| |
Main
Date: 12 May 2007 16:15:42
From: Le`Vlogue
Subject: My comment on this group.
|
I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
rest of the planets.
now zOom out :)
|
|
| |
Date: 19 May 2007 20:51:45
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 19, 10:40 pm, Odysseus <odysseus1479...@yahoo-dot.com > wrote:
> In article <6doj435ipog3ug6aor9quijvbvitvcf...@4ax.com>,
> Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 May 2007 09:20:49 -0700, "Le`Vlogue :)"
> > <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
> > >-The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
> > >came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
> > >zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
>
> > I'm sure that there have been constellations (asterisms might be a
> > better word) for as long as people have been looking at the sky. The
> > zodiacal constellations are those that lie along the ecliptic- the path
> > in the sky that the Sun, Moon, and planets appear to travel along. In
> > most cases, 12 constellations were abstracted from this path because the
> > cultures that did so apparently broke the year into 12 parts. This is a
> > natural number of months based on a lunar calendar, which nearly all
> > ancient cultures used.
>
> Several Asian cultures divided the region of the ecliptic into 28 (or
> so) "mansions of the Moon", putatively representing the parts of the sky
> in which the Moon could be found on consecutve nights. The ancient
> Egyptians used a system of 37 "decans", marked by the position of the
> Sun at ten-day intervals. (The 37th decan had only five days,
> corresponding to the birthdays of five principal gods. According to one
> myth there were originally only 360 days in the year, the additional
> five being created out of 'borrowed' moonlight.)
>
> > >WHY did they name the stars after animals?
>
> > Gemini? Virgo? Libra? Sagittarius? Aquarius? None of these are animals.
> > But in the world of the cultures that named the constellations, animals
> > were a major fixture. Not surprising that many were so named. Consider
> > that when the European explorers first encountered the southern skies,
> > they created new constellations which tended to be named for what caught
> > their imagination then: scientific instruments and other products of
> > technology.
>
> Some may have been partly inspired by _Argo Navis_ (now broken down into
> Carina, Vela, and Puppis), which has drifted southward since ancient
> times, to equip the legendary exploratory vessel in a similar fashion to
> their own.
>
> > In the Chinese zodiac all the constellations are represented by animals.
>
> But the 28 _xiu_ include an assortment of animals, parts thereof,
> inanimate objects, and abstractions.
>
> --
> Odysseus- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I like your response, thanks. We should talk more often. ( No hurry).
No doubt I'm in here way over my head but I'm always willing to
listen. :)
|
| |
Date: 18 May 2007 07:29:41
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 17, 2:12 pm, esmartguy <tjto...@netzero.net > wrote:
> On May 12, 7:15 pm, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
> > there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
> > few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
> > the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
> > maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
> > want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
> > horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
> > way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
> > totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
> > who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
> > rest of the planets.
>
> > now zOom out :)
>
> 05-17-07
> Hi how about this if we compare all the planets in all the known
> universe's to living organism's like the one's found in side of the
> human body we as a intelligent race could learn a lot more about the
> universe in general. Wildfire Technologies
sounds cool . i guess. How would comparing planets have anytthing to
do with organisms? Who said I am intelligent? lol
|
| |
Date: 17 May 2007 12:12:13
From: esmartguy
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 12, 7:15 pm, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
> there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
> few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
> the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
> maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
> want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
> horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
> way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
> totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
> who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
> rest of the planets.
>
> now zOom out :)
05-17-07
Hi how about this if we compare all the planets in all the known
universe's to living organism's like the one's found in side of the
human body we as a intelligent race could learn a lot more about the
universe in general. Wildfire Technologies
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 04:13:15
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 15, 6:03 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On 15 May 2007 09:20:49 -0700, "Le`Vlogue :)"
>
> <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
> >-The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
> >came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
> >zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
>
> I'm sure that there have been constellations (asterisms might be a
> better word) for as long as people have been looking at the sky. The
> zodiacal constellations are those that lie along the ecliptic- the path
> in the sky that the Sun, Moon, and planets appear to travel along. In
> most cases, 12 constellations were abstracted from this path because the
> cultures that did so apparently broke the year into 12 parts. This is a
> natural number of months based on a lunar calendar, which nearly all
> ancient cultures used.
>
One of the oldest known structures created by humans is a clock that
accurately determines the annual cycle,it has done so for over 5 200
years and in a spectacular way -
http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/newgrang.htm
These ancient people could do what you cannot because you have the
annual cycle of the Earth forced into a calendar system and its 1461
day cycle,all wrapped up in constellational geometry.The ancient
principles which created the equable 24 hour day out of the annual
cycle were so strong and so stable that until the modern era,the
advancements of Harrison with clocks and the underlying principles
advanced by Huygens could stay above the celestial sphere systems
that were begining to dominate until we reach this era when there is
outright hostility to the insights of the great astronomical
timekeepers.
> >WHY did they name the stars after animals?
>
> Gemini? Virgo? Libra? Sagittarius? Aquarius? None of these are animals.
> But in the world of the cultures that named the constellations, animals
> were a major fixture. Not surprising that many were so named. Consider
> that when the European explorers first encountered the southern skies,
> they created new constellations which tended to be named for what caught
> their imagination then: scientific instruments and other products of
> technology.
>
> In the Chinese zodiac all the constellations are represented by animals.
>
> >-Are they the first to map stars? If not wHO was mapping stars before
> >them?
