Time : Expansion of The Universe

Cú Giobach · 25-03-2012 09:28AM

Wh1stler wrote: »

Suppose the space-ship was travelling towards me at the speed of light and sent a beam of light towards me at the same time; which would arrive first, the ship or the beam of light?

If a ship was travelling towards you at 299,000 km/sec* it would arrive only slightly behind the beam of light, but someone on the ship and yourself would both still measure the beam as travelling at 300,000 km/sec.
What has this got to with you disagreeing with my point that "the relative speed between photon and detector is constant, irrespective of the speed of the detector"?

*It's better to say "travelling at just under the speed of light", as travelling at the speed of light is a different beast altogether.

gkell2 wrote: »

Let's see where you are getting this statement from -..........

This conversation has nothing to do with the equation of time, and is concerned with time dilation.

gkell2 · 25-03-2012 12:55PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This conversation has nothing to do with the equation of time, and is concerned with time dilation.

If you are going to strut around telling everyone who will listen that 'time is not absolute' or 'time is relative' and then weave a story out of how Einstein got rid of Newton's absolute time,you are going to have to go through the original description -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions... The necessity of which
equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well
from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites
of Jupiter." Isaac Newton,Principia

Read it again,it is not a mystery and anyone with questions can easily get proper answers with all the graphics and imaging necessary.The description by Huygens of the same thing as Newton is trying to describe is far better and easier to understand and Huygen's view was written about 20 years before Isaac mangled it in the Principia -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation.." Huygens

http://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

There is nothing mysterious about Newton's absolute/relative time and it is at this important juncture that a lot went wrong back in the 17th century.

rccaulfield · 25-03-2012 10:47PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

What I meant was that even a lowly clerk in a patent office can come up with a good idea from time to time.

That guy was not a lowly patent clerk, he was in between great things, the patent clerk gig gave him the time to work on his physics while earning cash short term, it inspires all sorts of fruities to send in their ideas thinking einstein-patent clerk, me- part time in xtravision= unappreciated genius(no offence to xtravision!) Think it was degrasse tyson whom said similar originally!

Btw hilarious to see gkell is back in his 2nd incarnation and pissing everyone off with his ramblings. Speak in plain english, no one can bear your long long and winding jargon!

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 04:22AM

rccaulfield wrote: »

That guy was not a lowly patent clerk, he was in between great things, the patent clerk gig gave him the time to work on his physics while earning cash short term, it inspires all sorts of fruities to send in their ideas thinking einstein-patent clerk, me- part time in xtravision= unappreciated genius(no offence to xtravision!) Think it was degrasse tyson whom said similar originally!

Btw hilarious to see gkell is back in his 2nd incarnation and pissing everyone off with his ramblings. Speak in plain english, no one can bear your long long and winding jargon!

Wow! I haven't seen such a reaction to a challenge to orthodoxy since I was in the Christian forum.

Like I said, science sometimes seems to imitate religion.

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 04:27AM

Learning requires that there be a teacher and a pupil; only when both learn is anything taught.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 08:34AM

rccaulfield wrote: »

Btw hilarious to see gkell is back in his 2nd incarnation and pissing everyone off with his ramblings. Speak in plain english, no one can bear your long long and winding jargon!

Your complaint is more or less the same which Mach issued against Newton in that he couldn't make heads nor tails of absolute/relative time -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

Apart from Newton's idiosyncratic phrasing,the Equation of Time is a well known astronomical principle which separates the natural noon AM/PM event from 24 hour clock noon and by its very nature it reflects the two main cycles of the Earth and the references which convert the variations in natural noon to a steady progression of 24 hour days.The reason you have 24 hours today which will turn into the 24 hours of tomorrow has a lot to do with the Equation of Time so you are required to handle it carefully if you wish to appreciate why we have watches and timekeeping at all.

Empiricism has its own internal economy,the reviewers only pass ideas which secure their own jobs and reputations while the proposer of an idea has no incentive other than to create an idea that seeks to please the reviewer so the whole setup is poor and I have little to say about it.Astronomy requires less of rote learning than it does of talent and effort yet it accommodates everyone whether they wish to just identify stars or planets,try their hand at interpretation of motions across longer periods or work with cause and effect but at no stage does it give rise to impossible perspectives.Anyone who does try to put the motions of Venus and Jupiter in context tonight of their orbital motions and that of the Earth around the Sun will do so using normal ideas of time and space yet find it initially difficult to accustom themselves to the scale of things but once they get a foothold,they begin to enjoy so many other things that the older astronomers once did.

