Stay tuned: New star coming in 1 million years
Sam Wormley
>
> Stay tuned: New star coming in 1 million years
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/51454/title/Stay_tuned_New_star_coming_in_1_million_years
> Radio observations of a dark, dusty cloud in a nearby star-forming region have revealed one of the earliest phases of star formation and may reveal new insights on starbirth.
sunspot
contents within are pure speculation with no true science involved
i could also make up a fantasy and post it saying it will happen in xxx
years
whos to say my fantasy wouldnt come true if there was a bit of evidence
currently to support it
there is also plenty of evidence to not support my fantasy--- was there any
point it telling my fantasy in the first place?
no attack of the messenger here as he simply relays info published
elsewhere, but much of what i read is a true stretch at best with little or
no evidence to support it
i think i will start publishing my most outlandish fantasies
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:D-ydnXKX_a03Yq_W...@mchsi.com...
sunspot
true in xxxxx years
pretty far fetched, is is worth the cost?
"sunspot" <abs...@adl.net> wrote in message
news:hgvrf3$ig9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Chris L Peterson
>while I can often appreciate these posts, I find that very often the
>contents within are pure speculation with no true science involved
And how does that apply to this particular paper? It appears highly
scientific and not at all speculative. We have well developed theories
of stellar formation which predict an early stage where dust and gas
condense out of large clouds into dense zones, and this report discusses
actual observations of such a process. That's about as close to ideal
science as you can get.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
oriel36
> im also going to spend xxxxx dollars to support my possible fantasies coming
> true in xxxxx years
>
This is why the climate bandwagon got rolling and must have seemed a
dream for those who could spot a lucrative endeavor without fussing
about whether the conclusion was valid or not,if global temperatures
continued to spike it would have indicated more cuts in pollution
levels,if declining it would have shown that lower pollution levels
were working.in the end the trees had the final say,the rings which
show a halting of the temperature spike are as honest as the
scientists distorting data are not.
Funny how the simple things demolish pretension and open up a love of
creation in spite of the obstacles people place in front of that
window,as a Christian,even I take the infancy narrative on its own
terms of the ancient astronomers coming to worship at the feet of
simplicity for I and many like me do these things all the time -
"The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness."
John Muir
> pretty far fetched, is is worth the cost?
>
> "sunspot" <abs3...@adl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hgvrf3$ig9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> > while I can often appreciate these posts, I find that very often the
> > contents within are pure speculation with no true science involved
>
> > i could also make up a fantasy and post it saying it will happen in xxx
> > years
>
> > whos to say my fantasy wouldnt come true if there was a bit of evidence
> > currently to support it
>
> > there is also plenty of evidence to not support my fantasy--- was there
> > any point it telling my fantasy in the first place?
>
> > no attack of the messenger here as he simply relays info published
> > elsewhere, but much of what i read is a true stretch at best with little
> > or no evidence to support it
>
> > i think i will start publishing my most outlandish fantasies
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:D-ydnXKX_a03Yq_W...@mchsi.com...
>
> >>> Stay tuned: New star coming in 1 million years
> >>>http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/51454/title/Stay_tuned_New...
oriel36
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
It is a pity that I have not found the type of people who can work
through the distortions Newton employed to get his agenda up and
running where he made it appear that planetary orbital dynamics can be
reduced to a human and therefore an experimental level by exploiting
what is normally the calendar based Ra/Dec convenience.There are many
things at play when crude distortions are uncovered,it happened before
with Piltdown man,insofar as it amounts to a desperate attempt to find
a stable ground from which to recommence productive studies as it does
to alleviate the wrongs which entered science through the original
empirical agenda promoted specifically by Newton.
The situation has arisen now where all the pretensions are removed and
it is no longer a life or death matter,people know something went
badly wrong yet cannot pinpoint exactly where or when it happened
whereas a few intelligent people here could grasp that much of the
present difficulties originate back in the late 17th century when the
attempt to reduce planetary dynamics to an experimental level emerged
as a conclusion.
Chris L Peterson
<kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It is a pity that I have not found the type of people who can work
>through the distortions Newton employed to get his agenda up and
>running where he made it appear that planetary orbital dynamics can be
>reduced to a human and therefore an experimental level by exploiting
>what is normally the calendar based Ra/Dec convenience...
Have you tried your nearest state hospital? The ward you're looking for
is usually on the third floor... with lots of people you can work with.
Sam Wormley
>
> It is a pity that I have not found the type of people who can work
> through the distortions Newton employed to get his agenda up and
> running where he made it appear that planetary orbital dynamics can be
> reduced to a human and therefore an experimental level by exploiting
> what is normally the calendar based Ra/Dec convenience.
"The concept of right ascension has been known at least as far back as
Hipparchus who measured stars in equatorial coordinates in the 2nd
century BCE. But Hipparchus and his successors made their star catalogs
in ecliptical coordinates, and the use of RA was limited to special cases.
"With the invention of the telescope, it became possible for astronomers
to observe celestial objects in greater detail, provided that the
telescope could be kept pointed at the object for a period of time. The
easiest way to do that is to use an equatorial mount for the telescope,
which allows the telescope to rotate at the same rate as the earth. As
the equatorial mount became widely adopted for observation, the
equatorial coordinate system, which includes right ascension, was
adopted at the same time for simplicity. Equatorial mounts could then be
accurately pointed at objects with known right ascension and declination
by the use of setting circles. The first star catalog to use right
ascension and declination was John Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis
Britannica (1712, 1725)".
mta
at once?
What is the minimum density required for a solar mass size star to ignite?
Why don't
stars unravel or become unstable in the early part of their life? JUST WTF
is it all about Alfie???
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:cb17j5l95774oed9c...@4ax.com...
Chris L Peterson
>At what point does a sun ignite? Is it a slow process or does it light up
>at once?
>What is the minimum density required for a solar mass size star to ignite?
>Why don't
>stars unravel or become unstable in the early part of their life?
All that stuff is pretty well understood, and described in hundreds or
thousands of papers. Stars ignite rapidly. The minimum density is
similar to the Sun's density. Why would a protostar become unstable?
jerry warner
sunspot wrote:
> while I can often appreciate these posts, I find that very often the
> contents within are pure speculation with no true science involved
>
thats easy - dont read the posts. Go back to NatGeo
and Nancy Grace.
mta
the sun. The light and heat we experience were created a million years ago.
When the sun first lit up how much of the core was affected to instantly
become helium ash and steadily build up over billions of years?
"Chris L Peterson" <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:c818j559it6qdte7b...@4ax.com...
Sam Wormley
> It takes a million years or so for photons to break through the surface of
> the sun. The light and heat we experience were created a million years ago.
> When the sun first lit up how much of the core was affected to instantly
> become helium ash and steadily build up over billions of years?
>
See:
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f03.html
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f02.html
W. eWatson
> On Dec 24, 5:50 am, "sunspot" <abs3...@adl.net> wrote:
>> im also going to spend xxxxx dollars to support my possible fantasies coming
>> true in xxxxx years
>>
>
> This is why the climate bandwagon got rolling and must have seemed a
> dream for those who could spot a lucrative endeavor without fussing
> about whether the conclusion was valid or not,if global temperatures
>
That's a huge stretch.
oriel36
> On 12/24/09 10:19 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
>
>
> > It is a pity that I have not found the type of people who can work
> > through the distortions Newton employed to get his agenda up and
> > running where he made it appear that planetary orbital dynamics can be
> > reduced to a human and therefore an experimental level by exploiting
> > what is normally the calendar based Ra/Dec convenience.
>
> "The concept of right ascension has been known at least as far back as
> Hipparchus who measured stars in equatorial coordinates in the 2nd
> century BCE. But Hipparchus and his successors made their star catalogs
> in ecliptical coordinates, and the use of RA was limited to special cases.
>
> to observe celestial objects in greater detail, provided that the
> telescope could be kept pointed at the object for a period of time. The
> easiest way to do that is to use an equatorial mount for the telescope,
> which allows the telescope to rotate at the same rate as the earth. As
> the equatorial mount became widely adopted for observation, the
> equatorial coordinate system, which includes right ascension, was
> adopted at the same time for simplicity. Equatorial mounts could then be
> accurately pointed at objects with known right ascension and declination
> by the use of setting circles. The first star catalog to use right
> ascension and declination was John Flamsteed's Historia Coelestis
> Britannica (1712, 1725)".
