Basic
Worldview:
103
Science, the Bible,
and Creation
Origins
- Section Four:
Cosmological Model 1
Origins - Section One: Introduction
and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature
Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application
of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution,
Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and
Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical
Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological
Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods,
Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood
Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative
Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and
Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic
Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General
Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14
Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining
Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric
Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall
Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List
of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and
Illustrations
Focus
on Critical Evidence: Understanding the Cosmological Model
In
this segment, we will examine what the modern cosmological
model is, where it came from, and the key components of it.
This will allow us to understand the role of expansion in
that model as well as the role of the known evidence about
expansion that is ignored in order for evolutionary cosmology
to continue.
First,
as we noted earlier, this model is based upon 3 foundational
assumptions. And, as also indicated in the previous segment,
it is important to state that these assumptions themselves
are not necessitated by the observations.
The
first assumption is homogeneity. Homogeneity refers to having
a “uniform structure or composition throughout.”
“Homogeneity
– 1: the
quality or state of being
homogeneous.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary
“Homogeneous
– 1: of the
same or a similar kind or nature 2:
of uniform structure or composition throughout.”
– Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model –
To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein
made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations.
The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous
and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere
on average at any instant in time), an assumption that the
English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later elevated to an
entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological
principle.’” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Steady-State
Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Both the big bang
theory and the steady-state theory are based on what Bondi
called the "cosmological principle." This principle
states that on a large scale, the universe is homogeneous,
meaning the universe looks about the same at every point,
and isotropic, meaning the universe looks the same in every
direction. Homogeneity and isotropy are not the same-for
example, a universe that grows denser with distance from the
observer would still look isotropic even though it is not
homogeneous.” – "Steady-State Theory,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology,
III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big
bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological
principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in all
locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions)
on a large scale.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
As
noted by the first quote above, homogeneity is intended to
apply only to the universe on the large scale. Homogeneity
is not intended to apply to the smaller-scale or local level
of the universe. Thus, there may be a lack of homogeneity
on smaller levels or regions of the universe. In particular,
as indicated by the quotes below, homogeneity is said to be
at work only on the very largest scale, superclusters, with
dimensions larger than 100,000,000 light years. In other words,
there is no “clustering of superclusters.” Superclusters
are evenly distributed throughout the universe.
“Cosmos,
Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe –
Hubble inferred a uniformity in the spatial
distribution of galaxies through number counts in deep
photographic surveys of selected areas of the sky. This inference applies only to scales larger than several times [100,000,000]
light-years. On
smaller scales, galaxies tend to bunch together in clusters
and superclusters, and Hubble
deliberately avoided the more conspicuous examples in order
not to bias his results. This
clustering did excite debate among both observers and theorists
in the earliest discussions of cosmology, particularly
over the largest dimensions where there are still appreciable
departures from homogeneity and over the ultimate cause
of the departures. In the 1950s and early 1960s, however, attention
tended to focus on homogeneous cosmological models because
of the competing ideas of the big bang and steady state scenarios.
Only after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background—which,
together with the successes of primordial nucleosynthesis,
signaled a clear victory for the hot big bang picture—did the issue of departures from homogeneity
in the universe again attract widespread interest.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos,
Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Clustering
of galaxies, Superclusters – In
1932 Harlow Shapley and Adelaide Ames introduced a catalog
that showed the distributions of galaxies brighter than 13th
magnitude to be quite different north and south of the plane
of the Galaxy. Their study was the first to indicate that the universe might contain
substantial regions that departed from the assumption of homogeneity
and isotropy…Also apparent in
the Shapley-Ames maps were three
independent concentrations of galaxies, separate superclusters
viewed from a distance. Astronomers now believe superclusters
fill perhaps 10 percent of the volume of the universe. Most
galaxies, groups, and clusters belong to superclusters, the
space between superclusters being relatively empty. The
dimensions of superclusters range up to a few times [100,000,000]
light-years. For
larger scales the distribution of galaxies is essentially
homogeneous and isotropic—that is, there is no evidence
for the clustering of superclusters.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
The
second assumption is isotropy. As indicated by the quotes
below, isotropy refers to the idea that on a large scale the
universe “looks the same in all directions.”
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model –
To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein
made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations.
The first was to suppose that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the large
(i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant in time),
an assumption that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne
later elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming
it the cosmological principle.’” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology,
III MODERN COSMOLOGY, B Steady-State Theory – The big
bang theory was framed in terms of what they called the cosmological
principle-that the universe is homogeneous (the same in
all locations) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions)
on a large scale.” – "Cosmology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
It
is important to note that homogeneity and isotropy are not
the same. As the quote below explains, a universe may look
isotropic without being homogeneous.
“Steady-State
Theory, II THE STEADY-STATE THEORY – Both the big bang
theory and the steady-state theory are based on what Bondi
called the "cosmological principle." This principle
states that on a large scale, the universe is homogeneous,
meaning the universe looks about the same at every point,
and isotropic, meaning
the universe looks the same in every direction. Homogeneity
and isotropy are not the same-for example, a universe
that grows denser with distance from the observer would still
look isotropic even though it is not homogeneous.” –
"Steady-State Theory," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
It
is also significant to note that isotropy is a concept based
upon how the universe looks from the earth. This is indicated
by the following quotes, but it is also implicit in common
sense because where else would we have observed the universe
from besides the earth?
“Universe,
Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether
the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size. Observations
of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that there are
at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Measurements show that the most distant galaxies observed
to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years from
Earth. They appear
in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy
and Physics, Boston University.
