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

12357…16

Comments

  • #122
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    the Earth turns once in 24 hours or 15 degrees per hour

    If you look up at the Plough at midnight every night for a year, is it in the exact same place in the sky every night?

    When I look up at the Plough, it seems to be spinning around the pole once a year. It moves around by 24 hours in a year, that's 1440 minutes every 365.25 days, or 3 minutes, 56 seconds a day. It's just as if the Earth is actually rotating on its axis every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds relative to the stars.

    Because it really is.


  • #123
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    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.

    People are inclined to read these things as though it were hearing of a long distance war and that supposedly brilliant men would never allow something as poor as the loss of the most basic planetary fact of all - the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days,after all,they experience the lovely day today and have no reason that tomorrow will be any different and all due to the rotation of the planet.

    The ancient astronomers who created the additional day to maintain the number of days in sync with the annual cycles of the Earth or what amounts to the same thing - the number of rotations in an annual cycle used the right star Sirius.You will see it as the only star out before any other if you go outside about 8:20 or thereabouts and you may notice if you watch it night after night that it will get lost in the glare of the Sun as the Earth moves along its its orbital circuit and puts Sirius on the opposite side of the Sun.

    Then along comes John Flamsteed who puts Sirius in daily circumpolar motion which is contrary to the methods and principles of not only the timekeeping astronomers but the astronomers who gauged the motions of the planets against the unmoving background stars in order to resolve retrogrades and determine the Earth moves instead of the Sun-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI -

    "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical (steady/constant)..." John Flamsteed 1677

    Until observers actually go out and look at Sirius,and it is unmistakable at present as the lone star with the moon and the 3 planets visible ,and make the attempt to put its position in context of the Earth's orbital motion ,only then can astronomers undo the damage of Flamsteed's false conclusion which puts all stars in motion around Polaris.In the coming months,Sirius will be in the same area behind the Sun as Jupiter hence it will disappear for roughly 70 days and this is the only acceptable use of the motion of the stars in connection with the Earth's orbital motion .This is why I urge readers to use the online orrery -

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


  • #124
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Anonymo wrote: »
    It's been explained to you several times that the article does NOT say that the oldest galaxies are those furthest away.
    Quite why you have this agenda I don't know but you seem incapable of listening to reason

    "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

    The articles is like thousands of others which ,following the proposal of big bangers,states that the oldest galaxies are furthest away when the Universe was smaller and younger,this is how the wider population are supposed to 'understand' big bang.I won't ask you to read it again but if you feel the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away and I even won't ask those who can make up their minds like reasonable people,what I will do is affirm what Galileo and many of the great minds of Western civilization knew when encountering a herd driven mentality that is unsightly and unacceptable -

    " I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
    so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
    be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
    of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
    that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
    conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
    or because of their having received it from some person who has their
    entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
    impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
    support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
    forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
    their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
    brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
    receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
    ill " Galileo

    If you can believe contradictory views simultaneously that the oldest galaxies are the most distant while also believing that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then good for you,that you are in a position to influence students through the education system is not good for anyone.This alone is why it is everyone's business despite most people distancing themselves from intellectual stupidity passing itself off as intellectual superiority and if the events in Ireland haven't brought the consequences of speculative recklessness home to readers here then nothing will.


  • #125
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,590 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    gkell2 wrote: »
    People are inclined to read these things as though it were hearing of a long distance war and that supposedly brilliant men would never allow something as poor as the loss of the most basic planetary fact of all - the Earth turns once in a day and 1461 times in 1461 days,after all,they experience the lovely day today and have no reason that tomorrow will be any different and all due to the rotation of the planet.

    The ancient astronomers who created the additional day to maintain the number of days in sync with the annual cycles of the Earth or what amounts to the same thing - the number of rotations in an annual cycle used the right star Sirius.You will see it as the only star out before any other if you go outside about 8:20 or thereabouts and you may notice if you watch it night after night that it will get lost in the glare of the Sun as the Earth moves along its its orbital circuit and puts Sirius on the opposite side of the Sun.

