Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Time : Expansion of The Universe

12467…16

Comments

  • #92
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    What the **** are you on about ?

    Here you go -

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

    The thing about it is that you are not frauds and that is what makes you dangerous,you actually believe the oldest galaxies are those furthest away in a younger/smaller Universe and can't transfer the conclusion to the nearest galaxies which would expose the absurdity.


  • #93
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    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 -
    Now you have really lost the plot.
    You claim people believe something they don't, and when someone actually explains this to you, you then claim they do and they don't and are therefore engaging in "doublethink".
    I don't believe you are a troll, consequently Gkell, you are absolutely nuts.
    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.
    Any great astronomer would be either laughing his/her arse off at you, or feeling really really sorry for you.

    By the way, I'm still waiting for you to comment on the (according to your theory of rotation) "two" rotations of Uranus.


  • #94
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    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.

    The moon doesn't rotate on its axis.

    If it did then the 'wobble' that we observe as the moon 'bobs' about in Earth's gravity well would indicate that the moon's rotation varies from clockwise to anti-clockwise and back again.

    If you were to stand with a ball held between your left and right hands outstretched before you and rotated, the ball would not be rotating about its own axis. If the ball was rotating then if would cause friction on your hands and slip out of your grasp. But you could vary the length of one arm or the other periodically in order to cause the ball to 'wobble'. The ball would be turning to the left and the the right and back again.

    Surely it is the same with the moon.


  • #95
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Anonymo wrote: »
    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..

    You can only speak for yourself but human nature is one of the driving forces behind science and religion alike.

    It would be naive not to factor human nature into how science will proceed.


  • #96
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    You can only speak for yourself but human nature is one of the driving forces behind science and religion alike.

    It would be naive not to factor human nature into how science will proceed.

    More nonsense. Each topic in science is to be taken on its merits. To engage in discussion about any ulterior motivation for someone researching a particular topic is one thing but to suggest that this motivation will lead to across-the-board corruption in science is wrong, dangerous, misinformed, stupid, naive and insulting.
    Human nature drives the majority of people in science to work in the area. Peer review is designed to largely cut out erroneous work. Of course some stuff falls through the cracks. Nobody would deny that in any area you will find things done badly and for the wrong reasons. My disgust with your comment is the suggestion that this applies across the board in science. That somehow all scientists have been brainwashed with the idea of a big bang and will not question it. Scientists on the whole are quite an inquisitive bunch, so this means that a direct implication of what you/gkell2 are saying is a conspiracy theory. That sort of stuff does not belong in a science forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    The moon doesn't rotate on its axis.

    If it did then the 'wobble' that we observe as the moon 'bobs' about in Earth's gravity well would indicate that the moon's rotation varies from clockwise to anti-clockwise and back again.
    :confused:
    If you were to stand with a ball held between your left and right hands outstretched before you and rotated, the ball would not be rotating about its own axis. If the ball was rotating then if would cause friction on your hands and slip out of your grasp. But you could vary the length of one arm or the other periodically in order to cause the ball to 'wobble'. The ball would be turning to the left and the the right and back again.

    Surely it is the same with the moon.
    There is no friction in space, and the moon only appears to wobble.
    Its axial rotation is constant but its orbit is not circular and it travels faster closer to the Earth and slower further away, therefore we see a bit around one side as it is travelling faster and a bit around the other as it is travelling slower, giving the impression of a wobble.

    The moon is in what is called synchronous rotation. "The rotation of an orbiting body on its axis in the same amount of time as it takes to complete a full orbit, with the result that the same face is always turned toward the body it is orbiting."

    The moon used to rotate faster, but due to tidal forces it has slowed to the current rate of once every 27.3 days matching its orbital period.
    Because there are no more tidal forces acting on the moon due to its rotation and orbital period being equal, it will stay locked in this position.
    The Earth however does have these forces acting on it and is consequently slowing down, eventually the Earth will slow to the point it also shows the same face to the Moon and the two bodies will both rotate once a lunar month showing the same faces to each other.