“Universe,
Size of the universe – Observations of the sky with
optical telescopes indicate that there are at least 100 billion galaxies in
the observable universe. Measurements show that the most
distant galaxies observed to date are about 12 billion to
13 billion light-years from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy
and Physics, Boston
University.
Because
isotropy is based upon how the universe looks from earth,
as we stated earlier, unlike homogeneity and the extrapolation
of a Big Bang explosion, isotropy is an assumption that is
based upon observation. However, when isotropy makes claims
about how the universe would look from other locations besides
the earth, then it too becomes an assumption that goes beyond
the observable evidence because we simply have no observations
of the universe from any other location beside the earth on
which to base such an extrapolation of isotropy. Finally,
as also stated earlier, isotropy is just as much a part of
the creationist model as it is the evolutionary model. In
fact, for reasons that will be described later on, isotropy
is arguably more indicative of the creationist model than
the evolutionary model.
An
additional assumption of modern cosmological models is that
the universe has no edge or boundary, regardless of whether
or not it is finite or infinite. Consequently, the idea that
the universe has no boundary or edge results in a universe
with no center.
“Big-bang
model – The
big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first
is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly
describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The
second assumption, called the cosmological principle,
states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither
on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This
principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the
universe, but it does
imply that the universe has no edge, so
that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point
in space but rather throughout space at the same time.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Taken
as a whole, the model assumes that all matter is evenly distributed
throughout the universe and there is no center to the distribution
of that matter. As such, there are no “special”
locations in the universe because all parts of the universe
are uniform. Consequently, it could be said that the assumption
that there is “no special place” in the universe,
which forms the basis of the other assumptions. For example,
Einstein’s original model, including its assumptions
about homogeneity and isotropy, were outgrowths of what is
known as “the Copernican revolution” or “the
Copernican principle.”
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model –
To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein
made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations.
The first was to suppose
that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in the
large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant
in time), an assumption that the English astrophysicist
Edward A. Milne later elevated to an entire philosophical
outlook by naming it the cosmological principle. Given
the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is
a natural one.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
Nicolaus
Copernicus was a scientists in the
1540’s A.D., who asserted that the earth was not the
center of the universe as the Greek philosopher Aristotle
has supposed, but instead, the sun was the center.
“Astronomy,
Observing the sky, Earth-centered theories – Ancient scholars produced elaborate schemes to account for the observed
movements of the stars, sun, moon, and planets. In the 300's
B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a system of
56 spheres, all with the same center. The innermost sphere,
which did not move, was Earth…Sun-centered theories
– By the early 1500's, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus
Copernicus had developed a theory in which the sun was at
the center of the universe.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor
of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies
– Until the 16th century, most people
(including early astronomers) considered
the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered
Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in
an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had
not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus
developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s,
he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations.
Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore
more sound philosophically than the
idea of an earth-centered universe…By the mid-17th century,
most scientists in western Europe accepted the Copernican
universe.” – "Cosmology," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Copernicus
unseated the idea that the earth had a special location in
the universe as a result of divine purpose. And it was this
principle, the premise that the earth does not have a special
place in the universe, which evolutionary cosmologists admit
was the assumption that “lead directly to” the
Big Bang model.
“The
idea that we are not located in a special spatial location
has been crucial in cosmology leading directly to the [big
bang theory].” – Richear Gott (Ph. D. Astrophysics),
Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects, Nature, 1993 (Cited on “Astronomy and the Bible,” Mike
Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)
And
this fact was also affirmed in Britannica’s last comment
above concerning Einstein’s assumptions about the uniform
distribution of matter in the universe, which stated, “Given
the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is
a natural one.”
Since
we have stated that modern cosmology views the universe as
having no boundary or edge, this is a good time to make an
important clarification. Often in cosmology, you will find
the terms “bound” and “unbound universe.”
These terms do NOT refer to whether or not the universe has
an edge or boundary. The terms “open” or “unbound
universe” refer, not to whether or not it has an edge
or boundary, but instead refer to the notion that the universe
will continue to expand forever. Conversely, the terms “closed”
or “bound universe” refer to the notion that the
universe will not expand forever, but will one day stop expanding
and eventually collapse in a process opposite the big bang
“Cosmos
– The issue of how
the universe will end seems, at first sight, more amenable
to conventional analysis. Because the universe is currently expanding,
one may ask whether this expansion will continue into the
indefinite future or whether after the passage of some finite
time, the expansion will be reversed by the gravitational
attraction of all of the matter for itself. The
procedure for answering this question seems straightforward:
either measure directly the rate of deceleration in the expansion
of the galaxies to extrapolate whether they will eventually
come to a halt, or measure the total amount of matter in the
universe to see if there is enough to supply the gravitation
needed to make the universe bound. Unfortunately, astronomers' assaults on both fronts have been stymied by two unforeseen
circumstances. First,
it is now conceded that earlier
attempts to measure the deceleration rate have been affected
by evolutionary effects of unknown magnitude in the observed
galaxies that invalidate the simple interpretations. Second,
it is recognized that within the
Cosmos there may be an unknown amount of “hidden mass,”
which cannot be seen by conventional astronomical techniques
but which contributes substantially to the gravitation of
the universe. The hope is that, somehow, quantum physics
will ultimately supply theoretical answers (which can
then be tested observationally and experimentally) to each of these difficulties.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Bound and unbound universes and
the closure density – The different separation behaviours
of galaxies at large time scales in the
Friedmann closed and open models and the Einstein–de
Sitter model allow a different classification scheme than
one based on the global structure of space-time. The alternative
way of looking at things is in terms of gravitationally bound and unbound systems: closed models where galaxies
initially separate but later come back together again represent bound universes; open models where galaxies continue to separate
forever represent unbound universes; the Einstein–de
Sitter model where galaxies separate forever but slow to a
halt at infinite time represents the critical case. The advantage
of this alternative view is that it focuses attention on local
quantities where it is possible to think in the simpler terms
of Newtonian physics—attractive forces, for example.