>
> Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
A person intelligent enough to recognise that Ra/Dec tracking is
based on the two interlocking timekeeping averages of the 24 hour day
and the 365/366 day calendar will have no difficulties separating
this magnificent convenience from the raw daily rotational and orbital
dynamics which create the timekeeping averages in the first place.The
idea that this tracking reflects daily rotation as an independent
motion is altogether a false and unintelligent conclusion regardless
of who makes it and the basis for all the trouble which tries to model
planetary dynamics directly from observations.
I would ask what people intend to do now that many already know the
outlines of the elaborate scheme of Newton in creating an absolute/
relative space and motion in order to link Ra/Dec observations
directly to modelling and as a means to reduce planetary dynamics to
an experimental level yet I am truly unaware who or how many can
understand the ins and outs of these thing but this much I
promise,whatever way genuine scientists approach the topic,there is
nothing to stand in the way of a lively and productive analysis using
the best of interpretative qualities and modern imaging.
Intelligent people cannot bear to continue with false conclusions or
precepts for any great length of time yet who knows where these
people will come from, for the present ,this forum provides an ideal
background for people to modify,adapt and thrive at a time when the
empirical approach is now exposed for the limited and ultimately
catastrophic approach that it is and was.
Sam Wormley
Merry Christmas to you too, Gerald.
mta
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qNmdnYY2XNFEbKnW...@mchsi.com...
Dov Henis
> Useless information as presented.....sux, could be anything.
>
>
> news:qNmdnYY2XNFEbKnW...@mchsi.com...
>
>
>
> > On 12/25/09 10:36 AM, mta wrote:
> >> It takes a million years or so for photons to break through the surface
> >> of
> >> the sun. The light and heat we experience were created a million years
> >> ago.
> >> When the sun first lit up how much of the core was affected to instantly
> >> become helium ash and steadily build up over billions of years?
>
> > See:
> > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f03.html
>
> - Show quoted text -
========================
New Star Coming
A. From "Stay tuned: New star coming in 1 million years"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/51454/title/Stay_tuned_New_star_coming_in_1_million_years
Radio observations of a dark, dusty cloud in a nearby star-forming
region have revealed one of the earliest phases of star formation and
may reveal new insights on starbirth.
"Gravity ultimately transforms many such starless, cold cores into
protostars, stellar embryos that release tremendous amounts of heat as
they pack on more and more material. Eventually, a protostar becomes
dense enough to ignite nuclear reactions at its core, a sign that a
bona fide star has been born.
“How these objects condense out of the surrounding gas in the galaxy
is something that we have not fully solved,” notes Bergin. “If you
want to understand how stars are born, prestellar cores are the
objects that will unlock those secrets,”
B. How they condense is not yet fully solved, but what drives them to
condense is suggested at the two following brief notes
28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#4587
Cosmic Evolution Simplified
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
oriel36
> On Dec 28, 2:12 am, "mta" <n...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Useless information as presented.....sux, could be anything.
>
> > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:qNmdnYY2XNFEbKnW...@mchsi.com...
>
> > > On 12/25/09 10:36 AM, mta wrote:
> > >> It takes a million years or so for photons to break through the surface
> > >> of
> > >> the sun. The light and heat we experience were created a million years
> > >> ago.
> > >> When the sun first lit up how much of the core was affected to instantly
> > >> become helium ash and steadily build up over billions of years?
>
> > > See:
> > > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter17/17f03.html
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ========================
>
> New Star Coming
>
> Radio observations of a dark, dusty cloud in a nearby star-forming
> region have revealed one of the earliest phases of star formation and
> may reveal new insights on starbirth.
>
> "Gravity ultimately transforms many such starless, cold cores into
> protostars, stellar embryos that release tremendous amounts of heat as
> they pack on more and more material. Eventually, a protostar becomes
> dense enough to ignite nuclear reactions at its core, a sign that a
> bona fide star has been born.
