Catholic Astronomy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephentlig
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kbachler said:
This is another reason why the question is nonsensical. There is no axis or center of the universe.
Click to expand...
Then you are making a claim that the universe does not rotate, but since you are not outside the frame you cannot know this.
 
buffalo said:
Then you are making a claim that the universe does not rotate, but since you are not outside the frame you cannot know this.
Click to expand...
See the edited version of the prior post.

It’s possible that in some multi-dimensional observation of the universe, there may be some sort of angular momentum exhibited. But none of the currently available evidence would suggest that. There’s no center in the normal sense of center, no rotation in the normal sense of rotation.
 
kbachler said:
See the edited version of the prior post.

It’s possible that in some multi-dimensional observation of the universe, there may be some sort of angular momentum exhibited. But none of the currently available evidence would suggest that. There’s no center in the normal sense of center, no rotation in the normal sense of rotation.
Click to expand...
Now you understand the point. Our observations, must be understood to be limited and provisional. Galactocentric data does suggest a center.
 
buffalo said:
Now you understand the point. Our observations, must be understood to be limited and provisional. Galactocentric data does suggest a center.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t suggest any such thing. And, we don’t draw conclusions based on what we cannot observe. Those are called “speculations”.

The observable data, which also supports big bang, is that the universe is expanding in all directions simultaneously; There is no center.

It’s as though our universe were on the surface of a perfectly round balloon, and the balloon expanded. Everything moves away from everything else. There is no where in our universe that qualifies as a center.
 
kbachler said:
No, it doesn’t suggest any such thing. And, we don’t draw conclusions based on what we cannot observe. Those are called “speculations”.

The observable data, which also supports big bang, is that the universe is expanding in all directions simultaneously; There is no center.

It’s as though our universe were on the surface of a perfectly round balloon, and the balloon expanded. Everything moves away from everything else. There is no where in our universe that qualifies as a center.
Click to expand...
Galactocentric shows that galaxies are located at concentric rings about the earth. I will wait and see where this goes.
 
kbachler said:
It’s as though our universe were on the surface of a perfectly round balloon, and the balloon expanded. Everything moves away from everything else. There is no where in our universe that qualifies as a center.
Click to expand...
mgreen77 said:
Wouldn’t then *everyplace *be a center? 😉
Click to expand...
Not unless one could say that every point on the surface of a sphere is the center of the sphere. Our universe is very likely spherical in shape. We and all other galaxies live on the (3-dimensional) surface of that sphere.
 
Thank you all for your replies. Are there any books that speak about all these centrisms?

Thanks also to the person who posted upon Cassini. Wow. Are there any books written about him and his studies that I could purchase?

My celestron astromaster 70EQ 4 inch refractor ( equivelent to 6 inch reflector ) arrived the other day. I’m looking forward to using this scope to view the moon, stars and hopefully huge planets such as Jupiter and the most favourite planet viewed ( so they say ) Saturn.

I decided to create a blog that follows my beginner progress in which I hope to upload some of my own photos along with some Psalms 😃

www.starsofheaven.wordpress.com

Pax
Stephen
 
JimG said:
Not unless one could say that every point on the surface of a sphere is the center of the sphere. Our universe is very likely spherical in shape. We and all other galaxies live on the (3-dimensional) surface of that sphere.
Click to expand...
No, none of the points on the surface of the sphere qualify as a center. The shape of the universe,if there is one, is not completely clear.
 
buffalo said:
Yes - so it could be a worldview position that the earth is the center. As long as we stick with relativity that is an option.
Click to expand...
No. The concept of multiple centers is a nonsensical concept.

Relativity doesn’t help in this situation becaue EVERY frame of reference would see themselves as a center.
 
mgreen77 said:
Wouldn’t then *everyplace *be a center? 😉
Click to expand...
No. The concept of a “multiple center” makes no sense. That’s like a 4 sided triangle, right?

We can see that every thing is moving away from us, and ALSO from everything else.
 
You said:
😃
correct. Both planets and star orbit a separate point, a point in between the star and the planets. Think of the countrified type of barn-dance where you take your partner by the hand and swing her around and around. Both you and your partner [the sunshine of your life] orbit around both of your clasped hands as you both swing around and around.
The sun orbits around this center-point the same as the earth orbits around this point.
Click to expand...
The mass of the Sun is such that this point is basically the Sun.
 
buffalo said:
Source?
Click to expand...
Any reputable book on modern astronomy/cosmology.

There is some evidence (far from conclusive) that there may be a fractal distribution. There clearly is NOT a distribution of galaxies or matter based on concentric circles.

One of the isses with Big Bang is/was why there should be “lumpiness” at all. There are models that show the distribution of galaxies, of matter, and of dark matter. NONE of them are of concentric circles moving out from Earth.

You can easily find graphs of such distributions on the Internet, from reputable sources such as Universities or established scientific institutions… Do you want me to find them and quote them for you?

