Time : Expansion of The Universe

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

As intricate as epicycles to explain a geocentric universe, no doubt. :rolleyes:
Unless you are going to offer a solution to this "little" issue then all your ramblings on and on about it, are totally meaningless.
You can't just come here, waffle on about something, then when the inevitable difficult questions are asked refuse to answer them. That is a total cop out.

I'll be waiting with baited breath to see your work in Science, Nature or The Astronomical Journal.

Walk around a central object/Earth with your outstretched arm constantly pointing at the object.That is the moon orbiting the Earth and why we see the same face of the moon constantly.If they ever create The Journal Of Common Sense you will probably read about it in there.

Interpreting the orbital behavior of Uranus from those sequence of images in order to account for seasonal changes and especially why they experience a single day/night cycle at the North and South poles of the Earth is also common sense,the one thing I haven't seen here in quite a while.

I had a look at the Leaving Cert syllabus and now shake my head that it is designed for a very small group of students with not the slightest sign of astronomy and it shows in the way observers here approach the historical and technical details of genuine astronomy -

http://www.thephysicsteacher.ie/leavingcertphysicshome.html

How many talented students never get to use their skills because of some misguided attempt to link experimental sciences at a human level directly to astronomical insights by using Ra/Dec as a predictive bridge ?.That is the real tragedy as the encounter at school with 'Newton's laws' tends to obliterate the students natural curiosity for astronomical things and replaces it with a form of intellectual elitism and so a greater tragedy is that adults permit it to happen or turn their faces away when they really shouldn't.

AugustusMinimus

gkell2 wrote: »

Walk around a central object/Earth with your outstretched arm constantly pointing at the object.That is the moon orbiting the Earth and why we see the same face of the moon constantly.If they ever create The Journal Of Common Sense you will probably read about it in there.

Wow. Just wow. I just cannot fathom how wrong you are.





If the moon (blue circles) does not spin, the above in the diagram happens. If the moon doesn't spin, then the red spot on the moon above must always face upwards in my diagram. As it goes around the earth (black) different faces of the moon would appear on earth. At one point in it's orbit (the bottom quarter as above) the red dot would face the earth. When the moon would be at the top of the diagram, the red dot side would not be visible at all.

Obviously this means if the moon didn't spin, that the entire surface of the moon would be visible on earth as one time or another.

AugustusMinimus

Wh1stler wrote: »

Let me put it this way; if the earth was to suddenly disappear and the moon was released from the grip of earth's gravity, would the moon continue to turn on its axis?

It would.

Cú Giobach

Wh1stler wrote: »

Let me put it this way; if the earth was to suddenly disappear and the moon was released from the grip of earth's gravity, would the moon continue to turn on its axis?

Yes, once every 27.3 days.

Where am I going wrong?

Here, ↓↓↓

It is as if the surface of the moon and earth's gravity are perfectly meshed cogs; cogs that do not turn relative to each other, [..........] Surely there is a difference between 'the moon rotating' and 'a twisting force being exerted upon the moon by the earth in order to keep the moon in orbit'? And doesn't that force actually prevent the moon from turning at the expense of pushing the moon away a little?

The Moon is a spining body that is falling towards the Earth, but because of its speed it misses the planet and falls around the curve. If you throw a stone it will make a curved path as it falls to the ground, but if you throw it hard enough so the curve of its trajectory is the same as that of the Earth's curvature, the stone will be in orbit.
(On an airless body like the Moon you could orbit just feet from the surface if you are going fast enough).
Basically what keeps the Moon in orbit is its velocity, its orbital speed, just like the ISS.

Imagine the moon rotating at a speed of 1 rev per 27.3 days out in space nowhere near the Earth. Now what will happen if you move it to a position in orbit around the Earth where it makes one orbit every 27.3 days in the same direction it is rotating?
Now imagine the scenario where the Moon is rotating twice every 27.3 days out in space and then moving it into orbit around the Earth. Tidal forces will slow the rotation down until it makes just one rotation and then because there will be no more tides moving around the Moon, it'll be "locked" and won't slow any further.

gkell2 wrote: »

Walk around a central object/Earth with your outstretched arm constantly pointing at the object.That is the moon orbiting the Earth and why we see the same face of the moon constantly.If they ever create The Journal Of Common Sense you will probably read about it in there.