  • #98
    MisterEpicurus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭MisterEpicurus


    I've been thinking lately about the concept of time and cannot get my head around some questions.

    First and foremost, why and how does 'time' actually begin? Often, we are told that 'time' began at the Big Bang,...but what does it mean to say it began at the Big Bang? How do we quantify why 'time' exists and is there any possible situation where something can exist independent of 'time' as we know it? Any 'change' we think of must require 'time', but how must we think about a physical instance where we don't have this measurable description that we call 'time'. Why is it necessary and how do we 'define' it as occurring into existence at the Big Bang. If anyone can answer all at once I'd appreciate it ;-)

    To phrase part of one of the previous questions another way; at the Singularity, there existed 'Infinite Density', 'Infinite Temperature', etc. and a multitude of others. As this 'cooled' as the expansion phase ensued, at what point does (and why) time 'exist'? In the same fashion, how can be explain why the 'strong nuclear force' happened to arrive at a value. We have a value forr the SNF, but as far as I'm aware, it's not the same as putting a value on 'time' itself. Why is there a distinction between the two and how important is 'time' for the life of any Universe, and what difference would it make to suddenly have no time in any Universe? (If such a question is not self-contradictory)

    [Apologies in advance if any of these questions are self-evidently false to ask, it's merely a layman asking.]

    Thanks :p


  • #99
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Now you have really lost the plot.
    You claim people believe something they don't, and when someone actually explains this to you, you then claim they do and they don't and are therefore engaging in "doublethink".

    Big bangers like yourself believe the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a younger/smaller Universe but you also believe that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away,I won't ask you which one you accept because you have the dubious ability to accept both hence the reference to Orwell.

    If you can't maintain the internal logic of ' big bang' where the nearest galaxies would be the youngest in a larger/older Universe as an extension of the original conclusion that the oldest galaxies are the furthest then go entertain some poor victim who can't see the absurdity in your proposal.


  • #100
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    By the way, I'm still waiting for you to comment on the (according to your theory of rotation) "two" rotations of Uranus.

    It is not a theory,it is an observation -

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

    In the time lapse video,the daily rotation of Uranus is South to North which is one rotation to the Sun while the planet turns East to West as a component of its orbital motion.The polar coordinates turn through the corcle of illumination just as the Earth's North and South polar latitudes do hence at the South pole they are descending into many months of darkness while the North pole turns to the central Sun due to the orbital behavior of the Earth.

    If you wish an imitation analogy I will certainly supply it ,after all,it will eventually be explained to students where the polar day/night cycle comes from.


  • #101
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Big bangers like yourself believe the oldest galaxies are the furthest away in a younger/smaller Universe but you also believe that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away,I won't ask you which one you accept because you have the dubious ability to accept both hence the reference to Orwell.

    If you can't maintain the internal logic of ' big bang' where the nearest galaxies would be the youngest in a larger/older Universe as an extension of the original conclusion that the oldest galaxies are the furthest then go entertain some poor victim who can't see the absurdity in your proposal.
    Both myself and Anonymo have explained to you that people do not believe the furthest galaxies are the oldest and why this is so, therefore repeating it over and over again just shows you for what you are, totally nuts.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    It is not a theory,it is an observation -
    If you were basing your ideas on observation you would understand how an orbiting body has to rotate an extra 1 degree for every degree travelled in its orbit in order for it to show the same face again to the body being orbited.
    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

    In the time lapse video,the daily rotation of Uranus is South to North which is one rotation to the Sun while the planet turns East to West as a component of its orbital motion.The polar coordinates turn through the corcle of illumination just as the Earth's North and South polar latitudes do hence at the South pole they are descending into many months of darkness while the North pole turns to the central Sun due to the orbital behavior of the Earth.

    If you wish an imitation analogy I will certainly supply it ,after all,it will eventually be explained to students where the polar day/night cycle comes from.
    So even though the Uranian north/south pole axis constantly faces the same direction, it also has an east/west rotation, very mysterious. :rolleyes:

    Just out of curiosity I have been looking online for someone else who subscribes to your rather odd notions about orbits and rotation and can't find any, could you produce a link to somewhere that also advocates this?


