From: Colin Stevenson <colsweb.nul>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:20:43 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 06:56:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Could We Really Be At The Center of The


>From: Larry Hatch <larryhatch.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:10:54 -0700
>Subject: Re: Could We Really Be At The Center of The Universe?

>>From: Colin Stevenson <colsweb.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:46:45 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Could We Really Be At The Center of The Universe?

>>>From: Terry W. Colvin <fortean1.nul>
>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:57:34 -0700
>>>Subject: Could We Really Be At The Center of The Universe?

>><snip>

>>>Could We *Really* Be At The Center of The Universe?

>>>Newly published data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS),
>>>led by Max Tegmark of the University of Pennsylvania, shows that
>>>our galaxy is centered on a great concentric distribution of
>>>galaxies.

>>>The foregoing quotation is based upon an ambitious astronomical
>>>survey effort involving more than 200 astronomers at 13
>>>institutions. So far, over 200,000 galaxies have been mapped.
>>>The accompanying figure is a two-dimensional, wedge-shaped slice
>>>of this cosmic map. It pinpoints approximately 33,500
>>>galaxies. ...Note the rough concentricity about the earth.

>>>Source: http://www.sdss.org/news/releases/galaxy_zoom.jpg

>><snip>

>>A question in regard to red shift limits.

>>If we travel to the outermost red shifted stars and travel with
>>them at their speed would more stars be revealed past them?

>>Or. Is there equipment which see's beyond the maximum red shift?

>>Maybe only E.T. has the answers and it's believed, in some
>>quarters, that they too seek 'The Creator'. Could this 'Creator'
>>be outside the Universe detecting and smiling at us all?

>If I have this right, conventional wisdom is that if we could
>somehow reach those far red-shifted stars, and travel (stay)
>with them, then our star would be red shifted behind us.  New
>(to us) stars/galaxies would become visible, those outside our
>Earthbound observable universe, presumably highly red shifted
>again.  Thus, each point in space, near and far, has its own
>"observable universe"

>I see no need to bring theology into the mix.

Hi Larry and Listers

So. If we travel faster and faster to see the unfolding stars,
not normally seen, then eventually we would become infinite
energy or mass ( E=MC2 ) relative to where we came from ( Earth
). Therefore that would be the 'Constant state' theory? Rather
than 'big bang' theory?

As I know little of Astronomy, and maybe others on the list are
similar, then would there be a point outside our detected
Universe where our theories are not applicable? Or where
everything is mass or energy ?

Relatively, at present, we would be located at the center of the
Universe only based upon our methods of observation. So we would
be at the center of our Universe no matter where we are in it
but if we traveled to one edge of it then we would realize that
new stars appear thus then would know we were not at the center
before.

I and many others seem to be confused and don't we need some
form of new instrument to see the other stars not normally seen
at present? Presume the stars would be traveling relatively
faster than light seen from our position therefore we would not
be able to detect them (background radiation?) ?

There is also the matter of time. Stars that we see at the
limits of our capabilities were at those points millions of
years ago and if they were traveling at near light speed at that
time then where are they now and do they still exist?

We might know we are at the center of our detectable Universe
all the time but the Universe MUST be much larger surely?

To define anything by what we see or detect cannot be correct
based upon the above and that is where theology gets into the
mix.


Kind regards

Col