Author Topic: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.  (Read 89826 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #330 on: January 13, 2017, 06:08:43 PM »
We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun?

No, we are travelling with the Sun. The Sun is not dragging the planets around the galaxy with it, the entire solar system formed already moving around the galactic core, right from when it was a cloud of dust and hydrogen. In terms of motion around the galactic centre the entire solar system can be considered a single object. 

Quote
How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?

The Sun isn't the gravitational lead. It's the centre of mass of what is now a cluster of objects that all orbit the galactic centre, but which have been doing so since long before they became the discrete masses we now recognise.
Quote
I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something in the vortex of the plug hole if the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction,

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #331 on: January 13, 2017, 06:15:24 PM »

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.

You wouldn't even have to put it on a plane. The plughole is on Earth which is moving through space.  ;D ;D
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #332 on: January 13, 2017, 10:32:48 PM »
We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun?

No, we are travelling with the Sun. The Sun is not dragging the planets around the galaxy with it, the entire solar system formed already moving around the galactic core, right from when it was a cloud of dust and hydrogen. In terms of motion around the galactic centre the entire solar system can be considered a single object. 

Quote
How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?

The Sun isn't the gravitational lead. It's the centre of mass of what is now a cluster of objects that all orbit the galactic centre, but which have been doing so since long before they became the discrete masses we now recognise.
Quote
I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something in the vortex of the plug hole if the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction,

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.

For similar reasons, one could jump straight up in a moving train and land on the same spot even though the train has moved x feet forward during your jump, you have moved the same distance.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Kiwi

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 471
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #333 on: January 15, 2017, 04:17:19 AM »
Please read the Phil plait debunking of the vortex video that I've shown you not once, but twice.

I got a feeling from Icarus1 saying the following that he might have ignored your link back in post 223, page 15, or was too foolish or incapable to study it properly.

JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?  Once again , based upon my limited knowledge of how stars and galaxies are formed, it actually makes sense to me.

He did go on about someone providing a link to some criticism that was "unprofessional" but wasn't smart enough to say who he was talking about, and he's sometimes so poor at communicating clearly that it's hard to tell what he means:--
Someone posted another link to a 'Debunking' but this one seems very harsh and unprofessional and offers no real evidence to the contrary other then we're at a 60' Tilt to the Galactic plane and not 90*.  By all accounts he acknowledges the spiraling effect (which seems obvious) and that all planets orbit above the 'equatorial line'?? of the Sun, so the only thing he really disagrees on is the Use of word 'Vortex' as a description and that it's not at 90* to the Galactic plane.  He appears to reference the creator as a quack because he believes there is a huge mirror in space.  My thinking and knowledge does not allow me to dispel any theory based upon my lack of understanding or belief of it.  To poo poo his ideas because of another he has doesn't seem like a correct way to dismiss it.

I hope, Icarus1, that you weren't rubbishing Phil Plait because in my opinion he has one of the better brains on this planet (as do some of the members here), so shame on you if you were.

Anyway, how about applying your brain to Zakalwe's early post on this vortex stuff -- specifically reply #223 on page 15 and clicking on the link. It's the last word, "garbage."

If that is the criticism you read but failed to identify when criticising it, shame on you for dissing just one tiny part of Phil Plait's valuable work which is appreciated by sensible people worldwide. And if was someone else's criticism you were rubbishing, then why didn't you identify it properly? Too lazy? We do better than that on this forum -- please do the same.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 04:24:57 AM by Kiwi »
Don't criticize what you can't understand. — Bob Dylan, “The Times They Are A-Changin'” (1963)
Some people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices and superstitions. — Edward R. Murrow (1908–65)

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #334 on: January 15, 2017, 05:34:35 AM »
...Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy, or can we also suggest that it was formed externally and pulled into the galaxy later fully formed?  I ask this to develop a deeper understanding of the physics involved.  For instance, if it was formed inside the galaxy, then we can assume as the Sun is the biggest influence within our SS, and also assuming it is also under constant gravitational influence of the galactic spin, then the Sun becomes a leading player of gravity in the locality re our SS.  Can we assume the planets were forming at the same time as the Sun, or did the sun create the planets after itself was formed; gravitational mass pulled in cosmic debris to form the other planets? 
I ask this to assume the sun is already moving, therefore the planets arrive later and trail the sun which is in motion.  I liken it to tying to catch a bus.  Traveling on the footpath, running toward the bus from the front, only for the bus to pass you as you 'sling shot' around to try and catch it from the rear.  I imagine this effect of gravity to be like that of a Bat and Ball on an elastic string.    For this I'm trying to understand how the planets, though on a 60* tilt could move past or more correctly, Forward of the Sun as the SS is pulled around the galaxy.  as referenced in earlier posts the use of orbits and how they speed up and slow down.