>
> Nobody knows who first mapped the stars, nor why they did so. It seems
> likely that the reasons were found in mythology, astrology, and time
> keeping. Of course, humans are pattern processors and classifiers, so
> it's not surprising we'd invent constellations. The roots of the western
> zodiac as we know it go back at least to the Babylonians, some 3000
> years ago. It was subsequently modified by the Greeks, creating the
> "modern" zodiac.
>
The great timekeeping astromers were and are pragmatic people ,if
they were not we would not have their systems to use and abuse
today.They had that great sense to split the difference between the
annual cycle and the calendrical cycle (which is astrologically
based),the former generating the equable 24 hour day and all its
consequences and the calendar system as a convenient linear
progression of cycles.When clocks emerged in the late 17th century,the
difference was forgotten and these numbskulls started to express the
cycles in terms of clocks and calendars.
> >-What names did THEY have for the star patterns?
>
> A few are known because of archaeological research. It's only necessary
> to look around the world today, and you'll see how many different
> constellation systems exist.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
Your kind hijacked the careful observations of so many people covering
so many civilisations and condensed them into a silly correlation that
says if a star in a constellation returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds then this most prove axial rotation is constant.It was never
that simple and while we still use the great systems created by our
timekeeping ancestors ,their pragmatic and gorgeous reasoning is now
used as a weapon to destroy structural astronomy and specifically the
Copernican insight and later refinements.
Are you not ecstatic that nobody will question you or object to the
destruction of the global part of timekeeping astronomy and the great
Western heliocentric additions ?.I guess you feel no remorse for the
effort of so many brilliant people as you go about your magnification
hobby.
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 03:39:37
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 16, 5:11 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 15, 5:48 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2007-05-13, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> > > at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> > > another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> > > shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> > > for stars?
>
> > If you're referring to the constellations in general then yes, they
> > are used extensively as a guide to the location of objects in the
> > sky. The difference is that in Astronomy we know that the
> > constellations don't mean anything, they're just random collections
> > of stars that we have chosen to group together for the sake of
> > convenience.
>
> You use constellational/celestial sphere geometry to justify the
> axial and orbital motion of the Earth -
>
> http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun...
>
> To make all the visible stars return to a location in 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds you are required to recognise the celestial sphere
> geometry on which the constellations are fixed.
>
> What you do not know is that to keep a star returning in 23 hours 56
> minutes each and every time you need the 1461 day calendrical cycle
> split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days for it to
> work .An intelligent person would look with horror at this system
> because justifying the Earth's axial and orbital motion through a
> calendrical cycle which has an alternate number of days every fourth
> year would surely alert them to the fact that something is badly
> wrong.
>
> > As an everyday example, I can give my current location as 53 48N,
> > 2 42W. Or I could say that I'm in Preston, England. The
> > longitude/latitude coordinates are certainly exact and can be used
> > for specifying arbitrary points on the Earth's surface in a precise
> > and uniform manner. [1]
>
> You location has an exactly longitude location has an exactly
> correlation with every other location on the planet which can be
> expressed as distance using a clock.For each degree you move further
> West the correlation will register as 4 minutes difference on a
> clock or 4 minutes less if you move East.
>
> What makes it a precise and uniform correlation is the original
> Equation of Time system and no astronomer would dare undermine this
> astronomical jewel.The most advanced heliocentric expression of the
> correlation was first presented by Huygens -
>
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
>
> > The name "Preston", OTOH, is completely meaningless. Unless you
> > happen to already know the town, you can't even locate the specified
> > position without reference to other sources. However, in everyday
> > use, which is more convenient? I'd tend to go with place names.
> > It's the same with the constellations: they don't mean anything
> > but they're a quick and convenient method for referring to a given
> > patch of sky.
>
> > --
> > Andrew Smallshaw
> > andr...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
> > [1] OK, this is a simplification, but a discussion of geoids is
> > hardly appropriate or relevant here.
>
> There is no precedent for this,there is no comparitive historical
> situation where the feebleminded have gained such dominance by
> destroying two of the greatest known Western astronomical
> achievements.Your kind introduced constellational geometry into
> heliocentric reasoning using a false correlation between the axial
> cycle and the return of a star to a meridian,it is false because it
> relies on the calendrical system to operate and subsequently reduces
> the entire pre-heliocentric and heliocentric reasoning to a sub-
> geocentric astrological framework.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
vOte for meeeeeeeeeeee!
|
| |
Date: 16 May 2007 03:11:30
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 15, 5:48 pm, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org > wrote:
> On 2007-05-13, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> > at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> > another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> > shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> > for stars?
>
> If you're referring to the constellations in general then yes, they
> are used extensively as a guide to the location of objects in the
> sky. The difference is that in Astronomy we know that the
> constellations don't mean anything, they're just random collections
> of stars that we have chosen to group together for the sake of
> convenience.
>
You use constellational/celestial sphere geometry to justify the
axial and orbital motion of the Earth -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
To make all the visible stars return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds you are required to recognise the celestial sphere
geometry on which the constellations are fixed.
What you do not know is that to keep a star returning in 23 hours 56
minutes each and every time you need the 1461 day calendrical cycle
split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days for it to
work .An intelligent person would look with horror at this system
because justifying the Earth's axial and orbital motion through a
calendrical cycle which has an alternate number of days every fourth
year would surely alert them to the fact that something is badly
wrong.