And if as you claim, you are not making one rotation doing this, then if you walk around the same object pointing to and constantly facing North, you must be making one rotation counter to the direction you are circling the object. Hence the itsy bitsy little problem with retrograde rotations that your theory creates, which you are refusing to deal with and explain here.

Interpreting the orbital behavior of Uranus from those sequence of images in order to account for seasonal changes and especially why they experience a single day/night cycle at the North and South poles of the Earth is also common sense,the one thing I haven't seen here in quite a while.

I had a look at the Leaving Cert syllabus and now shake my head that it is designed for a very small group of students with not the slightest sign of astronomy and it shows in the way observers here approach the historical and technical details of genuine astronomy -

http://www.thephysicsteacher.ie/leavingcertphysicshome.html

How many talented students never get to use their skills because of some misguided attempt to link experimental sciences at a human level directly to astronomical insights by using Ra/Dec as a predictive bridge ?.That is the real tragedy as the encounter at school with 'Newton's laws' tends to obliterate the students natural curiosity for astronomical things and replaces it with a form of intellectual elitism and so a greater tragedy is that adults permit it to happen or turn their faces away when they really shouldn't.

Bla bla bla.
Until you can explain away retrograde rotations, like the situation with Uranus, your waffling is pointless.

gkell2

It is unconscionable that the Catholic Church supports a mental affliction which assigns limits to time and space even though the tenets of Christianity not only distinguish the Infinite from the definite,the Eternal from the temporal but also how these are connected hence 'big bang' is essentially an anti-Christian ideology and utterly mindnumbing in its vacuousness.

If the Catholic Church can support this tragedy then empiricists have little to worry about for it is not that difficult to point out that people who can believe the oldest galaxies are the most distant and simultaneously believe the oldest galaxies are not the most distant due to logical consistency of the former statement concluding that the nearest galaxies are the youngest, can never be right or wrong and that is a human hell nobody should suffer.

AugustusMinimus

Enough of this religion rubbish. This is the Astronomy and Space forum.

This forum is for science, not for discussing fairies in the sky. Take yourself and your bunk science to the religion forum please.

gkell2

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. I just cannot fathom how wrong you are.





If the moon (blue circles) does not spin, the above in the diagram happens.

You are unwittingly demonstrating a birds-eye view of what is happening in those sequence of images of Uranus in that a planet turns to the central Sun arising solely from its orbital motion.There is no 'if',you look at the images,know that the daily rotational alignment is fixed as the Earth's rotational alignment is fixed to Polaris and you have the explanation for the polar day/night cycle and when allied with the separate motion of daily rotation,why the seasons change and why natural noon cycles vary -

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

You are fine,you are a product of an education system where mathematics shades off into physics and giving a distorted and an almost non existent portrayal of astronomy,literally people believe that late 17th century empiricism is astronomy and science.If Newton says the moon rotates then his followers will go all out to prove it rotates and if he says Venus rotates in 23 hours his followers won't acknowledge he was wrong least they concede lunar rotation or anything else he dictated is wrong,he even has the Earth rotate in circumpolar motion in 24 hours ! -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gB2-Hqdx_LUC&pg=PA579&dq=newton+moon+rotates&hl=en&ei=SQJ5TJP1FYTKswadoL2yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

None of you had to plow through Flamsteed's 'Doctrine of the Spheres' which influenced the later disaster of Newton to see where he is trying to account for celestial observations through right ascension and if I had my way nobody ever will for Flamsteed's mechanical approach shades off into the predictive convenience which allows that section of the astronomical community to predict things like solar and lunar eclipses as days and dates within the calendar system but there are its limits.Contemporary imaging is so powerful and imaging techniques so ubiquitous that where Flamsteed came close with his 'ecliptic axis',it can now be extracted directly from sequential imaging of Uranus.It only takes an astronomer to separate motions and it ain't going to happen in an era which has a spinning moon as an unnecessary inclusion on its lunar orbital motion.

Walk/orbit an object/Earth while keeping you outstretched arms denoting the orbital behavior of the moon and you can account for this sequence of images-

http://www.moonconnection.com/images/moon_phases_diagram.jpg

Remember what Copernicus said -

" 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" Copernicus

While the magnification squad and the theorists have a mutual appreciation society going, a collective type of autism has set in,people should be shocked that people don't believe the Earth turns once in 24 hours or that the moon doesn't spin as it orbits the Earth,even if they do recognize what is correct from what is not their response is to turn away no matter how ridiculous the claim may be.