    Then along comes John Flamsteed who puts Sirius in daily circumpolar motion which is contrary to the methods and principles of not only the timekeeping astronomers but the astronomers who gauged the motions of the planets against the unmoving background stars in order to resolve retrogrades and determine the Earth moves instead of the Sun-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI -

    "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be isochronical (steady/constant)..." John Flamsteed 1677

    Until observers actually go out and look at Sirius,and it is unmistakable at present as the lone star with the moon and the 3 planets visible ,and make the attempt to put its position in context of the Earth's orbital motion ,only then can astronomers undo the damage of Flamsteed's false conclusion which puts all stars in motion around Polaris.In the coming months,Sirius will be in the same area behind the Sun as Jupiter hence it will disappear for roughly 70 days and this is the only acceptable use of the motion of the stars in connection with the Earth's orbital motion .This is why I urge readers to use the online orrery -

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

    This is pure waffle.

    The earth rotates on it's own axis roughly 366 times in 365 days. End of.


  • #126
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    "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

    The articles is like thousands of others which ,following the proposal of big bangers,states that the oldest galaxies are furthest away when the Universe was smaller and younger,this is how the wider population are supposed to 'understand' big bang.I won't ask you to read it again but if you feel the oldest galaxies are not the furthest away and I even won't ask those who can make up their minds like reasonable people,what I will do is affirm what Galileo and many of the great minds of Western civilization knew when encountering a herd driven mentality that is unsightly and unacceptable -

    " I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat--not
    so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always
    be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor
    of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me
    that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some
    conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own
    or because of their having received it from some person who has their
    entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it
    impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in
    support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set
    forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
    their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is
    brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they
    receive with disdain or with hot rage--if indeed it does not make them
    ill " Galileo

    If you can believe contradictory views simultaneously that the oldest galaxies are the most distant while also believing that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then good for you,that you are in a position to influence students through the education system is not good for anyone.This alone is why it is everyone's business despite most people distancing themselves from intellectual stupidity passing itself off as intellectual superiority and if the events in Ireland haven't brought the consequences of speculative recklessness home to readers here then nothing will.

    Nah this is pointless. You refuse to listen to reasoned arguments and trudge out the same thing time and again. The hypocrisy in your message should be evident to anyone who has read this forum so I don't need to highlight it further.
    In case you are in any way open-minded - which I sincerely doubt given your various posts - I will try once more to tell you why there is no contradiction.

    If the speed of light were infinite, i.e. light reached us as soon as it were emitted and we could see everything as they are today, then we would not be able to conclude that the galaxy is the oldest ever seen. However we would be able to determine that it's very far away due to its luminosity/brightness.
    This, in a nutshell, is your position.

    Nonetheless the speed of light is finite. So the light from those galaxies furthest from us takes longest to reach us. So any observation of distant galaxies means looking furthest back in time (i.e. to the earliest possible galaxies, i.e. to the oldest galaxies).

    Don't copy and paste your old posts. Instead try to deal with my comment and tell me what you think is wrong with it. Specifics. I would like to figure out if you are just confused or are trolling


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    This is pure waffle.

    The earth rotates on it's own axis roughly 366 times in 365 days. End of.

    Don't be silly,there were 365 days from March 1st 2010 until Feb 28th 2011 and 366 days from March 1st 2011 until the leap day of Feb 29th this year and every time daylight turned to darkness and the temperatures rose and feel during those days is due to the rotation of the Earth.Every parent,however indifferent to astronomy, has the responsibility to teach their children that the Earth is round,rotating and rotates once a day and 365 times in 365 days.

    If the observer goes out after 8:15 PM ,they should see the star Sirius at a time when it is not quite dark.At the time of the Egyptians,they watched as the star got swallowed up by the glare of the Sun and re-appeared after 70 days at morning time which coincided with the flooding of the Nile -

    "on account of the precession of the rising of the Divine Sothis
    (Sirius) by one day in the course of 4 years, and other festivals
    celebrated in the summer, in this country, shall not be celebrated in
    winter, as has occasionally occurred in past times, therefore it shall
    be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so
    one day as feast of Benevolent Gods [the pharaoh and family] be from
    this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the New
    Year, whereby all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in
    the order as regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions
    which are contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly
    orbits, are now corrected and improved" Canopus Decree 236 BC

    We still retain their system as the additional day/rotation of Feb 29th even if observers are unfamiliar with the star and its role it making the determination.All it takes is a few minutes on a gorgeous March evening to spend some company with the ancient astronomers and their system,how they figured it out and how we inherit their system.

    Students deserve better from adults.


