Author Topic: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.  (Read 89812 times)

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #300 on: January 10, 2017, 10:37:25 PM »
I bloody hope so! ha.

Actually my orbit question is already covered for me.  I was trying to visualise the journey.  Drawings etc. suggest a constant curve. but i'm happy with the info provided.

I was cautious not to put too many questions on here as they're not specifically Apollo orientated, but I am really interested in the Spiraling Vortex Theory.

 ::)

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #301 on: January 11, 2017, 05:33:22 AM »
Here is a pretty straightforward and concise explanation of why the "Spiraling Vortex Theory" is completely wrong.

http://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 06:31:27 AM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #302 on: January 11, 2017, 08:59:11 AM »
Thanks. 

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.
Does this seem like a fair understanding?

I need to be careful here again on how I put questions forward, so I'll endeavor to be more concise.

I appreciate the 'theories' of how the Universe came into existence; Big Bang.  Not that I believe it in my infinite wisdom, but we'll leave that right here!

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?

That could have probably been shorter and more to the point, but my head is firing off all at once.  I'm sure I've more to ask in a clearer manner, but not right now.  To add I think the model is correct.  We just need to address the 60* tilt and forward accelerated motion of the planets to be in front of the leading sun.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #303 on: January 11, 2017, 10:41:49 AM »
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

Offline Apollo 957

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 182
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #304 on: January 11, 2017, 11:05:21 AM »
Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy ....

There's all manner of popular science books which will give you a good starter for 10 on this.

Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

come to mind immediately, I'm sure there's more....

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #305 on: January 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM »
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

But there's very little in disagreement with his model?  60 degrees, not 90.  Vortex.

I'm asking 'what am i missing in his model?  We are traveling with the sun.  It does create a spiral.  This actually relates to me earlier question about the figure 8 orbit of the moon trajectory. 

I must be missing something in his proposal that is obvious to everyone else?

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #306 on: January 11, 2017, 11:45:03 AM »
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants? 
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Cat Not Included

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #307 on: January 11, 2017, 12:31:49 PM »
Allan F, Icarus1, thanks for the answers on the 'scan' question! Sorry for the side question. :)
The quote "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" very clearly predates personal computers.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #308 on: January 11, 2017, 12:34:37 PM »
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants?

Well, we 'Thought' we'd moved on!

Duly noted.  Add Childish to my list of received insults or lack of mature character, as well as being a Liar, CT, hiding behind 'My Friend' etc.......

Let's leave this?

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #309 on: January 11, 2017, 12:36:21 PM »
Allan F, Icarus1, thanks for the answers on the 'scan' question! Sorry for the side question. :)

No problem, but ironically this was not a 'Side' question.  The very foundation of this thread, started by myself, was in direct relation to your very question.

:D

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #310 on: January 11, 2017, 12:39:31 PM »
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants?

I thought it was his attempt at defusing with humor what had clearly descended into unproductive rancor.  Childish, yes, but funny at least to me.  As a matter of actual fact, I have had to deal with prints from negatives or enlargers clearly contaminated with suspicious looking hair.  I didn't ask.  And before I took the carpet out of my studio, I did have a box of negatives infested with carpet beetles that had feasted on the envelopes.  Not quite the same as lice, but they leave excrement behind and that contaminates negatives.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #311 on: January 11, 2017, 12:42:41 PM »
JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?

It's nonsense.  Just another erroneous conclusion drawn from an inaccurate depiction of orbital motion.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #312 on: January 11, 2017, 12:55:41 PM »
Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy ....

There's all manner of popular science books which will give you a good starter for 10 on this.

Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

come to mind immediately, I'm sure there's more....

I've actually read, believe it or not (not necessarily understood!) A brief History of time about 20 years ago.  I also have a Short History of Nearly Everything, somewhere, though I lost interest in it.

My question still stands however.  In the link provided, there's little disagreement in the principle.  Save for the 'degrees' and use of the word 'Vortex'.  Everything else stands.

We are traveling with the sun, that is traveling around the galaxy.  We do create a spiral by default.

I'll keep looking. 

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #313 on: January 11, 2017, 01:04:19 PM »
Planetary motions do create a spiral, but they are as significant as the fact that a moving bicycle pedal creates a cyclic; not at all, from the point of view of the pedal. From the point of view of the solar system,  the spiral is as insignificant.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 01:24:29 PM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #314 on: January 11, 2017, 01:27:45 PM »
Planetary motions do create a spiral

Not always.  The spiral arises if the primary's motion within a reference frame is perpendicular to the orbit of the satellite for long enough to matter.  If the reference frame is some arbitrary space-fixed frame, and your time period is sufficiently short, then you can arrange for it to be whatever you want to create the "spiral" motion.  But, for example, if we use the galaxy as our reference frame then the Sun does not follow a straight-line path; it orbits the center of the galaxy.  But the Solar System maintains the same orientation regardless of its direction of orbit, so the "spiral" degenerates into epicycles.

As I said, it's a conclusion drawn on yet another inaccurate model of orbital motion.  It may be an attractively rendered model, but it's wrong.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams