by still thinking 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    He certainly did Cantleave...I have just finished watching a video his wife made about his meeting with the Dalai Lama and his life in general...what an amazing human being he was.

    He and the Dalai lama had a three hour meeting where they discussed things they did not agree on...they couldn't find many. Both he and the Dalai lama said that if they found new evidence, they would need to change their understanding. Now THAT is humble.

    Turns out they got along so well, the Dali lama suggested they spend the rest of the day together, and thats what they did, Carl, his wife and his children.

    When two open minds meet....the universe really is their oyster.

    I strive to have a more open mind. I often fail, but that is my aim...he and the Dali Lama have given me something to think about.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    This is the video of his wifes is quite long...but thought I would post it if anyone is interested.

  • caliber

    We are at the edge of the universe then .... Bee Gees got it right

  • apostatethunder

    “And you will give me your shield of salvation, and your own right hand will sustain me, and your own humility will make me great. “ Psalms 18:35

  • caliber

    “To find the balance you want, this is what you must become. You must keep your feet grounded so firmly on the earth that it's like you have 4 legs instead of 2. That way, you can stay in the world. But you must stop looking at the world through your head. You must look through your heart, instead. That way, you will know God.”
    ? Elizabeth Gilbert

    If man is no the the centre of the universe who or what is ?

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Thanks caliber...unfortunately, I don't believe in god...but I appreciate the thought.

    Where is the centre of the universe?

    There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

    In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.

    If we see a galaxy B receding from us at 10,000 km/s, an alien in galaxy B will see our galaxy A receding from it at 10,000 km/s in the opposite direction. Another galaxy C twice as far away in the same direction as B will be seen by us as receding at 20,000 km/s. The alien will see it receding at 10,000 km/s:

     A B C From A 0 km/s 10,000 km/s 20,000 km/s From B -10,000 km/s 0 km/s 10,000 km/s 

    So from the point of view of the alien at B, everything is expanding away from it, whichever direction it looks in, just the same as it does for us.

    The Famous Balloon Analogy

    A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

    The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly—otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19 th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

    When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

    • The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.
    • The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.
    • The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.
    • The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.
    • Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

    ... but if the Big Bang was an explosion

    In a conventional explosion, material expands out from a central point. A short moment after the explosion starts, the centre will be the hottest point. Later there will be a spherical shell of material expanding away from the centre until gravity brings it back down to Earth. The Big Bang—as far as we understand it—was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the Big Bang. There was not even a "before" to speak of. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.

    If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

    It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least insofar as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the centre.

    The cosmological principle

    The idea that the universe should be uniform (homogeneous and isotropic) over very large scales was introduced as the "cosmological principle" by Arthur Milne in 1933. Not long before that, it had been argued by some astronomers that the universe consisted of just our galaxy, and the centre of the Milky Way would have been the centre of the universe. Hubble put an end to that debate in 1924 when he showed that other galaxies exist outside our own. Despite the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the galaxies, most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working hypothesis that no observation has yet contradicted. Nevertheless, our view of the universe is limited by the speed of light and the finite time since the Big Bang. The observable part is very large, but it is probably very small compared to the whole universe, which may even be infinite. We have no way of knowing what the shape of the universe is beyond the observable horizon, and no way of knowing whether the cosmological principle has any validity on the largest distance scales possible.

    In 1927 Georges Lemaître found solutions of Einstein's equations of general relativity in which space expands. He went on to propose the Big Bang theory with those solutions as a model of the expanding universe. The best known class of solutions that Lemaître looked at were the homogeneous solutions now known as the Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models. (Friedmann found the solutions first but did not think of them as reasonable physical models). It is less well known that Lemaître found a more general class of solutions that describe a spherically symmetric expanding universe. These solutions, now known as Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB) models, describe possible forms for a universe that could have a centre. Since the FLWR models are actually a special limiting case of the LTB models, we have no sure way of knowing that the LTB models are not correct. The FLWR models may just be good approximations that work well within the limits of the observable universe but not beyond.

    Of course there are many other even less uniform shapes the universe could have, with or without an identifiable centre. If it turned out to have a centre on some scale beyond the observable universe, such a centre might turn out to be just one of many "centres" on much larger scales, just as the centre of our galaxy did before.

    In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?".

  • caliber

    but the orginal video talks about the centre of the universe.... 2:30 - 2:53 ..our earth ( Sun system) being on an arm far from the centre.

    the first video (7033 )& post (7040) are not in agreement it appears to me

    there is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere

    Houston we have problem !

  • still thinking
    still thinking


    He says that our sun and its planets lie in an undistinguished sector of an obscure spiral arm, 30,000 light years from the centre of our galaxy (the milky way). NOT the universe.

    We are in but one of many millions of galaxies in the universe....and from what they can tell...there is no centre of the universe.

    by the way...the beegees got it wrong.

  • talesin

    If man is no the the centre of the universe who or what is ?

    Methinks that is a child-like thought, and our biggest conceit.

    We are the tiniest speck in a universe that is unimaginably vast, and of which we know practically nothing .... and we are the centre?

    We are killing species, polluting our home, exploiting the earth's valuable resources with no thought to the future ... we are irresponsible, violent and selfish. We deserve to be the centre of nothing.

    Humbling, indeed.

  • still thinking
    still thinking

    Our galaxy......speck in the universe

    our planet......speck in a speck in the universe

    us..................specks on a speck on a speck in the universe

    WE are the centre of our own ego.

Share this