  • #128
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Anonymo wrote: »
    Nah this is pointless. You refuse to listen to reasoned arguments and trudge out the same thing time and again. The hypocrisy in your message should be evident to anyone who has read this forum so I don't need to highlight it further.
    In case you are in any way open-minded - which I sincerely doubt given your various posts - I will try once more to tell you why there is no contradiction.

    You mustn't be that clever as the whole idea of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the furthest and you and other big bangers insist that you are looking back at a younger/smaller Universe -

    "The galaxy is so remote, scientists are observing it at a time when the universe was in its infancy, just 480 million years after the Big Bang.
    Dr Garth Illingworth, professor of astronomy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said: 'We're getting back very close to the first galaxies which we think formed around 200 or 300million years after the Big Bang.'
    Every time astronomers gaze into space, they are looking back in time."

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350778/Nasa-announcement-Hubble-spots-oldest-distant-galaxy-yet.html#ixzz1qQ1bITWd

    So,I am not telling you that you are wrong but pointing out that if you believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant then you are forced to acknowledge that the nearest galaxies are the youngest,if you don't believe the oldest galaxies are the furthest then 'big bang' vanishes as a concept and you are wasting everyone's time and money while distracting from genuine astronomy.

    If people wish to come here and ask question of big bangers then you have no reason to complain,if they were reasonable they would have figured out the absurdity almost immediately and moved on but apparently they mistake intellectual vapidity for intellectual superiority for what else is it ?.It is unfortunate that I even have to descend into fictional literature to express just how bad the situation actually is but that literature is based on a mass movement of people blind to reason -

    "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
    at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of
    not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
    misunderstanding the simplest arguments... and of being bored or
    repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a
    heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity"
    George Orwell

    No human being alive who values their intelligence can hold contradictory views simultaneously as you are doing now,you either affirm that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a younger/smaller Universe as 'big bang' prescribes or you don't accept the oldest galaxies are the furthest.It is not rocket science,it is basic human reasoning.


  • #129
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    You mustn't be that clever as the whole idea of 'big bang' is that the oldest galaxies are the furthest and you and other big bangers insist that you are looking back at a younger/smaller Universe -

    "The galaxy is so remote, scientists are observing it at a time when the universe was in its infancy, just 480 million years after the Big Bang.
    Dr Garth Illingworth, professor of astronomy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said: 'We're getting back very close to the first galaxies which we think formed around 200 or 300million years after the Big Bang.'
    Every time astronomers gaze into space, they are looking back in time."

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350778/Nasa-announcement-Hubble-spots-oldest-distant-galaxy-yet.html#ixzz1qQ1bITWd

    So,I am not telling you that you are wrong but pointing out that if you believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant then you are forced to acknowledge that the nearest galaxies are the youngest,if you don't believe the oldest galaxies are the furthest then 'big bang' vanishes as a concept and you are wasting everyone's time and money while distracting from genuine astronomy.

    If people wish to come here and ask question of big bangers then you have no reason to complain,if they were reasonable they would have figured out the absurdity almost immediately and moved on but apparently they mistake intellectual vapidity for intellectual superiority for what else is it ?.It is unfortunate that I even have to descend into fictional literature to express just how bad the situation actually is but that literature is based on a mass movement of people blind to reason -

    "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
    at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of
    not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
    misunderstanding the simplest arguments... and of being bored or
    repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a
    heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity"
    George Orwell

    No human being alive who values their intelligence can hold contradictory views simultaneously as you are doing now,you either affirm that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a younger/smaller Universe as 'big bang' prescribes or you don't accept the oldest galaxies are the furthest.It is not rocket science,it is basic human reasoning.

    So profoundly wrong. You have an initial confusion by refusing to account for the finite speed of light. This has been pointed out to you several times but you have some agenda against modern cosmology so I guess there's no use in trying to get you to see sense.


  • #130
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    If the observer goes out after 8:15 PM ,they should see the star Sirius at a time when it is not quite dark.At the time of the Egyptians,they watched as the star got swallowed up by the glare of the Sun and re-appeared after 70 days at morning time which coincided with the flooding of the Nile -
    Here's a very simple question for you, how many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years?


  • #131
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Anonymo wrote: »
    So profoundly wrong. You have an initial confusion by refusing to account for the finite speed of light. This has been pointed out to you several times but you have some agenda against modern cosmology so I guess there's no use in trying to get you to see sense.

