Re: Galactic images
OG
"oriel36" <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:776737e3-1503-448a...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> It is wonderful to see the images which the Hubble Space Telescope
> provides -
>
> http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32672098BE3984
>
> Perhaps many decades from now it will be possible to talk about
> galactic collisions in a normal and adult way but there is nothing
> normal about this era.
>
> After looking at the images and putting them into a broad context,the
> same people will t talk about the expanding space and galaxies flying
> apart from each other in order to satisfy a seperate empirical agenda
> of the 'big bang'.They create a story without the slightest hesitation
> even though images showing that these huge stellar islands can
> collide with space having the same background for the occurence of
> all objects in motion.
>
> At least I get spared the vacuous explanations where the galaxies are
> considered to be flying apart for billions of years yet images show
> them colliding or a seperate explanation where galaxies are explained
> as colliding and forgetting about cosmological evolution in terms of
> the 'big bang'.
>
> Amazing images ,just needs astronomers to appreciate them in context.
Are you being wilfully ignorant, or do you only have space for a single
concept in your head at one time?
You are a disgrace to intellect.
OG
> On Apr 25, 7:13 pm, "OG" <o...@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>"oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:776737e3-1503-448a...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>It is wonderful to see the images which the Hubble Space Telescope
>>>provides -
>>
>>
>>>Perhaps many decades from now it will be possible to talk about
>>>galactic collisions in a normal and adult way but there is nothing
>>>normal about this era.
>>
>>>After looking at the images and putting them into a broad context,the
>>>same people will t talk about the expanding space and galaxies flying
>>>apart from each other in order to satisfy a seperate empirical agenda
>>>of the 'big bang'.They create a story without the slightest hesitation
>>>even though images showing that these huge stellar islands can
>>>collide with space having the same background for the occurence of
>>>all objects in motion.
>>
>>>At least I get spared the vacuous explanations where the galaxies are
>>>considered to be flying apart for billions of years yet images show
>>>them colliding or a seperate explanation where galaxies are explained
>>>as colliding and forgetting about cosmological evolution in terms of
>>>the 'big bang'.
>>
>>>Amazing images ,just needs astronomers to appreciate them in context.
>>
>>Are you being wilfully ignorant, or do you only have space for a single
>>concept in your head at one time?
>>
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Stow it mate,half the people in here would love to escape the junk
> dumped into the celestial arena .If somebody wants the 'big bang'
> theory where the galaxies have been continuously flying apart while
> observationally seeing galaxies collide or interact then the
> 'expanding space' junk and the reasoning behind it has to go.
You imply that it is argued that the ONLY motion affecting galaxies is
expansion? In that case you are setting up a strawman argument. It's
been known that galaxies have 'peculiar motions' since the very early
days of velocity measurements of galaxies.
What's not clear is whether you are making this argument because of your
ignorance or because of your intellectual dishonesty.
R Shiein
>>>Stow it mate,half the people in here would love to escape the junk
>>>dumped into the celestial arena .If somebody wants the 'big bang'
>>>theory where the galaxies have been continuously flying apart while
>>>observationally seeing galaxies collide or interact then the
>>>'expanding space' junk and the reasoning behind it has to go.
>>
>>You imply that it is argued that the ONLY motion affecting galaxies is
>>expansion?
>
>
> It is taught that space has expanded 13 billion light years,the
> further we look out the further back in time we are supposed to see.I
> had to laugh a few weeks ago on the Bad Astronomy forum where a
> curious creationist was playing along with the spiel of expanding
> space and many tripping over themselves to explain it to him.He then
> asked does that mean that the Universe is 26 billlion light years in
> diameter and thereby setting off seizures the proponents of big bang
> geometry to talk abouit something else,it was one of those 'out of the
> mouths of babes' type things which can be enjoyed on occasion.
What has this to do with your original post ?
> One of the junk concepts is this idea of expanding space where the
> galaxies fly apart yet observations show them interacting like any
> other objects do.
I reiterate, you expose yourself as a fool by your arguments.
How about this theory
"Everyone gets older until they die"
Does the presence of a baby invalidate the theory? No - of course not,
because as well as ageing, there are other processes going on.
Similarly, as well as expansion there are other processes going on,
notably gravitational attraction between galaxies in clusters - so
'galaxies in collision' is of no surprise to anyone other than the
bewildered.