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2012 08:51AM

gkell2 wrote: »

Your complaint is more or less the same which Mach issued against Newton

As Carl Sagan once wrote:

They laughed at Galileo! They laughed at Einstein!

...but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Cú Giobach · 26-03-2012 10:55AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

...but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

What's really funny is bringing The Equation of Time and Newton into a conversation concerned with Time Dilation, just because the words "Time" and "Relative" have been mentioned.
Here is the Bus Éireann Timetable, that has the word "time" in it and it's just as relevant to the discussion.

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 12:38PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Your complaint is more or less the same which Mach issued against Newton in that he couldn't make heads nor tails of absolute/relative time -

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.

Apart from Newton's idiosyncratic phrasing,the Equation of Time is a well known astronomical principle which separates the natural noon AM/PM event from 24 hour clock noon and by its very nature it reflects the two main cycles of the Earth and the references which convert the variations in natural noon to a steady progression of 24 hour days.The reason you have 24 hours today which will turn into the 24 hours of tomorrow has a lot to do with the Equation of Time so you are required to handle it carefully if you wish to appreciate why we have watches and timekeeping at all.

Empiricism has its own internal economy,the reviewers only pass ideas which secure their own jobs and reputations while the proposer of an idea has no incentive other than to create an idea that seeks to please the reviewer so the whole setup is poor and I have little to say about it.Astronomy requires less of rote learning than it does of talent and effort yet it accommodates everyone whether they wish to just identify stars or planets,try their hand at interpretation of motions across longer periods or work with cause and effect but at no stage does it give rise to impossible perspectives.Anyone who does try to put the motions of Venus and Jupiter in context tonight of their orbital motions and that of the Earth around the Sun will do so using normal ideas of time and space yet find it initially difficult to accustom themselves to the scale of things but once they get a foothold,they begin to enjoy so many other things that the older astronomers once did.

gkell2 you seem to revel in making somewhat controversial claims but surrounding them in a sea of rhetoric that does little to support your claims in a scientific manner. From your writings it looks like your background is probably in philosophy. It also looks like you regard yourself as a polemicist.
Some of what you say is sound e.g. in this post you mention that 'astronomy... accomodates everyone', which is one of the great things about the topic. However in other posts you talk about people misinterpreting the difference between absolute and relative time because they don't use Newton's definition. The point of the matter is that the difference between the two - though somewhat intuitive - only really becomes well-defined in the context of Einstein's theory. Focusing on previous misconceptions only sheds light on the misconception!
Your disregard of the big bang paradigm is contrary to all the evidence. I say this with the caveat that our understanding of physics breaks down fractions of a second from the actual big bang. In fact the big bang itself is what's called a singularity. All that a singularity means within physics is a place where our knowledge of physics breaks down. In any case Cu Gioblach explained pretty well where you're going wrong so I won't add to that here.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 01:44PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What's really funny is bringing The Equation of Time and Newton into a conversation concerned with Time Dilation, just because the words "Time" and "Relative" have been mentioned.
Here is the Bus Éireann Timetable, that has the word "time" in it and it's just as relevant to the discussion.

Most people are tired of political spin,they can watch politicians with the most confident smiles and statements declare they never took a penny while today the same people are discredited,they may expect it of politicians but not of scientists.

Of course relativity relies heavily on Newton's absolute time,space and motion,any explanation of the early 20th century ideology in the popular imagination invariably mentions Newton's agenda -

"The theory of relativity transformed theoretical physics and astronomy during the 20th century. When first published, relativity superseded a 200-year-old theory of mechanics stated by Isaac Newton. It changed perceptions.
The theory of relativity overturned the concept of motion from Newton's day, by positing that all motion is relative. Time was no longer uniform and absolute. Physics could no longer be understood as space by itself, and time by itself. Instead, an added dimension had to be taken into account with curved spacetime." Wikipedia

What I am doing is providing readers with the best possible picture of where Newton diverges from the work of astronomers like Copernicus and Kepler,why few observers who go outside tonight have a clear understanding of the motions of the planets Mars,Venus and Jupiter in tandem with the motion of the Earth and this is mostly due to the initial daunting task of familiarity with solar system scales.