    This country has a fairly good track record with voluntary organizations, everything from sport to credit unions and all acting in the best interests of the wider community.Astronomy is no different and is,in fact, more important in a lot of respects as a country or a civilization without a stable astronomical narrative is a barren and corrupt one.

    To understand what Ole Roemer did in using the orbital motions of Earth and Jupiter to account for the behavior of Jupiter's moon Io requires that you affirm that retrogrades are an illusion due to the Earth's own motion around the Sun and you can't do that as you can't find anything wrong with Newton's view which is obviously false -

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

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

    Without the proper resolution for retrogrades you can forget approaching Roemer's work and it is not going to happen is you support Isaac's idiosyncratic perspective,perhaps a theorist wouldn't notice or care but an astronomer certainly would.

    I am not interested in proving 'big bang' wrong,that should be clear by now,I am interested in getting people outside to look at the same planets our ancestors looked at but could put their motions and ours in context of the structure of the solar system.I can even go some distance to demonstrate where you are getting your ideas from but treating it like a tragedy built out of shortcuts and overreaching conclusions that go nowhere and do nothing other than draw attention to the proposer.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    This country has a fairly good track record with voluntary organizations, everything from sport to credit unions and all acting in the best interests of the wider community.Astronomy is no different and is,in fact, more important in a lot of respects as a country or a civilization without a stable astronomical narrative is a barren and corrupt one.

    To understand what Ole Roemer did in using the orbital motions of Earth and Jupiter to account for the behavior of Jupiter's moon Io requires that you affirm that retrogrades are an illusion due to the Earth's own motion around the Sun and you can't do that as you can't find anything wrong with Newton's view which is obviously false -

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

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

    Without the proper resolution for retrogrades you can forget approaching Roemer's work and it is not going to happen is you support Isaac's idiosyncratic perspective,perhaps a theorist wouldn't notice or care but an astronomer certainly would.

    I am not interested in proving 'big bang' wrong,that should be clear by now,I am interested in getting people outside to look at the same planets our ancestors looked at but could put their motions and ours in context of the structure of the solar system.I can even go some distance to demonstrate where you are getting your ideas from but treating it like a tragedy built out of shortcuts and overreaching conclusions that go nowhere and do nothing other than draw attention to the proposer.

    I'm all in favour of people going outside and doing some observations themselves. This will give them a great perspective on local astronomy and can only help in our motivation to understand better our place in the cosmos. This is possibly the only point you make that I agree fully with.

    The rest of what you're saying is wrong. It's a pity because you seem to have a great interest and clearly have done quite a bit of observation. This is what makes your comments all the more worrying. I'm all for a good debate about the merits about big bang cosmology and where our current understanding breaks down. Unfortunately you are not. Instead you insist on illogical reasoning to back up your flawed position.


  • #133
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Here's a very simple question for you, how many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years?

    Do you understand what the ancient astronomers could without the use of telescopes and clocks that Sirius doesn't appear after 4 consecutive periods of 365 days but emerges from the glare of the Sun an extra day which we now call February 29th.This makes for 1461 days for 4 years or what amounts to the same thing,1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits.

    Go outside and watch Sirius appear tonight about 8:15 PM and you can see how easy it was for the Egyptian astronomers to determine that an extra day is needed and if for some unknown reason you can't work that the appearance of Sirius from behind the Sun is due to the same reason that Jupiter will soon disappear from sight as it the Earth puts it behind the Sun,then no other explanation can be given as the line of sight reasoning is the easiest thing to understand.The online orrery puts Jupiter behind the Sun so you won't see it soon and that is how you look at these things -

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


    The Earth turns 1461 times in 1461 days and even if the ancient astronomers did not associate one day with one rotation of the Earth,one rotation corresponds to one day in a person with enough common sense to look at daylight turning to darkness and temperatures rising during the day and falling at night.

    You still believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe and that the nearest galaxies are the youngest in an older/larger Universe for what else does 'big bang' represent ,if you say the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then you don't have 'big bang' anymore and wasting people's time trying to get them to follow you into intellectual oblivion.You don't seem to get that I don't care that you believe in something so utterly stupid as 'big bang',it is just that it is creating obstacles for genuine astronomy and for students.


  • #134
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell, do you agree that when Sirius goes from its highest point in the sky tonight to its highest point tomorrow night the Earth will have turned once on its axis?

