>
> That assumes that there IS a reference frame against which the universe's
> movement

>and that it has a centre. Current cosmological models say there is no such
>'place'.

> Benj wrote:

> That assumes that there IS a reference frame against which the
> universe's movement and that it has a centre. Current cosmological
> models say there is no such 'place'.

> As the Solar system is in orbit around the centre of the galaxy, each of
> these barycentres is moving (with the Sun) on its 250 million year (or
> whatever) orbit whilst at the same time sharing in the Galaxy's own
> proper motion within the Local Group and with the Local Group's own
> motion towards what may be 'the Great Attractor'.

> However, most people would say that Galileo was more 'right' than those
> who believed in a Geocentric cosmology.

> On Sep 4, 11:37 am, OG gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:

>> Benj wrote:

>

>> That assumes that there IS a reference frame against which the
>> universe's movement and that it has a centre. Current cosmological
>> models say there is no such 'place'.

>
> Correct. However, "current cosmological guesses" really proves nothing
> more, does it?
> Unknown simply stays unknown and speculation.
>

>> As the Solar system is in orbit around the centre of the galaxy, each of
>> these barycentres is moving (with the Sun) on its 250 million year (or
>> whatever) orbit whilst at the same time sharing...

> Benj wrote:

>> On Sep 4, 11:37 am, OG gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:

>>> Benj wrote:

>

>>> That assumes that there IS a reference frame against which the
>>> universe's movement and that it has a centre. Current cosmological
>>> models say there is no such 'place'.

>

>> Correct. However, "current cosmological guesses" really proves nothing
>> more, does it?
>> Unknown simply stays unknown and speculation.

>
> Not so. A 'guess' remains untested, a scientific model is tested.
>
>
>
>
>

>>> As the Solar system is in orbit around the centre of the galaxy, each of ...

> On Sep 3, 3:40

> On 3 Sep, 21:54, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> As I have indicated, Galileo's problem was that he was failing to
>> provide a meaningful alternative to the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian
>> conception of the universe that he was criticizing.

> On Sep 3, 4:13

> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 20:54:38 UTC, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>

>>On Sep 3, 3:40ÿpm, "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:
>>

>>>On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 06:01:49 UTC, Immortalist

>
> "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote in message
> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-diqddp7B3rr4@m...

>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:18:15 UTC, OG gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>

>>> tadchem wrote:

>>>> On...

> In message , Dan Drake
> dandrake.com> writes

>>
>>Conspiracies aside, there are actually masses of historical evidence,
>>and 50 years of more and more information have not been kind to
>>Koestler's position.
>>

>
> In case you haven't already heard, most of the first published biography
> of Galileo has recently been rediscovered in a private library in
> England (while in the process of being sold by Sotheby's). This advances
> the theory that Galileo was a pawn in power politics - the trial, etc.,
> was intended as a blow against Galileo's patrons, the Medicis. (The
> report I read intimated that the author had his own agenda.)