Here is what I will do,Newton built on Flamsteed's equatorial coordinate system or what is Ra/Dec and you people call the 'inertial reference frame' where the stars move in circumpolar motion creating smaller and smaller circuits towards Polaris -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTTDWhky9HY

The great astronomers ignored stellar circumpolar motion and just gauged the motions of the planets against the background stars as they moved with the Earth around the Sun so the big difference is that in Newton's scheme,the moon and planets move in a right ascension celestial sphere whereas the genuine astronomers judged the planets to move in relation to each other and to the moving Earth around the Sun.

As every observer,even the most humble observer with his goto telescope here will tell you,not every star sweeps out a circle every night just as in that time lapse footage above so then we come to Albert -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/4.html

What I would advise readers to do is look at how Kepler's representation of Mars and match it up with contemporary imaging as a point of departure for tackling Newton's misuse of the method and the conclusion.Despite initial appearances it is not that difficult and is absolutely relevant to what I am explaining -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 02:20PM

Anonymo wrote: »

Your disregard of the big bang paradigm is contrary to all the evidence. I say this with the caveat that our understanding of physics breaks down fractions of a second from the actual big bang. In fact the big bang itself is what's called a singularity. All that a singularity means within physics is a place where our knowledge of physics breaks down.

I don't disregard the 'big bang' ,I point out that if big bangers conclude that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe then they are forced through logical consistency to conclude that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an older/larger Universe.

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html

I would spare observers these absurdities by asking them to go outside and with their normal perception of time and motion,try to put the motions of Venus,Jupiter and Mars in context of the Earth's orbital circuit between Venus and Mars,why Mars appears to move backwards against the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth while everything is moving around the Sun and multiple other insights and enjoyable conclusions that awaits them for the effort they make.They are not going to do this when there are these impossible 'big bang' concepts passing themselves off as astronomy and those who are eager to do just that.I can easily demonstrate to honest observers where these mindnumbing concepts are coming from but would much prefer that they set them aside and become familiar with contemporary online tools and the old texts which make so much sense with familiarity such as Galileo's representation of Venus and its increase in size and luminosity as it's circuit approaches and overtakes our planet -

http://www.astronomy2009.org/static/archives/images/screen/galileo_12.jpg

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

These things are not trivia,they are actually important and represent genuine astronomy,the one that is obscured with impossible concepts that exist only in the imagination of theorists.

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 02:41PM

gkell2 wrote: »

I don't disregard the 'big bang' ,I point out that if big bangers conclude that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe then they are forced through logical consistency to conclude that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in an older/larger Universe.

http://www.space.com/10691-oldest-galaxy-discovered-hubble-space-telescope.html

I would spare observers these absurdities by asking them to go outside and with their normal perception of time and motion,try to put the motions of Venus,Jupiter and Mars in context of the Earth's orbital circuit between Venus and Mars,why Mars appears to move backwards against the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth while everything is moving around the Sun and multiple other insights and enjoyable conclusions that awaits them for the effort they make.They are not going to do this when there are impossible concepts passing themselves off as astronomy and those who are eager to do just that.

Not really sure what your logical consistency has to do with the big bang! As you know it takes time for light to reach us. This is why the oldest galaxies are those which are furthest away from us: those are the ones whose light took longest to reach us. All things being equal (i.e. in the absence of any weird physics), these must be the oldest things we can observe. That you mix this in with the big bang and then proceed to talk about celestial motion is perplexing. Can you enlighten me as to what your train of thought is?
Just to be clear on the point of view of the big bang: the reason we believe in it is that galaxies are seen to be moving away from us in all directions... this is the redshift we observe. This in conjuction with Einsteins equations lead to the conclusion that the universe must have been much smaller in the early universe. Extrapolate this back as far as you can and you get the big bang. Now any reasonable person with hold up a red flag at this stage and say 'but how do we know that this extrapolation is correct?'. Well this extrapolation leads to a very hot universe near the big bang. This hot thermal universe has a number of predictions, (1) nucleosynthesis, i.e. a prediction for the abundance of hydrogen, helium etc., (2) the cosmic microwave background (CMB) which is a reflection of that time when the universe cooled down enough so that the photons of radiation were no longer being energetically bombarded by electrons and could free-stream towards us. Both of these predictions for big bang cosmology have been verified to incredible accuracy. Now the CMB, though dependent on earlier conditions, is due to the last scattering surface 380,000 years after the big bang, so I'll allow for scepticism before that time. Although considering the universe is 14 billion years old the margin of error is getting smaller. Nucleosynthesis, though a more indirect probe, tells us about the time period of around 100 seconds after the big bang. Most cosmologists contend that there is enough evidence to believe we understand physics quite well till that time frame. I'm one of those. So there is a window of speculation between 0 seconds and 100 seconds that we try to understand. This requires speculative theories like string theory etc.
Ok I've given my position on this. Could you explain why you find this to be incorrect?