> I do not have any attachment to big bang geometry and
> the reasoning behind it,so I am free to look at cosmological evolution
> from a closer perspective and especially stellar evolution.without
> having to make any great sweeping conclusions about how the universe
> began or if there are any great structural motions beyond galactic
> rotation,things like that.
This pretty well sums up the limitations of your approach. Strange that
you don't see it.
BradGuth
> galaxies have been flying apart for billions of years and the
> reasoning behind it -
>
> http://encarta.msn.com/media_461533130/expanding_universe_experiment....
>
> When people see galaxies interacting and evolving in a normal
> way,there is no real need to appeal to a huge sweeping notion of abigbangconclusion unless you really want to expose yourself as having
> very poor judgement to say the least.
>
> I would have to descend to the intellectual level of a flat Earther
> to even begin to contend with somebody who envisages a 'expanding
> balloon' Universe,others may be fooled into believing that there is
> some substance in the reasoning but how they do this while watching
> galaxies interact I do not know.
>
> > > I do not have any attachment tobigbanggeometry and
> > > the reasoning behind it,so I am free to look at cosmological evolution
> > > from a closer perspective and especially stellar evolution.without
> > > having to make any great sweeping conclusions about how the universe
> > > began or if there are any great structural motions beyond galactic
> > > rotation,things like that.
>
> > This pretty well sums up the limitations of your approach. Strange that
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> equals time and cosmologists look acxross 13 billion years of distance
> then the Universe must be 26 billion years old in terms of a
> diameter.I thought it was priceless even if it was unintentional but
> then again,people have shown themselves to have an addiction to a
> celestial sphere framework and the reasoning behind it.
>
> Don't be sour,enjoy your 'every-valid-point-is-the-center-of-an-
> expanding-Universe',people have been trying to run away from that
> notion for going on a millenia as the reasoning of Nicolas of Cusa
> shows,the fact that you embrace it speaks for itself.
Talk about having another one of those bad God days.
Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind.
The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)
http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32672098BE3984
http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/
What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way?
(1024r?)
Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal
grasp of better than 60r.
. – Brad Guth
BradGuth
> It is wonderful to see the images which the Hubble Space Telescope
> provides -
>
> http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D0...
>
> Perhaps many decades from now it will be possible to talk about
> galactic collisions in a normal and adult way but there is nothing
> normal about this era.
>
> After looking at the images and putting them into a broad context,the
> same people will t talk about the expanding space and galaxies flying
> apart from each other in order to satisfy a seperate empirical agenda
> of the 'big bang'.They create a story without the slightest hesitation
> even though images showing that these huge stellar islands can
> collide with space having the same background for the occurence of
> all objects in motion.
>
> At least I get spared the vacuous explanations where the galaxies are
> considered to be flying apart for billions of years yet images show
> them colliding or a seperate explanation where galaxies are explained
> as colliding and forgetting about cosmological evolution in terms of
> the 'big bang'.
>
> Amazing images ,just needs astronomers to appreciate them in context.
I seriously appreciate them images. What the hell took them so many
years to get published?
Before the supposed singular BB, there was supposedly just our one and
only SMBH (aka God fart) surrounded in all possible directions by less
than one atom per cubic light year, and without any other photon or
graviton anywhere in sight. (aka ideal faith-based mindset)
OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days.
Images of galactic encounters, of the worse possible kind. (a series
of God fart resets, as recorded by team Hubble)
The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 128r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)
http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32672098BE3984
http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/
What is the cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way?
(1024r?)
Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents a mutual tidal
grasp of better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto tidal reach is obviously
worth 10,060r, not to mention whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously
if the mutual tidal radius wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our
grip on such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna.
. – Brad Guth
BradGuth
Rogue stars, spare planets and those pesky icy proto-moons have
existed and most likely still exist, as somewhat cosmic encounter
created on the fly (so to speak). It’s likely where our passive sun
came from, as well as for a few of our planets and associated moons
that don’t seem to fit the Old Testament interpretation as the one and
only holy grail of what’s mainstream status quo, or bust.
Tidal binding force of a given solar system is rather impressive, but
almost nothing compared to the cosmic tidal binding force of entire
galaxies that host such SMBH cores in addition to all else combined,
and especially offering an extended tidal grasping reach between those
galaxies mutually attracting upon one another.
