| |
Main
Date: 22 Jul 2006 00:35:45
From: T.T.
Subject: Why the sun is hot
|
Why the Sun is hot.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
The Sun circles the Earth once every 24 hours in a roughly circular orbit.
(these are old figures, but once had the authority of the Church to support
them)
The length of this circular orbit is roughly 587 million miles.
Therefore the speed of the Sun as it circles the Earth is roughly 24 million
miles per hour.
Anything travelling at this speed, as the Sun has done for the last 6000
years, must get hot.
Q.E.D.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:01:48
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:35:45 GMT, "T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Why the Sun is hot...
Congratulations. I don't think I've ever encountered so many errors of
fact and logic expressed in so few words. Trolls and kooks everywhere
could take lessons from you.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 04:21:11
From: MThomas
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote in message
news:6353c2p5ebu25llafu8lid94irs9goo74u@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:35:45 GMT, "T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Why the Sun is hot...
>
> Congratulations. I don't think I've ever encountered so many errors of
> fact and logic expressed in so few words. Trolls and kooks everywhere
> could take lessons from you.
>
>
And they say there's no such thing as a dumb question.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 02:03:59
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
T.T. wrote:
> Why the Sun is hot.
>
> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
>
Tony Troll, the average distance is 149,597,870.691 kilometers.
You argument goes down the toilet from there!
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 07:36:17
From: William Hamblen
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
On 2006-07-22, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote:
> T.T. wrote:
>> Why the Sun is hot.
>>
>> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
>>
>
> Tony Troll, the average distance is 149,597,870.691 kilometers.
> You argument goes down the toilet from there!
The stars must be even hotter because they are so much farther
away. Things are simply whizzing around up there.
Bud
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 14:56:31
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
William Hamblen <wrhamblen@comcast.net > wrote:
>On 2006-07-22, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> T.T. wrote:
>>> Why the Sun is hot.
>>>
>>> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
>>>
>>
>> Tony Troll, the average distance is 149,597,870.691 kilometers.
>> You argument goes down the toilet from there!
>
>The stars must be even hotter because they are so much farther
>away. Things are simply whizzing around up there.
>
Everything is whizzing except certain folks' sense of humour....
Eugene L Griessel
Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 14:49:08
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
Why are there so many Trolls here lately? It seems that all of the folks
here in this newsgroup always swallow the troll-bait. If you keep feeding
the trolls, they won't ever go away.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 09:25:02
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
William Hamblen wrote:
> The stars must be even hotter because they are so much farther
> away. Things are simply whizzing around up there.
Just thank the stars the solar winds are able to provide the necessary
cooling effect on the "home office."
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| |
Date: 21 Jul 2006 17:33:40
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
T.T. wrote:
> Why the Sun is hot.
>
> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
>
> The Sun circles the Earth once every 24 hours in a roughly circular orbit.
> (these are old figures, but once had the authority of the Church to support
> them)
>
> The length of this circular orbit is roughly 587 million miles.
>
> Therefore the speed of the Sun as it circles the Earth is roughly 24 million
> miles per hour.
>
> Anything travelling at this speed, as the Sun has done for the last 6000
> years, must get hot.
>
> Q.E.D.
But the Sun's distance is closer to 93 million miles. Therefore your
argument falls apart, the Sun is in fact cold, and we don't exist.
Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Delendum)
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:10:12
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>T.T. wrote:
>> Why the Sun is hot.
>>
>> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
>>
>> The Sun circles the Earth once every 24 hours in a roughly circular orbit.
>> (these are old figures, but once had the authority of the Church to support
>> them)
>>
>> The length of this circular orbit is roughly 587 million miles.
>>
>> Therefore the speed of the Sun as it circles the Earth is roughly 24 million
>> miles per hour.
>>
>> Anything travelling at this speed, as the Sun has done for the last 6000
>> years, must get hot.
>>
>> Q.E.D.
>
>But the Sun's distance is closer to 93 million miles. Therefore your
>argument falls apart, the Sun is in fact cold, and we don't exist.
>
>Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Delendum)
C'mon gentlemen - how about a bit of good old maths here - the
difference is 24.347342 million miles per hour versus 24.609141
million miles per hour.
