Galileo

[hecd2]

Following this line of reasoning, warpspeedpetey,
that is, the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the milky way…it stands to reason that the universe is orbiting a central point as well…where is it?

Your logic is flawed. All of the systems you refer to above are gravitationally bound with relatively massive bodies at their centre. Also these systems orbit their centre of gravity or barycentre- the earth-moon system orbits the centre of gravity of the earth and moon, the earth orbits the centre of gravity of the earth-sun (almost at the centre of the sun) and the stars in the Milky Way orbit the supermassive black hole Sgr A*.

The universe is not a gravitationally bound system in the same way.

I am not a scientist, but I’ve heard the science of General Relativity does not forbid the earth to remain static according to the physical laws of nature…is this true or not?

The term “static” is meaningless in GR, so your statement is meaningless. So it is not true.

However, simple cosmic considerations such as meteorite strikes, the stellar wind and tidal gravitational forces mean that no finite body, such as the earth, can remain with the same physical relationship to the rest of the universe for any finite time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The stars apparent movement of the heavens has been known since ancient times

But not Bradley aberration.

Of course there are more direct tests using the stars that is consistent with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun; specifically the ability to measure the parallax of some stars and thus using basic math, derive their distance from us.

Actually stellar parallax is a much smaller effect (about 26 times smaller for the closest star, Proxima Centauri)) than stellar aberration and very difficult to measure.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I believe the Freemasons of the Royal Society had it done but because it showed an immobile earth they hid the findings. Only when heliocentricism was home and dry was Airy’s failure announced.

But stellar aberration, incluing Airy’s experiment has bnever shown an “immobile” earth. Immobile with respect to what? You have shown that you really don’t have a clue about what stellar aberration is, and you don’t care hgow you abuse the findings about the phenomenon so long as you can twist it to support your idiosyncratic religious position.

Tell you what Copernicans. How about you guys now PROVE to me the Airy failure did not prove geocentricism. If you can you will not see me for dust, as I could not deny true science could I?

You won’t disappear, because people like you never keep your word, but the Airy experiment did not prove geocentrism because it is well explained (and only explained) by the motion of the earth at right angles to the light path from the stars and that is so whatever medium fills the telescope. In fact stellar aberration remains entirely consistent with, and a powerful demonstration of, the earth’s orbit around the sun. Even you admitted in a previous post that it could not be used to prove geocentrsim (you wrote: “While Airy cannot be said to prove geocentricism, because no such proof is possible…”). So not only is your science egregiously flawed, but you are not even able to adopt a consistent position from one post to the next. What a shambles. Now, will you disappear?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Eventhough we believe the universe is expanding, the belief is still that it is a closed one, meaning that a gravitational centre need to exist, somewhere.

That does not follow. Where is the centre of the surface of a balloon, which is a closed two-dimensional space?

If such a centre does exist, the motion of the universe as a whole would need to be influenced by such a centre.

That does not follow - why?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[mich2]

If you mean by this statement that no unmoving centre of the universe has been identified, of course that is true as such a concept is quite meaningless.

…making heliocentrism meaningless as well.

But IF such a physical place *were *to be identified why would anyone SUSPECT that it would be at the earth?

Because of our present observation of the universe. We seem to be located at the center. Claiming that any frame of reference would observe the same , while possibly true, is still hypothetical in nature. If such an hypothesis could be proven erronious, then, placing the earth central to the universe could be a possibility.

Why shouldn’t Galileo claim that the sun was the centre of the solar system, which it is? Why shouldn’t he point out that the earth is not the centre of the universe? You have to understand that the distinction between the solar system and the universe was not properly understood in Galileo’s day. His correct rebuttal of geocentrism and the step that he took to oppose the Church’s toxic interference in the free expression of thought are more important than whether strict heliocentrism is correct. As a dynamical system, the solar system is certainly heliocentric.