OK, so, either the Sun formed externally to the galaxy, or was formed inside of it.   I'm asking this as I assume because the sun has a greater mass, it is influenced more by the galactic gravity, therefore the sun moves first and the planets are under the influence of the Sun before the galaxy as the locality of the sun, though lower in overall gravity compared to the galaxy, is closer to the planets.

At a 60* title to the galactic plane, can we confirm with all certainty that some, if not all of the planets do exceed forward of the suns perpendicular centre to the GP (galactic plane)?   If they do, then how is this possible? Is it the Bat and Ball on elastic effect of Orbital differences in speed that would allow the planets to move forward of the sun?

Personally I think this is an understandable view to hold, in that the motions of planets, moons, stars and galaxies move in unusual ways, so it makes sense to try to grab at terrestrial analogies to get a sense of what's going on.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

One of the first things to understand is that the Solar System is a system in the sense of a group of interacting parts forming a whole. The second thing to understand is that the SS began its life as a giant, amorphous cloud of dust and gas: originally, it was this cloud of dust and gas which was orbiting the centre of the galaxy. The individual particles in this cloud were all moving in random directions within the cloud.

Now this cloud would have continued to orbit the centre of the galaxy for quite a while as just a cloud. However, at some point it seems the cloud hit a shockwave from a nearby supernova (or something like that) which compressed the dust and gas enough that it began to collapse. As the cloud began to collapse it began to spin (conservation of momentum - like the spinning ice skater pulling his/her arms in), in the direction determined by the average of the motions of all the particles (out of all the random directions the particles were moving, some particular direction was going to be favoured). It so happened that the favoured direction was tilted at 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy. The cloud also flattened out into a disc.

And all while this was happening, the cloud continued to orbit the centre of the galaxy.

As the cloud continued to collapse, particles began to clump, with the largest clump at the centre. That became the Sun, while some of the other clumps became the planets and moons (the rest of the other clumps became planets which were either expelled from the Solar System or swallowed up by the Sun).

So the current motions of the planets around the Sun are determined by events which happened in the actual formation of the Solar System itself - a spinning disc of dust and gas, tilted at 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy, transformed into the Solar System we know today.

Which is why the idea that there's something unusual about the planets sometimes moving "ahead" of the Sun as it orbits the centre of the galaxy is wrong - the planets and the Sun are a system as defined up above, all created out of the one cloud of dust and gas, and conserving the momentum of that cloud as it transformed into the Solar System.

Offline Rob48

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #335 on: January 17, 2017, 02:19:14 PM »
Or is a segment of the population so gullible and so easily swayed by flashing lights? How do they manage to walk out the door every day and not be shocked by a passing cloud???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

 ;)

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #336 on: January 18, 2017, 08:43:07 AM »
Icarus seems to have bailed.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1588
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #337 on: January 18, 2017, 12:31:56 PM »
Stealth flounce.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #338 on: January 19, 2017, 07:48:09 AM »
Since he didn't have much of an argument regarding image analysis, perhaps he shown the light.  :)
And now he hides in the shadows?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #339 on: January 19, 2017, 09:18:49 AM »
Since he didn't have much of an argument regarding image analysis, perhaps he shown the light.  :)
And now he hides in the shadows?
I don't honestly know. I do know for certain that hoax proponents often pop up with what they think is the killer argument and find themselves oddly deflated when they discover that A: We have the actual answers to hand (both here and elsewhere), B: The logical holes are copiously pointed out to them and C: All of us are really in a "been there done that" space because their imagined "killer argument" is old hat that has been long since beaten to death.

In my experience, the reactions are somewhat limited. It ends up in
A: entrenchment, commonly including the traditional Gish Gallop and a refusal to acknowledge counter points proffered. Sometimes the ebil gubmint shill gambit appears.
B: the flounce. Sometimes a stealth flounce, sometimes the noisy offensive kind or anything in between.
C: Passing the buck. These are not my ideas I'm just asking for A. Friend
D: The faux confession. Concede some minor point as though the hoax was dismissed only to lob in a bigger claim later
E: The genuine. These are really rare, but it can and has happened that a hoax proponent will finally realise how unsupportable the hoax claims really are. I could name two but would struggle to add a third to that .

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #340 on: January 20, 2017, 07:00:42 AM »
Right you lot.

No baling here, but I do have a life and I needed to get back to it.

It's obvious that some of you LOVE coming here and spend a great deal of time.  It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.  Some of you need to work on your approach.  Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle. 

I've returned to some very clear and genuinely informative replies, but as it has often been received, some poorly assumed 'opinions' on me as well.  Bored of it now, hence why I left you all to it.

It's important to understand and some of you clearly don't, that the sheer amount of knowledge and responses from many of you had overwhelmed me and it was near impossible for me to read, digest and reply to every single point being made.  So If I've missed any, try not to criticise me for it.  you need to be a little more diligent.  Understanding 101!

