Venus- why not a good planet to view?
Bullseye
it with a plane's lights here in the city. And it's supposed to look
like another Earth, you know with clouds and an ocean visible. Why
can't you see these features through a telescope? I know it's supposed
to have a lot of clouds, but from the up-close pictures of the planet
I've seen you're supposed to see some blue ocean, much like Earth. Are
the white clouds just so abundant that the sun causes a glare to the
observer and you can't observe any features?
Eugene Griessel
An ocean on Venus? Methinks you have been misled. Venus is hot
enough that lead on it's surface would be molten. Besides Venus does
not have "a lot of clouds" - it's permanently hidden under cloud.
Eugene L Griessel
If God had wanted us to use the metric system, Jesus would have had 10
disciples.
Bullseye
hmm, I've just looked at pictures of Venus and yep it's all covered in
clouds. Those sure were some fucked up science books they gave us in
grade school. I remember seeing Venus looking like Earth except longer
vertically and with many more clouds but not all covered. Now I know
why it shines so brightly, it's all white.
Chris L Peterson
Uh... there are no oceans on Venus. Nothing but rock. And yes, the
clouds are much too thick to allow you to see the surface in visible
light. Imaging the surface requires radar. When imaged in UV, some
structure is visible in the clouds themselves. A few very experienced
observers have reported subtle detail, but don't expect it.
The attraction in viewing Venus lies in its phases, and significant size
variation. The fact that these change quite quickly makes it an easy and
interesting object to follow.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
Starlord
we know that the surface of venus is around 900F and that there is no viggie
life and that there are no oceans and the clound cover on venus is worst
than the worst fogbank we've even seen, and the cloused are not of water
they are of acid.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
MTA
"Starlord" <star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
news:c9KdnQ878qtY9tXb...@inreach.com...
MTA
"Bullseye" <bu...@ei.com> wrote in message
news:rkcg43149e1dvj4qp...@4ax.com...
Bullseye
Right I've already admitted I was wrong about Venus. Looking back it's
really silly that I said there were oceans in Venus as I know oceans
would mean life. I just have the pictures stuck in my head of what I
used to see in science textbooks and I swear they showed Venus as
resembling Earth. Must be one of those false memories where you swear
you remember something when you were little that could not of possibly
happened. Like I remember when I was little I had memories of my
parents wedding night and seeing my mother in a wedding dress- but I
was born 7 years later so it couldn't of possibly happened :o !!
Chris L Peterson
>Right I've already admitted I was wrong about Venus. Looking back it's
>really silly that I said there were oceans in Venus as I know oceans
>would mean life. I just have the pictures stuck in my head of what I
>used to see in science textbooks and I swear they showed Venus as
>resembling Earth.
I recall such images as well. Certainly some of the science books I read
as a kid in the 1960s suggested that Venus was some sort of tropical
jungle world under the clouds. We first started getting a good handle on
Venus's properties in the 1960s, so it isn't surprising that books from
the time would be full of errors (especially children's books).
Also, there was plenty of science fiction from that era that treated
Venus as a hot, tropical world.
Eugene Griessel
>On Mon, 14 May 2007 16:07:01 GMT, Bullseye <bu...@ei.com> wrote:
>
>>Right I've already admitted I was wrong about Venus. Looking back it's
>>really silly that I said there were oceans in Venus as I know oceans
>>would mean life. I just have the pictures stuck in my head of what I
>>used to see in science textbooks and I swear they showed Venus as
>>resembling Earth.
>
>I recall such images as well. Certainly some of the science books I read
>as a kid in the 1960s suggested that Venus was some sort of tropical
>jungle world under the clouds. We first started getting a good handle on
>Venus's properties in the 1960s, so it isn't surprising that books from
>the time would be full of errors (especially children's books).
>
>Also, there was plenty of science fiction from that era that treated
>Venus as a hot, tropical world.
>
I have a Time-Life Science series book from the mid 1960's with a
bunch of full page glossy pictures of the imagined scenes on Mars and
Venus - sort of carboniferous swamp was the first pic of Venus. One
has to read rather carefully to realise this was an "artists
imagination" picture.
Eugene L Griessel
Professional charity - the milk of human blindness.
AustinMN
> WOW..did you ever get sucked in by a troll!
New ID, two hole posts, and both of them wrong. Great track record
you have there, Empty-A.
Austin
Bullseye
wrote:
Yeah he is the troll. Funny seeing a troll calling someone else a
troll.
Trane Francks
> Also, there was plenty of science fiction from that era that treated
> Venus as a hot, tropical world.
They at least got that part right.
trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks tr...@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Starlord
Brian Tung
> hmm, I've just looked at pictures of Venus and yep it's all covered in
> clouds. Those sure were some fucked up science books they gave us in
> grade school. I remember seeing Venus looking like Earth except longer
> vertically and with many more clouds but not all covered. Now I know
> why it shines so brightly, it's all white.
You have to remember that as recently as maybe the 1950s or early 1960s,
we really did not know that much about the surface of Venus, and at that
time, it was still plausible that Venus was covered with oceans. These
oceans were posited to explain why Venus was cloudy all the time. It
was only after Venus was found to be extraordinarily hot that these
oceans were essentially disproved.
Even if this was known in the 1960s, it probably took a while for it to
filter down to grade school textbooks--even in the midst of the space
race.
--
Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Brian Tung
> I have a Time-Life Science series book from the mid 1960's with a
> bunch of full page glossy pictures of the imagined scenes on Mars and
> Venus - sort of carboniferous swamp was the first pic of Venus. One
> has to read rather carefully to realise this was an "artists
> imagination" picture.
Planets, by Carl Sagan and some other guy?
Eugene Griessel
>Eugene Griessel wrote:
>> I have a Time-Life Science series book from the mid 1960's with a
>> bunch of full page glossy pictures of the imagined scenes on Mars and
>> Venus - sort of carboniferous swamp was the first pic of Venus. One
>> has to read rather carefully to realise this was an "artists
>> imagination" picture.