>
> “How these objects condense out of the surrounding gas in the galaxy
> is something that we have not fully solved,” notes Bergin. “If you
> want to understand how stars are born, prestellar cores are the
> objects that will unlock those secrets,”
>
> B. How they condense is not yet fully solved, but what drives them to
> condense is suggested at the two following brief notes
>
> 28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#4587
>
> Cosmic Evolution Simplifiedhttp://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427
>
> Dov Henis
> (Comments From The 22nd Century)
'Big Bang'(say it enough times and it sounds as crude a joke as it
looks as a term) is merely a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
framework,the idea that the apparent rotation of the constellations
around Polaris can be explained in terms of planetary dynamics,this
every-valid-point-is-the-center was once considered a horror by
astronomers who sought an explanation in the planet's motion to
resolve the appearance -
"... And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at
the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so
that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the world] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa,astronomer and Archbishop, 1500's
Applying a celestial sphere framework to a Universal evolutionary
process is as stomach-turning as can be to a genuine astronomer,these
wide-eyed guys still going through the reasoning processes which lead
to 'big bang' hardly can tell where it all began even as many in this
forum now can in that awful conclusion which tied the planetary
dynamic of daily rotation directly to the rotation of the
constellations around Polaris .
In 2009 the world dramatically became aware that an attempt to dictate
every part of their existence through a direct link between a minor
atmospheric gas and global climate almost brought our race to the
brink of insanity,even the idea of keeping global temperatures within
a certain range is basically the story of King Canute in reverse and
the main reason that this happened is due to the destruction of
astronomical methods and insights for empirical ones in the late 17th
century.The path to creating a stable environment for all topics
relating to the link between astronomy and terrestrial effects has to
begin here and not wait for the empirical institutions and
organisations to change,the idea that a race can't tell how long it
takes the Earth to turn once and the reasoning behind it is the real
crisis and I am well ware that a large proportion of reasonable people
now know it.
In 2010 the people engaged in imaging can do better,accept the Ra/Dec
structure as the great convenience that it is and facilitate the
dismantling of concepts build on the convenience which are proving
extremely dangerous to our race,the bandwagon of carbon dioxide/global
temperatures being just a symptom of the failure to deal with this
serious matter in an open way.
As for dark this and dark that,well it is like those who engage in
science fiction and then come here and make comments about astronomy
or terrestrial sciences,they are welcome to their opinions among those
who dwell in that low level of thinking while those who can do better
can operate on a more disciplined yet wider view -
"We think it effeminate to trust in eloquence and patience, and prefer
to make men servile, rather than permit their opinions to differ from
our own". "Yeats
Sam Wormley
>
> 'Big Bang'(say it enough times and it sounds as crude a joke as it
> looks as a term) is merely a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
> framework,the idea that the apparent rotation of the constellations
> around Polaris can be explained in terms of planetary dynamics,this
> every-valid-point-is-the-center was once considered a horror by
> astronomers who sought an explanation in the planet's motion to
> resolve the appearance -
No, I don't think so. The basis for the big bang was the discovery
that the universe is expanding. The name "big bang" arose from
sarcasm and stuck.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
Gerald, here is a visual representation of the time line.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html
oriel36
> On 12/29/09 1:44 PM, oriel36 wrote:
>
>
>
> > 'Big Bang'(say it enough times and it sounds as crude a joke as it
> > looks as a term) is merely a logical conclusion of an Ra/Dec
> > framework,the idea that the apparent rotation of the constellations
> > around Polaris can be explained in terms of planetary dynamics,this
> > every-valid-point-is-the-center was once considered a horror by
> > astronomers who sought an explanation in the planet's motion to
> > resolve the appearance -
>
> No, I don't think so. The basis for the big bang was the discovery
> that the universe is expanding. The name "big bang" arose from
> sarcasm and stuck.
>
'Big bang' is a consequence of a single omission ,the empirical trait
of ignoring interpretation and going straight to modelling from
observations hence the attempt to model planetary dynamics by way of
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris.As all can see, the
dominant conceptions for celestial structure are not removed too far
from the Ra/Dec framework hence the search to find individuals who can
view the error from the right side rather than being enmeshed in it as
you and your 'big bang' proponents are.
