Re: Big Bang Proves that Earth is at the Centre of the Universe.

On Mar 20, 4:20 pm, John Polasek <jpola...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Listening to the leaders in modern science, it is clear that the Big
Bang is taken to be an established fact and the CMBR is touted as
further proof.
But if there was such a big explosion of mass from a central point,
then from common potential theory, there would still exist that same
center of mass at the origin. And Friedmans equation would be couched
in terms of R the radius from the center of mass. But instead the
latest style is to use 'a' instead, as a general size factor in a
dust-based universe, with its present value a0 being (always) one.
Distant galaxies are considered to have a lower age a = a0/1+z.

This approach of yours is relevant to one side of the argument however
the no center/no circumference ideology,the more appropriate term of
the 'big bang' conception,has its roots in right ascension and a very
geometric foundation that was known long before even the arguments of
planetary dynamics emerged in 1512 through Copernicus.While the real
damage was done by John Flamsteed the addition of converting distance
into time and visa versa in an attempt to give the Universe an
evolutionary trajectory is unconscionable in the extreme for,as stated
previously,it leaves the reader with a geometric idea of an 'expanding
past' and no continuity between past,present and future which normal
people would find repulsive.

The problem of drawing conclusions directly from direct observations
has always existed and whatever momentum is driving individuals to
come up with the 'no center/no circumference' ideology of big
bang ,concerned people should look at the original perspectives which
existed before the arguments for planetary dynamics existed and
especially those based on stellar circumpolar motion.If 'big bang'
looks strangely familiar with the arguments of Archbishop Cusa in this
respect then I assure readers it is because they are identical,in such
a way as Cusa is trying to develop arguments for the Earth's planetary
dynamics out of the observational quandry -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the
center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see through
the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be
apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa, 15th century

In the final analysis big science has no model for the universe. It
doesn't seem logical that they would still hang on to the Big Bang, a
puerile conception that probably owes its longevity to having a catchy

The no center/no circumference ideology is an empirical cul-de-sac,no
doubt a few will continue with dark this and dark that but effectively
the particular strain of empiricism derived from Newton has reached
its logical conclusion.There is no prohibition in modelling Universal
structure however the idea of an evolutionary timeline directly from
observations and deriving structural astronomy that way is amazing for
all the wrong reasons yet each person has a choice to look at the
contentions,consider them invalid and free themselves to move on to
more stable astronomical territory hence I choose not to beg questions
of those who imagine they can not only look into the past directly
but imagine that they can see the evolution of the Universe directly.

If you think about it a little, birthing 70 sextillion stars out of a
pinhole is putting an undue burden even onto the creator.

John Polasek

More than anything else,the disintegration of reasoning which allows
the 'past' to become flexible or distorted,there is a tendency of
arguments to infect everything else,as a Christian I do not burden
myself with what concerns contemporaries in matters of faith and how
conceptions of creation and the creator fit together but rather stick
with what arguments that were available to observers at different
points in history and some of them would surprise readers here.Even St
Augustine took note of stellar circumpolar motion but rightly took a
balanced approach that is hard to find nowadays in the rush to impose
an evolutionary timeline on the Universe directly ,he wrote -

"Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of
heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how
is it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are
held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly
performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if
there is another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some
axis, or (if there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a
discus? To these men I reply that it would require many subtle and
profound reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so;"
St Augustine

Again,we are not trying to convince anyone of being wrong nor
considering the strongest arguments for doing away with the 'big bang'
ideology as a working model but looking for a point of departure for a
new approach to observations.If you set yourself up to attack the no
center/no circumference ideology directly you will fail as begging
questions of an ideology where all reason has departed is bound to
generate more of the same.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 04:22:02 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

<kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 8:13 am, B. Real <..@....> wrote:

How anyone can believe such an impossible and illogical theory is
beyond me.

The idea that observers see an evolutionary timeline of the Universe
with the furthest galaxies being the oldest in a smaller Universe
definitely makes me shake my head,sort of like listening to a child
trying to explain the inner workings of a car engine by simply making
up whatever is needed to arrive at a conclusion.Here are people who
have no sense of the continuity between past and future but simply
imagine a present with an 'expanding past',whatever that is supposed
to mean.

The past is precious,it is written in the rock strata and fossil
records which in turn infer not just a biological evolutionary process
but also links to planetary dynamics and geological and climatological
events and this continuity between past,present and future is before
everyone with no strain attached to the basic assumptions and
especially rock strata.

How to stop a 'big bang' bandwagon is probably the big issue
presently,it is not a matter of trying to convince people that they
are wrong nor that the idea itself is insane but a matter of how we
arrived at this dismal juncture in science and especially astronomy.