    If you go out and measure what time Sirius is at its highest point tonight, and then do the same thing tomorrow night, how many hours, minutes and seconds will there be between the two?


  • #135
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    gkell, do you agree that when Sirius goes from its highest point in the sky tonight to its highest point tomorrow night the Earth will have turned once on its axis?

    If you go out and measure what time Sirius is at its highest point tonight, and then do the same thing tomorrow night, how many hours, minutes and seconds will there be between the two?

    The highest point in the sky indeed !,my astronomical ancestors were already talking about the celestial arena and why 'above and below' have no meaning other than force of habit and common usage -

    " He [Copernicus] thus speaks of “sunrise” and “sunset,” of the
    “rising and setting” of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the
    ecliptic and of variations in the equinoctial points, of the mean
    motion and variations in motion of the sun, and so on. All these
    things really relate to the earth, but since we are fixed to the earth
    and consequently share in its every motion, we cannot discover them in
    the earth directly, and are obliged to refer them to the heavenly
    bodies in which they make their appearance to us. Hence we name them
    as if they took place where they appear to us to take place; and from
    this one may see how natural it is to accommodate things to our
    customary way of seeing them." Galileo

    I have yet to see the type of person who can work with the Earth's motions in terms of its orbit around the Sun,its motion between Venus and Mars and in relation to the other planets and especially the distinction between its daily and orbital motion.

    Anyone can go outside tonight and look at Mars going in the opposite direction against the background stars to Venus,not because it actually is moving 'backwards' but because the Earth is overtaking it until 2 weeks time when Mars will resume its circuit in its actual direction around the Sun as the Earth leaves the planet behind in the distance -

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100613.html

    I have never met a theorist who could rise above Newton and simply affirm what any reasonable person here could,that when you make a mistake and Not affirm that retrogrades are an illusion as Newton did,then everything that will follow will be also false - junk in/junk out.

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

    If you are so intent on Sirius in stellar circumpolar motion,you can forget about gauging the motions of planets against the background stars as seen from an orbitally moving Earth and especially Kepler's representation of Mars which is central to his modification which assigned variable orbital speeds for the Earth -

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

    Theorists certainly know how to attach themselves to the insights of Kepler and Copernicus without actually caring how these men worked,if they truly did there would be no such thing as 'big bang' and all the other junk that calls itself astronomy.The old astronomers could talk about anything and everything and some of the older works are truly lovely by use of simple observations and interpretations whereas today they turn talking about nothing into an art.If you really wish to discover why 'above and below' are simply conveniences for guys who like to magnify celestial objects and consider themselves astronomers for that reason alone,I suggest Plutarch -

    http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Moon.html


  • #136
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Do you understand what the ancient astronomers could without the use of telescopes and clocks that Sirius doesn't appear after 4 consecutive periods of 365 days but emerges from the glare of the Sun an extra day which we now call February 29th.This makes for 1461 days for 4 years or what amounts to the same thing,1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits.
    Why don't you answer my question, how many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years?


  • #137
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Why don't you answer my question, how many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years?

    I not only answered it,the Egyptians did when they recognized that Sirius returns to the same spot behind the glare of the Sun in 1461 days rather than 4 years of 365 days.

    If you have a problem with one day corresponding to one rotation of the Earth and a thousands days corresponding to a thousand rotations then no answer would be good enough for you as you are detached from experience of that rotation when daylight turns to darkness and as the temperature goes up and down daily in response to rotation.

    Don't worry,you have plenty of people asking about 'big bang' and the idea that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe,oh wait a minute,don't you believe also that the oldest galaxies are not the furthest !.When they decide that the celestial arena is not a dumping ground for theorists,they can return to genuine astronomy which gives them a satisfaction that will last them a lifetime.


  • #138
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    I not only answered it,the Egyptians did when they recognized that Sirius returns to the same spot behind the glare of the Sun in 1461 days rather than 4 years of 365 days.
    I did not ask how long does it take to return to the same spot.

    I asked you, How many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years? Now answer the question.


  • #139
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I did not ask how long does it take to return to the same spot.

    I asked you, How many times does Sirius cross the meridian in 4 years? Now answer the question.


