View previous topic :: View next topic |
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
Writing books sucks. You spend years writing 'em, then nobody reads 'em. Shooting an hour long DVD on the other hand is a piece of piss and is then effortlessly disseminated worldwide.
So much for theory. Your part in this revolutionary new direction is to have a look at these two video clips -- they only last an hour each and let's face it you are unlikely to have anything more pressing to do -- and then provide your comments (either here, or if you're shy to the two individuals personally). You should temper extreme negativity with consideration-for-fragile-authorial-egos but otherwise say what you really think ie don't go all British when it comes to expressing wild enthusiasm.
The first is about how we presently but erroneously look at the Solar System and is by Mick Harper
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-8941010334953165322&hl=nl
The other is the (final) truth about the Bimini Road and is by Ishmael
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=461964088691248615&hl=nl
And remember, if you play your cards right you might just get to make a DVD all of your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
Wow.... lot to take in. Brilliant Mick - like THOBR it makes such sense! Ishmael's was good too, best interpretation of Bimini I have seen........ PS - to be an Applied Epistemologist do you have to wear black?
On the planet thing..... explains why the earth is still a bit warm inside.. is that why it's hardened on the crust and has expanded since then!!??
Could the precession of the earth be a remnant of the slightly off plane trajectory of the earthstar when it was captured? still wobbling after all this time? _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Pulp History wrote: | ...to be an Applied Epistemologist do you have to wear black? |
I insist on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
Apparently Rene Descartes came up with the theory of planets being dead stars back in the 17th century - but everybody has apparently proved him wrong!! _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I liked the video. I wonder why no one has ever thought of all the bodies as being all the same thing, just in various degrees of coldness. I suppose there is something less aesthetic or less poetic or less numinous about them all being the same thing.
But is the sun a binary star? I ask this because I thought that is what MJ Harper was talking about at roughly the 50-55 min mark in the video. So I googled it and read about it.
I came across this site http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1126 which proposes that the sun is a binary star in order to best explain the observed data on precession of the equinoxes. And even though the other star hasn't been detected it is proposed that it could be 1) a brown dwarf, 2) a black hole, or 3) some form of dark matter with which science is not yet familiar.
So from the video it seems we would reject 2 and 3 and pick 1 - the sun is paired with a brown dwarf which hasn't been detected yet.
But how do binary stars fit in with SCUM in general? Are they just any two arbitrarily selected bodies in a given solar system going around the same thing? Does this video and SCUM imply that you could select any two orbiting things in a solar system and call them a binary star? (Or any 3 objects for that matter and call them a trinary star...etc). Or is this interpretation incorrect? If this interpretation is correct, that the selection of a binary star is arbitrary, then it doesn't seem to explain anything about the precession of the equinoxes.
Interestingly enough, one of the scientists says the following in relation to the case of the observations of the precession of the equinoxes: "In this case, Occam's Razor requires consideration of the binary star model, which is simpler and matches observed data better than current theory. We are not aware of any evidence that is inconsistent with the binary star hypothesis."
(On a final note, after I watched the Harper video again, I realized he was talking about "Barnard's star" not "binary star". I guess the British accent made them sound the same to Canadian ears. But nonetheless I thought I'd raise a point about the binary star anyway.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to mention a small technical note on the space video. I found that I had to make the viewing window quite small to read any of the text. When the window was big, the text was pixellated and not readable. Is there something I should have set in my browser, or did everyone find this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to mention a small technical note on the space video. I found that I had to make the viewing window quite small to read any of the text. When the window was big, the text was pixellated and not readable. Is there something I should have set in my browser, or did everyone find this? |
I also found the quality of the picture much better when small. But that applies to everything on the net as opposed to something you watch on TV.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Endless Rocking wrote:
So from the video it seems we would reject 2 and 3 and pick 1 - the sun is paired with a brown dwarf which hasn't been detected yet | .
Depends where you are looking.
The easiest place to hide a Brown Dwarf is in plain sight.
Just apply one of Newton's laws and you'll find it.
Here's a hint.
Binary Systems are like families. There is a Daddy and a Mummy and .....
Well you get the picture.
What can't Daddies do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
multi-task?? _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
If you asked the average Space Scientist (and how thoroughly average they are) the status of The Precession of the Equinoxes, (s)he would say that it is an observed phenomenon. This is quite untrue, it is in fact a piece of Necessary Uniformitarianian Dogma.
When we observe something moving from A to B, let's say a vehicle travelling up Ladbroke Grove, we draw the following conclusions:
1) if a small child we assume that the vehicle started at A and finished at B
2) if a grown-up, we assume that the vehicle started at Z (a point before A) and will finish at C (a point after B).