The problem lies, in my opinion, in Galileo refusing to hold heliocentrism as a model, but claimed it as an absolute truth. This requires an absolute static frame of reference; he chose the sun instead of the earth. We are sometimes quick in showing stupidity on the part of the church in believing the earth is actually static. However, nobody seems to find problems in Galileo believing the sun was static instead of the earth.The sun is not static, this is the point, making heliocentrism, which means placing the sun static, that is, absent of motion in the universe, to be just as erronious as the geocentric absolute static frame.

Galileo wrote:

. "Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position–eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."

Really? I think that is wishful thinking on their part.

You certainly can be right on this one; however, the new sciences provide us with certain metaphysical implications which might give interest to philosophers, theologians and theoretical physicists.

I am sorry Andre, but this is a poor analogy. What has any interpretation of Young’s experiment got to do with geocentrism?

My point was mearly to point out that it could be just as true to speak geocentric universe as it is to speak of a heliocentric one, in the same way that it is just as true to speak of wave or particle properties of matter. I was trying to make the point that neither can be said to be more truer than the other.

I am afraid that there isn’t a physical system in which the earth can be static at the centre of the universe. The proposition that the earth is static at the centre of the universe is either false or meaningless, depending on which mechanics you apply.

You may very well be right, but, by the same token, this would also make heliocentrism as being just as meaningless.

It cannot explain it any differently from how I have.
It is not so based and it works in classical mechanics as well as GR.

I will bow on this one…I’m not a scientist.

No - this is wrong (and a bit like your suggestion that Foucault’s pendulum can be explained by the “motion” of the sun and moon, in that it doesn’t stack up quantitatively). The effect of gravity on light is well understood in GR. The sun’s effect on starlight arriving at the earth that does not pass near the sun is very, very much smaller than the effect of stellar aberration. Stellar aberration can be explained only by the motion of the observer (ie the earth) at right angles to the path travelled by the light from the star to the observer. It does not depend on any motion of the star and it is not affected significantly by the sun.

Again, I will accept your explanation as I’m no scientist. I do have a couple of questions though. Is it not shown that the Foulcault’s pendulum is affected by a solar eclipse? If so, why? It must have something to do with the gravitational variance
wouldn’t it? If so, wouldn’t the sun’s change of position relative to the pendulum also affect it’s movement? Secondly, why is the stellar aberation affected by the earth’s movement only, and is not due to the star/earth relative velocity?

Thanks in advance for replying.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[hecd2]

You would indeed have a good point in this matter. However, since we know the universe can “expand” at a rate which is greater than the velocity of light, why could it not be static while revolving around the earth at a velocity greater than light? Notice my point is not to assume a physical geocentric reality, but mearly to hypothize an equivalence principle, which, I believe was done by Einstein himself.

–

Universe revolving with respect to what?

I think we are still waiting for the maths that underpins the physics that explains, on a static earth, the Coriolis effect, the preference for the launch of satellites from the equator eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and at the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum. Buffalo gave up - perhaps you or Cassini could try. Note that this is not a co-ordinate transformation - you need to show, with appropriate physics supported by maths, how these phenomena arise on a static earth. I can show how they arise on a rotating earth, so it’s only fair that those who call on the principle of “equivalence” (without understanding it) should do the same.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[mich2]

That does not follow. Where is the centre of the surface of a balloon, which is a closed two-dimensional space?

The surface of the balloon is a representation of a model.How does this model explain the increase of red shifts per the increase of distance observed?

That does not follow - why?

That would be because, according to the balloon model of the universe, there is no center.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[hecd2]

… but there needs to be a gravitational point somewhere in the universe which corresponds to all of the matter in the universe. For example the sun’s center of gravity is affected by the gravitational influences of the other planets.

No, the sun is not so affected. Its centre of gravity is its centre of gravity. Perhaps you mean the centre of gravity of the solar system includes other bodies orbiting the sun?

But in any case, the universe need not have a centre of gravity, if it is a three dimensional closed space, or infinite.