    Did you ever hear of the term AM/PM ?.It represent an event where the longitude line you are standing on and running from the North to South poles crosses the Sun at noon hence Ante Meridiem and Post Meridiem.This event occurs 1461 times in 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth and the facility called the Equation of Time converts those natural noon 1461 cycles into an average 24 hour AM/ PM cycle.

    So there are a proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits which corresponds to 1461 days unless you wish to argue for your 1465 rotations in 1461 days so how you are going to account for the difference between natural noon AM/PM and 24 hour AM/PM without 1461 rotations is your business.

    Gorgeous night tonight with Sirius shining through the wispy clouds.People do feel the loss of their attachment to the astronomical arena that the older astronomers always had and not even astronomers,just people who like the intimacy of the encompassing arena without rhyme or reason.I can always go back to that and leave the proposer/victim relationship you have got going with 'big bang' but all the same,for that nonsense to thrive means genuine astronomy is cast aside and so it has.Would love my own countrymen to come to their senses and set aside the vicious form of Royal Society empiricism but it looks like you have a willing audience to continue the charade so good for you.


  • #140
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    my astronomical ancestors were already talking about the celestial arena and why 'above and below' have no meaning

    You know precisely what my question meant, and you are afraid to consider the answer, because it proves you are wrong.


  • #141
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    Maybe somebody else can help you because the answer is 1461 days/1461 rotations of the Earth.Any star,such as any of those in the 'big dipper' , will cross your meridian 1461 times in 1461 days which must include Feb 29th as one rotation of the Earth always includes an AM/PM event .

    Any star will cross the meridian 1465 times in 4 years, this is an easily verifiable fact, all you have to do is count.
    The Sun is the only star that crosses 1461 times, every single other star out there crosses 1465 times (even Polaris).
    Because a star will rise 4 mins earlier every night, it is also not mathematically possible for the number of days to match the number of times a star crosses the meridian over the course of a year (or 4).

    I had this out with you before, which is why I insisted you answer the question.
    Now anybody who is reading this can clearly see that you haven't got the faintest notion about the actual movements of the heavens, and all your words and pontifications are utter bullshit.

    The End.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    You know precisely what my question meant, and you are afraid to consider the answer, because it proves you are wrong.

    There are people who suffer greatly from the loss of astronomy to impossible concepts and the big questions that are always there in front of them,they just having been looking for them.

    As for one rotation in one day,people already know it and if they don't teach their children that it does,no matter how indifferent they may be to astronomy,then they are not acting in the best interests of their children and there I take my stand.

    As for 'big bang',well it would be for people who don't look into the celestial arena too often or at all and if they believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe while also believing the oldest galaxies are not the most distant,then it is impossible to reason with such people -

    "Oldest galaxy: Astronomers using the Hubble telescope have detected a galaxy that formed just 500 million years after the Big Bang, making it the most distant and oldest galaxy discovered so far."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0126/Oldest-galaxy-Hubble-telescope-detects-farthest-oldest-galaxy-yet

    I am a Christian and practice it in a Catholic setting yet to think that the Church supports such a thing as a 'big bang' monstrosity with a nonsensical limit to time and space is a great condemnation on the Church and contrary to everything Christianity stands for.A profound ignorance of the historical and technical details I have never seen with not the slightest sign that they recognize the influence 'big bang' has on the links between the individual and the Universal/Infinite.


  • #143
    Anonymo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 151 ✭✭Anonymo


    gkell2 wrote: »
    There are people who suffer greatly from the loss of astronomy to impossible concepts and the big questions that are always there in front of them,they just having been looking for them.

    As for one rotation in one day,people already know it and if they don't teach their children that it does,no matter how indifferent they may be to astronomy,then they are not acting in the best interests of their children and there I take my stand.

    As for 'big bang',well it would be for people who don't look into the celestial arena too often or at all and if they believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe while also believing the oldest galaxies are not the most distant,then it is impossible to reason with such people -

    "Oldest galaxy: Astronomers using the Hubble telescope have detected a galaxy that formed just 500 million years after the Big Bang, making it the most distant and oldest galaxy discovered so far."

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0126/Oldest-galaxy-Hubble-telescope-detects-farthest-oldest-galaxy-yet

    I am a Christian and practice it in a Catholic setting yet to think that the Church supports such a thing as a 'big bang' monstrosity with a nonsensical limit to time and space is a great condemnation on the Church and contrary to everything Christianity stands for.A profound ignorance of the historical and technical details I have never seen with not the slightest sign that they recognize the influence 'big bang' has on the links between the individual and the Universal/Infinite.