>
>Planets, by Carl Sagan and some other guy?
>
Jonathan Norton Leonard - yep that's right.
Eugene L Griessel
The purpose of meetings is to keep everyone from doing anything.
Paul Schlyter
>Bullseye wrote:
>> hmm, I've just looked at pictures of Venus and yep it's all covered in
>> clouds. Those sure were some fucked up science books they gave us in
>> grade school. I remember seeing Venus looking like Earth except longer
>> vertically and with many more clouds but not all covered. Now I know
>> why it shines so brightly, it's all white.
>
>You have to remember that as recently as maybe the 1950s or early 1960s,
>we really did not know that much about the surface of Venus, and at that
>time, it was still plausible that Venus was covered with oceans. These
>oceans were posited to explain why Venus was cloudy all the time. It
>was only after Venus was found to be extraordinarily hot that these
>oceans were essentially disproved.
This happened in 1962, when Mariner 2 passed by Venus.
>Even if this was known in the 1960s, it probably took a while for it to
>filter down to grade school textbooks--even in the midst of the space
>race.
>
>--
>Brian Tung <br...@isi.edu>
>The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
Bullseye
<star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>It's a HOT DRY world and any rain is pure acid.
Not a good place to go on vacation huh. Don't you just wish god gave
us more planets to observe? There's good objects to observe miles from
the city but in and around the city there's really only 3 good planets
and the moon to observe. He could've made a few more :)
Starlord
follower of the Big Bang.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
"Bullseye" <bu...@ei.com> wrote in message
news:4igj4319na1abb7f3...@4ax.com...
Bullseye
<star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>I am not a beliver in any form of any so called god, I am a beliver and
>follower of the Big Bang.
hmm, this thread might go on for more than 100 posts now. The Big Bang
in my opinion is still a primitive explanation of the creation of the
universe. We will find out more and more in the future. The Big Bang
doesn't explain everything and it also doesn't say there is no god.
That is if you view a god as some sort of creator, or "force" if you
will. Well that's my opinion.
Pat O'Connell
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:29:37 -0700, "Starlord"
> <star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>
>
>
> hmm, this thread might go on for more than 100 posts now. The Big Bang
> in my opinion is still a primitive explanation of the creation of the
> universe. We will find out more and more in the future. The Big Bang
> doesn't explain everything and it also doesn't say there is no god.
> That is if you view a god as some sort of creator, or "force" if you
> will. Well that's my opinion.
As someone else pointed out in another recent post, the existence of the
Universe doesn't require any deity--no belief system is necessary.
Apparently universes spring up on a regular basis without magic being
required, simply because there's a finite positive probability that they
can exist. Take a look at issues of Sky and Telescope or Astronomy
magazines in the last couple of years...several articles exist.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> You have to remember that as recently as maybe the 1950s or early 1960s,
> we really did not know that much about the surface of Venus, and at that
> time, it was still plausible that Venus was covered with oceans. These
> oceans were posited to explain why Venus was cloudy all the time. It
> was only after Venus was found to be extraordinarily hot that these
> oceans were essentially disproved.
It's easy to forget how far astronomy has come in a comparatively
short time. Here in the UK, the BBC has been showing some
commemorative programmes to celebrate 50 years of The Sky at Night.
In 1957, even mainstream astronomers were still talking about the
vegetation on Mars that was clearly visible through a telescope...
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Starlord
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
"Bullseye" <bu...@ei.com> wrote in message
news:i7oj439cm7lng84sr...@4ax.com...
th...@thadlabs.com
Kinda begs the question: who dropped trou and lit the fart we call the
Big Bang? :-)
Seriously, the real mysteries are: why is there anything, and in what
is
everything contained? Our perceptions don't permit understanding
infinity and eternity, and unboundedness is mind-boggling.
Bullseye
wrote:
>Bullseye wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 08:29:37 -0700, "Starlord"
>> <star...@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>>
>>>I am not a believer in any form of any so called god, I am a believer and
>>>follower of the Big Bang.
>>
>>
>> hmm, this thread might go on for more than 100 posts now. The Big Bang
>> in my opinion is still a primitive explanation of the creation of the
>> universe. We will find out more and more in the future. The Big Bang
>> doesn't explain everything and it also doesn't say there is no god.
>> That is if you view a god as some sort of creator, or "force" if you
>> will. Well that's my opinion.
>
>As someone else pointed out in another recent post, the existence of the
>Universe doesn't require any deity--no belief system is necessary.
>Apparently universes spring up on a regular basis without magic being
>required, simply because there's a finite positive probability that they
>can exist. Take a look at issues of Sky and Telescope or Astronomy
>magazines in the last couple of years...several articles exist.
Now I don't care how much science anyone on this earth thinks they
know, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Not yet
anyway. And they may never because science requires material proof or
very plausible theories to be accepted. A creator or creator "force"
might prove beyond the ability of science to find it. The proof could
be in another dimension which we can't access, if other dimensions
actually were to exist. A "creator" might have chosen to place itself
beyond the ability of science to reach it also.
Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurences
on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.
Sam Wormley
>
> Now I don't care how much science anyone on this earth thinks they
> know, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Not yet
> anyway. And they may never because science requires material proof or
> very plausible theories to be accepted. A creator or creator "force"
> might prove beyond the ability of science to find it. The proof could
> be in another dimension which we can't access, if other dimensions
> actually were to exist. A "creator" might have chosen to place itself
> beyond the ability of science to reach it also.
It is interesting that you invoke the need for another dimension!
>
> Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurences
> on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
> not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
> what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
> arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.
Science is a process for finding out how thing work.
Suggestion: read "Breaking the Spell", Dennett.