In other words as we grow up we begin to appreciate that the world exists independently of our viewing of it.
3) if a 'scientist', we assume that the situation actually holds a great many possibilities (including that the child was right all along at the quantum level) but the relevant scientist, in this case a traffic analyst, will be able to give us the inherent probability that at some stage in the future that vehicle will be observed to go from B to A. And if it's a number 52 bus that's a near certainty.
This is an example of Uniformitarianism since the traffic analyst is relying on the future being the same as the past and that all his past observations that most vehicles retrace their steps eventually, and in the case of buses almost always do, will hold true for the future.
But what happens when A to B is such a huge journey that nobody has been around long enough to record whether anything returns whence it came? Well...if you are a Uniformitarianist, it will depend. If it's the Universe expanding and that solves a lot of your problems, you might say that the Universe will just keep on expanding and that nothing will ever retrace its steps.
However if it's the earth moving its orientation in space, you are in a spot of bother. Your first instinct is to say the earth will keep on moving in the direction you have observed but this will mean the earth will eventually be upside down and Uniformitarianism says that the Solar System has always been the way it is now (including everything being the same way up) since it was formed several thousand million years ago...so that's OUT!
The solution to this spot of bother is simple: you do what Ptolomy did (and what all adacemics in trouble do), you add an epicycle. In other words, yes the earth will keep on moving the way it is moving but cyclically so we can have our cake and eat it. You then give this entirely notional epicycle a groovy sounding name (The Precession of the Equinoxes), you teach it as observed fact for a coupla generations of students and lo! it is observed fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
From Wiki
The Earth goes through one complete precession cycle in a period of approximately 25,800 years, during which the positions of stars as measured in the equatorial coordinate system will slowly change; the change is actually due to the change of the coordinates. Over this cycle the Earth's north axial pole moves from where it is now, within 1° of Polaris, in a circle around the ecliptic pole, with an angular radius of about 23.5 degrees (or approximately 23 degrees 27 arcminutes [1]). The shift is 1 degree in 180 years, where the angle is taken from the observer, not from the center of the circle. |
So if the degree of change is 1 degree in 180 years, then surely it is observable and recorded - so is Mick's contention that the move itself is not disputed, but that we have no way of knowing whether the movement will reverse in future, but may keep going in the direction it is travelling in now? _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
Also, whilst I'm here...... if the dead stars / planets moved into the solar system from further afield, then why have they 'apparently' stopped moving inwards? Why do they not collide if the gravitational pull remains the same? Or are all the planets eventually going to collide with the sun? Or is there some other force at play keeping the planets spaced apart? _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
So if the degree of change is 1 degree in 180 years |
Yes, but how many 180-year periods have been observed? One degree of change is certainly observable without any fancy equipment but it does presuppose a longish period of constant observation. So, are we talking two 180 year periods (telescopes, modern astronomy) or ten (Ptolomy) or twenty (Babylonians)?
then surely it is observable and recorded - |
that it moves is observed and recorded (and conceded by me)
so is Mick's contention that the move itself is not disputed, but that we have no way of knowing whether the movement will reverse in future, but may keep going in the direction it is travelling in now? |
Don't entirely follow your point here but clearly the whole matter depends on whether the figure of 25,800 is a scientific one. Does anyone know how 'they' came up with it? (Including who 'they' are.)
Also, whilst I'm here...... if the dead stars / planets moved into the solar system from further afield, then why have they 'apparently' stopped moving inwards? Why do they not collide if the gravitational pull remains the same? Or are all the planets eventually going to collide with the sun? Or is there some other force at play keeping the planets spaced apart? |
This is a vexed question for both SCUM and orthodoxy. The assumption for both of us is that somehow spin prevents gravity. However, the only time we observed an event of this sort was when Hale-Bopp (was it?) crashed into Jupiter. So personally I'm keeping strictly mum on this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pulp History
In: Wales
|
|
|
|
I assume that the centrifugal force from the rotation forces the planet out / away from the sun (just as a child on a roundabout will fly off if they don't hold on).
Now for the planet to stay in orbit, surely the force of gravity (pulling in) must be equal to the centrifugal force (pushing out). So that would mean that the centrifugal force of the planet close to the sun must be greater than planets further away - spinning faster?
But the planets themselves must have a gravitational force, so planets further out must impose an outward pull on nearby planets (?), so how come, when the planets are in alignment say, planets do not move out of their current orbits?
If the planets either side of a given planet, say earth, give a cumulative total gravitational pull in a given direction (towards the sun, or away from it) and this is all balanced so that the planet stays in its orbit, then what of the last planet in the sequence - surely with nothing outside it pulling away, then it should move further in and collide?
Mmmm. I need time to think!! _________________ Question everything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|