> As an everyday example, I can give my current location as 53 48N,
> 2 42W. Or I could say that I'm in Preston, England. The
> longitude/latitude coordinates are certainly exact and can be used
> for specifying arbitrary points on the Earth's surface in a precise
> and uniform manner. [1]
>
You location has an exactly longitude location has an exactly
correlation with every other location on the planet which can be
expressed as distance using a clock.For each degree you move further
West the correlation will register as 4 minutes difference on a
clock or 4 minutes less if you move East.
What makes it a precise and uniform correlation is the original
Equation of Time system and no astronomer would dare undermine this
astronomical jewel.The most advanced heliocentric expression of the
correlation was first presented by Huygens -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
> The name "Preston", OTOH, is completely meaningless. Unless you
> happen to already know the town, you can't even locate the specified
> position without reference to other sources. However, in everyday
> use, which is more convenient? I'd tend to go with place names.
> It's the same with the constellations: they don't mean anything
> but they're a quick and convenient method for referring to a given
> patch of sky.
>
> --
> Andrew Smallshaw
> andr...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
> [1] OK, this is a simplification, but a discussion of geoids is
> hardly appropriate or relevant here.
There is no precedent for this,there is no comparitive historical
situation where the feebleminded have gained such dominance by
destroying two of the greatest known Western astronomical
achievements.Your kind introduced constellational geometry into
heliocentric reasoning using a false correlation between the axial
cycle and the return of a star to a meridian,it is false because it
relies on the calendrical system to operate and subsequently reduces
the entire pre-heliocentric and heliocentric reasoning to a sub-
geocentric astrological framework.
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2007 13:16:01
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 15, 11:48 am, Andrew Smallshaw <andr...@sdf.lonestar.org >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-13, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> > at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> > another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> > shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> > for stars?
>
> If you're referring to the constellations in general then yes, they
> are used extensively as a guide to the location of objects in the
> sky. The difference is that in Astronomy we know that the
> constellations don't mean anything, they're just random collections
> of stars that we have chosen to group together for the sake of
> convenience.
>
> As an everyday example, I can give my current location as 53 48N,
> 2 42W. Or I could say that I'm in Preston, England. The
> longitude/latitude coordinates are certainly exact and can be used
> for specifying arbitrary points on the Earth's surface in a precise
> and uniform manner. [1]
>
> The name "Preston", OTOH, is completely meaningless. Unless you
> happen to already know the town, you can't even locate the specified
> position without reference to other sources. However, in everyday
> use, which is more convenient? I'd tend to go with place names.
> It's the same with the constellations: they don't mean anything
> but they're a quick and convenient method for referring to a given
> patch of sky.
>
> --
> Andrew Smallshaw
> andr...@sdf.lonestar.org
>
> [1] OK, this is a simplification, but a discussion of geoids is
> hardly appropriate or relevant here.
Very well said. Perfect feedback.
I just feel it's odd to have that perception nestled in my mind. what
if I could call the stars by different names to myself and if I have
to publish anything i'll use the generic terms. My instincts tell me
that there's more to the story. I see many other shapes in the sky. I
always thought how confusing it was trying to picture a an animal by
connecting the dots in the sky because they never matched.
Till then, my thirst is quenched for now.
The other thing that's on my mind is.. has anyone ever seen one of
those satelites floating in the sky? Some people can tell the
diffeerence between satelites and stars with the naked eye - the plot
thickens :)
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2007 09:20:49
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 15, 7:59 am, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On May 14, 9:02 pm, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 7:47 am, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I have so far learnt from everyone else that YES sometimes people use
> > horoscopes but it is not the basis for this group's astronomy. I was
> > surfing around for interesting groups when I posted the query.
>
> The thing that disappoints most of us is that you have failed to learn
> the difference between the zodiac (a collection of constellations) and
> a horoscope (a religious document).
>
> Austin
Thanks Austin, this is the piece of info I needed. I haven't done any
research because I thought somebody would put it across simply. The
difference between the zodiac and the horoscope I understand.
This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
-The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
-WHY did they name the stars after animals?
-Are they the first to map stars? If not wHO was mapping stars before
them?
-What names did THEY have for the star patterns?
& on and on and on :) Just give me the answer, an answer, ANY answer,
somebody ANYBODY and we'll see. No strings attached.
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 17:03:55
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On 15 May 2007 09:20:49 -0700, "Le`Vlogue :)"
<telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com > wrote:
>This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
>-The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
>came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
>zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
I'm sure that there have been constellations (asterisms might be a
better word) for as long as people have been looking at the sky. The
zodiacal constellations are those that lie along the ecliptic- the path
in the sky that the Sun, Moon, and planets appear to travel along. In
most cases, 12 constellations were abstracted from this path because the
cultures that did so apparently broke the year into 12 parts. This is a
natural number of months based on a lunar calendar, which nearly all
ancient cultures used.
>WHY did they name the stars after animals?
Gemini? Virgo? Libra? Sagittarius? Aquarius? None of these are animals.
But in the world of the cultures that named the constellations, animals
were a major fixture. Not surprising that many were so named. Consider
that when the European explorers first encountered the southern skies,
they created new constellations which tended to be named for what caught
their imagination then: scientific instruments and other products of
technology.
In the Chinese zodiac all the constellations are represented by animals.
>-Are they the first to map stars? If not wHO was mapping stars before
>them?