Wh1stler

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Imagine the moon rotating at a speed of 1 rev per 27.3 days out in space nowhere near the Earth. Now what will happen if you move it to a position in orbit around the Earth where it makes one orbit every 27.3 days in the same direction it is rotating?
Now imagine the scenario where the Moon is rotating twice every 27.3 days out in space and then moving it into orbit around the Earth. Tidal forces will slow the rotation down until it makes just one rotation and then because there will be no more tides moving around the Moon, it'll be "locked" and won't slow any further.

Well, I might suggest it would be an incredible coincidence if the moon were to appear in orbit around the earth such that the bulge was in the correct position for tidal licking.

If the moon appeared with its 'far-side' facing earth then its rotation could be speeded up or slowed down in order to obtain tidal locking.

It is the extra mass on the far side that provides the buoyancy characteristic, isn't it?

It is the 'bulge' that is effected most by gravity and no matter what the orientation of the moon (except when it is facing directly to earth) is when it is captured by earth's gravity, the rotation of the moon will either accelerated or slowed down until the bulge is in the right place.

Am I being clear about the distinction between the energy of the moon and the energy of the earth?

It is the earth that applies a twist to the moon, not the moon spinning.

In fact, I would say that it is because of the moon's resistance to turning, that the moon is moving away from the earth.

If you were to turn the moon through 180 degrees then it would acquire rotation in on direction or the other and entirely due to the earth's gravity.

How can the moon lose all the rotational energy it can and yet continue to rotate?

Wh1stler

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Wow. Just wow. I just cannot fathom how wrong you are.





If the moon (blue circles) does not spin, the above in the diagram happens. If the moon doesn't spin, then the red spot on the moon above must always face upwards in my diagram. As it goes around the earth (black) different faces of the moon would appear on earth. At one point in it's orbit (the bottom quarter as above) the red dot would face the earth. When the moon would be at the top of the diagram, the red dot side would not be visible at all.

Obviously this means if the moon didn't spin, that the entire surface of the moon would be visible on earth as one time or another.

But you could say, and this is what seems to be the cause of confusion, 'It the earth didn't apply a twist to the moon by means of its energy then the moon would appear as the blue circles.'

There is earth's energy and there is the moon's energy; which one causes the moon to appear not to turn?

Amtmann

gkell2 wrote: »

As a Christian, the central tenet is the Infinite known through the definite and faith is the background against which a person senses something greater than themselves where the Universal encompasses the individual so that empiricists have the Catholic Church supporting 'big bang' limits to time and space is remarkable for all the wrong reasons.

If you announce to the world that the nearest galaxies are the youngest and the oldest galaxies are the most distant then that is fine ,everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it is consistent but what you cannot do is then announce that the oldest galaxies are not the most distant.That a reasonable person couldn't support a contradictory set of statements is one thing,that the Church does is astonishing.

Who is worse,the proposer of 'big bang' or those who can't comprehend its absurdities ?.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Cú Giobach

Wh1stler wrote: »

Well, I might suggest it would be an incredible coincidence if the moon were to appear in orbit around the earth such that the bulge was in the correct position for tidal licking.

If the moon appeared with its 'far-side' facing earth then its rotation could be speeded up or slowed down in order to obtain tidal locking.

It is the extra mass on the far side that provides the buoyancy characteristic, isn't it?

It is the 'bulge' that is effected most by gravity and no matter what the orientation of the moon (except when it is facing directly to earth) is when it is captured by earth's gravity, the rotation of the moon will either accelerated or slowed down until the bulge is in the right place.

This bulge you talk about is caused by the Earth's gravity, it pulls on the moon rising a bulge in it just like the Moon raises a bulge in the Earth, most notably in the water giving us ocean tides but also in the rock itself. Just like water tides on Earth this bulge would move around the Moon as it rotates, when the Moon rotated faster the bulge was pulled ahead of the Earth and Earth's gravity tried to pull it back, thus slowing the Moon down. Now because the Moon spins at the same rate as it orbits, the bulge the Earth causes is now always directly in line with the Earth.

Am I being clear about the distinction between the energy of the moon and the energy of the earth?
It is the earth that applies a twist to the moon, not the moon spinning. In fact, I would say that it is because of the moon's resistance to turning, that the moon is moving away from the earth.