A mere 0.261799 million miles per hour cannot account for the
extreme difference in temperatures postulated by Mr Tung. Nonetheless
the coefficient of friction of the medium the sun is racing through
would be good to have - as would the roughness of the surface of the
sun. Why dismiss a fine theory on a trivial point like a slight
discrepancy in mean oribital distance?
Excuse me - one of the druids is calling for me to participate in a
sacrificial ceremony......
Eugene L Griessel
Many people quit looking for work when they find a job.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 00:44:17
From: Ed T
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message
>
> But the Sun's distance is closer to 93 million miles. Therefore your
> argument falls apart, the Sun is in fact cold, and we don't exist.
>
> Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Delendum)
Yeah...exactly.
Ed T.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:55:17
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
Well Eugene,I am not really surprised that you do not reference your
website insofar as you would get a hostile reception for your belief
that the Earth rotates at 15 degrees per hour even though that is
correct.
http://www.dynagen.co.za/eugene/where/index.html
This stuff can get you ostracised like poor Doink who had the audacity
to appreciate that the intuitive intelligence which is required to
experiance and affirm that a greater existence encompasses our temporal
existence is the same intuitive intelligence which appreciates
astronomy,its methods and its insights.
Military and cowardice do not go hand in hand,in your case it proves
the exception and there is no worse fate than that.Either stick with a
celestial sphere determination or do not but do not behave like a
undiciplined child and try to work with both.
Eugene Griessel wrote:
> brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>
> >T.T. wrote:
> >> Why the Sun is hot.
> >>
> >> The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 94 million miles.
> >>
> >> The Sun circles the Earth once every 24 hours in a roughly circular orbit.
> >> (these are old figures, but once had the authority of the Church to support
> >> them)
> >>
> >> The length of this circular orbit is roughly 587 million miles.
> >>
> >> Therefore the speed of the Sun as it circles the Earth is roughly 24 million
> >> miles per hour.
> >>
> >> Anything travelling at this speed, as the Sun has done for the last 6000
> >> years, must get hot.
> >>
> >> Q.E.D.
> >
> >But the Sun's distance is closer to 93 million miles. Therefore your
> >argument falls apart, the Sun is in fact cold, and we don't exist.
> >
> >Q.E.D. (Quod Erat Delendum)
>
> C'mon gentlemen - how about a bit of good old maths here - the
> difference is 24.347342 million miles per hour versus 24.609141
> million miles per hour.
>
> A mere 0.261799 million miles per hour cannot account for the
> extreme difference in temperatures postulated by Mr Tung. Nonetheless
> the coefficient of friction of the medium the sun is racing through
> would be good to have - as would the roughness of the surface of the
> sun. Why dismiss a fine theory on a trivial point like a slight
> discrepancy in mean oribital distance?
>
> Excuse me - one of the druids is calling for me to participate in a
> sacrificial ceremony......
>
> Eugene L Griessel
>
> Many people quit looking for work when they find a job.
|
| |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 03:44:20
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:35:45 GMT, "T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Why the Sun is hot...
>
> Congratulations. I don't think I've ever encountered so many errors of
> fact and logic expressed in so few words. Trolls and kooks everywhere
> could take lessons from you.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
The guy's argument is no better or worse than the silly Newtonian
mutation which re-introduces the Sun around the Earth as a valid
proposition -
PHENOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." newton
I do not mind you,you are forced into Newtonian indrination and
believe everything as a matter of course,I am surprised that nobody has
bother to support the original periodic times argument of Kepler which
is strictly an argument for the Earth's orbital motion between Venus
and Mars and certainly not the audacious attempt to create a
geocentric/heliocentric orbital equiivalency.
I enjoy presenting the original Keplerian arguments which are enjoyable
and easy to understand for any intelligent person,that these arguments
are twisted by Newton does not bother me as much as that I have still
to find a single person willing to work on restoring that reasoning for
the enjoymnent of the public.You are great among yourselves and speak a
common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
and appreciate -
* Epitome Of Copernican Astronomy by JOHANNES KEPLER
Finally by what arguments do you prove that the centre of the Sun which
is at the midpoint of the planetary spheres and bears their whole
system - does not revolve in some annual movement,as Brahe wishes,but
in accordance with Copernicus sticks immobile in one place,while the
centre of the Earth revolves in an annual movement.
