posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
There is a phenomena that we see on earth in regards to the expansion of the universe.
Redshift occurs when a light source is moving away from the observer, this can include stars, galaxies, etc. Blueshift is when the source is moving
In the early 20th century it was observed that many objects in space have redshift in relation to earth and this help give rise to theory that the
universe is expanding from a central point, aka the Big Bang Theory.
It was observed that very distant bodies exhibit a redshift uniformity from all points on earth, this has been explained by the expansion of space
itself between bodies, rather than saying there is uniform universal expansion being observed from earth, but there are issues.
On the Geocentric Nature of Hubble Law
An expanding universe with all heavenly bodies moving away from the earth seems to suggest a geocentric theory which is evidently false. To
defend BBT from falling into a geocentric theory, it is argued that if the universe is expanding linearly from the singularity, the heavenly bodies
would appear to be leaving away from each other with isotropic velocity distribution with respect to the observer on earth. The validity of the Big
Bang Theory (BBT) is therefore crucially dependent on the linearity of Hubble's law. Any genuine non linear function would suggest that our earth is
located at the center of the universe which is highly improbable.
Current science finds the earth as the center as improbable. A number of scientists say if there is a center, it would be a naked singularity leftover
from the Big Band. A naked singularity is a singularity of infinite density without an event horizon, meaning it should be observable and interact in
ways with spacetime that a standard black hole cannot.
Earth is not a singularity, yet the redshift seems to indicate a geocentric model. Instead a work around is produced to explain the paradox. The
article above explains even the work arounds fail to really prove the geocentric model is wrong, which in the author's view indicates a failure of
Big Bang theory not an indication of a geocentricism, again based on the idea that earth is not a singularity.
Personally I can't really say if the BBT is flawed. I don't think we are in some sort of naked singularity, at least it doesn't seem apparent. At
the same time, we have no idea what it would look like or how it would interact with bodies around it. I have my own personal thoughts of what a naked
"Alpha" singularity may represent, especially in relation to Bernard d'Espagnat's "hypercosmic god" and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's and Frank
J. Tipler's "Omega Point". However, here we get away from science and more into metaphysical philsophy.