The model of the hollow sphere was for the universe, not the earth.

No it was not. How much do you know about this model? Have you read the original papers? Do you know what they show? And most of all, do you know what the starting point of the model is, and why, therefore, you cannot use it to prove geocentrism?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[grannymh]

You have to understand that the distinction between the solar system and the universe was not properly understood in Galileo’s day. His correct rebuttal of geocentrism and the step that he took to oppose the Church’s toxic interference in the free expression of thought are more important than whether strict heliocentrism is correct.

Dear Alec,

If one agrees that the distinction between the solar system and the universe was not properly understood in Galileo’s day, then why not look at the whole context of the Renaissance?

For example, the positions of Copernicus and Martin Luther were opposite because of sola scriptura. Thomas Aquinas and other Scholastic writers were popular. To say that the years leading to the Council of Trent and following were turbulent would be an understatement. In the midst, the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe wounded men’s pride. And considering the prestige of a position in an university, “publish or perish” probably existed as well.

To understand the Catholic Church’s position regarding science in the time of Galileo, one should avoid using the perspective of today’s world with its vast explosion of knowledge and technology. From reading a lot of what Cassini has presented in various threads, it appears that the Church’s questioning was not all that toxic. Galileo continued his work. As far as I know, Johannes Kepler and others stayed busy and intrigue helped one get an university position.

Apparently, the Church 400 years ago was concerned with preserving its truths. Same as today. Today, relativism is attacking absolute truth. Four hundred years ago, the Church, on one hand was supporting science and on the other was carefully watching its results. It was a tricky balance especially with Galileo and literalism. You can’t blame them for being edgy in the aftermath of the Reformation.

The material which I read showed that members of the Church were negotiating so that science could advance. This is because the Catholic Church had never said that a word by word literal interpretation was the only way to read the bible. The material presented by Cassini refers to the reverence for the teachings of scripture which of course are in the area of faith and morals.

One more note. After checking Church procedure, it appears that the commissions, courts, etc. involved did not have the authority of proclaiming dogma despite their highfalutin names and membership. However, everyone involved liked to throw around tough sounding conclusions at the same time they were busy name calling.

My point is that we should look at Galileo according to his times and not according to the journalistic style of the check-out counter tabloids.

Blessings,
granny

 

[mich2]

Universe revolving with respect to what?

I think we are still waiting for the maths that underpins the physics that explains, on a static earth, the Coriolis effect, the preference for the launch of satellites from the equator eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and at the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum. Buffalo gave up - perhaps you or Cassini could try. Note that this is not a co-ordinate transformation - you need to show, with appropriate physics supported by maths, how these phenomena arise on a static earth. I can show how they arise on a rotating earth, so it’s only fair that those who call on the principle of “equivalence” (without understanding it) should do the same.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I understand your concern, Alec, and do respect this. However, I am not a scientist, so the best I could do is look up some material and get back at you. In the meantime, why would scientists, such
as George Ellis write :
**
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”**

Andre

 

[buffalo]

Universe revolving with respect to what?

I think we are still waiting for the maths that underpins the physics that explains, on a static earth, the Coriolis effect, the preference for the launch of satellites from the equator eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and at the equator and the precession of Foucault’s pendulum. Buffalo gave up - perhaps you or Cassini could try. Note that this is not a co-ordinate transformation - you need to show, with appropriate physics supported by maths, how these phenomena arise on a static earth. I can show how they arise on a rotating earth, so it’s only fair that those who call on the principle of “equivalence” (without understanding it) should do the same.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Buffalo never really engaged at the detail level. As I said I watch for the conclusions. As far a s I can see it still can be either way and we cannot for certain until we look from outside our frame.

 

[hecd2]

However, seeing the surface at an earlier time must also imply to see the surface while it was still smaller, symbolized by a smaller sphere. It seems the model of viewing the universe would be like viewing a sphere within a sphere within a sphere… and we would be located on the most outer one. The reality would be, of course, that all mater is located on the outer sphere, but we have no means to observe this, due the limit put on the velocity of light.