Argument 10
" The 10th argument,taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days.Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up has a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets has its orbit arranged around the Earth,as Brahe admits,but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun,just as the other
planets,namely Mars and Venus ,complete their own periods by running
around the Sun."
Johannes Kepler
Rather than the mindless logic puzzles seen today,a brief encounter
with the reasoning of the great heliocentric astronomers brings real
satisfaction and men are designed to recognise this greatness.The
feebleminded accept the inferior imposters who propose themselves as
astronomers ,they know this because they trade only in insults and
wordplays rather than drawing people to look out on celestial motion
with a fresh pair of eyes.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Jul 2006 09:20:19
From: John Steinberg
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
In article <1153565059.994114.247890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote:
> You are great among yourselves and speak a
> common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
> and appreciate -
Big G, super G, G man...virtually all of we regular denizens of this
newsgroup use telescopes to survey the wonders of the celestial canopy.
This is the astronomy that we know, appreciate and discuss.
This process of using telescopes for visual observation and/or
astrophotography is a very pleasing and relaxing pastime, and if you
read the newsgroup FAQ, which I will summarize as follows:
sci.astro.amateur is a newsgroup particularly for
discussions of amateur equipment and suppliers;
discussions and questions about amateur observations.
You may discover that your postings do not generally conform to the
newsgroup charter. Brilliant though they may be.
Now, for example, I own a number of telescopes. A 4" APO, 8" and 5"
SCTs, 80mm F5 refractors, several pair of binoculars, a solar observing
instrument, quite a few eyepieces and various and sundry other bits and
pieces to engage in this hobby.
What kind of telescopes do you own and use? Unless I missed it, I don't
believe you've ever mentioned any of your personal equipment at all.
This suggests, although does not prove, that you are more of the
armchair astronomer than the type to get out there in the wild and get
your optics all dewy and such. Am I right here, Gerry baby?
If you would be so kind as to read and re-read my summary until you
can repeat it verbatim and have fully metabolized the raison d¹être for
this newsgroup, I would be forever grateful.
After you've accomplished this feat -- a trivial task for someone as
learned and brilliant as you -- you may come to appreciate that we are
neither worthy of your attentions, nor able to comprehend the depth of
your comprehension on the topic of the exquisiteness of Kepler's
insights and Newton's complete bastardizations of same.
In short, Big G, you are casting your pearls before we swine here. For
not only do we not possess the collective brain power to comprehend the
sagacity of your commentary, but also we do not, and I will type this
very slowly and carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding on
anyone's part here, GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR ASININE,
PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MEANINGLESS WORD SALAD POSTINGS!
FUCK, I CAN BARELY READ THEM AS YOU HAVEN'T THE COMMON DECENCY TO
FORMAT THEM PROPERLY.
Let me apologize for that outburst. It's just my inner child's
frustration at not being able to respond coherently to the brilliant
and difficult questions you ask of all us.
Fortunately, for us both, I am usually able to better suppress the
belligerence of my inner child and behave with more appropriate
decorum. Further, it is hard-wired into my very DNA to provide
guidance and direction, within the capabilities of my limited IQ, of
course. As such. I have taken the liberty of providing said assistance
with this posting.
Getting to know you has been something of a personal epiphany for me.
I thank you in advance for your Herculean contributions despite my, nay
our, inability to converse with you in a way that would prove mutually
satisfying.
--
-John Steinberg
email: not@thistime.invalid
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 01:42:13
From: John Savard
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 00:35:45 GMT, "T.T." <tonyt92@yahoo.com > wrote, in
part:
>The Sun circles the Earth once every 24 hours in a roughly circular orbit.
>(these are old figures, but once had the authority of the Church to support
>them)
Of course, *that* is where your argument falls apart. Also, when it was
believed that the Sun did this, it was believed it was closer. But
strict accuracy doesn't matter in a joke.
>Therefore the speed of the Sun as it circles the Earth is roughly 24 million
>miles per hour.
The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. There are 3,600
seconds in an hour. Thus, the speed of light is about 670 million miles
per hour. At least, therefore, such a speed is *possible*.
>Anything travelling at this speed, as the Sun has done for the last 6000
>years, must get hot.
Why, since space is a near-vacuum, so the Sun is not being subjected to
friction as it moves through it?