The Moon is moving away because it is raising tides on Earth, the spin of the Earth is pulling these tides ahead of the Moon consequently giving it a pull in the direction of its orbit and pulling against the spin of the Earth. This results in the Moon moving into a higher orbit and the Earth spinning slower (just as the tides raised on the Moon by the Earth slowed it down).

If you were to turn the moon through 180 degrees then it would acquire rotation in on direction or the other and entirely due to the earth's gravity.

No it wouldn't.

How can the moon lose all the rotational energy it can and yet continue to rotate?

If it lost all its rotational energy it couldn't rotate, so because it is rotating it can't have lost all its rotational energy. You already said this and were given the same response.

gkell2

Amtmann wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Tell me about that one where the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe leading to the 'wonderful' conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe.I too agree it is the dumbest thing a person could possibly imagine but no offence, that is your 'big bang' theory for you.

It may happen that future generations will consider this a period in human history when human reasoning went completely out the window but this assumes it actually does survive something as intellectually cruel as 'big bang'.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

Tell me about that one where the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe leading to the 'wonderful' conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe.

There is no scientific theory that states this. This has been explained to you already.

The galaxies are not old, the light is. It has been travelling for a very long time, and when it reaches us it shows a picture of the galaxy a long time ago.

Now, can you acknowledge that you understand this point before moving on.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

There is no scientific theory that states this. This has been explained to you already.

The galaxies are not old, the light is. It has been travelling for a very long time, and when it reaches us it shows a picture of the galaxy a long time ago.

Now, can you acknowledge that you understand this point before moving on.

You are fine,these things get worked out at a different level,this time it is different as 'big bang' represents the excesses of a toxic strain of empiricism and the unsightly overreaching between astronomical observations and experimental sciences.There are always those at the lower tier who continue to continue dancing long after the music has stopped so make sure you are not one of them.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done when genuine empiricism returns to being a facet of astronomy rather than a driver of it.Astronomy is not a talent contest,there are no judges as you would understand these things so the headache inducing pronouncements I see belong to a certain section of the community are a product of this era and I have nothing to say about it.

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

I have nothing to say about it.

You sure do type a lot of text saying it.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

You are fine,these things get worked out at a different level,this time it is different as 'big bang' represents the excesses of a toxic strain of empiricism and the unsightly overreaching between astronomical observations and experimental sciences.There are always those at the lower tier who continue to continue dancing long after the music has stopped so make sure you are not one of them.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done when genuine empiricism returns to being a facet of astronomy rather than a driver of it.Astronomy is not a talent contest,there are no judges as you would understand these things so the headache inducing pronouncements I see belong to a certain section of the community are a product of this era and I have nothing to say about it.

That didn't answer my question.

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

That didn't answer my question.

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

If you are familiar with the original determination based on the anomalous motion of Jupiter's satellite Io and the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter then we can get to the bottom of this.There are lots of issues to resolve and especially Roemer's use of the Equation of Time even though a complete set of tables only emerged over a century later with John Harrison's set which accounted for natural noon of Feb 29th.

So let's get stuck in -

What do you think of Newton's use of the Equation of Time to link together Huygen's exposition of pendulum clocks and Roemer's use of it to screen out the variations in the Earth's rotation thereby allowing for Roemer's Mora Luminis or 'Equation of Light' as it was originally known -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions....The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

This is important for the original astronomers never thought in terms of Jupiter moving nearer into the past and further into the past as 'big bang' bozos do but only that after distances of 186,000 miles,anomalous motions set in.

Of course Huygen's treatise on the Equation of Time requires a modification as natural noon occurs 1461 times in 4 years and there is no budget for the 365 days 5 hours 49 minute system to which he ties his values -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy" Huygens

Now you have to remember that the foreground stars of the Milky Way are moving in a circle to the background galaxies so their radical speed has to be taken into account so that the position of any one galaxy never remains fixed to the current foreground stars as we are basically on a carousel of moving stars in our orbit of the Milky Way center.

Am I going to quickly for you or have you taken these things into account ?.That last section would be especially relevant for empiricists but too greedy and too overreaching in their objectives,you want your cartoon view of things.The truth is that you are like people dancing long after the music has stopped,you don't know it yet but that is the way it is.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

If you are familiar with the original determination based on the anomalous motion of Jupiter's satellite Io and the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter then we can get to the bottom of this.There are lots of issues to resolve and especially Roemer's use of the Equation of Time even though a complete set of tables only emerged over a century later with John Harrison's set which accounted for natural noon of Feb 29th.

