Vatican helps stargazers look to the heavens

[Martin R. Howell]

Subheadline: Observatory teaches upcoming astronomers of all beliefs

I found this article to be very interesting and it made me feel truly good.
Hoping it does the same for you.

Go to:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8407074/


--
Martin R. Howell
"Photographs From the Universe of Amateur Astronomy"
http://members.isp.com/universeofamateurastronomy%40isp.com

[Martin Brown]

Martin R. Howell wrote:
> Subheadline: Observatory teaches upcoming astronomers of all beliefs
>
> I found this article to be very interesting and it made me feel truly good.
> Hoping it does the same for you.
>
> Go to:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8407074/

The Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican have always been extremely
knowledgable academics and well aware of the latest techniques. They
used their extensive astronomical knowledge in the past to try and
convert the heathen Chinese (most notably the work of Ferdinand Verbiest
in the 1660's who taught the emperor K'ang-hi European science and
mathematics).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15346a.htm

There are some excellent scientists at the Vatican. They have no
difficulty reconciling their faith with Big Bang cosmology either.

Regards,
Martin Brown

[[email protected]]

To Martin

The galaxies and stellar rotation around the galactic axis was
observationally discovered in the mid 1920's and it should have
replaced the 'fixed stars' models of the previous decades but
physicists just changed 'stars everywehere' to 'galaxies everywhere'
and kept right on pondering whether Albert was right or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

In 1920 we have this unfortunate man telling his readers how to view
the observed universe in an era where stellar rotation about the
galactic axis has yet to be discovered,it looks funny today but men
like you still take it serious notwithstanding that Newton nevered said
anything about a center and his view on the distant stars are quite
explicit *.

"If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a
whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us
is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite.
There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density. 1
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite
island in the infinite ocean of space. 1 "

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

The BB as it presently exists is just an extreme symptom of
relativistic homocentricity or the inability to infer greater centers
of rotation much as the first heliocentrist explained away the
geocentric system for the illusion that everywhere is moving away from
everywhere else is similar but not identical to the illusion that
everything revolves around the Earth.


* "Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax
from
the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of
their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system.
Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously
dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their
mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."