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 22:02:34
From: MThomas
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
Ummm the sun is hot because of the 1 million plus degree chromosphere? It's
not resonable to think
the surface does the heating at some 6000 deg. C
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 22:30:55
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
MThomas wrote:
> Ummm the sun is hot because of the 1 million plus degree chromosphere? It's
> not resonable to think
> the surface does the heating at some 6000 deg. C
>
>
Above the chromosphere of most stars there is a so-called transition region,
where the temperature increases rapidly to the hot corona, which forms the
outermost part of the atmosphere.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 22:52:20
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
> MThomas wrote:
>
>> Ummm the sun is hot because of the 1 million plus degree
>> chromosphere? It's not resonable to think
>> the surface does the heating at some 6000 deg. C
>>
>
>
> Above the chromosphere of most stars there is a so-called transition region,
> where the temperature increases rapidly to the hot corona, which forms the
> outermost part of the atmosphere.
>
>
Temperature as a function of distance
http://138.238.143.191/astronomy/Chaisson/AT416/IMAGES/AACHCYV0.JPG
Why is the sun’s corona so hot?
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/42/2/304
Abstract. It has been known for over 50 years that the outer
atmosphere of the Sun, the so-called corona, has a temperature of
10^6 K (~0.1 keV) yet the exact reasons for this are still being
debated. The magnetic field that pervades the corona is certainly
the source of the heating, but the question is whether the field
energy is dissipated via numerous, small, random reconnections
(known as `nanoflares', i.e. small energy releases of about 10^16
J) or the damping of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves propagating
up from the Sun's surface layers (the photosphere).
Some new evidence from the SOHO and Yohkoh spacecraft, with
instruments on board which image the Sun in the extreme
ultraviolet and soft x-rays, are shedding new light on the
problem - it appears that the energy spectrum of small flare-like
phenomena may be such that nanoflares are sufficiently numerous
to supply the corona's energy requirements. However, these new
findings do not preclude the possibility of MHD wave motions also
supplying significant amounts of energy.
Theory suggests very short period (<1 s) MHD waves are implicated
in the heating process if so. Searches during total solar
eclipses for modulations of the white-light coronal intensity
that may result are being made with increasingly sophisticated
equipment. Some very fast imaging systems are now available, and
a description is given of a charge-coupled device camera
experiment conducted successfully during the recent total solar
eclipse visible in Europe.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2006 06:03:10
From: MThomas
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com > wrote in message
news:E4Twg.50071$FQ1.1677@attbi_s71...
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>> MThomas wrote:
>>
>>> Ummm the sun is hot because of the 1 million plus degree chromosphere?
>>> It's not resonable to think
>>> the surface does the heating at some 6000 deg. C
>>>
>>
>>
>> Above the chromosphere of most stars there is a so-called transition
>> region,
>> where the temperature increases rapidly to the hot corona, which forms
>> the
>> outermost part of the atmosphere.
>>
>>
>
> Temperature as a function of distance
> http://138.238.143.191/astronomy/Chaisson/AT416/IMAGES/AACHCYV0.JPG
>
> Why is the sun’s corona so hot?
> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/42/2/304
>
>
Ok. I said chromosphere because I thought the chromosphere included the
corona. It's
an ongoing theory of stars and how energy is distributed. I wonder what the
corona does
during a solar minimum.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Jul 2006 12:28:34
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
MThomas wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Temperature as a function of distance
>> http://138.238.143.191/astronomy/Chaisson/AT416/IMAGES/AACHCYV0.JPG
>>
>> Why is the sun’s corona so hot?
>> http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/42/2/304
>>
>>
>
>
> Ok. I said chromosphere because I thought the chromosphere included the corona. It's
> an ongoing theory of stars and how energy is distributed. I wonder what the corona does
> during a solar minimum.
>
>
No problem--When teaching college astronomy at an introductory level
it's fine to say that "The magnetic field that pervades the corona is
certainly the source of the heating" without really understanding the
mechanism. Science is full of these "partial understandings".
I have every confidence the eventually we *will* understand the physics
of solar corona heating. One of the aspects of teaching astronomy that
keeps it new and exciting is the fact that we are continually learning
about our universe... the text book I teach from (John D. Fix) has a
new edition ever 2-3 years to keep up with the new data, images, and
theoretical understanding.