Nobody knows who first mapped the stars, nor why they did so. It seems
likely that the reasons were found in mythology, astrology, and time
keeping. Of course, humans are pattern processors and classifiers, so
it's not surprising we'd invent constellations. The roots of the western
zodiac as we know it go back at least to the Babylonians, some 3000
years ago. It was subsequently modified by the Greeks, creating the
"modern" zodiac.
>-What names did THEY have for the star patterns?
A few are known because of archaeological research. It's only necessary
to look around the world today, and you'll see how many different
constellation systems exist.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 20 May 2007 03:40:35
From: Odysseus
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
In article <6doj435ipog3ug6aor9quijvbvitvcfj81@4ax.com >,
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On 15 May 2007 09:20:49 -0700, "Le`Vlogue :)"
> <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
> >-The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
> >came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
> >zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
>
> I'm sure that there have been constellations (asterisms might be a
> better word) for as long as people have been looking at the sky. The
> zodiacal constellations are those that lie along the ecliptic- the path
> in the sky that the Sun, Moon, and planets appear to travel along. In
> most cases, 12 constellations were abstracted from this path because the
> cultures that did so apparently broke the year into 12 parts. This is a
> natural number of months based on a lunar calendar, which nearly all
> ancient cultures used.
Several Asian cultures divided the region of the ecliptic into 28 (or
so) "mansions of the Moon", putatively representing the parts of the sky
in which the Moon could be found on consecutve nights. The ancient
Egyptians used a system of 37 "decans", marked by the position of the
Sun at ten-day intervals. (The 37th decan had only five days,
corresponding to the birthdays of five principal gods. According to one
myth there were originally only 360 days in the year, the additional
five being created out of 'borrowed' moonlight.)
> >WHY did they name the stars after animals?
>
> Gemini? Virgo? Libra? Sagittarius? Aquarius? None of these are animals.
> But in the world of the cultures that named the constellations, animals
> were a major fixture. Not surprising that many were so named. Consider
> that when the European explorers first encountered the southern skies,
> they created new constellations which tended to be named for what caught
> their imagination then: scientific instruments and other products of
> technology.
Some may have been partly inspired by _Argo Navis_ (now broken down into
Carina, Vela, and Puppis), which has drifted southward since ancient
times, to equip the legendary exploratory vessel in a similar fashion to
their own.
> In the Chinese zodiac all the constellations are represented by animals.
But the 28 _xiu_ include an assortment of animals, parts thereof,
inanimate objects, and abstractions.
--
Odysseus
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 10:54:42
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
Le`Vlogue :) wrote:
> On May 15, 7:59 am, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 14, 9:02 pm, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 14, 7:47 am, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > I have so far learnt from everyone else that YES sometimes people use
>> > horoscopes but it is not the basis for this group's astronomy. I was
>> > surfing around for interesting groups when I posted the query.
>>
>> The thing that disappoints most of us is that you have failed to learn
>> the difference between the zodiac (a collection of constellations) and
>> a horoscope (a religious document).
>>
>> Austin
>
> Thanks Austin, this is the piece of info I needed. I haven't done any
> research because I thought somebody would put it across simply. The
> difference between the zodiac and the horoscope I understand.
>
> This is what I understand, correct me if I am wrong (anybody).
> -The zodiacs were named after animals (who knows why) and then people
> came along and started ascribing horoscopes to them. Ahhhhhh, ok! The
> zodiacs circle the Earth like a chandelier.
>
> -WHY did they name the stars after animals?
> -Are they the first to map stars? If not wHO was mapping stars before
> them?
> -What names did THEY have for the star patterns?
The Zodiac is simply the path along which the Sun and most of the
planets apparently move from the perspective of the Earth. Different
cultures have different names for the constellations along the Zodiac,
and those names are culturally determined. There are of course many
other constellations...
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
|
| |
Date: 15 May 2007 05:59:45
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 9:02 pm, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On May 14, 7:47 am, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I have so far learnt from everyone else that YES sometimes people use
> horoscopes but it is not the basis for this group's astronomy. I was
> surfing around for interesting groups when I posted the query.
The thing that disappoints most of us is that you have failed to learn
the difference between the zodiac (a collection of constellations) and
a horoscope (a religious document).
Austin
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 19:02:43
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 7:47 am, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're
> asking an honest question. Though I'd be more convinced
> if you asked under a real name, and gave more indication
> of having tried to find the answers *before* you asked.
>
> Anyway, oriel36's sentences have a very sophisticated
> shape that fools many people into thinking they must
> mean something. But in fact, they're entirely devoid of
> content. There are two camps on sci.astro.amateur:
> those who think he's a paranoid schizophrenic and
> those who think he's a computer program mimicking
> a paranoid schizophrenic. At some level, it probably
> doesn't matter.
>
> - Tony Flanders
I'll just step in here an adjust the settings a little bit. I heard
someone say "even in the purest water there is no fish." Oriel's issue
has to do with numbers which makes it quantitative, and he is using
this accuracy as a backbone for his arguments.
You can never argue with the math, if the numbers are straight then
bon voyage to you. I'd like to point out however that oriel36 has not
explained why some people use horoscopes to point out certain
celestial objects in the sky which was the original question to begin
with. So Oriel36 you can go burn your personal issues to a DVD and
then rewind it lol
I have so far learnt from everyone else that YES sometimes people use
horoscopes but it is not the basis for this group's astronomy. I was
surfing around for interesting groups when I posted the query.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank everyone for saying something, this
was a sure surprise :) I felt compelled to leave a note of thanks.