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 03:19PM

Anonymo wrote: »

Not really sure what your logical consistency has to do with the big bang! As you know it takes time for light to reach us. This is why the oldest galaxies are those which are furthest away from us: those are the ones whose light took longest to reach us.

If you insist that the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe then you are bound to continue with that conclusion which is that the youngest galaxies are the closest to us in a larger/older Universe,if you wish to state that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away from us then say goodbye to 'big bang' and welcome to the world of common sense where you can enjoy the celestial arena for the magnificent spectacle that it is.

When the great astronomers looked out into the celestial arena they observed the motions of the planets and modeled those observations from a moving Earth and against the background stars -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Until I find individuals who can match contemporary imaging with Kepler's representation I won't be able to explain where Newton was getting his absolute/relative time,space and motion from and why today there are people who imagine they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly as big bangers believe.

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 03:29PM

gkell2 wrote: »

If you insist that the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe then you are bound to continue with that conclusion which is that the youngest galaxies are the closest to us in a larger/older Universe,if you wish to state that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away from us then say goodbye to 'big bang' and welcome to the world of common sense where you can enjoy the celestial arena for the magnificent spectacle that it is.

When the great astronomers looked out into the celestial arena they observed the motions of the planets and modeled those observations from a moving Earth and against the background stars -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Until I find individuals who can match contemporary imaging with Kepler's representation I won't be able to explain where Newton was getting his absolute/relative time,space and motion from and why today there are people who imagine they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly as big bangers believe.

I'm sorry to say this but what you're talking about is errant nonsense. And you haven't responded to my question. You've skirted around it. The oldest galaxies are NOT those that are furthest away per se. It is only because they are far away that it takes so much time for their light to reach us. If we could look at the entire universe as it is today (i.e. not have to wait for the light to reach us) then there is nothing that says galaxies far from us are younger/older than us. This is in fact a central theme of cosmology, i.e. that we don't have a preferred position in the universe.
At the time of Newton and Kepler, they, in effect, believed that the speed of light was infinite. This means that the light from distant galaxies reached us instantaneously. Thus from their viewpoint they believed they could see the entire universe as it was at that time. This is NOT true due to the finite speed of light. We observe galaxies at different times to us today due to the time it takes light to reach us.
Most of your arguments fall down on the incorrect implicit assumption in yours (and in Newtons and Keplers arguments) that the speed of light is infinite.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 03:54PM

Anonymo wrote: »

I'm sorry to say this but what you're talking about is errant nonsense. And you haven't responded to my question. You've skirted around it. The oldest galaxies are NOT those that are furthest away per se.

Thank you very much,if readers wish to value their intelligence they move on and determine that 'big bang' is a theoretical indulgence,a conceptual impossibility and everything astronomy is not,if they wish to have their intelligence insulted then fine,if they mistake a conceptual impossibility for intellectual elitism then they are welcome to the charade.

Theorists insist that their theories can be right or wrong and that is fair enough but one thing they must have is an internal logical consistency so if you determine that the oldest galaxies are not furthest away then 'big bang' vanishes and good riddance.