    Finally we find out what your agenda is.
    Your approach towards science is an insult to science and to religion.


  • #144
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    Any star will cross the meridian 1465 times in 4 years, this is an easily verifiable fact, all you have to do is count.
    The Sun is the only star that crosses 1461 times, every single other star out there crosses 1465 times (even Polaris).
    Because a star will rise 4 mins earlier every night, it is also not mathematically possible for the number of days to match the number of times a star crosses the meridian over the course of a year (or 4).

    I had this out with you before, which is why I insisted you answer the question.
    Now anybody who is reading this can clearly see that you haven't got the faintest notion about the actual movements of the heavens, and all your words and pontifications are utter bullshit.

    The End.

    Suit yourself,I will wake up tomorrow morning and watch the Sun rise due to the rotation of the Earth and it will be like that day after day.If towards the end of August you see a faint star just before dawn before it is swallowed up in sunlight,it will be either Sirius appearing from behind the Sun or the planet Venus as it emerges in front of the Sun.

    The world has gotten itself into a large mess with what is a shocking statement that the oldest galaxies are the most distant -

    "Hidden in a Hubble Space Telescope photo released earlier this year is a small smudge of light that European astronomers now calculate is a galaxy from 13.1 billion years ago. That’s a time when the universe was very young, just shy of 600 million years old. That would make it the earliest and most distant galaxy seen so far."

    http://articles.boston.com/2010-10-21/news/29289125_1_garth-illingworth-distant-galaxy-astronomers

    Nobody will be as pleased as I am if you come to your senses and work towards undoing the damage as the internal logical consistency of 'big bang' creates too many absurdities and is extremely unhealthy for you and everyone.


  • #145
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Anonymo wrote: »
    Finally we find out what your agenda is.
    Your approach towards science is an insult to science and to religion.

    No offence,any person here can almost tell you the story theorists advance is that the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe -

    "Garth Illingworth, a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, is Hubble's principal investigator. He says this telescopic eye has spotted what is likely the oldest and most distant object ever seen in the universe - a galaxy that dates back 13.2 billion years.
    "We've gone back through 96 percent of the life of the universe to when the universe was only four percent of its current age, to 500 million years after the Big Bang," he said.
    According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born 13.7 billion years ago in a single violent event, and, since that time, galaxies outside our Milky Way have been speeding away from us, creating a rapidly expanding universe."

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Hubble-Spots-Oldest-Galaxy-Ever-Seen--114751414.html

    If you then come here and announce that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant then that is contrary to the one that is promoted although the internal logical consistency would have the nearest galaxies as the youngest in the Universe and the whole thing dissolves quickly into absurdity.


    These newspapers are only publishing what they are told without really thinking through exactly what it represents yet the idea is not to remain with 'big bang',just notice its absurdities and then pass on to genuine astronomy where the world has a whole lot of catching up to do.


  • #146
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    There are people who suffer greatly from the loss of astronomy to impossible concepts and the big questions that are always there in front of them,they just having been looking for them.

    Why don't you try looking at an actual star, and answering the question: how long until it is in the same spot in the sky the following night?


  • #147
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    gkell2 wrote: »
    I am a Christian and practice it in a Catholic setting yet to think that the Church supports such a thing as a 'big bang' monstrosity with a nonsensical limit to time and space is a great condemnation on the Church and contrary to everything Christianity stands for.

    Here, read some Augustine, it'll do you good:

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth,
    the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the
    motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative
    positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the
    cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals,
    shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as
    being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a
    disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
    Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture,
    talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to
    prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up
    vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is
    not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that
    people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers
    held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
    salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and
    rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a
    field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his
    foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe
    those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead,
    the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they
    think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they
    themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
    Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold
    trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in
    one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by
    those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For
    then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue
    statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof
    and even recite from memory many passages which they think support
    their position, although _they understand neither what they say
    nor the things about which they make assertion_. [1 Timothy 1.7]
    Augustine (A.D. 354-430), The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi
    ad litteram libri duodecim) (translated by J. H. Taylor, Ancient
    Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41)
    Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39


  • #148
    k.p.h
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,645 ✭✭✭k.p.h


    I'm sorry I have to add another useless post to this "bonkers" thread. (started out great and has some great info in it though)

    I just can't understand how gkell2 put's this stuff together. Usually someone who has the intelligence and time to research something as much as gkell2 has, (and is obviously well able to articulate concepts) ends up these type of conclusions.