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> Now I don't care how much science anyone on this earth thinks they
> know, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Not yet
> anyway. And they may never because science requires material proof or
> very plausible theories to be accepted. A creator or creator "force"
> might prove beyond the ability of science to find it. The proof could
> be in another dimension which we can't access, if other dimensions
> actually were to exist. A "creator" might have chosen to place itself
> beyond the ability of science to reach it also.
There isn't really anything there that is too controversial, but
it isn't science. Nor is it really religion. When it comes down
to the bare essentials of "Why am I here?" or "Why is there something
instead of nothing?" it becomes a matter of philosophy. IMHO that's
a much undervalued discipline (in its own right rather than as an
offshoot of faith) but it doesn't really belong in a sci.* group,
where hypotheses must be testable. No tests = not science. There
are scientific arguments against the existence of God (which I
deliberately am not bringing up as it's OT) but these will never
be proof to those who accept their faith as axiomatic.
> Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurences
> on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
> not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
> what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
> arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.
This is actually science in action: Saying we just don't know
about that and maybe we should find out is at the very heart of
the discipline. Science, unlike faith, owes its very existence to
the fact that we _don't_ have all the answers.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Bullseye
wrote:
Well Stephen Hawking apparently knows what infinity and unboundedness
is but can't explain it. Or at least in any comprehensible manner. And
he makes it seem as if he's got god all figured out with a simple Big
Bang theory which he doesn't.
Bullseye
wrote:
> It is interesting that you invoke the need for another dimension!
I'm not invoking the need for it, scientists talk about it all the
time themselves.
Bullseye
<and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>There
>are scientific arguments against the existence of God (which I
>deliberately am not bringing up as it's OT) but these will never
>be proof to those who accept their faith as axiomatic.
These can be arguments, but quite silly as man cannot be so arrogant
to actually think they have enough scientific knowledge to say that.
As I said it will take a long time for science to get nearer to any
explanations. You could say science could even hit a wall for hundreds
or thousands of years once so much has been discovered. The rest might
prove too complex for simple minded humans to figure out. That's just
a theory of course. But we can be like chimps figuring out how to get
to a banana placed in a hard to get place. They're a far cry from
figuring out the universe.
>> Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurences
>> on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
>> not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
>> what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
>> arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.
>
>This is actually science in action: Saying we just don't know
>about that and maybe we should find out is at the very heart of
>the discipline. Science, unlike faith, owes its very existence to
>the fact that we _don't_ have all the answers.
No, I always hear "nature" has done this in documentaries and it
bothers me since scientists just throw that word out to describe all
the stuff they can't explain that goes on on Earth. They never say we
don't know exactly what "nature" is, it is something we haven't been
able to figure out yet, they just throw it out automatically so that
it explains all events on Earth.
Sam Wormley
But not in term of a deity.
Pat O'Connell
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:59:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
> <and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>>There
>>are scientific arguments against the existence of God (which I
>>deliberately am not bringing up as it's OT) but these will never
>>be proof to those who accept their faith as axiomatic.
>
> These can be arguments, but quite silly as man cannot be so arrogant
> to actually think they have enough scientific knowledge to say that.
Religious assumptions positing the existence of one or more deities are
not in the realm of science, simply because there's no way to prove or
disprove their existence using the scientific method. So science ignores
such ideas.
>>> Science can also be silly sometimes. They explain certain occurrences
>>> on earth as "nature" or "mother nature", but using nature as a noun is
>>> not scientific since scientists in no shape or form have ever detected
>>> what specifically and literally "nature" is. Scientists can be
>>> arrogant in the ways they seem to think they can explain everything.
>>
>>This is actually science in action: Saying we just don't know
>>about that and maybe we should find out is at the very heart of
>>the discipline. Science, unlike faith, owes its very existence to
>>the fact that we _don't_ have all the answers.
>
>
> No, I always hear "nature" has done this in documentaries and it
> bothers me.
"Get used to disappointment." And read Sam's paragraph again.
Bullseye
wrote:
>Religious assumptions positing the existence of one or more deities are
>not in the realm of science, simply because there's no way to prove or
>disprove their existence using the scientific method. So science ignores
>such ideas.
I'm not talking about religions, I'm talking about the notion that
there isn't some sort of creator or force that created the universe,
universes, or dimensions, and other things we still may not have
imagined. Even scientists must have a hard time believing all their
scientific objects and forces just came out of the blue. More
scientists believe in the kind of god I have just described but don't
believe in the god's described by the various religions that are
practiced by people, and the scientists that don't believe in a god
are in the minority. Some publish books about there being no god.
Probably because they will create interest and sell books. If they
really believe in their theories then their scientific kind of
thinking is getting the best of them. Or I think they are just simply
bad scientists :)
Brian Tung
> I'm not talking about religions, I'm talking about the notion that
> there isn't some sort of creator or force that created the universe,
> universes, or dimensions, and other things we still may not have
> imagined. Even scientists must have a hard time believing all their
> scientific objects and forces just came out of the blue.
Not all of them, and even for those who do, that disbelief is not in the
purview of science; it is in the non-scientific part of the scientists.
> More
> scientists believe in the kind of god I have just described but don't
> believe in the god's described by the various religions that are
> practiced by people, and the scientists that don't believe in a god
> are in the minority.
Can you explain how you know this? I've never been surveyed, for
instance. I don't believe in a god. I admire the words of Feynman, who
said, "I don't have to know an answer. I'm not frightened by not
knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any
purpose, which is the way it really is as far as we can tell, possibly."
I don't think one should feel compelled to give an answer to this; I can
suspend belief indefinitely. So when challenged by someone, "So how
does the whole universe come about, then?" I can simply answer, "I don't
know." I don't feel that it's a weakness of science that it doesn't
cleave to an answer--any answer--just because people feel intuitively
there must be one.
> If they
> really believe in their theories then their scientific kind of
> thinking is getting the best of them. Or I think they are just simply
> bad scientists :)
You might think that, but there's no good reason to think it a priori.
