MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The AEL Goes AudioVisual (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why hasn't the earth fallen off God's Index Finger?

The Earth is not on God's index finger. Not even metaphorically.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That is not very helpful, Brian. Please explain why not.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe it would be simplest to say God uses two fingers, one at the top, one at the bottom.

The thing is, Newton explained the observation that the heavens rotate as being caused by a gyroscopic wobble of the Earth, precession. This was and is still a perfectly valid explanation, as there are all sorts of forces on the Earth which cause some degree of wobble. Newton (and everyone since has) engineered the numbers to account for the observation, but there is a much simpler explanation for the rotation of the heavens, which is that the whole solar system is orbiting around another point, once every 25,000 or so years.

Wobble or orbit, there is no question that the heavens are rotating. It is a regular, measurable effect that (according to my maths) gives a .014 degree of movement per year. Even the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians knew about precession. As I previously posted, do have a look here for some very good evidence that we are part of a binary system: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/index.shtml
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You refuse to say how anyone (whether modern astronomers, Newton or the Ancient Egyptians) can say why they believe the earth's 'wobble' to be a rotating movement.

I accept that modern astronomers, Newton and the Ancients could all observe that the wobble was cumulative year by year by year. But what I need to know is
a) how they managed to compute that this apparently linear movement was in fact a circular one and
b) that the whole cycle would take 25,000 years.

To be honest I just don't see how this can be possible even assuming that constant observation was made over several hundred years, year by year. But if it is -- and it will have to be extremely obvious if the Ancients could do it without much in the way of instrumentation -- then tell me how.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

a) how they managed to compute that this apparently linear movement was in fact a circular one and
b) that the whole cycle would take 25,000 years
.

I assume that they plotted the movement of certain stars and realised it was a circular movement, which in turn made them realise that eventually the stars would return to their starting positions. There is quite a lot of evidence that this knowledge of a 25,000 year cycle, or Great Year, was known to the ancients, an overview (and a book on the subject) of which is available at: http://www.thegreatyear.com/thegreatyear/index.shtml

Wiki also has some historical information which may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_(astronomy)

They presumably had good enough technology to extrapolate the length of the Great Year from their measurements, I don't know of any other way they could have obtained it.

As to the possibility of linear movement, it is not possible for the spinning Earth to produce a straight line. If you mess with the axis you can only get precession, which is a circular movement.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I assume that they plotted the movement of certain stars and realised it was a circular movement, which in turn made them realise that eventually the stars would return to their starting positions

So, I was right all along. Everyone's just assuming you can do these things and repeating the story. (Remember, a love of Uniformitarianism is part of the human condition.) Sorry, bub, but I just don't buy the notion that the Ancients had either the technology or the longevity to make these kinds of observations. But should you find any evidence that they could (and did) then I'll be happy to shut up. Of course the Moderns might well be able to...but whether they actually have....well, again I won't just assume they have like everybody else does. I am an Applied Epistemologist after all.

As to the possibility of linear movement, it is not possible for the spinning Earth to produce a straight line. If you mess with the axis you can only get precession, which is a circular movement
.
Bow-lox. Just for instance, the recent tsunami knocked the pole off its..er...pole. J'yer think that caused a precession? Have they adjusted the 25,000 figure yet? I accept that the spinning of the earth might make a linear movement not exactly straight (it's not a branch of geometry I've ever mastered and I doubt that anyone else has, Ancient or Modern) but why a precession? And why a 25,000 year precession? And why every time?

Thank you, gents, but I've won this one hands down.
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Everyone's just assuming you can do these things and repeating the story.

Just because we assume they figured out how to design and build the pyramids doesn't mean they didn't design and build the pyramids. Instead of maintaining a careful ignoral, if you'd looked at those sites I quoted you would have seen that, irrespective of exactly how they did it, there is plenty of evidence that the ancients did know about the Great Year.

the recent tsunami knocked the pole off its..er...pole.

I doubt it. Reference please.

I accept that the spinning of the earth might make a linear movement not exactly straight (it's not a branch of geometry I've ever mastered and I doubt that anyone else has, Ancient or Modern) but why a precession?