~The perfect answer has two side to it, which is good. Why? Well
because if it's one thing I can be sure of it is that the answer has
been narrowed down to two simple choices. I choose to stick with the
group because I'm still not satisfied with the answer I got. No doubt
I'll be loosing sleep over this again lol
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 10:42:33
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 6:18 pm, AustinMN <tacooper...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> > I cannot imagine what type of mind looks at the Earth rotate to noon
> > in 24 hours in order to justify why a star returns in 23 hours 56
> > minutes 04 seconds but it is a dominant cult view and it is rotting
> > Western civilisation from the inside.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Nobody in the scientific community does that. Nobody.
>
I am afraid they do which is why this pandemic mediocrity is so
destructive -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
The great astronomers,all of them,knew that no two noon cycles are
equal hence the Equation of Time correction which creates the 24 hour
day and keeps these days elapsing into the next 24 hour day.Maybe your
intelligence prevents you from acknowledging this as the 24 hours or
Monday elapse into the 24 hours of Tuesday ect but the correlation
which ties clocks to the axial cycle at precisely 15 degrees per hour
are an extension of that basic astronomical principle.
You want an axial cycle fixed to the return of a star or a noon cycle
which is exactly 24 hours long and does not require the Equation of
Time correction then good for you,you can find Huygens and Harrison
insane along with me .
Are you clear why you do not use clocks to determine the axial and
orbital motion of the Earth ?.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 10:18:46
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 10:52 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 14, 1:47 pm, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
>
> > I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're
> > asking an honest question. Though I'd be more convinced
> > if you asked under a real name, and gave more indication
> > of having tried to find the answers *before* you asked.
>
> > Anyway, oriel36's sentences have a very sophisticated
> > shape that fools many people into thinking they must
> > mean something. But in fact, they're entirely devoid of
> > content. There are two camps on sci.astro.amateur:
> > those who think he's a paranoid schizophrenic and
> > those who think he's a computer program mimicking
> > a paranoid schizophrenic. At some level, it probably
> > doesn't matter.
I don't fit either camp; I believe he has Asperger's Syndrome.
> There is only one camp in sci.astro.amateur and it has a distinctly
> astrological flavor.
This is nonsense, but irrelevant.
> How did a group of people manage to overturn two
> of the greatest Western astronomical achievements and develop an idea
> for the motions of the Earth based on celestial sphere geometry is off
> the scale when it comes to newsworthy items.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
>
> I cannot imagine what type of mind looks at the Earth rotate to noon
> in 24 hours in order to justify why a star returns in 23 hours 56
> minutes 04 seconds but it is a dominant cult view and it is rotting
> Western civilisation from the inside.- Hide quoted text -
Nobody in the scientific community does that. Nobody.
The definition for a second (time):
::The duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding
to
::the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
of the
::caesium-133 atom. This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest
at
::a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at
zero
::magnetic field. The second thus defined is equivalent to the
ephemeris
::second.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second >
A minute is 60 seconds, and an hour is 60 minutes, so 24 hours is
86,400 seconds or 794,243,384,928,000 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.
Notice, oriel, that it is NOT based on the rotation of the Earth.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 10:04:55
From: AustinMN
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 13, 2:55 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 13, 3:10 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:> On=
13 May 2007 02:51:12 -0700, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
>
> > >I had a telescope that had only two knobs to turn. I did some
> > >surfing and came up with this: astronomy =B7 noun the science of
> > >celestial objects, space, and the physical universe.
>
> > A simplification, but fair enough. The important word in that definition
> > is "science", which describes a method of studying that includes self
> > correction. Subjects which are investigated scientifically become
> > progressively better understood.
>
> I would take great pleasure if the original poster could instruct you
> that we can see the orbital motion of the Earth and that of the other
> planets around the Sun just fine -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> He may even tell you that you do not need a hypothetical observer
> looking out from Sun to explain the apparent motion of the other
> planets like Newton thought -
>
> "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
>
> All he has to do is use the same judgement you use every day on a
> traffic roundabout and apply the same principle to the slower version
> of planetary motion around the Sun.If you practice what you preach you
> will correct the Newtonian error or perhaps bet that the guy is so
> dumb that he will not be capable of figuring out what is correct and
> what is not.
Oriel's feeback correction process is missing, so he is not
scientific.
Austin
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 08:52:50
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 1:47 pm, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
>
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're
> asking an honest question. Though I'd be more convinced
> if you asked under a real name, and gave more indication
> of having tried to find the answers *before* you asked.
>
> Anyway, oriel36's sentences have a very sophisticated
> shape that fools many people into thinking they must
> mean something. But in fact, they're entirely devoid of
> content. There are two camps on sci.astro.amateur:
> those who think he's a paranoid schizophrenic and
> those who think he's a computer program mimicking
> a paranoid schizophrenic. At some level, it probably
> doesn't matter.
>
> - Tony Flanders
There is only one camp in sci.astro.amateur and it has a distinctly
astrological flavor.How did a group of people manage to overturn two
of the greatest Western astronomical achievements and develop an idea
for the motions of the Earth based on celestial sphere geometry is off
the scale when it comes to newsworthy items.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
I cannot imagine what type of mind looks at the Earth rotate to noon
in 24 hours in order to justify why a star returns in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds but it is a dominant cult view and it is rotting
Western civilisation from the inside.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 05:47:54
From:
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're
asking an honest question. Though I'd be more convinced
if you asked under a real name, and gave more indication
of having tried to find the answers *before* you asked.