In this picture it is intuitively clear that the feature that
should distinguish whether
or not gravity is capable of bringing a given expansion rate
to a halt depends on the amount of mass (per unit volume)
present. This is indeed the case; the Newtonian and relativistic
formalisms give the same criterion for the critical, or closure, density (in mass equivalent
of matter and radiation) that
separates closed or bound universes from open or unbound ones…If the actual cosmic average is greater
than this value, the universe is bound (closed) and, though
currently expanding, will end in a crush of unimaginable proportion.
If it is less, the universe is unbound (open) and will expand
forever.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004
Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology,
III MODERN COSMOLOGY, D The Universe Through Time –
A fundamental issue addressed in cosmology
is the future of the universe-whether the universe will expand
forever or eventually collapse. The
first case (eternal expansion) is known as an open universe,
and the second case (eventual collapse) is known as a closed
universe. A closed universe would require sufficiently
high density to cause gravity
to stop the universe's expansion and begin its contraction.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmology,
IV COSMOLOGICAL EVIDENCE – For a universe with very
low density, the age of the universe would be directly
related to its expansion rate. This universe would expand forever; this
eternal expansion defines an open universe. If, on the other hand, the density of a universe is sufficiently high,
the expansion rate is changing-slowing down as the universe
ages. This universe would eventually stop expanding and begin
contracting, which defines it as a closed universe.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Currently,
the question of whether or not the universe is bound or unbound,
whether or not it will expand forever or eventually collapse
back together, is considered unresolved in modern cosmology.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, The ultimate fate of the universe
– In the absence of definitive observational
conclusions, one can only speculate on the possible fate of
the actual universe. If
the universe is unbound, the cosmological expansion will not
halt, and eventually the galaxies and stars will all die,
leaving the Cosmos a cold, dark, and virtually empty place.
If the universe is
bound, the mass-energy content in the distant but finite future
will come together again; the cosmic background radiation
will be blueshifted, raising the temperature of matter and
radiation to incredible levels, perhaps to reforge everything
in the fiery crucible of the big squeeze. Because of the development of structure in previous
epochs, the big squeeze
may not occur simultaneously everywhere at the end of time
as its explosive counterpart, the big bang, seems to have
done at the beginning of time. Discussions of recurring cycles
of expansions and contractions thus remain highly speculative.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Universe,
The future of the universe – Many studies indicate that
the universe will continue to expand. Measurements
of the brightness and redshift of supernovae in distant
galaxies suggest that at the present time the expansion
of the universe is accelerating. Observations of the CMB radiation provide evidence that the universe has the appropriate mixture
of matter and energy to continue expanding. Both of these types of studies give similar predictions for the rate at which the universe is expanding.
Theories of the universe
based on the German-born physicist Albert Einstein's theory
of general relativity allow for the possibility that all of
the matter in the universe could come back together again
in a big crunch. This
would happen if the gravitational pull of all of the universe's
matter was strong enough to overcome its expansion. The entire
universe would eventually collapse and then explode, entering
a new phase that might resemble the present one. However,
studies of the CMB radiation strongly suggest that the universe
has an infinite mass
and volume and that it will expand forever.” –
Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor
of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
However,
the theoretical question of “bound or unbound”
deals with understanding what will happen in the future and
as such, it is not as important as the fact that evolutionary
cosmology lacks an actual, working theory concerning the past
events that brought about the universe that we do see today.
A working origins theory must explain how the known conditions
of the present arrived, but it does not need to define what
will happen in a future. Since the future is unknown, it is
perfectly acceptable for a theory not to be able to explain
its unidentified characteristics. But, any viable origins
theory must be able to explain the identified characteristics
that know exist at the present.
With
the clarification made that “bound and unbound”
models refer to whether or not the universe will eventually
contract or will expand forever and do
not in any way refer to the question of whether or not
the universe has an edge or boundary, we can return to the
significance of the “no edge” concept.
The
significance of the “no edge or boundary” concept
is articulated in the following quote by Isaac Newton. If
there is an edge to the distribution of matter, then there
is also a center. And as Newton explains, if the
universe has a center, then that center of matter is also
a center of gravity, which in turn would pull all the matter
back toward that central location.
“Cosmos,
Large-scale structure and expansion of the universe, Gravitational
theories of clustering – The fact that gravitation
affects all masses may explain why the astronomical universe,
although not uniform, contains structure. This
natural idea, which is the basis of much of the modern theoretical
work on the problem, had already occurred to Newton
in 1692. Newton wrote to the noted English scholar and
clergyman Richard Bentley: ‘It seems to me, that if
the matter of our Sun & Planets & all
ye matter in the Universe was eavenly scattered throughout
all the heavens, & every particle had an innate gravity towards all the rest &
the whole space throughout wch [sic] this matter was scattered
was but finite: the matter on ye outside of this space would
by its gravity tend towards all ye matter on the inside &
by consequence fall down to ye middle of the whole space &
there compose one great spherical mass. But if the matter
was eavenly diffused through an infinite space, it would never
convene into one mass but some of it convene
into one mass & some into another so as to make an infinite number of great masses scattered at great distances
from one to another throughout all yt infinite space. And
thus might ye Sun and Fixt stars be formed supposing
the matter were of a lucid nature.’”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Most
importantly, notice from the quote above that space being
“infinite” was proposed by Newton as a solution to the problem of a gravity well at the center if space were finite. Specifically
take note of Newton’s
phrase “ye Sun and Fixt stars.”