Because that's how gyroscopes work. But remember, I'm not arguing for gyroscopic precession as an explanation for the Great Year.

And why a 25,000 year precession?

Try to keep up. That's how long it takes the solar system to orbit the Sun's binary companion.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Instead of maintaining a careful ignoral, if you'd looked at those sites I quoted you would have seen that, irrespective of exactly how they did it, there is plenty of evidence that the ancients did know about the Great Year.

For an old hand, Bri, you seem surprisingly ignorant of our little ways. You are not allowed to quote URLs for the good reason that, in practice, nobody bothers to look them up and plough through them. It's your job to report back, for instance
1. The actual evidence that the Great Year was 25,000 years (and not a modern trying to cram an Ancient quart into a modern pint pot)
2. The actual evidence that the Great Year was in fact what we call the Precession of the Equinoxes
3. (and most important of all) that it is not a case of Modern Academics seizing on a bit of trad wisdom to come up with an apparently 'scientific' theory.

the recent tsunami knocked the pole off its..er...pole.

I doubt it. Reference please.

This was quoted at the time in all the papers, telly progs etc. Much to my surprise since at the time everybody was assuring me that it would take gargantuan astronomical forces (like your binary star) to effect earth's orientation in space. It was widely discussed by us over on the other site at the time since it was huge evidence in favour of SLOT.

And why a 25,000 year precession?

Try to keep up. That's how long it takes the solar system to orbit the Sun's binary companion.

No, no, Bri, you can't instance a wild new theory to support your case. Have they calculated this and if so, how?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, the fact is that there is a precession of the equinoxes, or Great Year. If you have some evidence that everyone is wrong about this then I'm afraid the onus is upon you to produce the evidence.

I have merely pointed out that the fact of the Great Year can be explained in a different way. Personally I find this possibility plausible and fascinating, but then I don't have any pre-conceived notions to protect.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Have you looked at the evidence and does it not have some merit?http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/bri/research/evidence/lunarcycle.shtml

I don't have the brain power to follow this through, but if I understand the beginning of this aright, it's not that gyroscopic precession is denied: rather, it is assumed to take place and to be cancelled (relative to... something or other) by an opposite rotation of the entire Solar System.

Like I said, denying that precession takes place would be a tall order... but having it turn out that the third rock from the Sun's precession is exactly matched by the entire system is almost as eyebrow-raising. (It's bad enough that the Sun's and Moon's influences on tides and precession are almost the same: everywhere else in the Solar System, the Sun's and satellite's contributions are completely different orders of magnitude. But at least that is more likely to have contributed to life-like-this being here in the first place.)
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

4. they argue amongst themselves (learnedly) as to the cause(s)

Not just that: the contributions from every possible cause can be evaluated and either lined up with some observable, or marked 'negligible'.

5. they all agree that if 'yea much' is to be cyclical it will have to be of the order of 25,000 years per cycle.

No, the cyclicalness of the precession comes from the cyclicalness of the spin and orbits. It's all worked out with vectors and evaluated from known masses and oblateness and whatever.

It might be worth mentioning, though, that Newtonian vector analysis is neither uniformitarian nor catastrophist. Everything can be calculated for a given instant and/or extrapolated over any period. Saying it works out at 50 seconds of arc per year means if we carry on like this we'll complete a full cycle in 26000 years. But if at any point other factors become significant, then the calculations can be re-run and a new scenario touted around accordingly. If there is evidence that Earth has never completed a 26000 year precessional cycle or will not complete another one, the maths has nothing whatever to say about it.

(If a space-station adjusts it's orbit frequently with its rocket boosters, we don't say the basic equation no longer holds, we augment it with the extra forces: bits of elliptical obits interspersed with bits of 'powered flight'.)
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why hasn't the earth fallen off God's Index Finger?

Not that Earth's axis is standing on anything, as Brian intimated... momentum has to do with mass and velocity; angular momentum has to do with mass and angular velocity. The gyro's mass is small, so it needs a lot of revs. (Having as much mass as possible in a ring as far away as you can get from the axis helps, too.) Earth's rotation rate is small, but her mass huge.

If there is only gravity and inertia to explain rotation then it should have stopped spinning millions of years ago.