Pluto = 2.125e-3 earth = 1.27e22 kg (not including it’s three
planetoids/moons)
Pluto average distance = 5.91352e12 m
Avg. orbital velocity = 4.74e3 m/s
Centripetal Force = Tidal Binding Force(TBF) or Binding Energy(TBE),
is the same exact worth as the following.
http://www.mill-creek-systems.com/se/SEGravity.htm
centripetal force = 48.2519e15 Newtons/sec (10.848e15 lbs/sec)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/01nov_moonsofpluto.htm
“These are tiny moons. Their estimated diameters lie between 40 and
125 miles (64 and 200 kilometers). Charon, for comparison, is about
730 miles (1170 km) wide, while Pluto itself has a diameter of about
1410 miles (2270 km).”
Even Sedna at its furthest reach and of such little mass hasn’t a
chance at escaping the mutual binding worth of tidal grasp without
help, at least not until our Sun as consumed much of itself, having
gone into its red giant phase, thus leaving behind a mere spent brown
dwarf of a sun that hasn’t sufficient mass to even hold onto the likes
of Earth, much less Sedna.
. – Brad Guth
Before the supposed singular SMBB, there was supposedly just our one
and only SMBH (aka God fart or Semitic Massive Black Hole) surrounded
in all possible directions by less than one messily atom per cubic
light year, and supposedly without any other dark matter, dark energy,
photons or gravitons anywhere in sight. (ideal faith-based mindset)
OOPS!, talk about cosmic shrinkage and having another one of those bad
God days. Here’s a few faith testing images of galactic encounters,
of the worse possible kind. (a series of God oops resets, as recorded
by team Hubble)
The best of 59 examples of cosmic hell busting lose, not that many
other than these relatively old Hubble images of the anti-big-bang
exist. Each of these galaxies has a fairly horrific gravity/tidal
radius of several thousand light years (perhaps at least as great as
64r, if not 256r), not to mention the mutual attraction of whatever a
pair or more of these bad boys has to work with, whereas you might
like to further reconsider the mutual gravity/tidal binding grasp of
two or more such encounters is perhaps worth 4X the individual tidal
radius. (hard to avoid gravity, especially when it’s the only game in
town)
http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=8153DC82-A24D-3D07-8B32672098BE3984
http://www6.comcast.net/news/science/galaxies/slideshow/view/1/
What is the mutual cosmic gravity/tidal binding reach of our Milky Way
and that of Andromeda? (1024r?)
Try to remember that our moon and Earth represents an impressive
mutual tidal grasp of 2e20 N at better than 60r, and our Sun/Pluto
average tidal reach is obviously worth 10,060r, not to mention
whatever Sedna might suggest. Obviously, if this mutual tidal radius
of binding force wasn’t there to behold, we’d be losing our grip on
such wussy little items as Pluto and Sedna, especially when our solar
system trekked anywhere near the 3X solar mass of Sirius would become
capable of adding or subtracting items (aka cosmic foreign exchange,
so to speak).
. – BG
Margo Schulter
> Don't be sour,enjoy your 'every-valid-point-is-the-center-of-an-
> expanding-Universe',people have been trying to run away from that
> notion for going on a millenia as the reasoning of Nicolas of Cusa
> shows,the fact that you embrace it speaks for itself.
Please let me point out that Nicholas of Cusa, a great philosopher
and an originator of the "Cosmological Principle" that the physics
of terrestrial and celestial bodies are similar, presents fascinating
geometric paradoxes as a method of spiritual contemplation, with
"every valid point is a center" as one quite possible conclusion.
Thus he says: "Hence the world-machine will have its center everywhere
and its circumference nowhere, so to speak...."
He explains that a person on the Earth, the Sun, or another star (with
the benefit of our later knowledge, we might Mars, say, and an extrasolar
planet for the latter two situations) will always consider that as "the
immovable center" so that "all other things were moved."
I see no incompatibility at all with an expanding universe, nor with the
idea that despite the global expansion, as noted by Hubble, we sometimes
see blue shifts which indicate that some galaxies (e.g. M31, the Andromeda
Galaxy) are approaching rather than receding.
Cusa is fascinating reading for the concept of relativity which Galileo,
Newton, and ultimately Einstein would develop further.