So let's get stuck in -

What do you think of Newton's use of the Equation of Time to link together Huygen's exposition of pendulum clocks and Roemer's use of it to screen out the variations in the Earth's rotation thereby allowing for the Mora Luminis or Equation of Light -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions....The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

This is important for the original astronomers never thought in terms of Jupiter moving nearer into the past and further into the past as 'big bang' bozos do but only that after distances of 186,000 miles,anomalous motions set in.

Of course Huygen's treatise on the Equation of Time requires a modification as natural noon occurs 1461 times in 4 years and there is no budget for the 365 days 5 hours 49 minute system to which he ties his values -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy" Huygens

Now you have to remember that the foreground stars of the Milky Way are moving in a circle to the background galaxies so their radical speed has to be taken into account so that the position of any one galaxy never remains fixed to the current foreground stars as we are basically on a carousel of moving stars in our orbit of the Milky Way center.

Am I going to quickly for you or have you taken these things into account ?.That last section would be especially relevant for empiricists but too greedy and too overreaching in their objectives,you want your cartoon view of things.The truth is that you are like people dancing long after the music has stopped,you don't know it yet but that is the way it is.

You didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

If you do not understand the question feel free to say.

gkell2

Zombrex wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Let me ask it again

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

If you do not understand the question feel free to say.

Do you understand that planetary orbital comparisons are necessary to determine the original insight that the anomalous motion of Io is due to the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter which includes the apparent retrograde motions of Jupiter.

You are not going to comprehend orbital comparisons and the Equation of Light without first going through the procedure that began with Copernicus,refined by Kepler and then and only then on to Roemer.

Can you see what is wrong with the following statement against the correct statement which uses orbital comparisons to determine and define the Earth's motion ? -

"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

Look,you are fine and this looks like an indulgence on my part,something I sought to avoid.

There would possibly be one person out of a thousand who would have noticed the issue of the foreground stars rotation against the external galaxies and why assigning relevance to right ascension and stellar circumpolar motion is hampering any productive work in that direction.The idea is that astronomically we haven't even begun to sort out the wider picture but it ain't going to happen with guys stuck in the late 17th century addiction to right ascension.

Look,I can't tell you enough that you are fine,no better or worse than the next and hardly aware that 'big bang' is on its way out.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

This is important for the original astronomers never thought in terms of Jupiter moving nearer into the past and further into the past as 'big bang' bozos do but only that after distances of 186,000 miles,anomalous motions set in.

What crap are you on about now?
Jupiter moving forward and back into the past? :rolleyes:

Why don't you answer the question put to you? Is maybe because you don't have the slightest clue how light having a finite speed affects things?

gkell2

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What crap are you on about now?
Jupiter moving forward and back into the past? :rolleyes:

Why don't you answer the question put to you? Is maybe because you don't have the slightest clue how light having a finite speed affects things?

The motion of the foreground stars in their galactic circuit to the external galaxies is the 21st century version of the older astronomy which gauged the motion of the planets against the background stars.As our solar system is moving in one direction with the rest of those stars,the new approach takes account of things such as the default elliptical geometry seen in the off-center Sun in the Fomalhaut system and the possibility of modifying older perceptions of orbital geometries to suit new observational evidence -

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/289900main_fomalhaut_actuallabel_HI.jpg


They dealt with circumpolar motion/right ascension in the 15th century,the absurdities it produced sent them running to look for the motions of the Earth which Copernicus eventually discovered by resolving retrogrades.The absurdities are specifically the ones 'big bang' embraces based on a no center/no circumference ideology,so reading Archbishop's Cusa description you may comprehend why these men sought the answer in a moving Earth -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa


In short,I wouldn't have the patience for people who imagine galaxies flying apart like pizzas in an explosion when there is so much issues to deal with in the locality.You want answers to questions that have long since disappeared as once the absurdities are seen,you pass by and the mind is free to look at different things which I have done for many years.You have plenty of victims showing up here trying to make sense of the no center/no circumference ideology of 'big bang' the same way you try to make sense of a rotating celestial sphere -

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

All it takes is a wider view of things and a whole new astronomy ,its historical and technical details open up and allow fresh air to make it vibrant once more.

Squ

gkell2 wrote: »

you pass by and the mind is free to look at different things which I have done for many years.

Pink Floyd?

