Replies

==Because it is an empirical observation that we are part of a galaxy.

True.

==It is an empirical observation that we are on the spiral arm of this galaxy not in its center.

True.

==It is an empirical observation that the actual center of our galaxy is a quasar.

Are you sure? From what I understand, scientists believe that there is a massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. Black holes are thought to play a huge role in powering quasars. But not all black holes—even massive black holes—produce quasars. For instance, contrary to your statement above, scientists DO NOT believe the Milky Way contains a quasar, nor is there any scientific consensus as to whether the Milky Way was a quasar in the distant past.

==It is an empirical observation that our sun doesn't have the requisite mass to be the center of our galaxy.

Copernicus claimed that the sun was likely at or near the center of the observable universe. We know from empirical observation that the sun is not “at” the center, but there is nothing preventing the universe from having a center, nor is there anything preventing the Milky Way from being at or near that center. My point in bringing up Copernicus was to point out that he believed A) the universe has a center B) that the sun is at or near its center and C) to point out that Hawkings et al are abusing his name, for Copernicus would most assuredly object to the principle bearing his name. In short, I was not citing Copernicus to suggest that I believe the sun to be the center of the universe. Although, I think it is very likely he was much closer to the truth than modern Big Bang cosmologists.

Finally, I ask again...If Hawkings et al admit their Big Bang cosmology is based on an “admixture” of ideology (the assumption that our universe is spatially homogeneous/has no center) why do you insist that said ideology is warranted by empirical observation? Before you answer, let me remind you that we are talking about the UNIVERSE, not the Milky Way.