"For example, if someone did not know that a body
of water was flowing and did not see the shore while
he was on a ship in the middle of the water, how
would he recognize that the ship was being moved?"
This is precisely the kind of argument that Galileo uses in his
_Dialogue Concerning The Chief Two World Systems_ (1632) almost
two centuries later.
Anyway, having emphasized Cusa's vital and all too infrequently
noted role in the development of some of the greatest ideas of
astronomy and physics -- he has a fascinating discussion in his
_De ludo globi_ or "Game of the Sphere" (a kind of bowling)
about impetus which proposes something close to Newton's
First Law -- I want to stress that the "center everywhere,
circumference nowhere" concept is precisely in his own words,
words which had been used in theological tradition to describe
the Deity and which he applied to the universe also.
By the way, I read Cusa's scenario you quoted with the center
and circumference alike "nowhere" to mean that there is no
_privileged_ center, although any point may be a relative
center for someone located there. The two passages don't
seem to me to imply any necessary mutual contradiction: maybe
more like "no point is an absolute center, and every point is
a relative center."
I realize that this is tangential to observational astronomy,
but do want to clarify these points for anyone who might be
curious about a truly great philosopher.
Most appreciatively,
oriel36
> oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Don't be sour,enjoy your 'every-valid-point-is-the-center-of-an-
> > expanding-Universe',people have been trying to run away from that
> > notion for going on a millenia as the reasoning of Nicolas of Cusa
> > shows,the fact that you embrace it speaks for itself.
>
> Please let me point out that Nicholas of Cusa, a great philosopher
> and an originator of the "Cosmological Principle" that the physics
> of terrestrial and celestial bodies are similar, presents fascinating
> geometric paradoxes as a method of spiritual contemplation, with> "every valid point is a center" as one quite possible conclusion.
> Thus he says: "Hence the world-machine will have its center everywhere
> and its circumference nowhere, so to speak...."
>
My dear Margo,Cusa is arguing for the opposite perspective -
"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, to which only learned ignorance is of help--
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
The background for the emergence of Copernican reasoning was not an
Earth centred Universe as the 'cosmological principle' guys would have
it but rather an Earth centred solar system and its replacement with a
Sun centred one.There is a huge difference between the two even if you
not appreciate it just yet.Copernicus,and the antecedent geocentric
astronomers were working off the same structural framework,at least in
differentiating between the solar system and the rest of the Universe
and although the myth has grown that the Church was in opposition
against anything that displaced the Earth from the center of the
Universe,the theological arguments of people like Cusa were ooposed to
an Earth centred Universe through geometric reasoning.Look,Copernicus
could address the Pope in the matter of replacing the Sun between
Venus and Mars with the orbital motion of the Earth -
With regard to Venus and Mercury, however, differences of opinion are
found. For, these planets do not pass through every elongation from
the sun, as the other planets do. Hence Venus and Mercury are located
above the sun by some authorities, like Plato's Timaeus [38 D], but
below the sun by others, like Ptolemy [Syntaxis, IX, 1] and many of
the modems. Al-Bitruji places Venus above the sun, and Mercury below
it. " COPERNICUS
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/yea...opernicus.html
> He explains that a person on the Earth, the Sun, or another star (with
> the benefit of our later knowledge, we might Mars, say, and an extrasolar
> planet for the latter two situations) will always consider that as "the
> immovable center" so that "all other things were moved."
>
A correct geometric intepretation of Cusa's words show a man who is
debunking the notion of the Earth as the center of anything and
although it is unfair to dilute his arguments in order to believe the
opposite,notion ,that is a common fault with cointemporaries when
looking at the old texts.Copernicus came along with powerful geometric
arguments to demonstrate the arrangement of the planets and the
structure of the solar system,most especially via the apparent
retrograde behavior of the other planets and then using axial rotation
to explain the daily cycle.
> I see no incompatibility at all with an expanding universe, nor with the
> idea that despite the global expansion, as noted by Hubble, we sometimes
> see blue shifts which indicate that some galaxies (e.g. M31, the Andromeda
> Galaxy) are approaching rather than receding.