"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy;
to discover their true and genuine path is ..the task of contemplative
astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct images of
those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern of the
inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler
Kepler was speaking before the emergence of the equatorial coordinate
system (you provided a Wiki link to right ascension previously) where
everything moves with the Ra/Dec framework and Newton went straight
from this observational convenience directly to modelling so that a
few centuries later there is this monstrosity known as 'big bang'
which bookends the original error of Flamsteed.
People all over the world are waking up to the horror where the
manipulation of observations by a few people almost brought our race
to the brink of insanity,the expedient promise to maintain global
temperatures within a certain range in order to enforce social policy
is merely a symptom on a wider stage and played out against the
backdrop of man's involvement in astronomical affairs.In a way,it may
be that people can understand the importance of these astronomical
topics in that far from being divorced from daily existence,they are
central to it so that the information contained in the 24 hour value
for daily rotation may look simple,it contains the sum total of
efforts of many people stretching back to remote antiquity and to
vandalise their work is to sabotage ours.
Our race is simply not designed to remain in ideologies that can now
only diminish our standing and 'big bang' does exactly that so that
the biggest explosion in sciences will come not from a physical event
but when people return to their senses and actually start promoting
astronomy beyond a magnification exercise at night.
Sam Wormley
> On Dec 29, 4:40 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Our race is simply not designed to remain in ideologies that can now
> only diminish our standing and 'big bang' does exactly that so that
> the biggest explosion in sciences will come not from a physical event
> but when people return to their senses and actually start promoting
> astronomy beyond a magnification exercise at night.
>
We will probably die our as a species... just like all the other
extinct species in the fossil record.
oriel36
> On 12/30/09 9:40 AM, oriel36 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 4:40 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Our race is simply not designed to remain in ideologies that can now
> > only diminish our standing and 'big bang' does exactly that so that
> > the biggest explosion in sciences will come not from a physical event
> > but when people return to their senses and actually start promoting
> > astronomy beyond a magnification exercise at night.
>
> We will probably die our as a species... just like all the other
> extinct species in the fossil record.
>
As far as I am concerned most of you seem already dead and would
infect kids with the same catastrophic/fear/dull agenda that is now
all too familiar.
I will take time out to commend you for presenting the empirical
agenda without bells and whistles or concocting any stories which come
into your head,however,there is a cruelty at the bottom of this which
has tried even my Christian beliefs to the extreme,why would an entire
race vandalise its own achievements and sabotage itself for a mistake
that can be easily explained and corrected regardless of who built
their agenda on the false premise for planetary dynamics.
It is not you Sam,you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and your
lifestyle built on those opinions but the price others pay for that is
enormous and it takes literally nothing to alter course and give up
the pretension that great distortions and errors occured to make the
idea that the rotation of the constellations around Polaris reflects
an observation which can be turned into planetary dynamics.
Again,I do not fault you personally,it is that silent acquiesence that
is so loathsome and I feel that acutely more than ever as something to
be endured rather than a point of departure for an attack on people.I
express my astronomical heritage as best I can and demonstrate how
imaging has changed things but what I cannot do is descend to an
unintelligent level where people attempt to maintain a status quo by
resorting to vacuous insults that mean nothing to me and here we part
company regardless of the central astronomical arguments.I will tell
people they can do better even if I am consigned to a miserable
condition that I would not wish on anybody for as an astronomer it is
a mutual appreciation of the celestrial arena and its terrestrial
effects which make this once noble discipline the king of science.
>
>
>
>
> >> No Center
> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> >> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> >> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> >> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
>
> >> Gerald, here is a visual representation of the time line.
> >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060323.html- Hide quoted text -
Sam Wormley
> On 30 Dec, 19:51, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> We will probably die out as a species... just like all the other
It's a shame, Gerald, that you never learned algebra.
oriel36
The language of astronomy is geometry and easily available to anyone
with an interest in astronomy.The empiricists don't like this
language,I know this insofar as they find nothing wrong with Newton's
unintelligent statement on retrogrades -
"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
Like all empirical numbskulls who go straight from observations to
modelling he misses the point of resolving the illusion of retrogrades
by interpreting the observations properly as being due to the orbital
motion of the Earth and the other planets around the Sun with the
Earth periodically overtaking the other planets,the original view of
Copernicus which is seen and accurately described in the following set
of images -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Empiricists see no difference between ,they have the interpretative
faculties beaten out of them,faculties that clearly show Newton's
unintelligent approach to apparent retrogrades and their resolution
for what it is and in total disregard for the work of the great
astronomers who based their works on planetary orbital comparisons.