Notice
that Britannica’s comment on Einstein’s model
describes Einstein’s assumptions as an outgrowth of
Newton’s model, even with a reference to Newton’s phrase,
“ye Sun and Fixt stars.” However, Einstein’s
model altered the model proposed by Newton.
As we will see, Einstein addressed the gravity well problem
by supposing that space is curved like the surface of a sphere
or a balloon. Because there is no center to the surface of
a sphere, the problem of a center with a gravity well was avoided. Since Einstein proposed “curved
space” as a solution to the gravity well problem, he
did not need to suppose that space was infinite as Newton did, but was free to propose that space
was finite. The “curvature” of space in Einstein’s
model is explicitly stated in the first quote below. The second
quote below also comments on this curvature by asserting that
in Einstein’s model, parallel lines actually converge
due to the warping and bending (i.e. curving) effect of gravity
upon space. The centrality of the “no boundary or edge”
assumption in Einstein’s model is explicitly stated
in the last 2 quotes below.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's model – To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein made three assumptions
that lay outside the scope of his equations. The first was to suppose that the universe
is homogeneous and isotropic in the large (i.e., the same everywhere on average at any instant
in time), an assumption
that the English astrophysicist Edward A. Milne later
elevated to an entire philosophical outlook by naming it the cosmological
principle. Given
the success of the Copernican revolution, this outlook is
a natural one. Newton himself had it implicitly
in mind in his letter to Bentley (see above) when he took the initial state of the Cosmos
to be everywhere the same before it developed ‘ye Sun
and Fixt stars.’ The
second assumption was to suppose that this homogeneous and
isotropic universe had a closed spatial geometry. As described
in the previous section, the total volume of a three-dimensional
space with uniform positive curvature would be finite but
possess no edges or boundaries (to be consistent with
the first assumption).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica
2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos,
Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas –
When one looks to great distances, one is seeing things as
they were a long time ago, again because light takes a finite
time to travel to Earth. Over such great spans, do the classical notions of Euclid concerning the properties of space
necessarily continue to hold? The answer given by Einstein
was: No, the gravitation of the mass contained
in cosmologically large regions may warp
one's usual perceptions of space and time; in particular,
the Euclidean postulate that parallel lines never cross need
not be a correct description of the geometry of the actual
universe. And in 1917 Einstein presented a mathematical model
of the universe in which the total volume of space was finite
yet had no boundary or edge. The
model was based on his theory of general relativity that
utilized a more generalized approach to geometry devised in
the 19th century by the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Big-bang
model – The
big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The
first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity
correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter.
The second assumption, called the cosmological principle,
states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither
on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This
principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the
universe, but it does
imply that the universe has no edge, so
that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point
in space but rather throughout space at the same time.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Because
Einstein’s “curved-space” model provided
another means to avoid a centered-universe with a
gravity well besides the assumption of an infinite
universe, the question of whether or not the universe is infinite
or finite became more or less irrelevant to cosmological models.
In fact, whether or not the universe is infinite or finite
remains an unresolved question in modern evolutionary theory.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, C Newton and Beyond
– Beginning in the 17th century, scientists wondered
why the sky was dark at night if
space is indeed infinite (an
idea proposed in ancient Greece and still
accepted by most cosmologists today) and stars are distributed
throughout that infinite space.” – "Cosmology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmos,
Cosmological models, Early cosmological ideas –
Immediate issues that arise when anyone
contemplates the universe at large are whether space and time
are infinite or finite. And after
many centuries of thought by some of the best minds, humanity
has still not arrived at conclusive answers to these questions.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Universe,
Size of the universe – No one knows for sure whether
the universe is finite (limited) or infinite in size.
Observations of the sky with optical telescopes indicate that
there are at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable
universe. Measurements show that the most distant galaxies
observed to date are about 12 billion to 13 billion light-years
from Earth. They appear in every direction across the sky.”
– Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor
of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.
More
importantly, as indicated above the result of Einstein’s
model is that the overall shape of the universe could be described
analogously to the surface of a sphere, in which parallel
lines would converge due to the bending or curving of space
by gravity. As Einstein’s original model of the universe
was modified, the illustrations for the “shape”
of the universe were also modified. We can learn a lot about
the shape of the universe in modern cosmology by following
the progression of these illustrations.
The
first illustration is described early on in quote below, where
Einstein’s original 1917 model of space (not time) can
be represented by a piece of graph paper “rolled up
into a cylinder on its side.”
“Cosmos,
Gravitation and the geometry of space-time – The
principle of equivalence in general relativity allows the
locally flat space-time structure of special relativity to be warped
by gravitation, so that (in the cosmological case) the
propagation of the photon over thousands of millions of light-years
can no longer be plotted on a globally flat sheet of paper. To be sure,
the curvature of the
paper may not be apparent when only a small piece is examined,
thereby giving the local impression that space-time is flat
(i.e., satisfies special relativity). It is only when the graph paper is examined
globally that one realizes it is curved (i.e., satisfies
general relativity). In
Einstein's 1917 model of the universe, the curvature occurs
only in space, with the graph paper being rolled up into a
cylinder on its side, a loop around the cylinder at constant
time having a circumference of 2?R—the total spatial extent of the universe. Notice that the “radius
of the universe” is measured in a “direction”
perpendicular to the space-time surface of the graph paper.