BTW - someone posted that you can model the solar system based on a geocentric model. Well, you CAN, but it works poorly and reqires numerous ad hoc assumptions. OTOH, a heliocentric model of the solar system works very well, and when Einstein came along with relativity, the same model moved into 4 dimensional space-time not only worked well, it worked even better than before. This is NOT TRUE for a geocentric model.

I thought, as Christians, we were interested in truth. When we can physically demonstrate that some things, like geocentric models, are not true, why are there those among us who are trying to revive them? Is this a vain attempt to prove that somehow the scientific establishment is wrong (and that therefore God is right?) Science is not at odds with God. Science is a way of knowing God’s creation.

Let the truth set you free.
 
For what it’s worth, there are animations on Wikipedia showing how barycenters, the common point about which two bodies rotate, work. Look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass Links I post don’t seem to work, so you might have to copy/pase, or type.

And also fyi, you can take any body, say the moon or an asss-teroid such as a geocentric mind, and do math that “proves” it to be the center of whatever. All that’s happened is that given an assumption, its consequent parameters can be plotted. So if you want the Earth to be the center of things, fine, there is the math that describes how that works. But it doesn’t make that assumption true. The math is neutral and bends to the application required by the asss-umption, in this case geocentrism.
 
kbachler said:
Any reputable book on modern astronomy/cosmology.

There is some evidence (far from conclusive) that there may be a fractal distribution. There clearly is NOT a distribution of galaxies or matter based on concentric circles.

One of the isses with Big Bang is/was why there should be “lumpiness” at all. There are models that show the distribution of galaxies, of matter, and of dark matter. NONE of them are of concentric circles moving out from Earth.

You can easily find graphs of such distributions on the Internet, from reputable sources such as Universities or established scientific institutions… Do you want me to find them and quote them for you?

BTW - someone posted that you can model the solar system based on a geocentric model. Well, you CAN, but it works poorly and reqires numerous ad hoc assumptions. OTOH, a heliocentric model of the solar system works very well, and when Einstein came along with relativity, the same model moved into 4 dimensional space-time not only worked well, it worked even better than before. This is NOT TRUE for a geocentric model.

I thought, as Christians, we were interested in truth. When we can physically demonstrate that some things, like geocentric models, are not true, why are there those among us who are trying to revive them? Is this a vain attempt to prove that somehow the scientific establishment is wrong (and that therefore God is right?) Science is not at odds with God. Science is a way of knowing God’s creation.

Let the truth set you free.
Click to expand...
We are interested in truth and that is why question paradigms is important. The true ones hold up over time.

Statistics of redshift periodicities

Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity
in their redshift distributions have been investigated using high-precision data and
rigorous statistical procedures. The periodicities are broadly confirmed. They are
easily seen by eye in the data sets. Observational, reduction, or statistical artefacts
do not seem capable of accounting for them.

’Big Wave’ Theory Offers Alternative to Dark Energy
Ripples in a pond
Temple compared the wave to what happens when you throw a rock into a pond. In this case, the rock would be the Big Bang, and the concentric ripples that result are like a series of waves throughout the universe. Later on, when the first galaxies start to form, they are forming inside space-time that has already been displaced from where it would have been without the wave. So when we observe these galaxies with telescopes, they don’t appear to be where we would expect if there had never been a big wave.
One potential issue with this idea is that it might require a big coincidence.

For the universe to appear to be accelerating at the same rate in all directions, we in the Milky Way would have to be near a local center, at the spot where an expansion wave was initiated early in the Big Bang when the universe was filled with radiation.

Temple concedes that this is a coincidence, but said it’s possible that we are merely in the center of a smaller wave that affects the galaxies we can see from our vantage point - we need not be in the center of the entire universe for the idea to work.
 
Pleae forgive me, I dir not read thur all these threads and your anwser amy ahve already come.

But remember this, God not only has infinate intellegentce, infinate compassion and infinate understanding, but he also has infinate imagination.

Why not when God said let there be light, he stated the process that we know as Star formation?

It would indeed be a boring Universe if God had not only created everything, but did so in a way that was not only scientifically explainiable and wonderous at the same time.
 
Ranklyfrank said:
For what it’s worth, there are animations on Wikipedia showing how barycenters, the common point about which two bodies rotate, work. Look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass Links I post don’t seem to work, so you might have to copy/pase, or type.

And also fyi, you can take any body, say the moon or an asss-teroid such as a geocentric mind, and do math that “proves” it to be the center of whatever. All that’s happened is that given an assumption, its consequent parameters can be plotted. So if you want the Earth to be the center of things, fine, there is the math that describes how that works. But it doesn’t make that assumption true. The math is neutral and bends to the application required by the asss-umption, in this case geocentrism.
Click to expand...
But the Earth cannot be the center of the universe. There is no center. You can have it be a center as related to another thing - perhaps even as related to a few things. Not as related to all things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top