There may be lots of evidence in favor of a theory--in that case, it
makes sense to believe it. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter who
believes in a theory, or how many people support it; what matters is
how well the available evidence supports it, and what additional
evidence we could gather to further confirm or deny it.
Pat O'Connell
"Bullseye" is one of those who think that just because it says in "this
here book" that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (for instance) exists and
created us all, why then it must be true and it must be worshiped. He's
not admitting it, but somewhere in his belief system is "that there book."
In other words, he/she knows very little about critical thinking and the
scientific method, and doesn't care to.
Bullseye
wrote:
>Bullseye wrote:
>> I'm not talking about religions, I'm talking about the notion that
>> there isn't some sort of creator or force that created the universe,
>> universes, or dimensions, and other things we still may not have
>> imagined. Even scientists must have a hard time believing all their
>> scientific objects and forces just came out of the blue.
>
>Not all of them, and even for those who do, that disbelief is not in the
>purview of science; it is in the non-scientific part of the scientists.
Of course since there is no proof in the scientific world yet. But
they look at the universe without scientific proof on their mind and
it's hard for them to believe there's no god. That's the part of the
brain where common sense lies. It's about observing that there
obviously has to be a god. It's human evolution and intelligence that
brought about this observation. I think science has to prove rather
that there ISN'T a god, because our developed intelligence and ability
to observe this is more evolved than science.
>> More
>> scientists believe in the kind of god I have just described but don't
>> believe in the god's described by the various religions that are
>> practiced by people, and the scientists that don't believe in a god
>> are in the minority.
>
>Can you explain how you know this? I've never been surveyed, for
>instance. I don't believe in a god. I admire the words of Feynman, who
>said, "I don't have to know an answer. I'm not frightened by not
>knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any
>purpose, which is the way it really is as far as we can tell, possibly."
>I don't think one should feel compelled to give an answer to this; I can
>suspend belief indefinitely. So when challenged by someone, "So how
>does the whole universe come about, then?" I can simply answer, "I don't
>know." I don't feel that it's a weakness of science that it doesn't
>cleave to an answer--any answer--just because people feel intuitively
>there must be one.
I read a long time ago somewhere that most scientists believe in a
god. That guy Feynman seemed to be just an atheist to me. And it's not
just about fear and not knowing.
>> If they
>> really believe in their theories then their scientific kind of
>> thinking is getting the best of them. Or I think they are just simply
>> bad scientists :)
>
>You might think that, but there's no good reason to think it a priori.
>There may be lots of evidence in favor of a theory--in that case, it
>makes sense to believe it. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter who
>believes in a theory, or how many people support it; what matters is
>how well the available evidence supports it, and what additional
>evidence we could gather to further confirm or deny it.
There is no good evidence or theories that point to there not being a
god. The minority of scientists who have their theories just have a
one (scientific) tracked mind, while most don't follow those theories
and are not blinded by their profession. Just my opinion of course :)
oriel36
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 18:59:52 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Smallshaw
>
You are among those who have lost their intutive intelligence to
recognise that creation is a fountain and not a cistern.All faith
relies on the ability to appreciate the Eternal in temporal existence
and most of all that love is the center of all things and not
transitory ideas.The pre-Christian answer in Job amounts to
beholding the vastness of creation once the shallow surface artifices
are stripped away,the limitations are exceeded and we find ourselves
participators in creation rather than commentators.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job38.htm
These anti-Christian and anti-intutive creatures,using a mixture of
astrology and photography close the Universe in a celestial sphere
bubble and would rob others of the experiences which the great Western
astronomers fought so hard to realise.The empirical or 'scientific
method' agenda was always going to be anti-faith insofar as it tries
to assemble facts to conform with what it sees but that sight has
proven unreliable as I have shown again and again.
The author of Job knew the constellations - "Have you fitted a curb to
the Pleiades, or loosened the bonds of Orion? " but he fits it into
the swirling dynamic of creation and the joys as well as the
pitilessness, carelessness, strengths, weaknesses, abilities that are
often found in the form of man.There is no pretension in creation and
it does not suffer a civilisation to survive that attempts to
construct creation out of its component parts ,insofar as the
foundations for constructing visions of the universe are based on the
incorrect relationship between the axial and orbital cycles,you can
imagine that what exists now are conceptual monsters. Copernicus,a
Christian,was well aware of this -
" although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster
would be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of
their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found
either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in
something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have
happened to them if they had followed proper principles. For if the
hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which
follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus,
1543
Many ideologies have appeared that never made room for what Dante knew
-" The Love which moves the sun and the other stars." notwithstanding
that this is at the core of all Christian beliefs and especially in
the life of Christ.
What do you want proven Bullseye ?,you can go out yourself and
discover that love is central to existence,that you are an astronomer
because the motions of the Earth make your existence possible,that
there is no special knowledge required to appreciate nature but just a
respectful regard for physical considerations.The works of the great
astronomers are found in this direction but the works of men who have
turned our heritage into a celestial sphere cistern can only live off
a pseudo-authority where investigation is no longer a facet of
existence but a cruel tyrant built on self congratulation and
pretension.
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to
man as it is: Infinite. --William Blake
Paul Schlyter
Bullseye <bu...@ei.com> wrote:
If you want to invoke some kind of creator to "explain" how the
universe came to be, you're really replacing a hard problem - the
origin of the universe - with an even harder problem - the origin of
your creator. How was God created? Did SuperGod create God. If so,
how was SuperGod created? Did HyperGod create SuperGod? If so, how
was HyperGod created? Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum -- in the end
you must still assume there was "something" which came into being
without having been created. And if that "something" can be some
SuperHyperGod X levels of deities up, why couldn't that "something"
instead be the universe itself?
"Explaining" the origin of the universe with God or some other creator
does not solve the problem -- it's merely a way to stop asking and
stop wondering.