My favorite introductory textbook is the one by Frank Shu--More than a
decade old, it is was used last year and a second year text book at
Iowa State.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 12:46:00
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
John Steinberg wrote:
> In article <1153565059.994114.247...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <geraldkelle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You are great among yourselves and speak a
> > common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
> > and appreciate -
> Big G, super G, G man...virtually all of we regular denizens of this
> newsgroup use telescopes to survey the wonders of the celestial canopy.
> This is the astronomy that we know, appreciate and discuss.
The Ptolemaic astronomers had already isolated planetary motion from
the stellar background and inferred periodic looping motions against a
stationary Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
This means that the celestial canopy or sphere is a fairly recent
invention emerging at the same time as pendulum clocks and
telescopes.Rather than dismiss it,I recognise the Ra/Dec system for
what it is -as an observational convenience.
The trick is not to base planetary orbital motion on that system and
precious few seem to be capable of discerning exactly why that is so.A
strong hint is that the justification for the system works with 3 years
of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
> This process of using telescopes for visual observation and/or
> astrophotography is a very pleasing and relaxing pastime, and if you
> read the newsgroup FAQ, which I will summarize as follows:
This is fine and I have not argued against those who wish to make
celestial objects appear bigger however the astronomical pursuit is so
much more than optics and photography.You are likely to quote from
Newton who created the dominant view held by people in this newsgroup
but these view are extremely damaging in the 21st century where
astronomy should turn back into looking on the Earth to see how its
motions affect climatology,
meteorology and geology or visa versa,how the astronomical records of
the planet are wrapped up in ice and rock strata.
> sci.astro.amateur is a newsgroup particularly for
> discussions of amateur equipment and suppliers;
> discussions and questions about amateur observations.
> You may discover that your postings do not generally conform to the
> newsgroup charter. Brilliant though they may be.
The charter for astronomy is far,far older than mere telescope use and
it comes from a different faculty in human understanding - intuitive
intelligence.I have no doubt that there are brilliant engineers who can
solve and resolve any technical difficulting before them however the
affirmation and rejection of astronomical conceptual hypothesis
requires a more fluid approach based on physical considerations.Kepler
affirms this -
"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that
diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " KEPLER
You may live comfortably with the Newtonian mutation to the original
heliocentric framework but I have to take considerations of the
physical consequences of the Newtonian framework into account.Newton
appears to get the right answer but how he arrives at it is quite
another thing,I assure you that it is extremely intricate to extract
the mutations from the original working principles but it is eventaully
worth it.
> Now, for example, I own a number of telescopes. A 4" APO, 8" and 5"
> SCTs, 80mm F5 refractors, several pair of binoculars, a solar observing
> instrument, quite a few eyepieces and various and sundry other bits and
> pieces to engage in this hobby.
> What kind of telescopes do you own and use? Unless I missed it, I don't
> believe you've ever mentioned any of your personal equipment at all.
> This suggests, although does not prove, that you are more of the
> armchair astronomer than the type to get out there in the wild and get
> your optics all dewy and such. Am I right here, Gerry baby?
The internet and time lapse footage are the greatest development in
astronomy and I am very much a person of my era,recognising that a
moving image says more than any words.I am promoting Copernican
heliocentricity ina 21st century way yet it is the way Galileo,Kepler
and Copernicus understood planetary motion and how to isolate orbital
motions and especially the orbital motion of the Earth.
How can you compete with the images of a faster Earth overtaking the
slower orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn in affirming that
heliocentric motion is seen directly from Earth thereby demolishing the
Newtonian mutation .
> If you would be so kind as to read and re-read my summary until you
> can repeat it verbatim and have fully metabolized the raison d=B9=EAtre f=
or
> this newsgroup, I would be forever grateful.
> After you've accomplished this feat -- a trivial task for someone as
> learned and brilliant as you -- you may come to appreciate that we are
> neither worthy of your attentions, nor able to comprehend the depth of
> your comprehension on the topic of the exquisiteness of Kepler's
> insights and Newton's complete bastardizations of same.