There is enough deceit out there not to have astronomy destroyed by people who have little attachment or talent for it.Do yourself a favor and go outside tonight and before any stars emerge (other than Sirius) you will see Venus,Jupiter and Mars with the Earth moving past Mars while Venus is catching up to us over the next few months and this is how people expend their interpretative faculties on rather than have them destroyed by theoretical nonsense.What you are practicing is what Alexander Von Homboldt called a vicious form of empiricism and there are precious few people over the centuries who spotted it for what it is but I certainly can and I I can go directly to where it all went sideways in the late 17th century Royal Society.So what if empiricist have a dubious success for centuries and have managed to promote itself as bright and shiny to the wider population,there have always been people who were aware that is has a narrow-minded outlook behind a veneer of respectability and authority.Instead of Sagan's Cosmos,try Von Homboldt's Cosmos

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Alexander Von Homboldt ,Cosmos

Zubeneschamali · 26-03-2012 04:04PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Do yourself a favor and go outside tonight and before any stars emerge (other than Sirius) you will see Venus,Jupiter and Mars with the Earth moving past Mars while Venus is catching up to us over the next few months and this is how people expend their interpretative faculties on rather than have them destroyed by theoretical nonsense

I absolutely agree that looking at the planets and learning about their motions in the sky is a much more suitable and interesting activity for beginners than trying to second-guess the mathematics behind the big questions of cosmology.

This is particularly true for people who think retrograde motion is a big deal or that axial tilt is hard to understand.

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 04:06PM

gkell2 wrote: »

Thank you very much,if readers wish to value their intelligence they move on and determine that 'big bang' is a theoretical indulgence,a conceptual impossibility and everything astronomy is not,if they wish to have their intelligence insulted then fine,if they mistake a conceptual impossibility for intellectual elitism then they are welcome to the charade.

Theorists insist that their theories can be right or wrong and that is fair enough but one thing they must have is an internal logical consistency so if you determine that the oldest galaxies are not furthest away then 'big bang' vanishes and good riddance.

There is enough deceit out there not to have astronomy destroyed by people who have little attachment to astronomy.Do yourself a favor and go outside tonight and before any stars emerge (other than Sirius) you will see Venus,Jupiter and Mars with the Earth moving past Mars while Venus is catching up to us over the next few months and this is how people expend their interpretative faculties on rather than have them destroyed by theoretical nonsense.

Deary me. You obviously have only read that part that fits into your own perspective. I've described how you are on the wrong track. And your point about 'intellectual elitism' is bizarre. I've briefly outlined what is known to be correct in big bang cosmology and what is in the realm of speculation. Quite why anyone would think think that those trained to investigate a particular topic are less qualified to talk said topic is very strange indeed. Everyone is free to think about these things and it's great that they do. But to discount the evidence put forward by those trained to deal with this stuff is foolish.

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 04:41PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I absolutely agree that looking at the planets and learning about their motions in the sky is a much more suitable and interesting activity for beginners than trying to second-guess the mathematics behind the big questions of cosmology.

This is particularly true for people who think retrograde motion is a big deal or that axial tilt is hard to understand.

Got to disagree with this. Though looking at the planets and their motions is certainly a very interesting exercise, and very useful for trying to get your head around observational astronomy, cosmology deals with a much earlier epoch. Planetary motions tell us very little about the big questions of cosmology since to deal with such questions we need to probe much, much earlier in the universe. In some respects the maths are simpler than the observations, which - to appreciate fully- deal with lots of nonlinear effects.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 05:14PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I absolutely agree that looking at the planets and learning about their motions in the sky is a much more suitable and interesting activity for beginners than trying to second-guess the mathematics behind the big questions of cosmology.

This is particularly true for people who think retrograde motion is a big deal or that axial tilt is hard to understand.

This may be so,retrogrades may not be such a big deal for people who are aware that it is an illusion caused by our own orbital motion,in the following sequence of images of the Earth overtaking Mars and something that is happening presently -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

What is a big deal are those who can't figure out it is an illusion and try to invent an alternative resolution such as a hypothetical observer on the Sun -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Isaac Newton

A person should begin to see Isaac's absolute/relative space and motion come through this false way to approach retrograde motion and why observers who go outside tonight to look out at Mars should be aware it appears to travel in the oppisite direction to the motions of Venus and Jupiter.

