite Realm where ‘all’ the sons of God are infinite like our Creator. Relativity and Quantum do not reconcile ‘here,’ because this universe remains BROKEN. :0)

An infinite Adam?

That is more nonsense. Reversing the Big Bang Timeline reveals the original SINGULARITY that is very small in comparison to the present enlarging universe. I suppose if you want to enlarge your point to include everything in this universe (heh), then the center is anywhere you want to start counting. :0)

Almost there. It is not a point expanding to include everything in the universe. It includes everything in the universe from the very start. It is our universe that is expanding.

You say to drop the idea of a Big Bang explosion, but then offer nothing else.

From you last comment you seem to be grasping the idea, you are just too busy calling it nonsense.

Backtrack along the Big Bang Timeline to the ‘point’ of the singularity and try to explain that process apart from the Big Bang explosion. :0) Good Luck. You have what is described as something with infinite density and temperature going Bang! An interesting side note to Hubble’s Law says,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Big_bang_theory_assumptions

If the universe is uniformly expanding from everywhere, then retracing the timeline backwards to a singularity is utter foolishness. In that case this universe was derived from a myriad of singularities that existed in the beginning and we are looking at that many Big Bangs.

Not if they all merge as you go back. Every planet and galaxy seems from its perspective seems to be at the centre of an expanding universe, but wind back and if the universe is expanding uniformly then all these observation points come together.

The Copernican Principle is like your theory that is based upon what is “not.” :0) The reason everything in this universe appears to be moving away from us in every direction at increasing speeds, based upon relative distance, is because we are very near the center of the expanding universe; because that is the location where the Lord God (Christ) decided to form His ‘son of God’ representing this entire universe in one man (Gen. 2:7). Now ‘that’ is ‘my’ interpretation of Genesis 1+2, which you should expect to read in ‘my’ Genesis posts on this Board. You give yours and I will do the same and everyone can decide. 1Cor. 11:19. The Lord God will settle all disputes and hand out rewards for good works at the Judgment. 2Cor. 5:10.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

I am sure there will be plenty of grace before the throne of God for all our misunderstandings and misinterpretations. What is expected of us, so we need to be ashamed, is that we are rightly handling the word of truth 2Tim 2:15. You have your interpretations I have mine. But lets try to show how we back them up.

Why would you think the creation of Adam is 'God representing the universe in one man'? Why would that result in the universe appearing to be moving away from us?

 

[Terral]

Hi Assyrian:

Yours was the post before mine, so yes.

Condescension is more your style from what I have read of you posts, but if you are interested in learning about the Big Bang I suggest you go back to Nathan's post and try to get to grips with what he is saying rather than argue about whether it is an explosion or not.

No thank you. I much prefer my understanding of the origins of this universe. If Nathan wants to believe that “the big bang is not really like an explosion,” then that is all fine and dandy.

GL,

Terral

 

[juvenissun]

Originally Posted by wiki

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

OK. Then what is "space"? It seems to be "something" which can be separated by time.

So, if A and B are separated by 1 light-year distance. Even A and B do not move, the distance between A and B increases with time. Do we call this space expansion as the movement of A or B or both? If the separation is accelerating as we think it is today, then how could any two galaxy collide?