Why?

We can't even get to the moon and back with the assistance of rockets to provide momentum because a coupla tons of space ship in the "vacuum" of space can't maintain the momentum necessary; it requires boosters to do the job.

"Without the assistance of rockets"? Anyway, the speed needed to reach the Moon is almost escape velocity and is surely the fastest anyone has ever gone. Under what circumstances would rockets not be needed?

ALSO if you accept that it is a case of merely tangential force versus gravitational force...

See? I need to stick to my pedantry: it's not a case of tangential force versus gravitational force; it's just gravitational. A continuous force and a continuous acceleration. No centrifugal force as well.

Everything was propelled spherically from a Zero Point in linear motion into the void that existed before the BB.

How anything at all came to be clumped together into particles and objects is an unanswered problem in every cosmology. But I think you'll find Big-Bang-ists do not hold that things of any kind were propelled into a void.

Ergo Rotation cannot be explained without resorting to strange properties of matter that cannot be verified, like gravitational eddies and other dark matter forces.

That's news to me. (Gravitational collapse alone would result in bodies that spin: ordinary mechanics.) How does the Electric Universe clear this up?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But what I need to know is
a) how they managed to compute that this apparently linear movement was in fact a circular one and
b) that the whole cycle would take 25,000 years
.

It only takes 3 points on a curve to determine the centre and radius. I dunno how long it takes to get good enough data, but it's not hard in principle to distinguish an arc of a circle from a straight line or a different sort of curve.

To be honest I just don't see how this can be possible even assuming that constant observation was made over several hundred years, year by year. But if it is -- and it will have to be extremely obvious if the Ancients could do it without much in the way of instrumentation -- then tell me how.

Some centuries equates to some degrees and it doesn't take great instrumentation to reckon a few degrees. What they need is a way to record centuries old data... and I don't know how they are supposed to have done that. (Unless the observations go back far enough -- many thousands of years? -- to be expressed in gross terms like "the celestial pole is at Polaris now, but was at Harperius a hundred generations ago.")

A slice of pure epistemology: Supposing they could measure the position of the Equinox to a fraction of a degree (perhaps in terms of the hour when this star crosses that line... I dunno) and assumed it to be cyclical, from an axiom of their cosmology, then we would say they had in fact observed precession, but would we say they knew there was precession? (Did they need a Newtonian explanation in order to observe that there were regular tides?)
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

if I understand the beginning of this aright, it's not that gyroscopic precession is denied: rather, it is assumed to take place and to be cancelled (relative to... something or other) by an opposite rotation of the entire Solar System.

Hmmm, that's not how I understood it; do you mean there would be gyroscopic precession, but that the calculated total torque of Moon and Sun is exactly cancelled by the proposed binary orbit? Now that would be interesting. Any chance of posting the blob of text you're referring to?
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Any chance of posting the blob of text you're referring to?

I was afraid you'd say that. Maybe I got it wrong; on looking again, I can't quite get my head around it. (Diagrams would have been better than the tables of decimal points they provide.) What do you make of it?

"With the solar system curving through space at about 50 arc seconds per year, and apparently some light torque upon the Earth, the solar system is gradually reorienting the Earth to inertial space (or precessing) at this rate. It is the motion of the solar system that causes precession, not lunisolar forces...

If the Earth were coming up about 50 arc seconds short of the equinoctial point that it was at in the prior year, then lunar equations would show the Earth goes around the Sun 50 arc seconds short of 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. But they do not show this. They show that the Earth goes around the Sun 360 degrees in an equinoctial year. Yet anyone can see that the Earth in relation to inertial space appears to move around the Sun 360 degrees only in a sidereal year...

But the Moon does not lie. Its movement is exact and acts like a witness to the Earth's motion. The only way the Sun can appear to move around the Earth, and be confirmed by lunar data, is because the Earth is spinning on its axis. Likewise, the only way the Earth's axis can appear to precess or wobble relative to inertial space, and not wobble relative to the Sun as confirmed by lunar equations, is if the solar system (the reference frame that contains the Sun and Earth) is curving through space."


It does deny precession as the effect of a torque on the axis of a spinning body, doesn't it?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 9

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group