>
This can be set aside for a while even though it is
important,contemporaries have constructed a celestial sphere framework
and used the calendar system to achieve this objective along with
forcing axial and orbital motion into this framework,In short
Margo,the very bature of the framework and the reasoning behind it
automatically arrives at a sub-geocentric conclusion of every-valid-
point-celestial-sphere.It is not pleasent and really below humanity to
think this way,in truth,even lower than a flat Earth notion.
> Cusa is fascinating reading for the concept of relativity which Galileo,
> Newton, and ultimately Einstein would develop further.
>
I am a Christian and I know Cusa throiugh his theological tendencies
and especially his familiartity and experience of the works of
Dionysius the Areopagite.This is important as I am the same type of
Christian and in a position to judge the work of an Arian like
Newton,the features of Newton's work being consistent with that
misguided ideology - basically Jesus is God's moral spokesman while
Newton becomes God's scientific spokesman with the inevitable
consequences.
> "For example, if someone did not know that a body
> of water was flowing and did not see the shore while
> he was on a ship in the middle of the water, how
> would he recognize that the ship was being moved?"
>
> This is precisely the kind of argument that Galileo uses in his
> _Dialogue Concerning The Chief Two World Systems_ (1632) almost
> two centuries later.
>
> Anyway, having emphasized Cusa's vital and all too infrequently
> noted role in the development of some of the greatest ideas of
> astronomy and physics -- he has a fascinating discussion in his
> _De ludo globi_ or "Game of the Sphere" (a kind of bowling)
> about impetus which proposes something close to Newton's
> First Law -- I want to stress that the "center everywhere,
> circumference nowhere" concept is precisely in his own words,
> words which had been used in theological tradition to describe
> the Deity and which he applied to the universe also.
>
The theological argument against the Earth being the center of the
Universe corresponds to God being in all things therefore Cusa,to the
best of his abilities,is arguing against a central Earth as that would
conflict with theological considerations of the idea of God in all
thing and all things in God.Again,the background for Copernicus and
heliocentric reasoning was already in existence and if later
theologians and scientists believed that Earth was the center,it can
only be due to a sloppy understanding of the arguments based on an
Earth centered solar system rather than an Earth centered universe.
The theological language which Cusa understood is bewildering for
people who have never seen it before,it looks like an assault on the
eyes yet the words are the most dynamic outside some of the writing in
the Judaeo-Christian Bible.It is the mediocre who cannot apprehend
what is being said for they have already established ideas of
faith,God,science and what have you just the same as you have
established observational astrology as 'astronomy'.You set limitations
and with limitations there are often disasterous consequences such as
the destruction of astronomy itself.No,Cusa,even with his limited
data,could argue in the right direction with confidence insofar as the
expansive thological viewpoint common to that mentality fears nothing
-
'That it that is the pre-eminent Cause of all things intelligibly
perceived is not itself any of those things'.
"Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor
intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding;
nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor
order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor
similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor
at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does
it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time;
nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor
truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead
nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor
filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any
other beings of the things that are or the things that are not;
neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know
existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the
reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness
nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or
negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the
things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the
all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation,
and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every
negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all." Dionysius
the Areopagite
You see Margo,true faith sweeps away limitations but comes at the
expense of a severe individual discipline,not the dry and barren rules
set by any denominational religious or secular sects but the rules to
which all genius must submit .Newton wished to define everything,set
the 'laws' ect to suit his limited Arian agenda and while many seem to
think they have shed religion for a secular treatment of astronomy,the
truth is that they have adopted a type of religious ideology using an
astrological framework.
There is a resolution to all this you know,but it comes at a price
many will not pay,it is worth it,if not for the individual experience
then for future generations.
> By the way, I read Cusa's scenario you quoted with the center
> and circumference alike "nowhere" to mean that there is no
> _privileged_ center, although any point may be a relative
> center for someone located there. The two passages don't
> seem to me to imply any necessary mutual contradiction: maybe
> more like "no point is an absolute center, and every point is
> a relative center."
>
There is a huge difference between being a commentator and being a
participator,Cusa's arguments exist in the latter category as does
Copernicus.Cusa argued against a central Earth while not having the
technical level to argue for the Earth's axial and orbital motions and
subsequently the heliocentric arrangement ,Copernicus could do this
and there are now excellent websites showing how our participation in
the orbital motion around the central Sun explains the observed
behavior of the other planets -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
In contrast,Newton acts like a commentator,he alters the notion that
we see our heliocentric motion directly by creating a hypothetical
observer on the Sun -
"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct.." Newton
Once you lose the reasoning which gives a sense of participation,the
impact of heliocentric reasoning is lost.This is why constellational
observing is fine as a convenience but terrible if used to bolster a
view like Newton's which is muddleheaded to say the least.