Bullseye
wrote:
>If you want to invoke some kind of creator to "explain" how the
>universe came to be, you're really replacing a hard problem - the
>origin of the universe - with an even harder problem - the origin of
>your creator. How was God created? Did SuperGod create God. If so,
>how was SuperGod created? Did HyperGod create SuperGod? If so, how
>was HyperGod created? Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum -- in the end
>you must still assume there was "something" which came into being
>without having been created. And if that "something" can be some
>SuperHyperGod X levels of deities up, why couldn't that "something"
>instead be the universe itself?
>
>"Explaining" the origin of the universe with God or some other creator
>does not solve the problem -- it's merely a way to stop asking and
>stop wondering.
I don't have to try to invoke any creator to explain anything. The
majority of humankind including scientists believe in a god. I lean
more to the kind of god that scientists believe in, that is some sort
of unknown creator or "force", as opposed to the religious kind of
gods, but that doesn't matter, I'm not putting down religions. You're
the one that has to try to invoke a godless universe, and are in the
minority. Don't you feel silly believing that the universe just came
up on by itself?
A god that created a god, that's interesting, but we'll have to get to
the first creator before we get to that :) But it just shows you what
I said before, we may be like chimps trying to figure out how to get
to a banana. The chimp is very far from figuring out anything about
the universe. But so far in our evolution our intelligence tells us
there obviously has to be a creator. You just have to look in on Earth
and see what's happening here to see there's obviously a creator. Of
course these are all just opinions :)
Bullseye
wrote:
Please come back and post when you are not on crack.
Sam Wormley
Suggestion: read "Breaking the Spell", Dennett.
Phoon Hencman
> Venus is sometimes so bright before even twilight that you can confuse
> it with a plane's lights here in the city. And it's supposed to look
> like another Earth, you know with clouds and an ocean visible.
How long have you been on Earth?
> Why
> can't you see these features through a telescope? I know it's supposed
> to have a lot of clouds, but from the up-close pictures of the planet
> I've seen you're supposed to see some blue ocean, much like Earth.
See above question...
> Are
> the white clouds just so abundant that the sun causes a glare to the
> observer and you can't observe any features?
I give up. Got Google?
Starlord
Chris.B
God was killed by the Big Bang.
She lit the blue touchpaper but forgot the part about retiring
immediately.
It amounted to the same thing.
Shame there was nobody around to pick up the insurance pay-out.
We are all still suffering from the fallout of her not leaving a will.
Her children were standing further away but were blinded by the flash.
So now we just grope around making up endless stories trying to
explain her death.
We are stardust, we are golden, We are billion year old carbon, ...
And we got to get ourselves back to the garden. ;-)
Martin Brown
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:42:28 GMT, pau...@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
> wrote:
>
> >If you want to invoke some kind of creator to "explain" how the
> >universe came to be, you're really replacing a hard problem - the
> >origin of the universe - with an even harder problem - the origin of
> >your creator. How was God created? Did SuperGod create God.
>
> >does not solve the problem -- it's merely a way to stop asking and
> >stop wondering.
>
> I don't have to try to invoke any creator to explain anything. The
> majority of humankind including scientists believe in a god.
A god or gods - monotheism is by no means universal and previously
polytheism was the norm. And just because most people believe
something does not make it correct. In the past most people believed
the Sun went around the Earth.
As a scientist it is not possible to say how many, N god(s) there are
because there is no convincing evidence one way or the other. Claiming
to know the correct value of N the number of gods cannot be based on
scientific reasoning.
Agnosticism is the only truly scientific position on this - we simply
do not know. And there is no credible scientific evidence one way or
the other. People will still argue for their position from a state of
perfect ignorance though.
And despite not being able to know N we can amazingly still work out
from information theory the probability of people believing in the
value of N >= 0 even in the complete abscence of any evidence.
As an obvious example I doubt there are any takers for believing in
exactly -1 gods (ie. minus one gods).
I lean
> more to the kind of god that scientists believe in, that is some sort
> of unknown creator or "force", as opposed to the religious kind of
> gods, but that doesn't matter, I'm not putting down religions. You're
> the one that has to try to invoke a godless universe, and are in the
> minority. Don't you feel silly believing that the universe just came
> up on by itself?
We can detect quantum fluctuations in the vacuum of our own universe
with virtual particle-antiparticle pairs springing into existence
spontansously and disappearing again quickly enough to satisfy the
uncertainty principle. That is unless one of the pair falls into a
black hole and the other escapes. Quantum fluctations in the vacuum
have even been measured in the lab - look up the Casimir effect.
Experimentally verified by Lamoreaux in 1996.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/casimir.html
So it isn't all that much of a leap to consider the possibility of
universes to arising from fluctuations in the hypothetical N-
dimensional hyperspace vacuum that current TOEs favour. The challenge
will be to find measurable predictions of the competing models that
can be verified observationally. If there is a God he may well be
relegated to choosing the handful of fundamental constants that
determine how the universe(s) will behave.
And there are already multiverse theories around that allow for a
hierarcy of fractal universes nested like Russian dolls that would
evade this problem completely by spanning the entire parameter space.
>
> A god that created a god, that's interesting, but we'll have to get to
> the first creator before we get to that :) But it just shows you what
> I said before, we may be like chimps trying to figure out how to get
> to a banana. The chimp is very far from figuring out anything about
> the universe. But so far in our evolution our intelligence tells us
> there obviously has to be a creator. You just have to look in on Earth
> and see what's happening here to see there's obviously a creator. Of
> course these are all just opinions :)
Nothing is ever obvious. The world is full of blindingly simple wrong
answers to difficult questions.
And religions stock answer to everything "Because God made it so" has
very limited predictive power and utility.
Science attempts to understand how the universe works but it cannot
answer the more profound question of "why are we here?". That is
unless we find Gods signature on every snake scale (shades of the
forensics in the film Bladerunner).