Kiwi, I could use a list of words in an attempt to communicate what I think of your post.  Hopefully this will do. Shame on you!!! for being so Assuming  Rude and Disrespectful.  Common in here!  Let's keep to the FACTS and less of your FEELINGS and OPINIONS!

sts60 offered a good reply so thank you for that.  No hint of abuse insight.

Jason Thompson thank you also.

Zakalwe......Are you Bi-Polar or suffer multiple personalities?  Maybe you and bknight are the same person??

bknight........Failure in my knowledge is why I'm here you!  I've also NEVER ARGUED in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Please pay more attention to my posts.  They require further study if you want to understand them.  Must like Science, communication requires the same level of study.  We can't interpret it if we don't understand it.

So, with that said maybe we can get back to learning and sharing of knowledge.  Lets the Class continue.

Peter B thank you for that reply.  However, i understand entirely the given explanation of how star planets etc. are formed.  I'm not here for what I know, I'm questioning the alternative.  bknight has already pointed out what I had already assumed; that our SS had it's own Space Time.  I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?



EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?

« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 07:23:53 AM by Icarus1 »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #341 on: January 20, 2017, 07:36:50 AM »
However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

Which is why I didn't mention a bus. A vehicle moving along the ground will be subject to terrain and the requirements of slowing, speeding up, turning, stopping etc. Generally the only time you walk anywhere in a bus is to your seat after boarding or to the door before disembarking, so during acceleration phases of the journey. I specifically used a plane as an example because once at cruising altitude it generally remains at a pretty steady speed without any requirement to go up or down hills or round corners until it's approaching the landing site. That means there are extended periods during which you, the plane and everything else not moving in the cabin will have the same velocity. At that point, the effort you require to walk forward or backward inside the cabin is the same as if you were on the ground. Objects in the plane will behave in the same way as if they were on the ground.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #342 on: January 20, 2017, 07:45:40 AM »
It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.

Please don't patronise us.

Quote
Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle.

If you're going to criticise the members here for their treatment of you, don't return it. You don't know the members here any more than we know you, so if you want us to be civil to you, set the bar.
 
Quote
I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

You are on a board populated by scientists and engineers, so why would you make such an assumption? Also, since you have criticised the members here for making assumptions about you, perhaps you should refrain from making your own.

Quote
EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.

I think they will contribute or entertain themselves in whatever post they choose, since this is an open forum. If you don't like their input, ignore it. However, only the moderator of the board can give and enforce instructions as to who may post what and where.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #343 on: January 20, 2017, 08:20:06 AM »
It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.

Please don't patronise us.

Quote
Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle.

If you're going to criticise the members here for their treatment of you, don't return it. You don't know the members here any more than we know you, so if you want us to be civil to you, set the bar.
 
Quote
I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

You are on a board populated by scientists and engineers, so why would you make such an assumption? Also, since you have criticised the members here for making assumptions about you, perhaps you should refrain from making your own.

Quote
EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.

I think they will contribute or entertain themselves in whatever post they choose, since this is an open forum. If you don't like their input, ignore it. However, only the moderator of the board can give and enforce instructions as to who may post what and where.

I'VE BEEN PATRONISED SINCE I CAME TO THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE'S YOUR DEFENCE OF THIS???????????????????

Jason I thanked you for your reply.  However you've now suggested it is you ALL as a collective, against Myself.  Why?

Why would you put yourself in the same instance?

Also as it's apparent you want to put me in my place, then why not start by firstly addressing the remarks to me about me and defending me, while then also suggesting I do the same.?  Why would you not address the attitude toward me but only remark on my remark to them???


You're giving me advice on how to deal with abuse on this forum!!!!  Instead of addressing the abuse!

What a joke.

I have nothing more to learn here.


You clearly have no idea on how to communicate.  It's not about the words used.  It's the empathetic ability to understand.

I'm tired of this forum..

I'm sure you'll agree I have NO Place in here, though I'm certain our reasons differ.


What an exercise in futility this has been.


You all openly assume and citisicse but don't like it back.  You're forever giving out instructions on how to be a better person, how to communicate more effectively, yet you all do the opposite.  I can't help but lol in bafflement.


Beam me the **** out of here Scotty. 

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #344 on: January 20, 2017, 08:29:01 AM »
However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

Which is why I didn't mention a bus. A vehicle moving along the ground will be subject to terrain and the requirements of slowing, speeding up, turning, stopping etc. Generally the only time you walk anywhere in a bus is to your seat after boarding or to the door before disembarking, so during acceleration phases of the journey. I specifically used a plane as an example because once at cruising altitude it generally remains at a pretty steady speed without any requirement to go up or down hills or round corners until it's approaching the landing site. That means there are extended periods during which you, the plane and everything else not moving in the cabin will have the same velocity. At that point, the effort you require to walk forward or backward inside the cabin is the same as if you were on the ground. Objects in the plane will behave in the same way as if they were on the ground.

Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.  The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.