Anyway, oriel36's sentences have a very sophisticated
shape that fools many people into thinking they must
mean something. But in fact, they're entirely devoid of
content. There are two camps on sci.astro.amateur:
those who think he's a paranoid schizophrenic and
those who think he's a computer program mimicking
a paranoid schizophrenic. At some level, it probably
doesn't matter.
- Tony Flanders
|
| | |
Date: 16 May 2007 00:30:59
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
Anyway, oriel36's sentences have a very sophisticated
> shape that fools many people into thinking they must
> mean something. But in fact, they're entirely devoid of
> content. There are two camps on sci.astro.amateur:
> those who think he's a paranoid schizophrenic and
> those who think he's a computer program mimicking
> a paranoid schizophrenic. At some level, it probably
> doesn't matter.
>
> - Tony Flanders
>
Oriel36 seems to be a sophisticated computer science student's attempt at
artificial intelligence. It is very entertaining. :-)
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 05:30:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 12:34 pm, wsnel...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> <edited>
>
>
>
> > I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
>
> If Oreil's posts start making sense to you, start worrying.
If the justification for the Earth's axial and orbital motion using
clocks makes sense to you then I assure you it is unbridled insanity
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
There is no known precedent for any people ,in any era, who believe
that the noon axial cycle is 24 hours exactly but in this era it is
the dominant perspective.
This is not just the correlation which keeps clocks in sync with the
axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees,the 'sidereal' view of the Earth's
motions is the single greatest rejection of the Copernican insights
and the Keplerian refinements.I do not know of any greater disaster
ever to visit Western civilisation than the mindnumbingly dumb
astrologiocal view which forces the Earth's motions into a 23 hours 56
minute 04 second constelattional framework.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 04:34:26
From:
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 4:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com >
wrote:
<edited >
>
> I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
If Oreil's posts start making sense to you, start worrying.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 03:54:02
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 14, 9:16 am, "Le`Vlogue :)" <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> Every star in those constellations will return in 23 hours 56 minutes
> 04 seconds and it does not seem to bother them that it needs an
> average 1461 day cycle split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of
> 366 days to work nor does it stop them from using a star's return to
> justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth.
>
> I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time
The Sun does not return to noon in 24 hours exactly yet that is how
the big scientific institutions determine that a star returns in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds as the above Wiki article indicates,a
wider set of references can be found here -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
In contrast to this false 'sidereal' conception which emerged in the
late 17th century is the treatise of Huygens which accurately
expresses what has been known since remote antiquity - the cycles from
noon to noon are not 24 hours -
'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much
they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.'
" 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. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days,
a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c.
(the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that
revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to
which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is
regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation,"
http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html
When you ask questions here,you will be asking people who actually
believe that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56
minutes 04 seconds and subsequently rotates to noon in 24 hours
exactly.They make up the difference by showing that the orbital motion
of the Earth makes up the 3 min 56 sec/.986 degee difference -
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/images/sidereal_day.gif
I will make it easy for you.If you agree with the astrologically based
23 hour 56 minute 04 second value you will find your place
comfortably among the magnification/astrophotography guys here but
you will be rejecting the reasoning of the great astronomers such as
Copernicus and Huygens in doing so.I am sure the people who
indoctrinate you will be well pleased that there are many more like
you out there,I do not say this in a condescending way but merely
remark that you seem to accept the false authority without question.
|
| |
Date: 14 May 2007 01:16:00
From: Le`Vlogue :)
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
Every star in those constellations will return in 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds and it does not seem to bother them that it needs an
average 1461 day cycle split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of
366 days to work nor does it stop them from using a star's return to
justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth.
I'm still trying to figure this out. HeLp!!
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 21:30:42
From: Susan
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On 12 May 2007 16:15:42 -0700, Le`Vlogue
<telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com > wrote:
Yes, they're bogus.
>I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
>there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
>few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
>the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
>maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
>want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
>horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
>way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
>totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
>who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
>rest of the planets.
>
>now zOom out :)
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 12:55:33
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 13, 3:10 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On 13 May 2007 02:51:12 -0700, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I had a telescope that had only two knobs to turn. I did some
> >surfing and came up with this: astronomy =B7 noun the science of
> >celestial objects, space, and the physical universe.
>
> A simplification, but fair enough. The important word in that definition
> is "science", which describes a method of studying that includes self
> correction. Subjects which are investigated scientifically become
> progressively better understood.
>
I would take great pleasure if the original poster could instruct you
that we can see the orbital motion of the Earth and that of the other
planets around the Sun just fine -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
He may even tell you that you do not need a hypothetical observer
looking out from Sun to explain the apparent motion of the other
planets like Newton thought -
"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
All he has to do is use the same judgement you use every day on a
traffic roundabout and apply the same principle to the slower version
of planetary motion around the Sun.If you practice what you preach you
will correct the Newtonian error or perhaps bet that the guy is so
dumb that he will not be capable of figuring out what is correct and
what is not.
> > astrology =B7 noun the study of the movements and relative
> >positions of celestial bodies and their supposed influence on human
> >affairs.
>
> Notice that the word "science" is missing from this definition?
> Astrology is a religion. Like all religion, it lacks any method of
> correction. It is simply dogma, taken on faith or not at all. It is
> sometimes embraced by pseudoscientists (as are other religions) who
> attempt to explain its operation in scientific sounding words. But the
> feedback correction process is missing, so it isn't science at all.
