Which astronomical system do you believe in?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 15 2006, 05:58 PM']What type of astronomical system do you believe in? [b]We[/b] personally are a Geo-Centrist, and [b]We[/b] are wondering what most phatmassers are.

Also, seeing as most helio-centrists do not believe the sun is the centre of the universe, but rather, the centre of the "solar system" [b]we [/b]would like to, for the purposes of this pole, define helio-centrism as the belief that the earth revolves around the sun.
[right][snapback]912811[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are we royalty now?

[scardella]

God is the center of the Universe.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 16 2006, 12:24 AM']Wow! I cant believe 13 percent of phatmassers are flat earthers! I thought there were only about 1000 in the whole world! It's also amazing we have one luna-centrist!
[right][snapback]913086[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

People are messing with you

(ps - I didn't vote)

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 16 2006, 08:54 AM']People are messing with you

(ps - I didn't vote)
[right][snapback]913153[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Polls around here tend to be of the very non-scientific variety.

(ps- I didn't vote, either.)

[Ash Wednesday]

[img]http://www.ecology.com/earth-at-a-glance/earth-at-a-glance-feature/images/1.jpg[/img]

I refused to speculate.

[Desert Walker]

[quote] April 17, 1997
Physics and Astronomy

RESEARCHERS FIND EVIDENCE UNIVERSE MAY HAVE AN AXIS

LAWRENCE - The universe, like the Earth, may have its own axis, according to observational data collected by researchers at the University of Kansas and University of Rochester in New York.
The findings are reported in the April 21 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. The research brings into question Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which is based on assumptions of a centerless, directionless universe, as well as upon the constancy of the speed of light.

"Our observational data suggest that there is a mysterious axis, a kind of cosmological North Star, that orients the universe," said John Ralston, a KU professor of physics and astronomy.

Ralston and Borge Nodland, a research fellow at the Rochester Theory Center for Optical Science and Engineering at the University of Rochester, made the discovery after analyzing radio waves emitted from distant galaxies. The data they looked at have been published over the years by several independent groups of radio astronomers.

Ralston and Nodland's research suggests that the plane of polarization of radio waves undergoes "a corkscrew rotation as the waves travel across the universe," Nodland said. "The details of the rotation provide indirect evidence of a universal axis ... not unlike an axis of rotation."

To visualize a "corkscrew rotation" of the universe, imagine tying one end of a rope to a doorknob and shaking the other end up and down, Ralston said. The waves of the rope stay in one flat plane of vibration.

"With regard to the radio waves," Ralston said, "the flat plane twists around like a screw as it moves along. It takes about a billion light years for the plane to twist once. And what makes this very strange, in addition to an expected dependence on the distance of travel, the rotation depends systematically on the direction the radio waves travel as well."

"It is not clear how to interpret our findings," said Nodland, a former KU graduate student. "One possibility would be to revise the laws of light and electromagnetism."

"Traditionally, physicists have believed that light has to go at a universal speed," Ralston said. "A simple interpretation of what we found is that light may travel at different speeds due to some interaction."

Ralston and Nodland say there are a number of other possible interpretations, and their "conclusions are only as good as the data."

They stress that the effect of this universal axis is so small that their findings do not necessarily contradict previous findings.

The research was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and K*STAR, the Kansas Science and Technology Advanced Research program. K*STAR is funded by the NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and with matching state funds through the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation.

Story By Dann Hayes, (785) 864-8855, email dhayes@ku.edu
Other contacts: Tom Rickey, University of Rochester, (716) 275-7954, trickey@admin.rochester.edu

[/quote]

[Desert Walker]

I actually believe that the geo-centric model describes the universe's relationship to its creator.

Our physical eyes see that the sun is the center of our solar system, and that we appear not to be the PHYSICAL center of anything.

But what would happen if we dispensed with the notion the "spirit" and "matter" should be investigated and considered as two distinct realities?

Isn't that actually a false conceptual dichotomy?

Is it not false to think that way because, in FACT, it's not that way?

Aristotle's architectural model of the universe seems to accurately describe a universe that is a composite of both material and spiritual dynamics. But this composite, in order to perfectly fit with Aristotle's model cannot be considered as two "separates" combined in some way. It makes more sense when the concepts of "spirit" and "matter" are eliminated entirely from thought to make room for the ideal concept: being.

The fall darkened our intellects to such a degree that it became extremely difficult for us to recognize anything except that which came through a mere FIVE of our senses. We have many more senses which are brought back to life in us by the action of the Holy Spirit, but we must first begin to deny gratifying, in some way, the mere FIVE sense that have dominated our experience since birth. Only then can the Holy Spirit begin to significantly renovate our being.

[kdewolf2]

I'd say, the universe does not exist. It's merely an optical illusion, or it's a digital network of information stored on a cosmic harddrive.



Seriously, all motion is relative, so it's only true to say that the earth moves with respect to the sun, or the sun moves with respect to the earth; while conceptually, a geocentric universe is possible, an acentric universe wherein the earth revolves around the sun is much simpler ala Occam's razor.

However, there's no proof that Occam's razor guarantees absolute truth. The cosmos might be more complex than we'd imagine; there's no proof that the simplest explanation is always correct.

If there is absolute motion in the universe, it is known only to God.

