Related, the evidence for the big bang is that most everything on the galactic scale seems to be moving away from us. However, scientists tend to apply a "universalist" approach to physics (basically, anything true for us must also be true everywhere else). So instead of assuming that everything is moving away radially from Earth, they say the scale of space is what's expanding, so that everything seems to be moving away from everything else.
There is somewhat of a good reason to assume this, the main proof being "Hubble's Law", which demonstrates that we can predict how far away something is by how fast it's moving. This would match the scaling effect of space stretching equally everywhere. This is best demonstrated, I think, by laying the same image on top of itself, and increasing the scale of one. As you move it around, you can see how everything seems to move away from the point where both images align.
Anyway, this explanation isn't perfect. One of the biggest flaws is Dark energy. Basically, Dark energy appears to be something that is changing Hubble's Law, meaning that you have to add an additional fudge factor to it to account for an increase of speed over distance. No one knows why.
Part of me wonders, if the Universe were to have "exploded" from a central point like Earth, would it not make sense for the material on the outer edge to be moving faster, and to do so non linearly?
@Elliptica@merchantHelios Or we're in a black hole and everything is "moving away at accelerating speeds" as we continue to be sucked further on. I like your explanation better.
How "fast" space moved depends how God "stretched" the expanse, but I don't think that will be discovered until astrophysicists dump the universal, consistent expansion and dark matter models of space.
For example, on day two of the creation week, Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that God created an expanse He called "heaven" or our outer space in relation to the watery Earth, but it's not clear how large the expanse was or what it was like without heavenly bodies. The heavenly space didn't have to be close to its current scale until God created the heavenly bodies on day four, when such an expansion would be necessary.
The white hole theory is a favorite of D. Russell Humphreys who wrote the above paper.
Even if the Earth is mot the actual center of everything, expansion coupled with acceleration and the speed of light would mean that we *must* be at the center of the observable universe. The only way we could not be in the center of the observable universe is if physics didn't work the way we are taught.
Line of thought:
If space is expanding, then objects further away are moving away faster than object closer.
You cannot see light from a space moving away from you faster than the speed of light.
The first two mean there is a distance from you where objects exist but you cannot observe.
This distance occurs at about the same distance regardless of direction.
This space forms a sphere with us at the center.
Therefore we must be at the center of the observeable universe.
@merchantHelios@teknomunk@Elliptica@BowsacNoodle >the heliocentric and geocentric models were for the solar system, not the universe. Teknomunk is not being stupid. I don't think the solar system being classified as being in a separate galaxy was a thing at this time. It only started entering the public consciousness during the Space Race.
@teknomunk@Elliptica@BowsacNoodle@SuperSnekFriend are you stupid? the heliocentric and geocentric models were for the solar system, not the universe. (also the Papacy literally told Galileo to bring them more observations and that they found his claim interesting and wanted to investigate more into the matter, and he sperged out and insulted the Pope directly for not immediately believing him, which is why they exiled him. thats where the "science vs religion" myth of the story comes from)
Sure. I just find it ironic that overthrowing the the geocentric model of the universe for the heliocentric model was one of the big "triumphs" of science over religion only now we find ourselves right back at the geocentric model of the universe. The religious types had it right, but didn't know the reasons and had no proof.
@teknomunk@BowsacNoodle@Elliptica@merchantHelios The pro-geocentric scholars of the Copernian Revolution were well meaning but used faulty math based on calculations made by the ancient Greeks and the assumption that Earth being the center of the universe equated to the Earth being the center of the Solar System and Milky Way.
The only people who turned into a Christianity versus soyience fight were the secular humanists of the day which turned into a meme that has refused to die.
@SuperSnekFriend@merchantHelios@teknomunk@Elliptica@BowsacNoodle The 20s and 30s is when that started to be common knowledge after Edwin Hubble's observational proof of what was once called the Andromeda Nebula actually being its own galaxy in the early 20s.
@BowsacNoodle@wgiwf@SuperSnekFriend@merchantHelios@teknomunk People did that before him I think, Edward Barnard was probably the first to consistently do it in the early 1880s. What he did was use the largest telescope at the time (The Hale telescope) to study something called 'cepheid variable stars'. Keeping it simple, types of stars have a easily predictable brightness, so he could make an estimate of the distance to them. The measurement showed that all of these nebula were significantly further away than pretty much anything else we knew of, suggesting they were outside the Milky Way.
The images below are of Barnard, vs the one Hubble used.