Since the ringed space axis corresponds
to one of three dimensions of the actual world (any will do
since all directions are equivalent in an isotropic model),
the radius of the universe exists in a fourth spatial dimension
(not time) which is not part of the real world. This fourth
spatial dimension is a mathematical artifice introduced to
represent diagrammatically the solution (in this case) of
equations for curved three-dimensional space that need not
refer to any dimensions other than the three physical ones.
Photons traveling in a straight line in any physical direction
have trajectories that go diagonally (at 45° angles to the
space and time axes) from corner to corner of each little
square cell of the space-time grid; thus, they describe helical
paths on the cylindrical surface of the graph paper, making
one turn after traveling a spatial distance 2?R. In other words, always flying dead ahead,
photons would return to where they started from after going
a finite distance without ever coming to an edge or boundary.
The distance to the “other side” of the universe
is therefore ?R, and it would lie in any and every direction;
space would be closed on itself. Now, except by analogy with the closed two-dimensional surface of a sphere
that is uniformly curved toward a centre in a third dimension
lying nowhere on the two-dimensional surface, no three-dimensional
creature can visualize a
closed three-dimensional volume that is uniformly curved toward
a centre in a fourth dimension lying nowhere in the three-dimensional
volume. Nevertheless, three-dimensional creatures could
discover the curvature
of their three-dimensional world by performing surveying
experiments of sufficient spatial scope.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure
of the Universe – In 1915 German-American physicist
Albert Einstein, who was working in Switzerland, advanced a theory of gravitation known as the general
theory of relativity. His theory involves a four-dimensional
space-time continuum that bends in the presence of massive
objects. This bending causes light and other objects that
are moving near these massive objects to follow a curved path,
just as a golfer's ball curves on a warped putting green.
In this way, Einstein explained gravity.” –
"Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
© 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Einstein’s
1917 model was later modified by Russian meteorologist and
mathematician Aleksandr A. Friedmann in 1922 and Georges Lemaitre
in 1927. Their models, along with Einstein’s, still
provide the basis of cosmology today.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure
of the Universe – Einstein's theory also made several
predictions that were not part of Newton's
theory. When these predictions were verified, Einstein's theory was accepted. Einstein's equations were very complicated, though, and it was other
scientists who eventually found widely accepted solutions
to Einstein's equations. Most
of cosmology today is based on the set of solutions found
in the 1920s by Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann.
Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaitre also developed cosmological models based on solutions
to Einstein's equations. ” – "Cosmology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
As
indicated below, Friedmann and Lemaitre’s models correspond
to “big bang cosmologies,” meaning that they are
earlier Big Bang cosmological models and they are part of
the evolution to the current form of the Big Bang theory.
Their models maintained Einstein’s assumptions of homogeneity
and isotropy.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models –
In 1922 Aleksandr A. Friedmann, a Russian
meteorologist and mathematician, and in 1927 Georges Lemaitre,
the aforementioned Belgian cleric, independently discovered
solutions to Einstein's equations that contained realistic
amounts of matter. These evolutionary models correspond to
big bang cosmologies. Friedmann and Lemaitre adopted Einstein's
assumption of spatial homogeneity and isotropy (the cosmological
principle).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
“Astrophysics,
IV THE STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE – In
1922 the Russian astronomer Alexander Friedmann proposed that
the universe is everywhere filled with the same amount of
matter. Using Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate
the gravitational effects, he showed that such a system must
originate in a singular state of infinite density (now called
the big bang) and expand from that state in just the way Hubble
observed.” – "Astrophysics," Microsoft®
Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
However,
Friedmann’s and Lemaitre’s models
rejected Einstein’s third assumption that the universe
is static and does not change with time. This is important
because Einstein’s 1917 model was effectively a primitive
form of the Steady-State model since Einstein’s third
assumption was that space doesn’t change over time.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein’s model –
To derive his 1917 cosmological model, Einstein
made three assumptions that lay outside the scope of his equations…The
third assumption made by Einstein was that the universe as
a whole is static—i.e., its large-scale properties do
not vary with time. This
assumption, made before Hubble's observational discovery of
the expansion of the universe…the philosophical attraction
of the notion that the universe on average is not only
homogeneous and isotropic in space but also constant in time was so appealing that a school of English cosmologists—Hermann
Bondi, Fred Hoyle, and Thomas Gold—would call it the perfect cosmological principle
and carry its implications in the 1950s to the ultimate refinement
in the so-called steady state model.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
In
contrast, by assuming that the universe evolved with time
the models proposed by Friedmann in 1922 and Lamaitre in 1927
“anticipated” Hubble’s discovery of expansion
in 1929 (as indicated by the second quote below).
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models –
The decision to abandon a static model meant that the
Friedmann models evolve with time. As such, neighbouring pieces
of matter have recessional (or contractional) phases when
they separate from (or approach) one another with an apparent
velocity that increases linearly with increasing distance.