That’s an interesting, and it seems to me, valid way of looking at it.

But it seems the other way could work as well. Imagine the earth being located at the center of the universe, symbolized as the center of a sphere.

Unfortunately you have just violated your own model. Everything, including the earth, is on the surafce of a 3-D sphere in 4-D space - remember?

Let us assume the earth to be immovable,just for this particular example. Now let the universe (sphere) rotate . While the universe is rotating (instead of expanding) , it will rotated around the earth at a velocity much greater than light, while the independant mass velocities remain
below the speed of light.

None of this is supported by the model we started with

What would be the outcome? What if gravity is created not only by the mass of the body but also
by how much energy was used in creating the mass as well.

Andre, you seem to spend a lot of time creating fantastical hypotheses that support the notion that earth is the immovable centre of the universe, when, with the most superficial qualitative or quantitative inspection it is clear that the hypotheses are nonsense. Why don’t you do a little research to see whether what you suggest is at all plausible before you waste everyone’s time.

If we compare the earth with the sun, while the sun is more massive,

by over 330,000 times!

much more energy was dispensed in creating the earth

REALLY? And your evidence for this is what exactly?,

since the elements found on the earth are much more complex. What if the earth has the most complex elements. in all the universe? Would that constitute a plausibility for it to be central as well?

In this case, what is the evidence for gravity being affected by “the energy of creation” None whatsoever. The whole thing about the earth having more complex elements than the sun is nonsense. What do you mean by the elements on earth being more complex than elsewhere in the universe? Elements all over the universe are the same. This whole hypothesis is garbage. Do think a little before you write.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[mich2]

Unfortunately you have just violated your own model. Everything, including the earth, is on the surafce of a 3-D sphere in 4-D space - remember?

Actually in the model I had in mind, the earth remains at the center while the rest of the universe expands.

None of this is supported by the model we started with

a/a

Andre, you seem to spend a lot of time creating fantastical hypotheses that support the notion that earth is the immovable centre of the universe, when, with the most superficial qualitative or quantitative inspection it is clear that the hypotheses are nonsense. Why don’t you do a little research to see whether what you suggest is at all plausible before you waste everyone’s time.

I’m just having fun, Alec. I don’t take my hypothesis seriously.

by over 330,000 times! REALLY? And your evidence for this is what exactly?, In this case, what is the evidence for gravity being affected by “the energy of creation” None whatsoever.

I fully agree with you; however we do have dark energy and a great deal of missing matter yet to explain.

The whole thing about the earth having more complex elements than the sun is nonsense. What do you mean by the elements on earth being more complex than elsewhere in the universe? Elements all over the universe are the same.

I think a great deal more energy is used in creating a plutonium atom than it is to create an iron atom, it would seem. I agree, this most probably is junk nonsensical form of reasoning. My point was not to push the hypothesis as such, but to ask ourselves, what if we are at a privileged frame of reference as mentioned by steven Hawkins? The garbage idea of mine was simply to relay a most probably very uninteresting explanation. Sorry if I offended you.

This whole hypothesis is garbage. Do think a little before you write.

ok. I’ll try harder next time.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[grannymh]

grannymh, isn’t this thread – entertaining though it may be – essentially a waste of time? What Cassini has to say is utterly irrelevant to both the astronomical community and the Catholic Church. One may of course entertain a private fantasy that the world is not the way it is – many people do so – but nothing that has been said in all the posts on this thread will change either the world works or our religious faith one bit.
StAnastasia

It looks like warpspeedpetey and I have the same concerns about this thread. We don’t want readers to get the wrong impression of the Catholic Church. As far as I’m concerned this is an equal opportunity thread. When Cassini presents fallacious statements, I will present some fact of truth.

The weird thing is that the more I read Cassini’s material, the more I realize that the Church’s questioning of Galileo was not all that toxic to science. Actually, it appears that the reason there was a kind of negotiation was so that science could advance.