  • #103
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    MisterEpicurus wrote: »
    I've been thinking lately about the concept of time and cannot get my head around some questions.

    First and foremost, why and how does 'time' actually begin? Often, we are told that 'time' began at the Big Bang,...but what does it mean to say it began at the Big Bang? How do we quantify why 'time' exists and is there any possible situation where something can exist independent of 'time' as we know it? Any 'change' we think of must require 'time', but how must we think about a physical instance where we don't have this measurable description that we call 'time'. Why is it necessary and how do we 'define' it as occurring into existence at the Big Bang. If anyone can answer all at once I'd appreciate it ;-)

    To phrase part of one of the previous questions another way; at the Singularity, there existed 'Infinite Density', 'Infinite Temperature', etc. and a multitude of others. As this 'cooled' as the expansion phase ensued, at what point does (and why) time 'exist'? In the same fashion, how can be explain why the 'strong nuclear force' happened to arrive at a value. We have a value forr the SNF, but as far as I'm aware, it's not the same as putting a value on 'time' itself. Why is there a distinction between the two and how important is 'time' for the life of any Universe, and what difference would it make to suddenly have no time in any Universe? (If such a question is not self-contradictory)

    [Apologies in advance if any of these questions are self-evidently false to ask, it's merely a layman asking.]

    Thanks :p

    You are approaching these guys as though they were the wizard of Oz and they can give you some answer that you can't get yourself .

    Once you allow somebody to 'define' time and space for you it is all over as essentially the limitless expanse of space or time cannot be conceived or defined within the human mind much less limits placed on them as big bangers try to do.There are sensible views out there,some of which are borrowed from antiquity -

    "As regards that infinity now considered — the infinity of space — we
    often hear it said that “its idea is admitted by the mind — is
    acquiesced in — is entertained — on account of the greater difficulty
    which attends the conception of a limit.” But this is merely one of
    those phrases by which even profound thinkers, time out of mind, have
    occasionally taken pleasure in deceiving themselves. The quibble lies
    concealed in the word “difficulty.” “The mind,” we are told,
    “entertains the idea of limitless, through the greater difficulty
    which it finds in entertaining that of limited, space.” Now, were the
    proposition but fairly put, its absurdity would become transparent at
    once. Clearly, there is no mere difficulty in the case. The assertion
    intended, if presented according to its intention and without
    sophistry, would run thus: — “The mind admits the idea of limitless,
    through the greater impossibility of entertaining that of limited,
    space.”" Edgar Allan Poe

    The same with 'singularity',it is an impossible concept that literally describes 'nothing' for infinite density/zero volume has the same meaning as infinite volume/zero density yet it does expose how little big bangers care about geometry or physical considerations.If you wish to have somebody make something out of nothing then go for it but while you may see yourself as a 'layman',I see 'victim'.


  • #104
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Both myself and Anonymo have explained to you that people do not believe the furthest galaxies are the oldest and why this is so, therefore repeating it over and over again just shows you for what you are, totally nuts.

    "Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

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

    There you go and there are a thousand articles just like that one so all you do is extend the conclusion that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in a larger/older Universe.It is supposed to represent an absurdity but big bangers can also accept that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away hence it is not possible to compete with people who can choose contradictory views, drop one when it suits and then pick it up again when needed.

    If you can't stomach to look and comment on your own proposals and maintain logical consistency then why expect others to ?.


  • #105
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    So even though the Uranian north/south pole axis constantly faces the same direction, it also has an east/west rotation, very mysterious. :rolleyes:

    The East/West turning of Uranus to the central Sun and representative of the Earth's polar day/night cycle is not mysterious at all,in fact a simple imitation analogy reproduces the observation -

    http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

    Get yourself a brush handle and this represents the constant alignment of the Earth to Polaris as it makes a circuit of the Sun.Put an object at the center and walk/orbit around that object/Sun while keeping the brush handle pointed to the same external spot.You will discover that you find yourself walking forwards,sideways and backwards in order to maintain the alignment of the brush with a fixed external point and consequently every part of your body turns to the central object/Sun.This is why they have a polar day/night cycle at the North/South poles,it is fun to teach students and introduces an additional orbital component to explain why the seasons change and when allied with daily rotation,why there are variations in the natural noon cycle hence the Equation of Time.