> I realize that this is tangential to observational astronomy,
> but do want to clarify these points for anyone who might be
> curious about a truly great philosopher.
>
> Most appreciatively,
>
Save us from our friends !,I know you have regard for Cardinal Cusa
and even if your arguments seem contrary to his actual intentions,that
may be only out of unfamiliarity.Half the problem in this anti-faith
era is that no relevence is attached to the past, although the
theological arguments which prompted Cusa to argue against the Earth
centred Universe look remote to the modern mind ,the horrendous
comntemporary situation where 'every-valid-point-is-the-center is
taken as a working principle should cause enough people to go back and
take a look at what existed at the time when Copernicus started to
reason the axial and orbital motions of the Earth.
You can find the names of Dionysius and Cusa on the same page,created
by a great soul called Evelyn Underhill -
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/underhill/mysticism.v.html
Don't limit astronomy to constellational observations Margo and set
aside room for people who can work comfortably with structural and
timekeeping astronomy.
starburst
> oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't be sour,enjoy your 'every-valid-point-is-the-center-of-an-
>>expanding-Universe',people have been trying to run away from that
>>notion for going on a millenia as the reasoning of Nicolas of Cusa
>>shows,the fact that you embrace it speaks for itself.
>
>
> Please let me point out that Nicholas of Cusa, a great philosopher
> and an originator of the "Cosmological Principle" that the physics
> of terrestrial and celestial bodies are similar, presents fascinating
> geometric paradoxes as a method of spiritual contemplation, with
> "every valid point is a center" as one quite possible conclusion.
> Thus he says: "Hence the world-machine will have its center everywhere
> and its circumference nowhere, so to speak...."
>
Cool stuff snipped
Rockin', Margo! I would have bet a couple of bucks that I was the only
person in this group who had read Nicholas. Absolutely brilliant stuff.
Have you ever read the De Rerum by the epicurean, Lucretius? What blows
my mind about these guys is how close they were able to get to the real
picture by deduction. Not science as we would do it, but more like
philosophy.
As for Oriel contemplating Nicholas, I'm, convinced that he (oriel) is a
bot, inflicted on the net by some fiendishly evil grad student writing a
doctoral dissertation on artificial intelligence.
Yours - C
oriel36
> Margo Schulter wrote:
> As for Oriel contemplating Nicholas, I'm, convinced that he (oriel) is a
> bot, inflicted on the net by some fiendishly evil grad student writing a
> doctoral dissertation on artificial intelligence.
>
> Yours - C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Brilliant conclusion,just what sci.astro.amateur needs.
How many who visit this forum knew a few days ago the difference
between the Earth centered solar system and the Earth centered cosmos
and how heliocentric and their antecedent geocentric astronomers
worked off the former notion -
"Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars.
This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted
to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the
revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally
fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in
Euclid's Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time
because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the
nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is
Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below
it is Jupiter, followed by Mars. "
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
Ra/Dec constellational observing is just a consequence of having
nothing else to look at and no connection with either the historical
background to either geocentric or heliocentric astronomies.The
cosmological or Copernican principle is just empiricists twisting
history and astronomy to suits their agenda ,the awful injustice of
having the pre-Copernican astronomers believe in an Earth centered
universe when they occupied themselves with solar system structure as
the heliocentric astronomers did.You can get away with calling me a
bot,twisting history and insights or the ideas of the great men such
as Cusa but it will not make Newton's muddleheaded treatment of
heliocentric reasoning any better than the disasterous view that it is
-
"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
Ultimately all this is about improving on Copernicus rather than
demonstrating where Newton jumped the tracks,anybody who visits the
APOD website can judge for themselves how Copernicus actually
concluded that the Earth orbits between Venus and Mars as a
participaitor in that motion rather than a hypothetical observer on
the Sun -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
I am not cut off from my astronomical ancestors,their works and
insights are as fresh today and they were all those centuries ago but
there is something so much better to add - the new explanation for why
daylight/darkness varies everywhere except at the Equator and why the
natural noon cycles vary.That means turning attention away from
constellational observing and focusing on the observed effects
experienced through axial and orbital motion,it may not appear to have
the novelistic appeal of the razzle/dazzle speculative notions of big
bangs,black holes,multiple universes,dark matter but it is something
which observational people can take with them as they set up their
equipment and as they begin to look out into the celestial arena.The
smallest motion axial rotation is linked to the larger rotations,each
one making life possible and overlapping each other,if you can trade
that for a wide sweeping conclusion about the universe then good for
you but I believe people presently need something more personal at the
moment.