The followers of Newton still believe Kepler's representation of Mars is geocentric even when Kepler himself states it is how Mars appears to move over a period of 16 years as the Earth overtakes it 9 times -

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils,
leading the individual planets into their respective orbits
,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time
shown in the diagram,Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the
centre, with one extra, making nine times while at the same time the
Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Astronomia Nova 1609

Again,retrogrades are no big deal with all the online tools of today and especially an online orrery but you are going to get nowhere with Newton's view which is contrary to the original method and insight based on an orbitally moving Earth along with its daily rotation which accounts for the Sun's daily return.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 05:24PM

Anonymo wrote: »

Got to disagree with this. Though looking at the planets and their motions is certainly a very interesting exercise, and very useful for trying to get your head around observational astronomy, cosmology deals with a much earlier epoch. Planetary motions tell us very little about the big questions of cosmology since to deal with such questions we need to probe much, much earlier in the universe. In some respects the maths are simpler than the observations, which - to appreciate fully- deal with lots of nonlinear effects.

The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times in 1461 days whereas followers of Newton have a different set of values which ends as 1465 rotations in 1461 days via the right ascension ideology of stellar circumpolar motion.Of course the Equation of Time is central to restoring a stable narrative to timekeeping as it maintains the correspondence between natural noon and 24 hour clock noon .

The big question is how is it possible that scientists can't express the most basic of all known facts,theorists might not care but everyone else should.There were brilliant people who could get a sense that there was something overreaching about empiricists and their agenda and they used the strongest language available to reflect their sentiments of a narrowminded people who have no attachments to astronomy while simultaneously exploiting it -

"“than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy
into a station for which they were unfitted — thus transferred from
the sculleries into the parlors of Science — from its pantries into
its pulpits — than these individuals a more intolerant — a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the
earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one
word ‘fact’ — but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew
not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts
with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of
had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at once
by the words ‘theoretical,’ ‘theory,’ ‘theorist;’ — all thought, to be
brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves.
Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the
Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon- engendered philosophers —
one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg — were more wretchedly helpless
— more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects
of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he
knows something at least, in admitting that he knows absolutely nothing."

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 05:44PM

gkell2 wrote: »

The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times in 1461 days whereas followers of Newton have a different set of values which ends as 1465 rotations in 1461 days via the right ascension ideology of stellar circumpolar motion.Of course the Equation of Time is central to restoring a stable narrative to timekeeping as it maintains the correspondence between natural noon and 24 hour clock noon .

The big question is how is it possible that scientists can't express the most basic of all known facts,theorists might not care but everyone else should.There were brilliant people who could get a sense that there was something overreaching about empiricists and their agenda and they used the strongest language available to reflect their sentiments of a narrowminded people who have no attachments to astronomy while simultaneously exploiting it -

"“than the persons thus suddenly elevated by the Hog-ian philosophy
into a station for which they were unfitted — thus transferred from
the sculleries into the parlors of Science — from its pantries into
its pulpits — than these individuals a more intolerant — a more
intolerable set of bigots and tyrants never existed on the face of the
earth. Their creed, their text and their sermon were, alike, the one
word ‘fact’ — but, for the most part, even of this one word, they knew
not even the meaning. On those who ventured to disturb their facts
with the view of putting them in order and to use, the disciples of
had no mercy whatever. All attempts at generalization were met at once
by the words ‘theoretical,’ ‘theory,’ ‘theorist;’ — all thought, to be
brief, was very properly resented as a personal affront to themselves.
Cultivating the natural sciences to the exclusion of Metaphysics, the
Mathematics, and Logic, many of these Bacon- engendered philosophers —
one-idead, one-sided and lame of a leg — were more wretchedly helpless
— more miserably ignorant, in view of all the comprehensible objects
of knowledge, than the veriest unlettered hind who proves that he
knows something at least, in admitting that he knows absolutely nothing."

I find these exchanges quite entertaining gkell2! Though I have to say I agree with very little of what you say!
The motion of the earth and the other planets is indeed fascinating. But this 'equation of time' that you refer to is something that has been refined greatly since it was postulated. In the context of what we know today it may be ill-defined. But this is precisely the reason that the definition has been refined.