    Set aside the rubbish of 'big bang' and ask questions or investigate yourself things you can see and experience.


  • #106
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Set aside the rubbish of 'big bang' and ask questions or investigate yourself things you can see and experience.

    I really urge you to take your own advice. You are getting to grips with orbits and axial tilt, I think you would enjoy reading about the analemma and Milankovitch cycles.


  • #107
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I really urge you to take your own advice. You are getting to grips with orbits and axial tilt, I think you would enjoy reading about the analemma and Milankovitch cycles.


    How sweet of you.If you look at the supernova thread,the first image you will see was taken by Anthony Ayiomamitis,a really nice guy who has the biggest collections of analemmas of anyone on the planet and even he would concede that the days of the wandering analemma Sun have come and gone.His new projects are time lapse sequences and things like that,or at least so he tells me and good luck to him in his endeavors.Most reasonable people have come to understand how the figure 8 that once adorned globes no longer does so as well as coming to realize what actually causes natural noon cycles to vary.

    If you are like the other guy who believes there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days,you are going to have an impossible job trying to match up cause and effect where the temperatures go up and down daily due to the rotation of the Earth as the Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days or what amounts to the same thing,4 years/4 orbital circuits.Forget Milankovitch cycles,they are a waste of time and join the analemma as concepts that have outlived their usefulness and a product of their time.

    It may happen that the people here currently promoting 'big bang' will come to their senses but effectively it is by focusing attention on astronomical issues that really do matter that will cause that conceptual impossibility of 'big bang' to fade from view.The big questions are always there in front of people,they just haven't been noticing them for a while and in this era where people do feel down,a lot of it has to do with being detached from nature.Just ask anyone who walks a beach,a forest or the countryside and stops to take notice of their surroundings and they often open up a sense of things that were lost or forgotten due to all the daily concerns that blot them out -

    "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul."
    John Muir


  • #108
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    The East/West turning of Uranus to the central Sun and representative of the Earth's polar day/night cycle is not mysterious at all,in fact a simple imitation analogy reproduces the observation -

    http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

    Get yourself a brush handle and this represents the constant alignment of the Earth to Polaris as it makes a circuit of the Sun.Put an object at the center and walk/orbit around that object/Sun while keeping the brush handle pointed to the same external spot.You will discover that you find yourself walking forwards,sideways and backwards in order to maintain the alignment of the brush with a fixed external point and consequently every part of your body turns to the central object/Sun.This is why they have a polar day/night cycle at the North/South poles,it is fun to teach students and introduces an additional orbital component to explain why the seasons change and when allied with daily rotation,why there are variations in the natural noon cycle hence the Equation of Time.

    Set aside the rubbish of 'big bang' and ask questions or investigate yourself things you can see and experience.
    Take a large piece of vellum, a quill and prepare some ink.
    Now draw a dot in the middle of the page.
    Next draw a large circle around that dot and continue to follow the line of the circle for a few circuits.
    Observe how your hand moves as you do this.
    Note how your hand is showing different sides to the central dot as it follows the circle, is your hand rotating?
    If Uranus is rotating as you say, then so is your hand as it moves as described above, and unless your have a very odd anatomy it clearly isn't.

    I'll ignore your other post because it is just too idiotic.


  • #109
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    So even though the Uranian north/south pole axis constantly faces the same direction, it also has an east/west rotation, very mysterious.

    You mean like tidal locking?


  • #110
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Take a large piece of vellum, a quill and prepare some ink.
    Now draw a dot in the middle of the page.
    Next draw a large circle around that dot and continue to follow the line of the circle for a few circuits.
    Observe how your hand moves as you do this.
    Note how your hand is showing different sides to the central dot as it follows the circle, is your hand rotating?
    If Uranus is rotating as you say, then so is your hand as it moves as described above, and unless your have a very odd anatomy it clearly isn't.