>
> >Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> >at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> >another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> >shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> >for stars?
>
> You are talking about star charts. These are just maps used as a guide
> to finding objects in the sky. The constellations (of which there are
> many more than just the 12 or 13 of the Zodiac) are reference point in
> most star charts. Horoscopes are analyses of planet positions that are
> supposed to provide information about a person's personality or future.
> A horoscope has no astronomical use, and even an astronomer who believed
> in astrology wouldn't use one out under the stars.
>
> >What are we looking at here? Is this group for people who jut like to
> >look at stars?
>
> This is a group of people interested in astronomy. That includes many
> things. Discussing the state of astronomical knowledge. Building and
> buying astronomical instruments. Observing techniques (which are far
> more complex than simply aiming and looking). Imaging techniques.
> Scientific investigation.
>
> >I'm IN. all I need now is a good quality computer
> >compatible telescope that I could type coordinates into and take
> >photographs.
>
> It's a lot more complicated than "all I need now"!
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 03:40:29
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 13, 10:51 am, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On May 12, 6:15 pm, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
> > there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
> > few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
> > the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
> > maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
> > want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
> > horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
> > way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
> > totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
> > who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
> > rest of the planets.
>
> > now zOom out :)
>
> OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH ! :o :/ :I :)
> So this place is just about techniques? How many techniques can you
> have? I had a telescope that had only two knobs to turn. I did some
> surfing and came up with this: > astronomy =B7 noun the science of
> celestial objects, space, and the physical universe.
> > astrology =B7 noun the study of the movements and relative
> positions of celestial bodies and their supposed influence on human
> affairs.
>
> Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> for stars?
>
> What are we looking at here? Is this group for people who jut like to
> look at stars? I'm IN. all I need now is a good quality computer
> compatible telescope that I could type coordinates into and take
> photographs.
>
> I still don't understand what you people are talking about I'll just
> stick around and snap some photos :)
> cheque-you-later
Sure they use the same astrological framework as those who make
horoscope 'predictions' but they probably will not or cannot admit
it .
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celes=
tial_sphere_anim.gif
Every star in those constellations will return in 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds and it does not seem to bother them that it needs an
average 1461 day cycle split into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of
366 days to work nor does it stop them from using a star's return to
justify the axial and orbital motion of the Earth.
If you want to be an astronomer,you forget the stellar background
altogether and enjoy the great insight of Copernicus which now can be
presented using time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the slower
moving Jupiter and the even slower forward moving Saturn over the
course of a year -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
If you find yourself thinking of a traffic roundabout and how a faster
car in an inner lane overtakes a slower moving cars in an outer lane
then you are on the road to being a proper astronomer.All these guys
do here is memorise astrological constellations and pretend that
magnification is astronomy,in any case,your call.
|
| |
Date: 13 May 2007 02:51:12
From: Le`Vlogue
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On May 12, 6:15 pm, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
> there are some cool pictures though, that's good. There will be only a
> few people who browse all the same groups and can relate. Then we have
> the specialists group within the general group. From this elite group
> maybe one person filters out to fit in with all the other groups. I
> want to contribute too the group. Here is an idea for you > are
> horoscopes BOGUSSSSSS ? The reason I say that is because from wayyyyy
> way over on the other side of the universe I bet the stars look
> totally different. That means that IF there are life forms out there
> who come to earth to visit, we'd be in a little box all foreign to the
> rest of the planets.
>
> now zOom out :)
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHH ! :o :/ :I :)
So this place is just about techniques? How many techniques can you
have? I had a telescope that had only two knobs to turn. I did some
surfing and came up with this: > astronomy =B7 noun the science of
celestial objects, space, and the physical universe.
> astrology =B7 noun the study of the movements and relative
positions of celestial bodies and their supposed influence on human
affairs.
Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
for stars?
What are we looking at here? Is this group for people who jut like to
look at stars? I'm IN. all I need now is a good quality computer
compatible telescope that I could type coordinates into and take
photographs.
I still don't understand what you people are talking about I'll just
stick around and snap some photos :)
cheque-you-later
|
| | |
Date: 15 May 2007 16:48:16
From: Andrew Smallshaw
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On 2007-05-13, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
> at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
> another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
> shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
> for stars?
If you're referring to the constellations in general then yes, they
are used extensively as a guide to the location of objects in the
sky. The difference is that in Astronomy we know that the
constellations don't mean anything, they're just random collections
of stars that we have chosen to group together for the sake of
convenience.
As an everyday example, I can give my current location as 53 48N,
2 42W. Or I could say that I'm in Preston, England. The
longitude/latitude coordinates are certainly exact and can be used
for specifying arbitrary points on the Earth's surface in a precise
and uniform manner. [1]
The name "Preston", OTOH, is completely meaningless. Unless you
happen to already know the town, you can't even locate the specified
position without reference to other sources. However, in everyday
use, which is more convenient? I'd tend to go with place names.
It's the same with the constellations: they don't mean anything
but they're a quick and convenient method for referring to a given
patch of sky.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org
[1] OK, this is a simplification, but a discussion of geoids is
hardly appropriate or relevant here.
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 14:10:43
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
On 13 May 2007 02:51:12 -0700, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com >
wrote:
>I had a telescope that had only two knobs to turn. I did some
>surfing and came up with this: astronomy · noun the science of
>celestial objects, space, and the physical universe.