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

an you see what is wrong with the following statement against the correct statement which uses orbital comparisons to determine and define the Earth's motion ? -

"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

You keep dragging this quote out, so I'll bite: no, I do not see what is wrong here. Newton is exactly correct, all the planets orbit the sun in the same direction, they never stop in their orbits and they certainly never go backwards.

gkell2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You keep dragging this quote out, so I'll bite: no, I do not see what is wrong here. Newton is exactly correct, all the planets orbit the sun in the same direction, they never stop in their orbits and they certainly never go backwards.

"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

It is a technical non sequitur,there is no 'but' involved as the one and only permitted view is -

'For to the Earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,sometimes stationary and sometimes retrograde.These appearances are due to the Earth overtaking the planet in question as all planets move in the same direction in their orbital circuits.'

Unless you comprehend the proper perspective there is not a chance you could make sense of Kepler's work, Roemer's Mora Luminis or Equation of Light or any new perspective that will arise in future.

Look,stick with your flying pizza Universe if that is all you can manage,at another time I would have tried to deal with the issue in a respectful way but you insist in continuing on when I know full well 'big bang' is on its way out only requires that people focus on the interesting topics out there and not throwing good information after bad.That is my choice and not yours.

Cú Giobach

gkell2 wrote: »

The motion of the foreground stars in their galactic circuit to the external galaxies is the 21st century version of the older astronomy which gauged the motion of the planets against the background stars.As our solar system is moving in one direction with the rest of those stars,the new approach takes account of things such as the default elliptical geometry seen in the off-center Sun in the Fomalhaut system and the possibility of modifying older perceptions of orbital geometries to suit new observational evidence -

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/289900main_fomalhaut_actuallabel_HI.jpg


They dealt with circumpolar motion/right ascension in the 15th century,the absurdities it produced sent them running to look for the motions of the Earth which Copernicus eventually discovered by resolving retrogrades.The absurdities are specifically the ones 'big bang' embraces based on a no center/no circumference ideology,so reading Archbishop's Cusa description you may comprehend why these men sought the answer in a moving Earth -

"Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of
the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In
that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would
believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be
at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus,
A's zenith would be B's center, and B's zenith would be A's
And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the
center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that
the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see--
through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot
be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and
a sphere in a sphere-- having its center and circumference
nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa


In short,I wouldn't have the patience for people who imagine galaxies flying apart like pizzas in an explosion when there is so much issues to deal with in the locality.You want answers to questions that have long since disappeared as once the absurdities are seen,you pass by and the mind is free to look at different things which I have done for many years.You have plenty of victims showing up here trying to make sense of the no center/no circumference ideology of 'big bang' the same way you try to make sense of a rotating celestial sphere -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI
All it takes is a wider view of things and a whole new astronomy ,its historical and technical details open up and allow fresh air to make it vibrant once more.

More waffle that has nothing to do with the question being asked or the point being raised, it's no wonder you come across as nuts, you're incapable of discussing or concentrating a single topic without flying off like someone who has taken a few too many mushrooms.
Answer the question about the speed of light.

gkell2 wrote: »

'For to the Earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,sometimes stationary and sometimes retrograde.These appearances are due to the Earth overtaking the planet in question as all planets move in the same direction in their orbital circuits.'

Therefore from the Sun they are always seen direct, as Newton said.
Language seemingly (amongst other things) isn't your strong point.

Zubeneschamali

gkell2 wrote: »

It is a technical non sequitur,there is no 'but' involved

Ah, I see. I couldn't figure out why you had an issue with Newton, since he's actually the most modern physicist you agree with, but that explains it. If he'd said:

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

you'd be on the same page.

Unfortunately for you, Newton is not the last word. His physics explains Jupiter and its moons extremely accurately, but in 1859, Le Verrier showed that Newtonian physics does not explain Mercury's apparent motion. This was not explained until Einstein showed how General Relativity could be applied in 1916.

Still, at least you are only about 100 years out of date, and not actually arguing with Newton.

The Hill Billy

gkell2 wrote: »

Tell me about that one where the oldest galaxies are the most distant in a smaller/younger Universe leading to the 'wonderful' conclusion that the youngest galaxies are the nearest in a larger/older Universe.I too agree it is the dumbest thing a person could possibly imagine but no offence, that is your 'big bang' theory for you.