    I'll ignore your other post because it is just too idiotic.

    I just like to think of it, that if a planet wasn't spinning on it's own axis, it would experience a day which would be exactly as long as it's year.

    I believe it takes roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes for the earth to completely revolve around it's axis once. The extra 4 minutes in the day are accounted for by the earth having moved slightly more along it's orbit.


  • #111
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Take a large piece of vellum, a quill and prepare some ink.
    Now draw a dot in the middle of the page.
    Next draw a large circle around that dot and continue to follow the line of the circle for a few circuits.
    Observe how your hand moves as you do this.
    Note how your hand is showing different sides to the central dot as it follows the circle, is your hand rotating?
    If Uranus is rotating as you say, then so is your hand as it moves as described above, and unless your have a very odd anatomy it clearly isn't.

    But if the vellum were placed on a round table and you walked around the table in order to draw the circle the you would keep the same aspect facing toward the centre.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    But if the vellum were placed on a round table and you walked around the table in order to draw the circle the you would keep the same aspect facing toward the centre.

    But then you are rotating.


  • #113
    Wh1stler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 276 ✭✭Wh1stler


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    But then you are rotating.

    Like the moon?


  • #114
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    Like the moon?

    Yep. Although as the moon's orbit is elliptical, the moon is not perfectly tidally locked.

    The moon appears to wobble as it speeds up and slows down in different parts of it's orbit around the earth. This means 59% of the moon is visible from earth whereas only 50% would be visible if the moon's orbit was perfectly circular.


  • #115
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    I believe it takes roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes for the earth to completely revolve around it's axis once. The extra 4 minutes in the day are accounted for by the earth having moved slightly more along it's orbit.

    The Longitude problem is based on the principle that the Earth turns once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour so that the 1037.5 miles which equates to both 15 degrees of geographical separation at the equator and also 1 hour time difference turns into a string of facts that the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.It is one of the well attested facts known to humanity yet because Newton's agenda relies on a rotating celestial sphere,even this fact doesn't survive the assault on astronomy,at least at the moment.So,an innovative and insightful man like John Harrison joins Copernicus and the other great men of Western civilization in having his work looted and turned towards ends which it was not designed for -

    "The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
    following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
    parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
    Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
    axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
    those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
    Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
    those degrees) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
    those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
    minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
    that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
    with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
    minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
    quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
    can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
    visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
    until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
    only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
    such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
    what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
    clearly discovered." John Harrison

    The Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days,that is why we had the additional day of Feb 29th a month ago.If you go outside tonight at 8:15 PM ,you should see 5 objects - the moon,Mars,Venus,Jupiter and a single star - Sirius.That star will,over time,be lost to the glare of the Sun as the Earth swings around and puts the star the opposite side of the Sun for the same reason Jupiter soon will disappear from view (The online orrery supplied below helps observers understand why the planet and star disappear behind the Sun because of the orbital motion of the Earth) .In ancient times the re-appearance of Sirius after roughly 70 days from behind the morning glare coincided with the flooding of the Nile and that did not happen after every 365 days but took an extra day after 4 years of 365 days.In short,the ancients never used stellar circumpolar motion or the daily motion of the stars across the sky.If a person does go outside tonight and actually takes the time to look at Sirius and Jupiter as they become absorbed into the light of the Sun with each passing day,they can set aside this horrible attempt to link daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion that is driving the alternative value to rotation once in 24 hours.

    The Lat/Long system which contains the genuine information on planetary facts such as rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours finds itself in competition with the Ra/Dec system which emerged in the late 17th century and this is where much of the trouble is caused.It should shock people that the very Lat/Long system for timekeeping which provides all the conveniences they take for granted and is the product of human ingenuity which stretches back for thousands of years is treated in the same way the great Western astronomical insights are.If people feel uncomfortable for a value for the daily rotation other than 24 hours they have a good reason to feel that way for the alternative value in false.

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


  • #116
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I'll ignore your other post because it is just too idiotic.