Regards,
Martin Brown
Bullseye
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
The best way to figure out if there is a creator is not by trying to
find proof from science and looking out into space but looking in on
Earth and it's events.
oriel36
> On 16 May 2007 13:28:45 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
These fools here believe that being 'religious' is a byword for
ignorance and they have no reason to believe otherwise judging by your
response.
If all you can manage is a great bearded gentlemen in the sky then
good for you,it is acceptable as a religious belief for those who
direct their energies to more basic human endeavors but for those who
ascend to astronomical affairs and how existence is a direct result of
the cyclical motions of the Earth and the structure into which those
motions occur,the same intutive intelligence which loves Christian
faith is employed in trying to discern accurate astronomical working
principles based on physical considerations.In short,you cannot be an
astronomer and be anti-Christian or indeed any faith where the Eternal
and temporal mesh.
The only enemy Christianity has in mediocrity and these astrologers
here have reduced the vibrant astronomical discipline of
Copernicus,Kepler and Huygens to an exercise in magnification all
imposed on an astrological framework.Should you doubt that the great
Christians prefered a non believer to a mediocre one then be under no
doubt -
" I know what you have done, and that you are neither cold not hot (as
a church). I could wish that you were either cold or hot! but since
you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I intend to spit you out of
my mouth! While you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and there is
nothing that I need', you have no eyes to see that you are wretched,
pitiable, poverty-stricken, blind and naked (in God's sight). My
advice to you is to buy from me that gold which is purified in the
furnace so that you may be rich, and white garments to wear so that
you may hide the shame of your nakedness, and salve to put on your
eyes to make you see. All those whom I love I correct and discipline"
Johanine Revelation
So,stop your whining to these numbskulls who have no feel for
astronomy never mind matters of faith.
Bullseye
wrote:
hmm seems at least the crack is wearing off a bit :)
Brian Tung
> Of course since there is no proof in the scientific world yet.
I don't think I conveyed my point properly; no one in the scientific
world is *looking* for proof. It's not a scientific question, whether
there's a god or not. Science is about looking for relationships of
natural phenomena with each other, and with mathematics. Questions of
religion and philosophy, it leaves to religion and philosophy.
Bullseye
wrote:
>Bullseye wrote:
>> Of course since there is no proof in the scientific world yet.
>
>I don't think I conveyed my point properly; no one in the scientific
>world is *looking* for proof. It's not a scientific question, whether
>there's a god or not. Science is about looking for relationships of
>natural phenomena with each other, and with mathematics. Questions of
>religion and philosophy, it leaves to religion and philosophy.
Well that's what I just said before, the best thing is to look in on
Earth's events to find god, not science. But it's not true that people
don't try to prove a god through science. Many scientists try to
associate the two. People on this thread for instance have tried
associating the two. People try to prove god through science. If you
read Stephen Hawking's book on the Big Bang it obviously talks about
the Big Bang but also god.
I don't think you have to leave god only to religion. Like I said
before most scientists believe in some sort of "creator" but are apt
to not believe in religions that much.
oriel36
> On 17 May 2007 04:02:34 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Judging from your replies no wonder these fools sound like
'authorities' and judge people of faith even though they are not fit
to speak on either astronomy or matters of faith.
If your faith was strong enough you would not have to sound like an
idiot but as you put yourself in a situation where you accept a
division between matters of natural investigation and matters faith
you deserve to be squashed like a bug here.Worse still,you make
matters of faith in a God a byword for ignorance instead of the great
inspirational force it actually is.
oriel36
> Bullseye wrote:
> > Of course since there is no proof in the scientific world yet.
>
> I don't think I conveyed my point properly; no one in the scientific
> world is *looking* for proof. It's not a scientific question, whether
> there's a god or not. Science is about looking for relationships of
> natural phenomena with each other, and with mathematics. Questions of
> religion and philosophy, it leaves to religion and philosophy.
>
> --
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
You are too stupid to comment on astronomy let alone matters of faith
and that is the proper way religious people should approach you.
You can wax lyrical about god ,science, and religion when you
comprehend basic astronomical principles but you have not shown the
intelligence to do even that.Unfortunate creatures like Bulleye know
no better but if you expect that they represent the intellectual and
intutive standard for Christians you can forget it.
Bulleye and those like him are your best friend for they recognise
that a division exists when that is an illusion.The great astronomers
were men of faith which stands to reason insofar as the same intutive
intelligence that recognises God in creation plays the same role in
striving to understand the consequence of the astronomical cycles and
especially those of the Earth.
Pat O'Connell
True--and since there's no evidence in those events of any deity mucking
about here, there's no evidence of said deity. Just lots of books
proposing the existence of lots of deities, and people proposing that
the rest of us give money to the proponents of the religions based on
those books. Religion is profitable.
Bullseye
wrote:
>True--and since there's no evidence in those events of any deity mucking
>about here, there's no evidence of said deity. Just lots of books
>proposing the existence of lots of deities, and people proposing that
>the rest of us give money to the proponents of the religions based on
>those books. Religion is profitable.
I don't know if you've read my other posts but I've said I believe in
a "creator" and an not so much in religions. Watching events on Earth
can give you "plausible evidence". You can't expect scientific
evidence because you have to trust your human observation, and the
intelligence you've developed over tens of thousands of years. Science
can't compete with such a thing when it comes to these matters.
Plausible evidence is also accepted by scientists for theories such as
the theory of relativity. It can't be proved with instruments but it
is widely accepted because physics and mathematics allow it and
evidence suggests "chances" are very high it is correct.
Bullseye
wrote:
>Judging from your replies no wonder these fools sound like
>'authorities' and judge people of faith even though they are not fit
>to speak on either astronomy or matters of faith.
>
>If your faith was strong enough you would not have to sound like an
>idiot but as you put yourself in a situation where you accept a
>division between matters of natural investigation and matters faith
>you deserve to be squashed like a bug here.Worse still,you make
>matters of faith in a God a byword for ignorance instead of the great
>inspirational force it actually is.