Friedmann's models
thus anticipated Hubble's law before it had been formulated
on an observational basis. It
was Lemaître, however, who had the good fortune of deriving
the results at the time when the recession of the galaxies
was being recognized as a fundamental cosmological observation,
and it was he who clarified the theoretical basis for the
phenomenon.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe
Edition
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure
of the Universe – In
1929 Hubble had measured enough spectra of galaxies to realize
that the galaxies' light, except for that of the few nearest
galaxies, was shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum.
This shift increased the more distant the galaxies were. Cosmologists
soon interpreted these
red shifts as Doppler shifts, which showed that the galaxies
were moving away from the earth…This constant relationship
between distance and speed led
cosmologists to believe that the universe is expanding uniformly.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
This
is why Hubble’s discovery of expansion is so central
to modern cosmology. Effectively, it was the discovery of
expansion that marked the demise of Steady-State models, including
Einstein’s original 1917 model, by proving that in the
large-scale the universe was changing over time, namely the
change of expansion. Consequently, as described in the quote
below, expansion actually changes the “shape”
of the universe. Einstein’s original 1917 “cylinder”
curve model was altered in accordance with the work of Friedmann
and Lamaitre. Specifically, the addition of “change
over time” transformed Einstein’s cylinder into
the image of a “barrel on its side,” with the
new curves at both ends of the “barrel” representing
that temporal change caused by expansion.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models –
The geometry of space in Friedmann's closed
models is similar to that of Einstein's original model; however,
there is a curvature to time as well as one to space.
Unlike Einstein's model, where time runs eternally at each
spatial point on an uninterrupted horizontal line that extends
infinitely into the past and future, there is a beginning and end to time in
Friedmann's version of a closed universe when material expands from or is recompressed to infinite densities.
These instants are
called the instants of the “big bang” and the
“big squeeze,” respectively. The global space-time
diagram for the middle half of the expansion-compression
phases can be depicted
as a barrel lying on its side. The space axis corresponds
again to any one direction in the universe, and it wraps around
the barrel. Through each spatial point runs a time axis that
extends along the length of the barrel on its (space-time)
surface. Because the
barrel is curved in both space and time, the little squares in the grid of the curved sheet of graph paper marking
the space-time surface are of nonuniform size, stretching to become bigger when the barrel
broadens (universe expands) and shrinking to become smaller
when the barrel narrows (universe contracts). It should
be remembered that only the surface of the barrel has physical
significance; the dimension off
the surface toward the axle of the barrel represents the fourth spatial dimension, which is not part of the real three-dimensional
world. The space axis circles the barrel and closes upon itself
after traversing a circumference equal to 2?R,
where R, the radius of the universe (in the fourth dimension),
is now a function of the time t. In a closed Friedmann model,
R starts equal to zero at time t = 0 (not shown in barrel
diagram), expands to a maximum value at time t = t m (the
middle of the barrel), and recontracts to zero (not shown)
at time t = 2t m, with the value of t m dependent on the total
amount of mass that exists in the universe.”–
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
This
“barrel on its side” concept of the universe is
depicted in the following illustration from Britannica Encyclopedia
and the subsequent caption below.

“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models –
Curved space-time in a matter-dominated,
closed universe during the middle half of its expansion-compression
phases. At each instant of time t, the
space axis forms a closed loop with radius R(t),
the so-called radius of the universe, in an unobservable fourth
dimension. – From F.H. Shu, The Physical Universe
(1982); University Science Books.” – Encyclopaedia
Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
In
1932, Einstein and de Sitter proposed another modification
to the basic model. This 1932 model assumed that space is
infinite and curved, and most importantly, it retained the
assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy.
“De
Sitter, Willem – His work also helped familiarize astronomers
with the theory of relativity proposed by German-born American
astronomer Albert Einstein…In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter collaborated
and refined both men's earlier cosmological theories to create
the Einstein-de Sitter model of the universe. This model
was the first prediction that dark matter, or matter that
does not emit electromagnetic radiation and so had not yet
been detected, should exist in the universe. See also Cosmology;
Big Bang Theory; Steady-State Theory.” – "De
Sitter, Willem," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
© 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, The Einstein–de Sitter universe
– In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter proposed
that the cosmological constant should be set equal to zero,
and they derived a
homogeneous and isotropic model that provides the separating
case between the closed and open Friedmann models; i.e., Einstein
and de Sitter assumed that the spatial curvature of the universe
is neither positive nor negative but rather zero. The
spatial geometry of the Einstein–de Sitter universe
is Euclidean (infinite total volume), but space-time is not
globally flat (i.e., not exactly the space-time of special
relativity). Time again commences with a big bang and the galaxies recede forever,
but the recession rate (Hubble's “constant”)
asymptotically coasts to zero as time advances to infinity.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
Although
modified by additional support components, like inflation
theory, the Einstein-de Sitter Big Bang cosmology remains
the basic model today.
“Cosmos,
Cosmological models, The very early universe, Inflation
– Cosmic inflation serves a number of useful purposes.
First, the drastic stretching during inflation flattens any initial space curvature,
and so the universe after inflation will look exceedingly
like an Einstein–de Sitter universe.” –
Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
“Cosmos,
Relativistic cosmologies, Relativistic cosmologies, Einstein's
model, The Einstein–de Sitter universe – Because
the geometry of space and the
gross evolutionary properties are uniquely defined in
the Einstein–de
Sitter model, many
people with a philosophical bent have
long considered it the most fitting candidate to describe
the actual universe. During the late 1970s strong theoretical
support for this viewpoint came from considerations of
particle physics (the model of inflation to be discussed below), and mounting, but
as yet undefinitive, support also seems
to be gathering from
astronomical observations.”