    You would have a right to ignore it because it contains your proposal and I put a stop to it -

    "Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

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

    So now you believe the oldest galaxies are not furthest away which means you don't believe in your own proposal.This is fine and spares a lot of a people from listening to people who have made quite a reputation for themselves peddling nonsense that distracts from genuine astronomy.

    The narrowminded can't adapt but it is hoped that those who can and especially those who previously supported an extremely unhealthy proposal like 'big bang' now work towards sorting out how people ended up following something so bad in the first place.


  • #117
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    You would have a right to ignore it because it contains your proposal and I put a stop to it -

    "Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have peered further back in time than ever before, spotting a galaxy that formed less than 500 million years after the birth of our universe, making it the oldest and most distant ever seen."

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

    So now you believe the oldest galaxies are not furthest away which turns 'big bang' into junk and spares a lot of a people from listening to people who have made quite a reputation for themselves peddling nonsense that distracts from genuine astronomy.

    The narrowminded can't adapt but it is hoped that those who can and especially those who previously supported an extremely unhealthy proposal like 'big bang' now work towards sorting out how people ended up following something so bad in the first place.

    Ok this is getting pathetic. I'll just point out one more thing. The reason that the galaxy mentioned here is determined to be the oldest ever discovered is due to the time it takes the light to reach us. It doesn't have anything really to do with the expansion of the universe. yes there are details to do with the luminosity/redshift relation... but without that we'd still conclude this galaxy is the oldest. All you do by denying this is either (1) say the speed of light is infinite so that the light of all galaxies reach us instantaneously or (2) say that we are in a preferred location in the universe.

    If your determination of 'genuine astronomy' is looking through a telescope then -though 'narrow minded'- you're entitled to think that. You are not however entitled to think that the inference made from empirical evidence that the universe must have been much much denser in the early universe - an inference that has led to some amazing discoveries- is wrong. I'd also point out that a few of us here have dealt with your claims and shown where you're going wrong. However you appear unwilling to allow for the possibility that people working in this area for the last hundred years may actually not have been wasting their time. I think that is 'extremely unhealthy'.


  • #118
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    Wh1stler wrote: »
    You mean like tidal locking?
    No, Uranus's axis of rotation is tilted at 98 degs (the planet is rotating on its side) and this axis points in the same direction irrespective of where in its orbit the planet is.
    At one point in its year the north pole is pointed directly at the Sun, and half a year later on the other side of the orbit, the south pole is pointed directly at it.


  • #119
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Anonymo wrote: »
    Ok this is getting pathetic. I'll just point out one more thing. The reason that the galaxy mentioned here is determined to be the oldest ever discovered is due to the time it takes the light to reach us. It doesn't have anything really to do with the expansion of the universe. yes there are details to do with the luminosity/redshift relation... but without that we'd still conclude this galaxy is the oldest. All you do by denying this is either (1) say the speed of light is infinite so that the light of all galaxies reach us instantaneously or (2) say that we are in a preferred location in the universe.

    It is indeed pathetic,that much I will agree with you on however the article clearly proposes that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe.How many victims come here trying to make sense of this and now you say the oldest galaxies are not those furthest away !.

    I never once said you were wrong,don't need to,what I will point out is that if you insist the oldest galaxies are the furthest away then the nearest galaxies are the youngest to maintain the only thing a theory requires - internal logical consistency.

    How much tolerance do you think people have today for political spin ?,do you think you can hold two separate and contradictory views and promote them at the same time whenever it suits ?.


  • #120
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    It is indeed pathetic,that much I will agree with you on however the article clearly proposes that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away in a smaller/younger Universe.How many victims come here trying to make sense of this and now you say the oldest galaxies are not those furthest away !.

    I never once said you were wrong,don't need to,what I will point out is that if you insist the oldest galaxies are the furthest away then the nearest galaxies are the youngest to maintain the only thing a theory requires - internal logical consistency.

    How much tolerance do you think people have today for political spin ?,do you think you can hold two separate and contradictory views and promote them at the same time whenever it suits ?.