Why talk yourselves down when somebody has to promote the great
insights of the astronomers who existed before telescopes.Are they any
less astronomers than you are ?.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> In short, Big G, you are casting your pearls before we swine here. For
> not only do we not possess the collective brain power to comprehend the
> sagacity of your commentary, but also we do not, and I will type this
> very slowly and carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding on
> anyone's part here, GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR ASININE,
> PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MEANINGLESS WORD SALAD POSTINGS!
> FUCK, I CAN BARELY READ THEM AS YOU HAVEN'T THE COMMON DECENCY TO
> FORMAT THEM PROPERLY.
> Let me apologize for that outburst. It's just my inner child's
> frustration at not being able to respond coherently to the brilliant
> and difficult questions you ask of all us.
> Fortunately, for us both, I am usually able to better suppress the
> belligerence of my inner child and behave with more appropriate
> decorum. Further, it is hard-wired into my very DNA to provide
> guidance and direction, within the capabilities of my limited IQ, of
> course. As such. I have taken the liberty of providing said assistance
> with this posting.
> Getting to know you has been something of a personal epiphany for me.
> I thank you in advance for your Herculean contributions despite my, nay
> our, inability to converse with you in a way that would prove mutually
> satisfying.
> --
> -John Steinberg
> email: n...@thistime.invalid
Whatever frustration you feel is nothing compared to that awful
condition where not a single person makes an attempt to understand the
basic astronomical concepts such as the relationship bettwen the
equable 24 hour day and axial rotation,the enormous efforts of the
Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomers,the consideration for future
generations infected by the empirical junk,astrophotographers who have
descended into a celestial sphere where the sun rises and sets along
with all the other celestial objects.
The loss of inspiration or what you know as genius is the worst part of
all this,it teaches that insincerity in the greatest of sciences -
astronomy is not just tolerated but actively defended.My pathetic
attempts may not do my ancestors any justice but at least they are
attempts.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jul 2006 12:42:48
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
oriel36 wrote:
> John Steinberg wrote:
> > In article <1153565059.994114.247890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> > oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You are great among yourselves and speak a
> > > common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
> > > and appreciate -
> >
> > Big G, super G, G man...virtually all of we regular denizens of this
> > newsgroup use telescopes to survey the wonders of the celestial canopy.
> > This is the astronomy that we know, appreciate and discuss.
> >
>
> The Ptolemaic astronomers had already isolated planetary motion from
> the stellar background and inferred periodic looping motions against a
> stationary Earth -
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
>
> This means that the celestial canopy or sphere is a fairly recent
> invention emerging at the same time as pendulum clocks and
> telescopes.Rather than dismiss it,I recognise the Ra/Dec system for
> what it is -as an observational convenience.
>
> The trick is not to base planetary orbital motion on that system and
> precious few seem to be capable of discerning exactly why that is so.A
> strong hint is that the justification for the system works with 3 years
> of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
>
>
>
> > This process of using telescopes for visual observation and/or
> > astrophotography is a very pleasing and relaxing pastime, and if you
> > read the newsgroup FAQ, which I will summarize as follows:
> >
>
> This is fine and I have not argued against those who wish to make
> celestial objects appear bigger however the astronomical pursuit is so
> much more than optics and photography.You are likely to quote from
> Newton who created the dominant view held by people in this newsgroup
> but these view are extremely damaging in the 21st century where
> astronomy should turn back into looking on the Earth to see how its
> motions affect climatology,
> meteorology and geology or visa versa,how the astronomical records of
> the planet are wrapped up in ice and rock strata.
>
>
>
>
>
> > sci.astro.amateur is a newsgroup particularly for
> > discussions of amateur equipment and suppliers;
> > discussions and questions about amateur observations.
> >
> > You may discover that your postings do not generally conform to the
> > newsgroup charter. Brilliant though they may be.
> >
>
> The charter for astronomy is far,far older than mere telescope use and
> it comes from a different faculty in human understanding - intuitive
> intelligence.I have no doubt that there are brilliant engineers who can
> solve and resolve any technical difficulting before them however the
> affirmation and rejection of astronomical conceptual hypothesis
> requires a more fluid approach based on physical considerations.Kepler
> affirms this -
>
> "And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
> the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
> Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
> there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
> physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
> But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that
> diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " KEPLER
>
> You may live comfortably with the Newtonian mutation to the original
> heliocentric framework but I have to take considerations of the
> physical consequences of the Newtonian framework into account.Newton
> appears to get the right answer but how he arrives at it is quite
> another thing,I assure you that it is extremely intricate to extract
> the mutations from the original working principles but it is eventaully
> worth it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, for example, I own a number of telescopes. A 4" APO, 8" and 5"
> > SCTs, 80mm F5 refractors, several pair of binoculars, a solar observing
> > instrument, quite a few eyepieces and various and sundry other bits and
> > pieces to engage in this hobby.