    What gives..? Just ignoring the evidence .? I can't get my head around it.


  • #149
    gkell2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭gkell2


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Here, read some Augustine, it'll do you good:

    You really are sweet and your instructions to read this and read that is quaint,for whatever reason Royal Society empiricists love Augustine and imagine Christians follow his dictates like you would Newton.In some respects Augustine knew more than the average person out there today when it comes to stellar circumpolar motion and once he signals his intentions when interpreting these things,there is no need to consider Augustine's outlook again,at least on the science side of things -

    "Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of
    heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is
    it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held
    fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing
    shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is
    another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if
    there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these
    men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings
    to find out which of these things is actually so;" St Augustine

    As it turns out,circumpolar motion can only be used to prove constant rotational alignment as the Earth orbits the Sun but not constant rotation insofar as the Earth's variable orbital speed is mixed together with daily rotation hence there is literally no external reference for constant rotation as an independent motion.The nearest reference is the proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits followed by the next reference of variations in natural noon which is converted to the average/steady 24 hour day which in turn substitutes for steady/constant rotation as an assertion rather than an observed fact.Complicated I know but nothing like diving at the conclusion Flamsteed merrily took in thinking that he proved rotation was constant by the daily return of Sirius in circumpolar motion.

    Christians such as Archbishop Cusa were among the first to look at the possibility of a moving Earth due to the logical absurdities of stellar circumpolar motion,the same motion you guys take it into account by following Flamsteed's reckless conclusion -

    " Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference nowhere. . . " Archbishop Cusa 16th century

    Anyway,one good thing Augustine did say which applies to the present Church and to each individual,if you wish to make Christian writings say what you want to hear you will certainly find it but then again you can also say that now about peer review literature in that you can cobble together a narrative to say whatever you want with the most impeccable references,even undo 'big bang' is you so wish.


    "If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and
    manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken;
    for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is
    beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what
    is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be
    there." Augustine

    So good luck to you now and don't rely so much on what other people dictate to you as to what is true as so often when you find things that give you great satisfaction ,the chances are others have found the same thing too.Astronomical insights come like the way the planets and stars come out at night,first a glimpse at a point of light over here,another over there and when your eyes become accustomed,the words and works of our astronomical ancestors make sense even if they will always be in need of constant modification and adjustment and sometimes radically so.You can learn astronomy up to a point with rote learning but there is a limit to this way of doing things and taken to the extremes it loses touch with what is actually out there.So,there is a balance out there for everything but unfortunately it is not there presently.


  • #150
    Cú Giobach
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,772 ✭✭✭Cú Giobach


    gkell2 wrote: »
    You can learn astronomy up to a point with rote learning but there is a limit to this way of doing things and taken to the extremes it loses touch with what is actually out there.So,there is a balance out there for everything but unfortunately it is not there presently.
    This is so ironic coming from you it makes the mind boggle, you pontificate on the movements of the heavens and tell people they should go out look up and come to their own conclusions, yet you are are unaware of probably the very first thing that becomes obvious as soon as you start looking at the night sky, namely that the movement of the stars and the sun differ by a few minutes each day.
    Because of your lack of knowledge of this most obvious of situations, I have no doubt whatsoever you do not actually watch the night sky and all you know about it is gleaned from reading the works of the greats of old.
    And quite unlike these people you constantly quote, none of your ideas are based on either observation or the taking into account of new discoveries.
    The very people you worship would dismiss and reject your ideas as the nonsensical ramblings of someone who has no interest in or knowledge of the scientific method of discovery, there is no doubt whatsoever that if Kepler, Copernicus or Newton were alive and reading this thread today, they would scoff at your ideas along with the rest of us.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Cú Giobach wrote: »
    I have no doubt whatsoever you do not actually watch the night sky and all you know about it is gleaned from reading the works of the greats of old.

    This is very unfair to gkell: he has also learned a good deal from looking at stuff like time-lapse photography and an orrery app on the web.

    He obviously just suffers from school debating team syndrome, where every conversation is a contest he has to win, even if only in his own mind.


Advertisement