Consequently,
the final modern concept of the model can be illustrated like
the surface of a “sphere” or “balloon,”
as depicted in the following illustration from Microsoft Encarta.
In the illustration and its caption, we can see how the spherical
surface of a balloon represents both the “curvature”
of space as well as how space expands.
“Expanding
Universe Experiment – One way to understand the concept
of an expanding universe is to draw dots, representing galaxies,
on a balloon. As the balloon is inflated, each dot moves away
from all the others. To a person viewing the universe from a
galaxy, all other galaxies would seem to be receding.
The distant galaxies appear to be moving away faster than
the near ones, which demonstrates
Hubble's law. Some astronomers believe that this expansion
will continue forever, whereas others think that at a certain
point the universe will begin contracting. “
– Encarta, Microsoft Corporation. All Rights
Reserved.
To
summarize, only 2 out of Einstein’s 3 original assumptions
have been retained in modern cosmology. Those 2 remaining
assumptions are homogeneity and isotropy. Both of these 2
assumptions reflect the notion that on the large scale the
distribution of matter in universe is roughly the same everywhere.
Einstein’s third assumption was that on the large scale
the universe remains the same over time, an assumption which
has since been disproved by expansion.
Now
that we understand what the basic model of the universe looks
like, at least by way of analogy, we can discuss the relevance
of this model. As we have seen throughout the quotes above,
from Aristotle to Einstein’s original model in 1917
to the modern adoptions of the 1932 Einstein-de Sitter model,
the primary factor in this model is what has been called the
Copernical principle, which is the preference for a universe
in which earth, its solar system, and its galaxy are not near
the center and have no special place in the universe. A few
additional comments need to be made with regard to this “Copernican”
ideology.
First,
the fact that the Roman Catholic Church of Copernicus’
day strongly opposed his sun-centered theory is often cited
as an analogy to modern creationism as a criticism that creationism
is a return to the backward science of the Middle Ages under
the Church in which observable reality is suppressed by blind
faith. But this is not true for several reasons.
Number
one, as indicated by the quotes below, the Roman Catholic
Church was simply upholding an ancient secular, Gentile, or
Pagan cosmological view put forward by Aristotle and Ptolemy,
not the Bible. Consequently, this historical episode is an
example of the problems that ensue when the texts of the Bible
are bent out of their context to support the ideas of secular
science.
“Astronomy,
History – Aristotle's system of physics and astronomy,
developed in the 300's B.C., survived for almost 2,000 years.
In Aristotle's system of astronomy, Earth
was the center of the universe. During
the A.D. 100's, Ptolemy modified Aristotle's system to
account for the retrograde motion of the planets. Ptolemy
also maintained that Earth was the center of the universe,
however. Developing the modern view – By the early 1500's, Nicolaus Copernicus
had developed a theory in which Earth and the other planets
revolved about the sun…In 1609, Galileo heard that an
optical device had been built that made distant objects appear
closer. He soon built his own telescope. The
discoveries Galileo made with this instrument backed the Copernican
theory over the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In
1616, however, the
Roman Catholic Church warned Galileo not to teach that
Earth revolves about the sun. A book of Galileo's published
in 1632 was interpreted as a violation of the ban, and Galileo
was put under house arrest. Only
in 1992 did the Catholic Church confirm that Galileo should
not have been tried or convicted.” – Worldbook,
Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor
of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins
Observatory of Williams
College.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, A Ancient Cosmologies
– Until the 16th century, most people
(including early astronomers) considered
the earth to be at the center of the universe…B Sun-Centered
Universe – The ideas of Ptolemy were accepted in
an age when standards of scientific accuracy and proof had
not yet been developed. Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus
developed his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s,
he based his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations.
Copernicus's theory was simpler and therefore
more sound philosophically than the idea of an earth-centered
universe. A sun-centered universe neatly explained why Mars
appears to move backward across the sky: Because Earth
is closer to the sun, Earth moves faster than Mars. When Mars
is ahead of or relatively far behind Earth, Mars appears to
move across Earth's night sky in the usual west-to-east direction.
As Earth overtakes Mars, Mars's motion seems to stop, then
begin an east-to-west motion that stops and reverses when
Earth moves far enough away again. Copernicus's model also
explained the daily and yearly motion of the sun and stars
in the earth's sky. Scientists were slow to accept Copernicus's
model of the universe, but followers grew in number throughout
the 16th century. By
the mid-17th century, most scientists in western Europe accepted
the Copernican universe.” – "Cosmology,"
Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astronomy,
Observing the sky, Earth-centered theories – Ancient scholars produced elaborate schemes to account for the observed
movements of the stars, sun, moon, and planets. In the 300's
B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle developed a system of
56 spheres, all with the same center. The innermost sphere,
which did not move, was Earth. Around Earth were 55 transparent,
rotating spherical shells. The outermost shell carried the
stars, believed to be merely points of light. Other shells
carried the sun, moon, and planets. These shells rotated inside
other shells that rotated within still other shells in ways
that accounted for almost all the observed movements. During
the A.D. 100's, Ptolemy, a Greek astronomer who lived in Alexandria,
Egypt, offered an explanation that
better accounted for retrograde motion. Ptolemy said that
the planets moved in small circles called epicycles. The epicycles
moved in large circles called deferents. Earth was near the
center of all the deferents. Sun-centered theories – By the early
1500's, the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus had developed
a theory in which the sun was at the center of the universe.