[Semalsia]

I believe the Earth to be banana shaped.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='kdewolf2' date='Mar 16 2006, 02:37 PM']Seriously, all motion is relative, so it's only true to say that the earth moves with respect to the sun, or the sun moves with respect to the earth; while conceptually, a geocentric universe is possible, an acentric universe wherein the earth revolves around the sun is much simpler ala Occam's razor.

However, there's no proof that Occam's razor guarantees absolute truth.  The cosmos might be more complex than we'd imagine; there's no proof that the simplest explanation is always correct.

If there is absolute motion in the universe, it is known only to God.
[right][snapback]913403[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You are right about the Occam's razor. It doesn't mean anything is right and I would seek to avoid using it in terms of science (because so far many things we understand don't "obey" Occam's razor).

My understanding of the modern physics is that there is such thing as absolute space and time. The General and Special Theories of Relativity postulate that there is an absolute reference and it is where one is not acted upon by any forces. Freefall, in a vaccum, would be like this. If I were to jump out of the window, the ground would be moving towards me and not me towards the ground. Freefall is the reference state to which all things move. There is rel. space and time, but not rel. spacetime.

[toledo_jesus]

what a silly question. is it essential to faith and morals?

interesting science talk though.

[Chester]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 15 2006, 05:58 PM']What type of astronomical system do you believe in? We personally are a Geo-Centrist, and We are wondering what most phatmassers are.

Also, seeing as most helio-centrists do not believe the sun is the centre of the universe, but rather, the centre of the "solar system" we would like to, for the purposes of this pole, define helio-centrism as the belief that the earth revolves around the sun.
[right][snapback]912811[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I believe in the heliocentric system. Do you have a link(s) that explain geocentrism? I would like to know how you explain parallax. Thanks.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StThomasMore' date='Mar 15 2006, 05:58 PM']What type of astronomical system do you believe in? We personally are a Geo-Centrist, and We are wondering what most phatmassers are.

Also, seeing as most helio-centrists do not believe the sun is the centre of the universe, but rather, the centre of the "solar system" we would like to, for the purposes of this pole, define helio-centrism as the belief that the earth revolves around the sun.
[right][snapback]912811[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The only people who describe themselves as "we" are royalty, editors, nutcases, and people with tapeworms.....

the earth is located in the quiet suburbs of our galaxy, expanding away just like its neighbors...off we go into the wild blue yonder

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 20 2006, 08:55 AM']The only people who describe themselves as "we" are royalty, editors, nutcases, and people with tapeworms.....
[right][snapback]915509[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

We do not like your suggestion here. You will be assimilated.

[Desert Walker]

The possibility that the universe has a fixed axis (central point of reference) potentially throws some of the assertions of the theory of relativity into question.

It also makes ancient cosmological models more accurate than those who discarded them might have realized.

Edited March 20, 2006 by Desert Walker

[kdewolf2]

[quote]My understanding of the modern physics is that there is such thing as absolute space and time. The General and Special Theories of Relativity postulate that there is an absolute reference and it is where one is not acted upon by any forces.[/quote]

I'm not an expert so I could be wrong, but my understanding was that relativity's only constant is the speed of light. Nonetheless, the argument stands. It's impossibly to know whether the earth revolves around the sun, or vice versa; only relative motion can be observed. Copernicus is only accepted by virtue of the relative simplicity of the model compared with Aristotle's multiplicity of epicycles, or Tycho Brahe's rather baseless supposition that the [i]other[/i] planets revolve around the sun, whereas the sun revolves around the earth. However, simplicity does not always guarantee truth, so the truth is known only to God.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 20 2006, 09:18 AM']We do not like your suggestion here. You will be assimilated.   
[right][snapback]915519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So you HAVE been eating raw pork???

[Snarf]

According to General Relativity, it's totally arbitrary where the center of the universe is. If you were to go past the "borders" of the universe, there are a few theories as to what would happen, but the most popular belief is that you'd wind up at the opposite side of the universe like in Pac-Man. It's pretty difficult to visualize why this happens, but the same goes for everything else beyond quantum barrier tunneling. The universe IS NOT INFINITE. it's perfectly obvious that the present universe is expanding, and for an infinite structure to expand is just senseless.

As for Special Relativity, the only absolute is the speed of a body through spacetime. I feel like there was something else that was absolute, but I'd have to dig up my notes and it wasn't that important.

[Markjwyatt]

Wow, so few votes fro geocentrism. [url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/12/435-polled-on-catholic-apologetics.html"]Catholic Answers[/url] voted much differently.

See my three part series on geocentrism:

[b]Geocentricity 101: A beginner's Course[/b]

[url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html"]Part I Basic Principles[/url]
[url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html"]Part II: Basic Physics[/url]
[url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html"]Part III: Scripture and Church Position[/url]
[url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/geocentricity-101-supplement.html"]Supplement: Church Position[/url]

Also, Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert Bennett, Ph.D will be releasing Part I of [i]Galileo Was Wrong[/i], very soon. This book will blow the lid off this issue. Keep an open mind, and read the book.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

[uriel]

Geometrically in order for their to be a center there needs to be a designated perimeter. Are there walls to space? If there are, how can we be sure there isn't more on the other side of the walls?

If one can map an "ejection" of the different masses in the universe and can trace things back to an "origin" then this leads to a confirmation of the big-band theory.