A simplification, but fair enough. The important word in that definition
is "science", which describes a method of studying that includes self
correction. Subjects which are investigated scientifically become
progressively better understood.
> astrology · noun the study of the movements and relative
>positions of celestial bodies and their supposed influence on human
>affairs.
Notice that the word "science" is missing from this definition?
Astrology is a religion. Like all religion, it lacks any method of
correction. It is simply dogma, taken on faith or not at all. It is
sometimes embraced by pseudoscientists (as are other religions) who
attempt to explain its operation in scientific sounding words. But the
feedback correction process is missing, so it isn't science at all.
>Let me ask you people a question - From what I read in space magazines
>at the library they always use horoscope stars as a reference point to
>another place. Is that all the time or just a few people who use these
>shapes like the big dipper, or capricorn, or sagitarius etc. to look
>for stars?
You are talking about star charts. These are just maps used as a guide
to finding objects in the sky. The constellations (of which there are
many more than just the 12 or 13 of the Zodiac) are reference point in
most star charts. Horoscopes are analyses of planet positions that are
supposed to provide information about a person's personality or future.
A horoscope has no astronomical use, and even an astronomer who believed
in astrology wouldn't use one out under the stars.
>What are we looking at here? Is this group for people who jut like to
>look at stars?
This is a group of people interested in astronomy. That includes many
things. Discussing the state of astronomical knowledge. Building and
buying astronomical instruments. Observing techniques (which are far
more complex than simply aiming and looking). Imaging techniques.
Scientific investigation.
>I'm IN. all I need now is a good quality computer
>compatible telescope that I could type coordinates into and take
>photographs.
It's a lot more complicated than "all I need now"!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 13 May 2007 06:40:12
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
I own 3 Dobsonian Telescopes and While I may use the name of a group of
stars to find one star I still do NOT use any form of "horoscope" because
they are fake and mean nothing. I will use my star maps to look at something
I have not seen for some time. Last night I was using my 10 inch F5 Dob to
look at Jupiter and I did not need anykind of map for it, for
1. it was the brighest opject in the sky at the time and
2. Once I saw it I saw the planet and it's moons so I knew what I was
viewing.
Astronomy is a true "Science" while "astrology" is a fake belife system
that is NOT based on a ture Science. It is not based on anything that is
real, it has a grand total of ZERO to deal with SuperNova's, Black Holes, or
any of the others things that are being researched in the field of
Astronomy.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
"Le`Vlogue" <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179049872.684502.130170@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 6:15 pm, Le`Vlogue <telecommuniqueas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I never understand anything you people are talking about in here,
|
| |
Date: 12 May 2007 17:21:44
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
This newsgrou is about telescopes and such, horoscopes are total trash and
no one here but the faked djm uses them or push'es them on people. WE DO NOT
BELIVE IN STUPID HOROSCPES for you can't look threw one to see a far star.
This is S.A.A. not Alt.astronomy
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
"Le`Vlogue" <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com > is in wrong group.
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 20:07:04
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
Agreed. I threw mine in the garbage aftere trying to look threw it!!
Sorry, I couldn't help it! :-)
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:suednXYItpVix9vbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@inreach.com...
> This newsgrou is about telescopes and such, horoscopes are total trash and
> no one here but the faked djm uses them or push'es them on people. WE DO
> NOT BELIVE IN STUPID HOROSCPES for you can't look threw one to see a far
> star.
> This is S.A.A. not Alt.astronomy
>
>
>
> --
>
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> The Church of Eternity
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
> AD World
> http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
>
>
> "Le`Vlogue" <telecommuniqueasian@gmail.com> is in wrong group.
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2007 20:38:15
From: Greg Neill
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:suednXYItpVix9vbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@inreach.com...
> This newsgrou is about telescopes and such, horoscopes are total trash and
> no one here but the faked djm uses them or push'es them on people. WE DO
NOT
> BELIVE IN STUPID HOROSCPES for you can't look threw one to see a far star.
> This is S.A.A. not Alt.astronomy
I hope you meant alt.ASTROLOGY, not ASTRONOMY.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 19:10:58
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
No I said ALT.Astronomy, the newsgroup that has just about everykind of kook
on it and I've seen dozens of posts in one day that will have a grand total
of ZERO to do with astronomy. if you've never seen some of the off the wall
stuff posted there, just be glad.
--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
AD World
http://www.adworld.netfirms.com/
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:46465d69$0$7608$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
> news:suednXYItpVix9vbnZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@inreach.com...
>> This newsgrou is about telescopes and such, horoscopes are total trash
>> and
>> no one here but the faked djm uses them or push'es them on people. WE DO
> NOT
>> BELIVE IN STUPID HOROSCPES for you can't look threw one to see a far
>> star.
>> This is S.A.A. not Alt.astronomy
>
> I hope you meant alt.ASTROLOGY, not ASTRONOMY.
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 12 May 2007 20:45:39
From: Marty
Subject: Re: My comment on this group.
|
>This is S.A.A. not Alt.astronomy
>I hope you meant alt.ASTROLOGY, not
> ASTRONOMY.
Well, alt.astronomy went down the toilet a long time ago anyway. I have
no idea why anybody goes there anymore.
BTW, I saw a rather bizarre book at the supermarket checkout
counter today... "The Idiot's Guide to Astrology." That's so funny on
several levels... :D
Marty
|
|