You should just go listen to George Michael's "You've gotta have
faith" and let whatever drugs you're on wear off.
Jan Owen
news:9gjp43lsogl12repr...@4ax.com...
Actually, you should take your religious discussion elsewhere. This is an
ASTRONOMY newsgroup...
--
Jan Owen
To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
oriel36
> On 17 May 2007 10:01:47 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
You are these fools best friend but too dumb to know any better.
oriel36
> "Bullseye" <b...@ei.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9gjp43lsogl12repr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 May 2007 10:01:47 -0700, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Judging from your replies no wonder these fools sound like
> >>'authorities' and judge people of faith even though they are not fit
> >>to speak on either astronomy or matters of faith.
>
> >>If your faith was strong enough you would not have to sound like an
> >>idiot but as you put yourself in a situation where you accept a
> >>division between matters of natural investigation and matters faith
> >>you deserve to be squashed like a bug here.Worse still,you make
> >>matters of faith in a God a byword for ignorance instead of the great
> >>inspirational force it actually is.
>
> > You should just go listen to George Michael's "You've gotta have
> > faith" and let whatever drugs you're on wear off.
>
> Actually, you should take your religious discussion elsewhere. This is an
> ASTRONOMY newsgroup...
>
This is an ASTROLOGICAL newsgroup,your observations are all framed in
zodiac terms,your ideas for the Earth's motions are based on celestial
sphere terms,you never mention the work of the astronomer who did not
require telescopes and your terminology of 'pursuing' and 'bagging'
celestial objects highlights that your magnification exercise goes no
further than self-congratulation.
The excerpt from your magasine says it all in an unapologetic
astrological way -
"May 19th wasn't selected by accident. On that night the twins of
Gemini will appear to stand above the western horizon for Northern
Hemisphere observers, and the Moon and Venus - just 2° apart - will
adorn the waist of Gemini's western twin Castor. Saturn gives the
constellation Leo a bright beige nose all night long, and Jupiter will
appear late and stay low in the southern sky for those in mid- to high-
northern latitudes."
http://skytonight.com/news/International_Sidewalk_Astronomy_Night.html
At least you are under no illusions what you actually are even as you
all bestow the title of 'astronomers' on yourselves,the truth is that
you detest astronomy.
> --
> Jan Owen
>
> To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
> Latitude: 33.6
> Longitude: -112.3http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21- Hide quoted text -
Bullseye
wrote:
>"Bullseye" <bu...@ei.com> wrote in message
>news:9gjp43lsogl12repr...@4ax.com...
>> On 17 May 2007 10:01:47 -0700, oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Judging from your replies no wonder these fools sound like
>>>'authorities' and judge people of faith even though they are not fit
>>>to speak on either astronomy or matters of faith.
>>>
>>>If your faith was strong enough you would not have to sound like an
>>>idiot but as you put yourself in a situation where you accept a
>>>division between matters of natural investigation and matters faith
>>>you deserve to be squashed like a bug here.Worse still,you make
>>>matters of faith in a God a byword for ignorance instead of the great
>>>inspirational force it actually is.
>>
>>
>> You should just go listen to George Michael's "You've gotta have
>> faith" and let whatever drugs you're on wear off.
>
>Actually, you should take your religious discussion elsewhere. This is an
>ASTRONOMY newsgroup...
This ain't no religious discussion my friend. Alot of people here turn
to space and "what's out there" for god. The physicts and scientists.
Now I understand alot of people here just want to discuss astronomical
objects, but there are some who will turn the discussion into a god
discussion. I was the OP of the thread "Venus, why not a good planet
to view". Somewhere along the line though someone turned the
discussion into a discussion about god, not me. I jokingly just
started off by saying "I wish god had made more planets to view" or
something like that.
Andrew Smallshaw
> On May 17, 11:34 pm, "Jan Owen" <janow...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, you should take your religious discussion elsewhere. This is an
>> ASTRONOMY newsgroup...
>>
>
> This is an ASTROLOGICAL newsgroup,your observations are all framed in
Wrong. This is an ASTRONOMY newsgroup. From the original RFD that
created this group back in 1994:
RATIONALE
A USENET newsgroup solely dedicated to the discussion of topics of
interest to amateur (or "backyard") astronomers does not currently
exist. Such discussions are currently carried out on sci.astro. The
volume of traffic on sci.astro, however, has recently grown to the point
where many people believe that a new group dedicated to the discussion
of amateur astronomy would be beneficial. Additionally, many readers of
sci.astro have expressed frustration at having to wade through the more
technical posts on the sciences of astronomy and cosmology to get to the
ones dealing with amateur astronomy.
QED this group has nothing to do with astrology. In general if
you're new to a group it's best to lurk for a while to see what is
and is not on topic before spouting forth with your assumptions
about what the group is about. You've been shown to be wrong.
Now fuck off somewhere where your posts ARE on topic.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
Bullseye
<and...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>Wrong. This is an ASTRONOMY newsgroup. From the original RFD that
>created this group back in 1994:
>
>RATIONALE
>
> A USENET newsgroup solely dedicated to the discussion of topics of
> interest to amateur (or "backyard") astronomers does not currently
> exist. Such discussions are currently carried out on sci.astro. The
> volume of traffic on sci.astro, however, has recently grown to the point
> where many people believe that a new group dedicated to the discussion
> of amateur astronomy would be beneficial. Additionally, many readers of
> sci.astro have expressed frustration at having to wade through the more
> technical posts on the sciences of astronomy and cosmology to get to the
> ones dealing with amateur astronomy.
>
>QED this group has nothing to do with astrology. In general if
>you're new to a group it's best to lurk for a while to see what is
>and is not on topic before spouting forth with your assumptions
>about what the group is about. You've been shown to be wrong.
>Now fuck off somewhere where your posts ARE on topic.