This theory correctly explained retrograde motion as the
changing view of the planets as seen from a moving Earth.
The theory also correctly
explained the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across
the sky. This movement is due to the west-to-east rotation
of Earth about its own axis, rather than an actual motion
of the sun and stars.” – Worldbook, Contributor:
Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy
and Director, Hopkins Observatory
of Williams
College.
Number
2, the suggestion that the Bible teaches the sun revolves
around the earth requires an erroneous interpretive leap that
takes the passage far beyond the normal usage of the expressions
in the passage. The passage in question is Joshua 10:12-13,
which was misapplied to support the earth-centered universe
of the ancient pagan Greeks and Egyptians.
To
illustrate, notice that the last quote from Worldbook above
asserts that Copernicus’ theory “correctly explained
the east-to-west movement of the sun and stars across the
sky.” Likewise, the quote from Microsoft Encarta states
that Copernicus’ theory “neatly explained why
Mars appears to move backward across the sky.” When
we read such statements from modern reference books, we don’t
assume that the authors believe that the sun, stars, or Mars
actually move across the sky or that it is their intention
to communicate that idea. Likewise, when we hear modern people
refer to sunrise or sundown, we don’t assume that they
believe the sun is moving around the earth. Instead, we assume
they are either speaking poetically or casually without intending
their words as technical descriptions of the structure of
the universe. Yet, when we read a passage in the Bible such
as Joshua 10:12-13, which similarly states “the sun
stood still in the midst of heaven,” why do we interpret
that statement differently as though it actually is intended
as a technical description of the structure of the universe?
Why the double standard?
The
reason is simple. Effectively, we would be mistakenly interpreting
the Bible in light of our presumption that these were more
primitive people who had wrong ideas about the structure of
the universe, in which case our preconceived biases are causing
us to interpret the text differently than we would if we heard
the same words uttered in common speech today. However, one
of the rules in the interpretive, textual science of hermeneutics
is that figures of speech in the text must be taken as figures
of speech, rather than taken literally. Joshua 10 is simply
a classic case of misinterpreting a text, taking a common
figure of speech, such as the ones we see in Worldbook and
Encarta above, and interpreting it literally. In the case
of the Roman Catholic Church in Copernicus’ day, their
misinterpretation was motivated by a desire to uphold the
current, secular scientific view of their day, which had been
advanced by Aristotle and Ptolemy. In the case of modern persons,
the misinterpretation is the result of approaching the text
with the presumption that evolution, including cultural evolution,
is true and then interpreting the text in light of those assumptions
rather than letting it speak for itself and judging its words
in the same manner we would if we read or heard them anywhere
else.
For
these reasons, it is incorrect to conclude that the episode
between Copernicus and Aristotle exemplifies creationism suppressing
observable reality in favor of blind faith. Instead, what
really occurred was a highly-syncretistic form of Christianity
made a presumptuous interpretation of a casual, everyday statement
taken out of context from an isolated passage in order to
bend support toward an erroneous secular scientific view proposed
by Aristotle and Ptolemy, not the Bible.
But
more importantly, notice that the first quote above states
that “simpler” theories and explanations of the
existing observations are considered superior and preferable
to complicated ones.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, B Sun-Centered Universe
– Even when Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus developed
his model of a sun-centered universe in the 1540s, he based
his ideas on philosophy instead of new observations. Copernicus's
theory was simpler and therefore more sound philosophically
than the idea of an earth-centered universe.” –
"Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99.
© 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
This
suggestion will become more and more relevant as we explore
the known evidence about expansion and its implications for
cosmological models.
It
should also be pointed out that Copernicus’ model does
not stand. As indicated by the quotes above Copernicus merely
replaced the earth-centered universe with a universe in which
the sun was the center. Scientists now know that our sun is
not the center of the universe either.
“Cosmology,
II EVOLUTION OF COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES, D Discovering the Structure of the Universe – In 1917 American scientist Harlow Shapley
measured the distance to several groups of stars known as
globular clusters. He measured these distances by using
a method developed in 1912 by American astronomer Henrietta
Leavitt. Leavitt's method relates distance to variations in
brightness of Cepheid variables, a class of stars that vary
periodically in brightness. Shapley's
distance measurements showed that the clusters were centered
around a point far from the sun.
The arrangement of the clusters was presumed to reflect the
overall shape of the galaxy, so Shapley realized that the sun was not in the center of the galaxy. Just
as Copernicus's observations revealed that the earth not at
the center of the universe, Shapley's
observations revealed that the sun was not at the center of
the galaxy. Cosmologists now realize that the earth
and sun do not occupy any special position in the universe.”
– "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia
99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
“Astronomy
– The Milky
Way is about 100,000 light-years across, and
the sun is roughly 25,000 light-years from its center.”
– Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field
Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins
Observatory of Williams
College.
The
fact that Copernicus’ own model has been rejected highlights
what is actually embraced about Copernicus. It is not his
view of the universe, but simply his basic rejection of the
idea that the earth has special or central place in the universe.
It is not difficult to understand why evolutionary science
embraces such a preference. Such a central or special location
for the earth is rejected on the grounds that it indicates
teleology, a purposeful placement of the earth in a specific
location. And as we can see, from Einstein’s original
model in 1917 right through the modifications to the 1932
Einstein-de Sitter universe which serves as the basis for
Big Bang cosmology to this day, the model is formulated on
the basis of assumptions and philosophical preferences, which
themselves stem from this Copernican principle in which the
earth has not central or special place in the universe.
(Continued…)