Which astronomical system do you believe in?

[Iacobus]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 15 2006, 05:31 PM']No, it wouldn't. First, there are two different kinds of infinity - aleph naught and the continuum - with the latter being greater than the former. Second, neither one, of itself, is equivalent to God (that than which nothing greater can be conceived).

There are an infinite number of points in you. Are you God?
[right][snapback]912863[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Cantor was crazy. There are, or rather may be, many levels of aephs that we see all the time. Firstly, that is scary. Secondly, I almost suffered the same fate as Cantor did when thinking about it.

Edited March 16, 2006 by Iacobus

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Mar 15 2006, 05:27 PM']two of my best friends are physics majors and apparently it is, technically, possible to designate any point in the universe as a fixed point around which all other objects move. Given the designated frame of reference, all the forces in the universe will work out.
[right][snapback]912852[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yay I was right.

Just kidding. I am sure that I have no where near the know-how to defend my position as well as they could, but it still nice to know that I am in good company.

Seriously though, I would be interested in a link of some sort that discusses the two different types of infinity. This harkens me back to the thread about the qualities of God and there being multiple "Gods."

[Paladin]

The physical center of the Universe is important only to physicists. Spiritually, Earth - or, specifically, Mankind - is at the center.

[Resurrexi]

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!

[Thumper]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Mar 15 2006, 06:17 PM']But, if I were to stake a bet on it, I would say not the earth and not a planet. Space, as the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy puts it,

""Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."


[right][snapback]912836[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Lovely use of the Hitchhiker's Guide. I salute you!

[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.