Starship Asterisk*

ErnieM wrote:Clumps of matter (visible and dark) in space, from the earth and moon to all the super galaxy clusters (at least two super super clusters), are observed(?) to be bound by forces (known and unknown) orbiting one another in their common center of the push and pull of these forces (dark energy and gravity). The orbit of objects within solar systems, specifically our own Milky Way, are mostly elliptical. By extension, we can assume the orbit between super super clusters to also be elliptical and super massive and the time to complete just one revolution is mind boggling by earthly standard measurements. Deep space proving of Hubble Space Telescope are discovering greater number of farther (older) galaxies with more to come. Is it too presumptuous to suggest that we have not had enough time to observe blue shifting galaxies orbiting towards us and that it is coincidental that all the red shifting galaxies observed are in their natural orbital journey away from us? Space time may eventually turn out to be expanding and the expansion is accelerating. However, do we know how much of the natural orbital motion of these observed galaxies contributes to the acceleration?

Both theory and observation suggest that the Universe is unbounded and isotropic on a large scale. Therefore, there is no center of gravity. Regions causally connected to others interact via gravity or other mechanisms, of course. But those should be seen as local interactions (even though "local" may encompass a very large volume).

ErnieM wrote:This is a link from wikipedia depicting the earth's location in the "observable" universe based on the grouping or clustering of matter. Surely, there must be some force or energy form(s) that keeps these clusters of matter together and thus preventing them from flying out in every direction.

ErnieM wrote:Then I am back to the original question, where is the center of gravity of the visible universe?

Chris Peterson wrote:

ErnieM wrote:
Then I am back to the original question, where is the center of gravity of the visible universe?

Of the observable Universe? That would be approximately where you are standing.

Then I am back to the original question, where is the center of gravity of the visible universe?

Of the observable Universe? That would be approximately where you are standing.

I've always had my suspicions that that was so.

charlieo3 wrote:Gravity itself does not have a specific location; it is present everywhere. Therefore, there is no such thing as an absolute "Center of Gravity" for the universe, just as there is no such thing as the center of the surface of a sphere. Since all matter in the universe exerts an equal and opposite attraction to all other matter in the universe, the term "center of gravity" is only helpful when one wants to measure or speak about the effects of gravity between certain specified objects.

charlieo3 wrote:Suppose there are two observers, say one in New York City and one in San Francisco. Will the center of gravity of the universe be the same or different for the two observers?

http://www.lpod.org/?p=1120 wrote:

(Northern circumference) Petermann & [b][color=#FF0000]Cusanus[/color][/b] Craters by Damian Peach

---

Clementine vertical :owl: view of Petermann & [b][color=#FF0000]Cusanus[/color][/b] Craters

---

<<When I need an image for LPOD (every night!) I can always find an intriguing one at Damian Peach’s website, which may be the largest collection of high quality lunar images by any single observer. This one caught my eye for three reasons - I couldn’t identify the craters, the feature on the right is bizarre, and the entire scene is very dramatic! 73 km-wide Petermann is the flat-floored crater on the left, and 63 km-wide Cusanus is to the right; both are near the Moon’s northeast limb, between Mare Humboldtianum and the pole. The lighting in Damian’s image shows the arc-ed shadow cast by the west rim of Cusanus, but the east rim looks like a series of pointy mountains. Clamoring to find a vertical view of these craters I discovered that there is no good one from Lunar Orbiters but Clementine (below) provides an explanation. The east wall of Cusanus is cut by two or three later small craters whose western rims are low or missing. So in Damian’s image we are looking at cross-sections of impact craters. What a remarkable view!>> - Chuck Wood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_of_Cusa wrote:
Nicholas of Kues (1401 – August 11, 1464), also referred to as Nicolaus Cusanus and Nicholas of Cusa, was a cardinal of the Catholic Church from Germany (Holy Roman Empire), a philosopher, theologian, jurist, mathematician, and an astronomer. He is widely considered one of the great geniuses and polymaths of the 15th century. He is today recognized for significant spiritual, scientific and political contributions in European history, notable examples of which include his mystical or spiritual writings on 'learned ignorance' (and mathematical ideas expressed in related essays), as well as his participation in power struggles between Rome and the German states of the Holy Roman Empire.