Blessings,
granny

 

[wildleafblower]

Hi Granny

I have to admit that there are tears in my eyes to think he was imprissoned. Look:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRIAL AGAINST GALILEO GALILEI
Rome 1616, 1632-33

Despite all the long and extensive researches conducted by many scholars in the past, to “discover” or better find again the proceedings of the inquisitorial trial against Galileo Galilei, until now we only have a poor part of the original documents, which was extracted from the voluminous inquisitorial files of the period of the trial (1633) against Galileo or shortly after. This “abstract” was kept for many centuries in the archives of the Index Congregation (which asked the Holy Office for those documents), then it went to Paris after the sad seizure of the Vatican Archives in 1810 by Napoleon, then it passed into the hands of the Duke of Blacas and it was finally sent to the Secret Vatican Archives by the Duke’s widow in 1843.

The volume, which for a long time has been erroneously called “the trial of Galileo Galilei”, is actually a group of documents collected after Galileo’s conviction by the Index Congregation, in order to deal with, on the basis of the trial evidences and confessions, the prohibition of his books and the teaching of his doctrine (it contains many letters of bishops or papal representatives who certify the notification of this prohibition). Some of these documents were taken from the lost papers (seemingly there were many volumes) on Galileo’s trial, of which we still keep the foliation (one of these volumes had at least 560 folios, that is 1120 pages).

In document (a), you can see one of the original interrogations of Galileo Galilei before the Inquisition (ff. 78r-87r). In particular, it is the final part of Galileo’s testimony, given on the 12th April 1633 with his signature, according to the rule (line 8: Io Galileo Galilei ho deposto come di sopra) and the beginning of the next interrogation (line 9: Die sabbathi 30 aprilis 1633. Constitutus personaliter Romae in aula congregationum, coram et assistente quibus supra, in meique <etc.> Galileus de Galileis de quo supra …]).

After the condemnation of Galileo’s scientific theses, there was, as everyone knows, the abjuration pronounced by the famous native of Pisa in the Church of the Minerva on the 22nd June 1633. In the months that followed, Galileo obtained from Pope Urban VIII the possibility to serve the **imprisonment sentence **in his villa at Arcetri (1st December 1633). From there, on the 17th December 1633, he sent an entirely holograph letter to his “patron” Cardinal Francesco Barberini. In fact, it was thanks to his intervention that Galileo obtained this favour (b).
asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1616.htm
http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1616.htm

The Church back then did make a mistake. None of us are perfect as you must know. Pope John Paul II realized this mistake of the Church and said to the SCIENTISTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY WEEK ORGANIZED BY THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES on October 2, 1984, "Centuries have passed since Galileo’s telescope penetrated the heavens and gave mankind a new vision of the universe. In his brief but fundamental work entitled Sidereus Nuncius, published in Venice in 1610, he spoke of the discoveries made by means of his telescope, but he added, being both a scientist and a believer, that he had made them divina prius illuminante gratia, preceded by the enlightenment of divine grace.

“Other great scientists such as Kepler and Newton likewise searched the heavens with the spirit of believers. Poets and philosophers such as Pascal contemplated with awe the mysterious silence of outer space.” (ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE SCIENTISTS ON THE OCCASION OF THE STUDY WEEK ORGANIZED BY THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, October 2, 1984)
Grannymh, the past is the past. There is nothing to hide. We must move forward! I’m saving my money for a big telescope. Oh, and yesterday, I saw a shooting star while dancing outside then I felt a drop of rain on my cheek.