Why do you say scientists cannot express facts and theorist may not care? I work as a scientist and though I'm primarily a theorist, I try to compare my predictions to the data gathered by satellites and telescopes. All of what I do would be useless if it didn't agree with empirical evidence. This is why cosmologists take care to ensure what they do is valid. Now many cosmologists today may work in the speculative area of string theory but what they are trying to do is bring that theory to a level where it can be compared reliably towards data. To imply that scientists have an agenda is untrue and what's more it's the doctrine of the uninformed.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 07:26PM

Anonymo wrote: »

I find these exchanges quite entertaining gkell2!

There is a great scene in Hotel Rwanda where the owner congratulates the camereman on showing the world footage of a massacre but the cameraman is pragmatic and explains that people will see the injustice and then carry on eating their dinners -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMKv3vRHtg

It is an atrocity that the major Western astronomical insights were distorted and misdirected towards a predictive agenda they were never meant to support including something as mindnumbingly silly as 'big bang'.I can come here and keep the graphics,time lapse footage and the texts of the original astronomers front and center because there is nothing else,no group who can counter ideas that are an insult to intelligence and especially the loss of the major facts that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times in 1461 days which the Equation of Time plays a major role.Theorists believe a nonsensical 1465 rotations in 1461 days and this is unsightly as it is unacceptable for any group in any era.

On a gorgeous evening like this,people can work with an online orrery ,then go outside and try to put the circuit of the Earth between Venus and Mars and they will discover what real astronomical challenges are -

http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 07:26PM

Anonymo wrote: »

To imply that scientists have an agenda is untrue and what's more it's the doctrine of the uninformed.

I have heard religionists make precisely the same claim.

Where there is money (research grants etc.) there is political wrangling. How can you say that no scientist has an agenda when you don't even know all scientists?

Isn't that the doctrine of the uninformed?

And if you are prepared to make assumptions about scientists then where else are you prepared to make assumptions?

Cú Giobach · 26-03-2012 07:33PM

gkell2 wrote: »

The Earth turns once in 24 hours and 1461 times in 1461 days whereas followers of Newton have a different set of values which ends as 1465 rotations in 1461 days via the right ascension ideology of stellar circumpolar motion.

I suppose next you'll be telling us the Moon doesn't rotate about its axis once every 27.3 days, and in fact has no axial rotation at all.
Or how about Uranus, does that have two rotations, its regular axial rotation of once every 17 hours, roughly in line with the plane of the solar system, and another retrograde rotation at 98 degs to that one, once every 84 years??

Anonymo · 26-03-2012 07:52PM

Wh1stler wrote: »

I have heard religionists make precisely the same claim.

Where there is money (research grants etc.) there is political wrangling. How can you say that no scientist has an agenda when you don't even know all scientists?

Isn't that the doctrine of the uninformed?

And if you are prepared to make assumptions about scientists then where else are you prepared to make assumptions?

That is a stupid comment.
To equate what I wrote to a preaching of ignorance is incredible. Also to suggest that scientists are driven by money is uninformed. Of course there are some - in every walk of life - that will do things for the wrong reasons. But your suggestion - and that of gkell2 - is that scientists as a group are motivated by these things. Well I can speak on my own behalf and tell you that if money was my motivation, and that of many of my colleagues, we probably would be in investment banking and not in science. I am prepared to believe in the good intentions of others, rather than indulge in conspiracy theory type nonsense, unless proven otherwise.
Your last question is childish along with much of the rest of your post.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 07:56PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I suppose next you'll be telling us the Moon doesn't rotate about its axis once every 27.3 days, and in fact has no axial rotation at all.
Or how about Uranus, does that have two rotations, its regular axial rotation of once every 17 hours, roughly in line with the plane of the solar system, and another retrograde rotation at 98 degs to that one, once every 84 years??

You can go outside now (7:45 PM) and look at the moon in the foreground with Venus almost immediately behind it and know that the moon and Venus have phases as they orbit their respective objects,Venus the Sun and the moon around the Earth -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

As the moon moves around to a position where the Earth is between it and the Sun,the bright half of the moon facing the Sun becomes greater to our point of view but the face stays always the same -

http://www.moonconnection.com/images/moon_phases_diagram.jpg

The Earth has an orbital motion around the Sun and if there was a telescope on Mars it would see the same thing as we would of Venus,the Earth also has a daily rotation which can be seen from the moon or any other place in space -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0

Like the blind acceptance of 'big bang' there is something that is making you believe that the moon is spinning when common sense should tell you it doesn't and not a single person alive has ever seen a rotating moon and not a single astronomer from antiquity to the great Western astronomers have ever mentioned such a monstrosity apart from one guy.