Nicholas of Cusa or Kues (Latinized as "Cusa") was the second of four children of Johan Krebs (or Cryfftz) and Katherina Roemer. His father was "a prosperous boat owner and ferryman." He entered the University of Heidelberg in 1416 as "a cleric of the diocese of Trier" studying the liberal arts. He then received his doctorate in Canon law from the University of Padua in 1423. Afterwards, he entered the University of Cologne in 1425 as "a doctor of canon law" which it appears he both taught and practiced there. After a successful career as a papal envoy, he was made a theologian by Pope Nicholas V in 1448 or 1449, and was named Bishop of Brixen in 1450.

Nicholas of Cusa was noted for his deeply mystical writings about Christianity, particularly on the possibility of knowing God with the divine human mind — not possible through mere human means — via "learned ignorance". He was suspected by some of holding pantheistic beliefs. Nicholas also wrote in De coniecturis about using conjectures or surmises to rise to better understanding of the truth. The individual might rise above mere reason to the vision of the intellect, but the same person might fall back from such vision.

Nicholas is also considered by many to be a genius ahead of his time in the field of science. Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno were all aware of the writings of Cusanus as was Johannes Kepler (who called Cusanus 'divinely inspired' in the first paragraph of his first published work). Predating Kepler, Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus' later assumption of circular orbits), thus opening the possibility for Kepler's model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. He also influenced Giordano Bruno by denying the finiteness of the universe and the Earth's exceptional position in it (being not the center of the universe, and in that regard equal in rank with the other stars). He was not, however, describing a scientifically verifiable theory of the universe: his beliefs (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.

Cusanus made important contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity. Most of his mathematical ideas can be found in his essays, De Docta Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance), De Visione Dei (On the Vision of God) and On Conjectures. He also wrote on squaring the circle in his mathematical treatises.>>

charlieo3 wrote:I like this guy, Nicholaus Cusanus, and I like the quote. I think, however, that I am glad I did not live in the 15th Century with him. I'll take the age we live in, thank you.

Threescore and ten I can remember well:
Within the volume of which time I have seen
Hours dreadful and things strange; but this sore night
Hath trifled former knowings.

Amelia Mary Lennox was born on 6 October 1731 and died on 27 March 1814.[1] On 7 February 1747 she married James Fitzgerald, 20th Earl of Kildare and 1st Duke of Leinster, becoming Emily Fitzgerald, Duchess of Leinster. The couple had at least sixteen children, twelve of whom survived to adulthood. In 1774, a year after her husband died in 1773, Emily outraged society in Ireland by marrying her children's tutor, William Ogilvie, in France. With Ogilvie she had four more children.

Although they [Rembrandt and his wife Saskia] were by now affluent, the couple suffered several personal setbacks; their son Rumbartus died two months after his birth in 1635 and their daughter Cornelia died at just three weeks of age in 1638. In 1640, they had a second daughter, also named Cornelia, who died after living barely over a month. Only their fourth child, Titus, who was born in 1641, survived into adulthood. Saskia died in 1642 soon after Titus's birth, probably from tuberculosis. Rembrandt's drawings of her on her sick and death bed are among his most moving works.

In the late 1640s Rembrandt began a relationship with the much younger Hendrickje Stoffels, who had initially been his maid. In 1654 they had a daughter, Cornelia, bringing Hendrickje a summons from the Reformed Church to answer the charge "that she had committed the acts of a whore with Rembrandt the painter". She admitted this and was banned from receiving communion. Rembrandt was not summoned to appear for the Church council because he was not a member of the Reformed Church. The two were considered legally wed under common law, but Rembrandt had not married Henrickje, so as not to lose access to a trust set up for Titus in the son's mother's will.

Rembrandt outlived both Hendrickje, who died in 1663, and Titus, who died in 1668, leaving a baby daughter. He died within a year of his son, on October 4, 1669 in Amsterdam, and was buried in an unmarked grave in the Westerkerk.

the lettering is horrible (I think), and the language is some sort of 17th century Danish-Swedish.

charlieo3 wrote:

the lettering is horrible (I think), and the language is some sort of 17th century Danish-Swedish.

Sorry, but as a calligrapher I just cannot let that comment go by. Please do not confuse letter shapes in both a script and a language you are not familiar with as "horrible" lettering. This is a marvelous example of fine calligraphy (which means "beautiful writing"), made all the more remarkable by the fact that it is done in gold leaf.

Here is an image from a better angle and slightly sharper focus.