    It's been explained to you several times that the article does NOT say that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away. Rather it just says that those galaxies whose light takes longest to reach us are the oldest. If we could see them all as they are today and not have to wait for their light to travel to us there is no reason to think that the oldest galaxies are furthest away. Please don't misquote me again on this. I've been very clear on this (as has Cu Gioblach). Your 'logical consistency' is very far from being logical.

    Quite why you have this agenda I don't know but you seem incapable of listening to reason


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    gkell2 wrote: »
    The Longitude problem is based on the principle that the Earth turns once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour so that the 1037.5 miles which equates to both 15 degrees of geographical separation at the equator and also 1 hour time difference turns into a string of facts that the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour and a full 24901 mile circumference in 24 hours.It is one of the well attested facts known to humanity yet because Newton's agenda relies on a rotating celestial sphere,even this fact doesn't survive the assault on astronomy,at least at the moment.So,an innovative and insightful man like John Harrison joins Copernicus and the other great men of Western civilization in having his work looted and turned towards ends which it was not designed for -

    "The application of a Timekeeper to this discovery is founded upon the
    following principles: the earth's surface is divided into 360 equal
    parts (by imaginary lines drawn from North to South) which are called
    Degrees of Longitude; and its daily revolution Eastward round its own
    axis is performed in 24 hours; consequently in that period, each of
    those imaginary lines or degrees, becomes successively opposite to the
    Sun (which makes the noon or precise middle of the day at each of
    those degrees) and it must follow, that from the time any one of
    those lines passes the Sun, till the next passes, must be just four
    minutes, for 24 hours being divided by 360 will give that quantity; so
    that for every degree of Longitude we sail Westward, it will be noon
    with us four minutes the later, and for every degree Eastward four
    minutes the sooner, and so on in proportion for any greater or less
    quantity. Now, the exact time of the day at the place where we are,
    can be ascertained by well known and easy observations of the Sun if
    visible for a few minutes at any time from his being ten degrees high
    until within an hour of noon, or from an hour after noon until he is
    only 10 degrees high in the afternoon; if therefore, at any time when
    such observation is made, a Timekeeper tells us at the same moment
    what o'clock it is at the place we sailed from, our Longitude is
    clearly discovered." John Harrison

    The Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days,that is why we had the additional day of Feb 29th a month ago.If you go outside tonight at 8:15 PM ,you should see 5 objects - the moon,Mars,Venus,Jupiter and a single star - Sirius.That star will,over time,be lost to the glare of the Sun as the Earth swings around and puts the star the opposite side of the Sun for the same reason Jupiter soon will disappear from view (The online orrery supplied below helps observers understand why the planet and star disappear behind the Sun because of the orbital motion of the Earth) .In ancient times the re-appearance of Sirius after roughly 70 days from behind the morning glare coincided with the flooding of the Nile and that did not happen after every 365 days but took an extra day after 4 years of 365 days.In short,the ancients never used stellar circumpolar motion or the daily motion of the stars across the sky.If a person does go outside tonight and actually takes the time to look at Sirius and Jupiter as they become absorbed into the light of the Sun with each passing day,they can set aside this horrible attempt to link daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion that is driving the alternative value to rotation once in 24 hours.

    The Lat/Long system which contains the genuine information on planetary facts such as rotation of the Earth once in 24 hours finds itself in competition with the Ra/Dec system which emerged in the late 17th century and this is where much of the trouble is caused.It should shock people that the very Lat/Long system for timekeeping which provides all the conveniences they take for granted and is the product of human ingenuity which stretches back for thousands of years is treated in the same way the great Western astronomical insights are.If people feel uncomfortable for a value for the daily rotation other than 24 hours they have a good reason to feel that way for the alternative value in false.

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

    The earth does NOT take 24 hours to complete a revolution. It takes roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes.

    This is a fact and you saying otherwise is a lie.


    Your ability to understand the laws of General Relativity and the concept of time is also appauling give your strange belief that light seemingly doesn't take anytime to reach us from other galaxies.


Advertisement