Cú Giobach · 26-03-2012 08:21PM

gkell2 wrote: »

You can go outside now (7:45 PM) and look at the moon in the foreground with Venus almost immediately behind it and know that the moon and Venus have phases as they orbit their respective objects,Venus the Sun and the moon around the Earth -

http://www.masil-astro-imaging.com/SWI/UV%20montage%20flat.jpg

As the moon moves around to a position where the Earth is between it and the Sun,the bright half of the moon facing the Sun becomes greater to our point of view but the face stays always the same -

http://www.moonconnection.com/images/moon_phases_diagram.jpg

The Earth has an orbital motion around the Sun and if there was a telescope on Mars it would see the same thing as we would of Venus,the Earth also has a daily rotation which can be seen from the moon or any other place in space -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxrIMHKobk0

Like the blind acceptance of 'big bang' there is something that is making you believe that the moon is spinning when common sense should tell you it doesn't and not a single person alive has ever seen a rotating moon and not a single astronomer from antiquity to the great Western astronomers have ever mentioned such a monstrosity apart from one guy.

Your ideas on orbits and axial rotations can lead to some very bizarre situations.
Try this thought experiment,
If you take the Earth and tilt it over so that the axis of rotation is parallel to the plane of the solar system (like Uranus) you will suddenly find you have 1465 rotations in the same amount of time you used to have 1461, without actually changing the speed of rotation, Magic!!! :eek:

P.S. I see you have made no mention of Uranus. Here are a few other mentions of the moon's rotational period.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 09:10PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you take the Earth and tilt it over so that the axis of rotation is parallel to the plane of the solar system (like Uranus) you will suddenly find you have 1465 rotations in the same amount of time you used to have 1461, without actually changing the speed of rotation, Magic!!! :eek:

Every single day since February 29th,every single nightfall and sunrise,every temperature rise and fall during the daily periods including the one tonight is keeping pace with the rotation of the Earth and the Earth will turn once in 24 hours ,1000 times in 1000 days and ten thousand times in ten thousand days.From March 1st 2012 until February 29th 2016 there will be 1461 days and the same amount of rotations.

The spectacle out there presently should put all observers in the company of the great astronomers ,men who gained intense satisfaction from the ballet of motions in time and space and that is how it is for those who will get the big answers in silence and alone.

gkell2 · 26-03-2012 09:44PM

Anonymo wrote: »

That is a stupid comment.

A big banger believes that the oldest galaxies are the furthest away when the Universe was smaller/younger,the big banger also believes the oldest galaxies are not furthest away hence the worst parts of Orwell's '1984' doublethink which was actually based on Nazi ideology -

"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the
truth" exists. […] The implied objective of this line of thought is a
nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls
not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such
an event, "It never happened"—well, it never happened. If he says that
two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect
frightens me much more than bombs […]" Orwell

The relationship between you and astronomy is parasitic,the past is organized to suit the present and any historical and technical fact is flexible.For instance,if Isaac categorically is seen to reject aether,relativity dumps aether back on Newton as 'absolute space' only to reject it once again and then brings it back for general relativity.When encountering the longitude problem and how clocks reflect the rotation of the Earth through 15 degrees per hour and then forget this fact in order to choose a different value or plead that the Earth can turn 360 degrees twice !.A nightmare world where the observer sees the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly when it defies common sense even to consider it as anything other than a product of a disturbed mind.Orwell had nothing on a type of mind who is completely detached from common experience,while there were men who were well aware of the herd mentality run amok,I do not believe they understood it would reach something as tragic as today -

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness
while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two
opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic..., to forget,
whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory
again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it
again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself
-- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce
unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the
act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word
'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink" Nineteen Eighty-
Four ,Orwell

You want to believe that the furthest galaxies are the oldest yet also believe the furthest galaxies are not the oldest in order to maintain 'big bang'.If others can suffer you then good for them but they would be better off taking a walk outside and enjoy the spectacle away from the contrivances of men.

AugustusMinimus · 26-03-2012 09:46PM

What the **** are you on about ?

Time : Expansion of The Universe

Comments