> >
> > What kind of telescopes do you own and use? Unless I missed it, I don't
> > believe you've ever mentioned any of your personal equipment at all.
> > This suggests, although does not prove, that you are more of the
> > armchair astronomer than the type to get out there in the wild and get
> > your optics all dewy and such. Am I right here, Gerry baby?
> >
>
> The internet and time lapse footage are the greatest development in
> astronomy and I am very much a person of my era,recognising that a
> moving image says more than any words.I am promoting Copernican
> heliocentricity ina 21st century way yet it is the way Galileo,Kepler
> and Copernicus understood planetary motion and how to isolate orbital
> motions and especially the orbital motion of the Earth.
>
> How can you compete with the images of a faster Earth overtaking the
> slower orbital motions of Jupiter and Saturn in affirming that
> heliocentric motion is seen directly from Earth thereby demolishing the
> Newtonian mutation .
>
>
> > If you would be so kind as to read and re-read my summary until you
> > can repeat it verbatim and have fully metabolized the raison d=B9=EAtre=
for
> > this newsgroup, I would be forever grateful.
> >
> > After you've accomplished this feat -- a trivial task for someone as
> > learned and brilliant as you -- you may come to appreciate that we are
> > neither worthy of your attentions, nor able to comprehend the depth of
> > your comprehension on the topic of the exquisiteness of Kepler's
> > insights and Newton's complete bastardizations of same.
> >
>
> Why talk yourselves down when somebody has to promote the great
> insights of the astronomers who existed before telescopes.Are they any
> less astronomers than you are ?.
>
>
>
>
> > In short, Big G, you are casting your pearls before we swine here. For
> > not only do we not possess the collective brain power to comprehend the
> > sagacity of your commentary, but also we do not, and I will type this
> > very slowly and carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding on
> > anyone's part here, GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR ASININE,
> > PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MEANINGLESS WORD SALAD POSTINGS!
> >
> > FUCK, I CAN BARELY READ THEM AS YOU HAVEN'T THE COMMON DECENCY TO
> > FORMAT THEM PROPERLY.
> >
> > Let me apologize for that outburst. It's just my inner child's
> > frustration at not being able to respond coherently to the brilliant
> > and difficult questions you ask of all us.
> >
> > Fortunately, for us both, I am usually able to better suppress the
> > belligerence of my inner child and behave with more appropriate
> > decorum. Further, it is hard-wired into my very DNA to provide
> > guidance and direction, within the capabilities of my limited IQ, of
> > course. As such. I have taken the liberty of providing said assistance
> > with this posting.
> >
> > Getting to know you has been something of a personal epiphany for me.
> > I thank you in advance for your Herculean contributions despite my, nay
> > our, inability to converse with you in a way that would prove mutually
> > satisfying.
> >
> > --
> > -John Steinberg
> > email: not@thistime.invalid
>
> Whatever frustration you feel is nothing compared to that awful
> condition where not a single person makes an attempt to understand the
> basic astronomical concepts such as the relationship bettwen the
> equable 24 hour day and axial rotation,the enormous efforts of the
> Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomers,the consideration for future
> generations infected by the empirical junk,astrophotographers who have
> descended into a celestial sphere where the sun rises and sets along
> with all the other celestial objects.
>
> The loss of inspiration or what you know as genius is the worst part of
> all this,it teaches that insincerity in the greatest of sciences -
> astronomy is not just tolerated but actively defended.My pathetic
> attempts may not do my ancestors any justice but at least they are
> attempts.
|
| |
Date: 24 Jul 2006 04:00:49
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Why the sun is hot
|
The pearls are well known to all people,ask anyone on the street what
the value is for axial rotation through 360 degrees and they will give
the correct answer as 24 hours exactly.