A monkey could spot the difference between what is correct and what is
not and seeing that this is the central argument for planetary
dynamics and especially now that it is easy enough to grasp with
modern imaging,there is no excuse for leaving this travesty to drift.
palsing
> The language of astronomy is geometry and easily available to anyone
> with an interest in astronomy...
Of course, geometry is just one facet of mathematics, and of course,
you need to have a working knowledge of ALL facets in order to
continue to learn astronomy. Strike one for you.
> The empiricists don't like this
> language,I know this insofar as they find nothing wrong with Newton's
> unintelligent statement on retrogrades -
> "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
Unintelligible? It is YOU who is being unintelligible here, since this
statement of Newton couldn't be easier to understand. All he is saying
here is that from the Earth's surface we see apparent planetary motion
against the fixed stars (including prograde, retrograde, and
stationary modes), which we all know is due to the relative motions of
the various planets, as one overtakes and passes the other. However,
since the sun has no orbital motion, already being in the center of
the solar system, an imaginary observer there would see no retrograde
motion at all. I know, you have a big problem with this imaginary
observer because no one will ever stand on the surface of the sun, but
the rest of us don't have a problem with mind experiments.
Would you agree that an observer standing on the surface of Mercury or
Venus would see the Earth itself in motion against the fixed stars? No
one has ever stood on those surfaces, either, and yet there can be no
doubt at all that such motion of the Earth would be observed. Somehow,
I think you will deny this, too...
> Like all empirical numbskulls who go straight from observations to
> modelling (Newton) misses the point of resolving the illusion of retrogrades
> by interpreting the observations properly as being due to the orbital
> motion of the Earth and the other planets around the Sun with the
> Earth periodically overtaking the other planets...
Newton did not miss this point at all. He understood the celestial
mechanics perfectly. How else would he know that from the sun there
would be no retrograde motion at all, and that all motion would be
direct (prograde)? It is just not that hard to understand. How can you
misinterpret even the simplest of thoughts?
The only travesty here is the one where you have no idea about How
Things Really Work...
Sam Wormley
>
> The language of astronomy is geometry and easily available to anyone
> with an interest in astronomy.The empiricists don't like this
> language,I know this insofar as they find nothing wrong with Newton's
> unintelligent statement on retrogrades -
>
What's 1/16th of a circle in radians?
oriel36
The geometric language of astronomy exposes the utter vandalism
visited on our race's astronomical heritage by the attempt to weave
an elaborate scheme around the Ra/Dec convenience and specifically the
misuse of Kepler's observations of Mar's orbit over an 18 year
period .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg
Those lines represent the plotted motion of Mars against the
background constellations and resolved,of course,by an orbitally
moving Earth -
"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times "
Kepler
Newton,in his approach to retrogrades ,believed that inserting the
Sun in the center makes the retrograde motion disappear thereby
bypassing the actual interpretation of retrogrades and going straight
to modelling -
Hence the attempt to make the the Ra/Dec framework a common factor
for observations and then modelling -
"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their
mean distances from the sun." Newton's attempt to go from
observations directly into solar system modelling through his
unintelligent view of retrogrades
All this is ground zero for the recent attempt to model global climate
through a minor atmospheric gas ,the original fraud by Newton being of
a much greater magnitude due to the inception of the peer review
process which protects Newton's ideology of reducing planetary
dynamics and cosmological structure to an experimental level by
attempting to use the predictive convenience of the equatorial
coordinate system as a bridge.
Western civilisation, and it is a magnificent thing ,for all its
faults, has been brought to the brink of destruction by a very small
group of people who are willing to vandalise our astronomical
heritage and force through conceptions which are a complete dishonor
to our race,our countries,our communities , families and eventually
our own dignity and integrity.I can go through the original fraud
with ease but that is not the point,the ability to work with a cleaner
and clearer link between the great astronomical cycles/planetary
dynamics and their terrestrial effects requires nothing other than the
natural goodness and intelligence that all people possess and a little
bit of courage.