Hi Andre (Mich2). You mention George Ellis (msg. 130). Take a read on his Dark matter and dark energy proposals: maintaining cosmology as a true science? (November 21, 2008). You want to talk about it and do you like what he wrote, especially his statement:

We should stand firm and insist that genuine science is based on observational testing of plausible hypotheses. There is nothing wrong with physically motivated philosophical explanation: but it must be labeled for what it is. Overall: theory must be subject to experimental and/or observational test; this is the central feature of science. There is good progress in this respect as regards
both dark matter and dark energy.
arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0811/0811.3529v1.pdf

https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0811/0811.3529v1.pdf

 

[StAnastasia]

It looks like warpspeedpetey and I have the same concerns about this thread. We don’t want readers to get the wrong impression of the Catholic Church. As far as I’m concerned this is an equal opportunity thread. When Cassini presents fallacious statements, I will present some fact of truth.

The weird thing is that the more I read Cassini’s material, the more I realize that the Church’s questioning of Galileo was not all that toxic to science. Actually, it appears that the reason there was a kind of negotiation was so that science could advance.

Blessings,
granny

Granny, (1) to a certain extent yes, but when Cassini persists in propounding astronomical nonsense over 135 posts, what’s the point? His fantasies will not cause the collapse of the American Astronomical Association, the AAAS, NASA, or any other organization. But it may turn often potential inquirers into Catholicism when they find in CAF a vigorous discussion of issues that educated people thought were settled four hundred years ago!

(2) The trail of Galileo did effectively kill scientific productivity in Italy for several generations, if not longer. The center of gravity in scientific work and discovery shifted to France, England, and other countries safe from the repressive reach of the Inquisition.

StAnastasia

 

[chris_stone]

Although Galileo did not prove the heliocentric system he did disprove the Greek model of the crystal spheres. By observing that planets had moons he showed its topological impossibility.
The idea that Galieo could have eclipsed Newton is the merest of speculations on my part. However Galileo’s student and supporter was Torricelli, a mathematician, who worked on infinite processes and laid down some foundations for invention of calculus. So who knows what might have happened!
Newton too had a clash with church authorities. As a professor at Cambridge he would have been required to become an ordained minister of the Church of England. As a Unitarian he would not have been prepared to recite the creed. This awkward situation was resolved by the king granting a special dispensation in recognition of Newton’s genius and he was supported and honoured. The Church showed humility.
Galileo was dishonoured and his views, which turned out to be correct, were not supported. No humility was shown and his genius was dismissed.
The Church receives wisdom through divine revelation. What went wrong?

 

[lorathon]

I just have a very simple question.

Can someone show me the De Fide statement that the earth is the center of the universe and is immovable? I have looked and have found none.

I think that this would mean it is open to debate and has no bearing on our salvation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh, the past is the past. There is nothing to hide. We must move forward! I’m saving my money for a big telescope. Oh, and yesterday, I saw a shooting star while dancing outside then I felt a drop of rain on my cheek.

 

[buffalo]

Dark Energy or Geocentrism? Modern Science at a Crossroads

The most significant scientific evidence that is challenging Copernican cosmology hails from that gathered by astronomers themselves. In short, they are increasingly confronted with evidence that places Earth in the center of the universe. In a paper written by three astrophysicists from Oxford in 2008 evidence for the centrality of the Earth was the simplest explanation for the practical and mathematical understanding of the universe, far superior to the forced invention of “Dark Energy” to support the Copernican model. ScienceDaily put it in simple terms for the layman:

Dark energy is at the heart of one of the greatest mysteries of modern physics, but it may be nothing more than an illusion, according to physicists at Oxford University. The problem facing astrophysicists is that they have to explain why the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate. The most popular explanation is that some sort of force is pushing the acceleration of the universe’s expansion. That force is generally attributed to a mysterious dark energy. Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe – specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held tenets in physics. Copernicus was among the first scientists to argue that we’re not in a special place in the universe, and that any theory that suggests that we’re special is most likely wrong. The principle led directly to the replacement of the Earth-centered concept of the solar system with the more elegant sun-centered model. Dark energy may seem like a stretch, but it’s consistent with the venerable Copernican Principle. The proposal that we live in a special place in the universe, on the other hand, is likely to shock many scientists.


more…