It may happen that future generations will consider this a period in human history when human reasoning went completely out the window but this assumes it actually does survive something as intellectually cruel as 'big bang'.

I'd imagine that there's some alien dude on the equivalent of an internet forum in one of those "oldest galaxies" looking through a telescope in our direction saying the exact same thing right now. The other aliens reading his posts will be making their equivalent of facepalms.

Seriously gkell2, all this verbosity & your dodging of the simple arguments being put forward by other posters is not doing your case any favours. If I could actually understand what you are saying I'd be quite interested, but your posts are so convoluted as to be pointless.

sbsquarepants

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Have a read of my previous post. The universe is not expanding via length, width or height. It is expanding along the time dimension. Hence, it's like a baloon being blown up with more space being created between galaxies.
.

Created out of what?
What is "empty" space made of?
It must be made of something. It can't be just being created out of nothing (conservation of energy?). Gallaxes surely must be moving through space, not just being dislodged from their position in space by the addition of yet more space from somewhere, like debris moving apart in a flood.

I don't know the answer by the way, it's a geniuine question.

gkell2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Ah, I see. I couldn't figure out why you had an issue with Newton, since he's actually the most modern physicist you agree with, but that explains it. If he'd said:

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

I have news for you son,all planetary motion is seen directly,the illusion of 'backward' retrograde motion is a consequence of knowing the Earth is moving faster than Jupiter and Saturn in the following time lapse footage -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

You are big boys now and are supposed to know this much so following the dictates of Newton is something I have witnessed as a type of unwanted phenomena.If Newton says the moon rotates then his followers will destroy themselves trying to justify this nonsense and when he said the longitude problem could not be resolved by a watch and the principle of rotation once in 24 hours,his followers tried to destroy Harrison's watch rather than relent.

"I have told the world oftener than once that longitude is not to be found by watchmakers but by the ablest astronomers. I am unwilling to meddle with any other method than the right one." Newton

The problem is the indoctrination begins almost when students go through primary school and maths shades off into physics in secondary school and there is not the slightest sign of astronomy and its historical or technical details during that developmental period.Readers here would find it painful to the point of illness to change to something more productive hence I am not so hard on you all.It is a process of snapping out of an indoctrination and taking a wider view of astronomy,its methods,principles and insights.

The vicious form of empiricism seems to give its followers a type of superiority but I discovered early on that what it really does is give them an unlimited amount of choices which surface as endless assertions and without the restraint of physical considerations,astronomy becomes something like the mess we have today.

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration.... But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that diversity in physical matters , . . " Kepler

This is not self-congratulation but this ties in with hypothesis as the Church understood these things in Galileo's time,the false technical non sequitur of Newton and multiple other issues which astronomers would normally encounter.It is how astronomers are supposed to converse but in an era which has something like 'big bang' in it,astronomers will be hard to come by.

Zombrex

gkell2 wrote: »

Do you understand that planetary orbital comparisons are necessary to determine the original insight that the anomalous motion of Io is due to the variations in distance between Earth and Jupiter which includes the apparent retrograde motions of Jupiter.

You are not going to comprehend orbital comparisons and the Equation of Light without first going through the procedure that began with Copernicus,refined by Kepler and then and only then on to Roemer.

Can you see what is wrong with the following statement against the correct statement which uses orbital comparisons to determine and define the Earth's motion ? -

"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

Look,you are fine and this looks like an indulgence on my part,something I sought to avoid.

There would possibly be one person out of a thousand who would have noticed the issue of the foreground stars rotation against the external galaxies and why assigning relevance to right ascension and stellar circumpolar motion is hampering any productive work in that direction.The idea is that astronomically we haven't even begun to sort out the wider picture but it ain't going to happen with guys stuck in the late 17th century addiction to right ascension.

Look,I can't tell you enough that you are fine,no better or worse than the next and hardly aware that 'big bang' is on its way out.

Once again you have not answered my question. I can repeat it again for you if you like.

Do you acknowledge that light moves at a finite speed, and thus light that has travelled a far distance will be older by the time it reaches Earth that light from a near by object because it has had further to travel and thus must have taken a longer time?

I would point out that modern measurements of the speed of light are not made using astronomical observations as they were in the 17th century, they are made using a set of processes called interferometry in laboratories. So any issues you have with the 17th century methods used to first assess the finite speed of light should really be irrelevant to whether you can answer the question above.

So can I again ask you to answer the question. Or can I ask you do you even understand the question?