Now,the state of affairs where a group of people calling themselves
astronomers cannot discern how that system emerged in both its
pre-Copernican and heliocentric forms is not just remarkable,it is
almost unbearable to watch.
So John,to spare you an embarrassing life I come here and explain to
you how the equable 24 hour day is derived from the unequal day based
on the return of the Sun to noon.Then you take the human devised
principles of the 24 hour day and you then apply it to the principle of
axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour,are you listening John ?.
This concept spares you justifying axial rotation at 15 degrees per
hour to anything external,this particular jewel shines brightest by
recognising how the pre-Copernican principles were adapted to the
heliocentric principle of independent axial rotation.
Very sad John that some silly people refer axial rotation to the Sun in
24 hours exactly and then use another reference to the celestial canopy
for the same motion in 23 hours 56 min.The conception of the 24 hour
day and axial rotation is built strictly on the Earth and the Sun with
the calendrical extension as a complimentary addition .
Without axial rotation in isolation it is impossible to appreciate the
heliocentric system based on orbital motionn in isolation.People will
forgive you for a genuine oversight and even adhering to the hideous
Newtonian mutation but they do not like to be made fools of John and
especially in the most noble discipline of natural sciences -
astronomy.
John Steinberg wrote:
> In article <1153565059.994114.247890@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> oriel36 <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You are great among yourselves and speak a
> > common lingo but is not the astronomical language I have come to know
> > and appreciate -
>
> Big G, super G, G man...virtually all of we regular denizens of this
> newsgroup use telescopes to survey the wonders of the celestial canopy.
> This is the astronomy that we know, appreciate and discuss.
>
> This process of using telescopes for visual observation and/or
> astrophotography is a very pleasing and relaxing pastime, and if you
> read the newsgroup FAQ, which I will summarize as follows:
>
> sci.astro.amateur is a newsgroup particularly for
> discussions of amateur equipment and suppliers;
> discussions and questions about amateur observations.
>
> You may discover that your postings do not generally conform to the
> newsgroup charter. Brilliant though they may be.
>
> Now, for example, I own a number of telescopes. A 4" APO, 8" and 5"
> SCTs, 80mm F5 refractors, several pair of binoculars, a solar observing
> instrument, quite a few eyepieces and various and sundry other bits and
> pieces to engage in this hobby.
>
> What kind of telescopes do you own and use? Unless I missed it, I don't
> believe you've ever mentioned any of your personal equipment at all.
> This suggests, although does not prove, that you are more of the
> armchair astronomer than the type to get out there in the wild and get
> your optics all dewy and such. Am I right here, Gerry baby?
>
> If you would be so kind as to read and re-read my summary until you
> can repeat it verbatim and have fully metabolized the raison d=B9=EAtre f=
or
> this newsgroup, I would be forever grateful.
>
> After you've accomplished this feat -- a trivial task for someone as
> learned and brilliant as you -- you may come to appreciate that we are
> neither worthy of your attentions, nor able to comprehend the depth of
> your comprehension on the topic of the exquisiteness of Kepler's
> insights and Newton's complete bastardizations of same.
>
> In short, Big G, you are casting your pearls before we swine here. For
> not only do we not possess the collective brain power to comprehend the
> sagacity of your commentary, but also we do not, and I will type this
> very slowly and carefully so that there can be no misunderstanding on
> anyone's part here, GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOUR ASININE,
> PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC MEANINGLESS WORD SALAD POSTINGS!
>
> FUCK, I CAN BARELY READ THEM AS YOU HAVEN'T THE COMMON DECENCY TO
> FORMAT THEM PROPERLY.
>
> Let me apologize for that outburst. It's just my inner child's
> frustration at not being able to respond coherently to the brilliant
> and difficult questions you ask of all us.
>
> Fortunately, for us both, I am usually able to better suppress the
> belligerence of my inner child and behave with more appropriate
> decorum. Further, it is hard-wired into my very DNA to provide
> guidance and direction, within the capabilities of my limited IQ, of
> course. As such. I have taken the liberty of providing said assistance
> with this posting.
>
> Getting to know you has been something of a personal epiphany for me.
> I thank you in advance for your Herculean contributions despite my, nay
> our, inability to converse with you in a way that would prove mutually
> satisfying.
>=20
> --=20
> -John Steinberg
> email: not@thistime.invalid
|
|