>
>--
>Andrew Smallshaw
>and...@sdf.lonestar.org
............../疮/)............(\痐\
............/....//.............\\...\
.........../....//...............\\....\
...../疮/..../疮\.........../痐\....\痐\
.././.../..../..../.|_..._|.\....\....\...\.\..
(.(....(....(..../....)..)...(..(.\....)....)....).)
.\................\/.../....\...\/............../
..\................. /.........\................./
....\..............(.............).............../
Sam Wormley
> Venus is sometimes so bright before even twilight that you can confuse
> it with a plane's lights here in the city. And it's supposed to look
> like another Earth, you know with clouds and an ocean visible.
Bulls..., you should do some self education.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Venus
Magellan to Venus
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/magellan/
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/magellan/anim.html
> Why can't you see these features through a telescope? I know it's supposed
> to have a lot of clouds, but from the up-close pictures of the planet
> I've seen you're supposed to see some blue ocean, much like Earth. Are
> the white clouds just so abundant that the sun causes a glare to the
> observer and you can't observe any features?
I suspect you are just trolling and probably belong in my killfile.
Jan Owen
Andrew Smallshaw
> On May 18, 4:40 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>>
>> QED this group has nothing to do with astrology. In general if
>> you're new to a group it's best to lurk for a while to see what is
>> and is not on topic before spouting forth with your assumptions
>> about what the group is about. You've been shown to be wrong.
>> Now fuck off somewhere where your posts ARE on topic.
>
> interests are entirely based on a constellational framework.I do not
> object to that but unfortunately the rest of humanitys thinks you are
> astronomers by virtue of magnification but do not realise that you
> actually detest astronomy and especially heliocentric Western
> astronomical methods and insights.
You at least pretend to not know the difference between the two.
As a reminder:
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
astronomy
n : the branch of physics that studies celestial bodies and the
universe as a whole [syn: {uranology}]
astrology
n : a pseudoscience claiming divination by the positions of the
planets and sun and moon [syn: {star divination}]
I went through all about the use of the constellations on Tuseday in
<slrnf4jp29....@sdf.lonestar.org>. You actually replied
to that but failed to address any of the points raised. Therefore
it isn't worth continuing that argument.
> "May 19th wasn't selected by accident. On that night the twins of
> Gemini will appear to stand above the western horizon for Northern
> Hemisphere observers, and the Moon and Venus - just 2° apart - will
> adorn the waist of Gemini's western twin Castor. Saturn gives the
> constellation Leo a bright beige nose all night long, and Jupiter will
> appear late and stay low in the southern sky for those in mid- to
> high- northern latitudes."
So what? Do you dispute that those objects _were_ visible and easy
to find on that night? That's the only reason it was chosen. I
suspect on past form I own't get a meaningful reply. Prepare to
be plonked when you confirm my suspicion.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
oriel36
> On 2007-05-19, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 4:40 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
> >> QED this group has nothing to do with astrology. In general if
> >> you're new to a group it's best to lurk for a while to see what is
> >> and is not on topic before spouting forth with your assumptions
> >> about what the group is about. You've been shown to be wrong.
> >> Now fuck off somewhere where your posts ARE on topic.
>
> > You genuinely do not know that you are astrologers and that your
> > interests are entirely based on a constellational framework.I do not
> > object to that but unfortunately the rest of humanitys thinks you are
> > astronomers by virtue of magnification but do not realise that you
> > actually detest astronomy and especially heliocentric Western
> > astronomical methods and insights.
>
> You at least pretend to not know the difference between the two.
> As a reminder:
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> astronomy
> n : the branch of physics that studies celestial bodies and the
> universe as a whole [syn: {uranology}]
>
Funny,funny funny.
A branch of physics indeed !!.
The funny part is that Newton never realised that there is a
celestial sphere framework at the core of Flamsteed's astrological
'proof' for axial rotation so while physicists may glory that
'astronomy' is a branch of physics the truth is that astrology is a
vital part of physics and its 'predictions'.
Astronomy is the oldest human discipline because humans live by the
astronomical cycles,the contemporary version of 'astronomy' amounts to
no more than a magnification exercise and nothing like the
magnificent and vibrant arena it actually is.
> astrology
> n : a pseudoscience claiming divination by the positions of the
> planets and sun and moon [syn: {star divination}]
>
> I went through all about the use of the constellations on Tuseday in
> <slrnf4jp29.h80.andr...@sdf.lonestar.org>. You actually replied
> to that but failed to address any of the points raised. Therefore
> it isn't worth continuing that argument.
>
> > "May 19th wasn't selected by accident. On that night the twins of
> > Gemini will appear to stand above the western horizon for Northern
> > Hemisphere observers, and the Moon and Venus - just 2° apart - will
> > adorn the waist of Gemini's western twin Castor. Saturn gives the
> > constellation Leo a bright beige nose all night long, and Jupiter will
> > appear late and stay low in the southern sky for those in mid- to
> > high- northern latitudes."
>
> So what? Do you dispute that those objects _were_ visible and easy
> to find on that night? That's the only reason it was chosen. I
> suspect on past form I own't get a meaningful reply. Prepare to
> be plonked when you confirm my suspicion.
>
> --
> Andrew Smallshaw
I have to laugh that 'astronomy' is seen now as a branch of physics
but I guess the astrological guys are not going to let you in on a
little secret.You probably will get a strong hint from the Sky and
Telescope article but then again,maybe not.
Andrew Smallshaw
>
> A branch of physics indeed !!.
>
> The funny part is that Newton never realised that there is a
> celestial sphere framework at the core of Flamsteed's astrological
> 'proof' for axial rotation so while physicists may glory that
> 'astronomy' is a branch of physics the truth is that astrology is a
> vital part of physics and its 'predictions'.
Yes, you are of course correct. It must be wonderful always being
right despite whatever source I care to refer to directly contradicting
you. I envy you.
<plonk>
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org