Unfortunately you made you congratulations to Margo conditional while
adding nothing to the discussion.Margo actually said something
substantive that would have allowed a continuing discussion.There is
little point throwing around names if their actual theological and
astronomical intepretations cannot be considered and without much fuss
to see where theological considerations influences astronomical
perspectives.The topic is big enough to carry on with - the core idea
where Cardinal Cusa argues against an Earth centererd Universe
leaving Copernicus to work on the Earth centered solar system proposed
since antiquity,The resolution of Copernicus is as fresh today as it
was all those centuries ago,at least for people of intutive faith to
know the difference.
starburst
> On 3 May, 14:48, starburst <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Margo Schulter wrote:
>
>
>>As for Oriel contemplating Nicholas, I'm, convinced that he (oriel) is a
>>bot, inflicted on the net by some fiendishly evil grad student writing a
>>doctoral dissertation on artificial intelligence.
>>
>>Yours - C- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Brilliant conclusion,just what sci.astro.amateur needs.
>
> How many who visit this forum knew a few days ago the difference
> between the Earth centered solar system and the Earth centered cosmos
> and how heliocentric and their antecedent geocentric astronomers
> worked off the former notion -
>
> "Of all things visible, the highest is the heaven of the fixed stars.
> This, I see, is doubted by nobody. But the ancient philosophers wanted
> to arrange the planets in accordance with the duration of the
> revolutions. Their principle assumes that of objects moving equally
> fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly, as is proved in
> Euclid's Optics. The moon revolves in the shortest period of time
> because, in their opinion, it runs on the smallest circle as the
> nearest to the earth. The highest planet, on the other hand, is
> Saturn, which completes the biggest circuit in the longest time. Below
> it is Jupiter, followed by Mars. "
>
>
You're a bot.
James
>
> After looking at the images and putting them into a broad context,the
> same people will t talk about the expanding space and galaxies flying
> apart from each other in order to satisfy a seperate empirical agenda
> of the 'big bang'.
Colliding galaxies do not contradict big bang theory. Physics and
observations support the "lumpiness" we see. Physics predict that
shortly after the singularity exploded, the cloud of matter underwent
numerous nuclear and chemical reactions, and the equations predict a
non-uniform distribution of matter. This is what we see in the distant
background radiation -- it's lumpy, not uniform.
oriel36
I truly believe that if people turned their direction towards the
historical,techincal,and yes,the theological background which saw the
emergence of heliocentric reasoning then they would be better served
than arguing for or against cosmological evolution via the current
'big bang' notion.The original arguments are based on obviating the
requirement that the Earth is the center of the cosmos and then
reducing this further to solar system structure by switching of the
Sun's position between Venus and Mars with that of the Earth -
"Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun
which is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their
whole system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe
wishes,but in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one
place,while the centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement. "
Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but
the circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by Johannes Kepler
The reason this approach works so well is that familiarity with the
principles then allows a person to consider the next
rotation,namely,the galactic motion of the solar system and how all
the local stars will turn wrt the external galaxies,if not by direct
observation then in principle.As you can see,there is no cosmological
evolution involved in such an undertaking,it is more or less a point
of departure for recognising the Ra/Dec as an observational
convenience that ultimately limits genuine astronomers from moving to
the solar system's galactic orbital motion and whatever consequences
and effects may arise from that motion.
I well understand that you may wish to discuss cosmological evolution
and none of the above satisfies a common ground for discussion
however,I do see where the arguments of Cusa heading in the direction
of heliocentric reasoning are meeting the 'every-valid-point-is-the-
center' going in the opposite sub-geocentric direction.I think it is a
fair point of discussion even without my participation.