Author Topic: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.  (Read 10352 times)

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1393
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #315 on: January 11, 2017, 02:05:16 PM »
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?

Everything creates a vortex if you look at it that way. An aircraft propellor makes a corkscrew through the air that appears to be led by the spinner cone. However you also have to take into account the rotation of the earth, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the solar system around the galactic core, the motion of the galaxy through our local group (did you know that the Milky Way and M31 in Andromeda, a.k.a. the Andromeda galaxy, are heading towards each other at over 100 km/sec and will collide in about 4 billion years?)

Everything depends on your frame of reference. While the Spinning Vortex looks pretty and the animation is very well done, it actually has no scientific significance of any kind, and the other attached woo woo that comes with the ideas of its creator have no merit whatsoever.

As for the the formation of the the solar system, it is well understood that the sun and its retinue of planets, moons, comets, asteroids and other solid materials were all formed at the same time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhy1fucSRQI 

ETA: And here is some evidence that we are observing this process taking place. I give you the proto-planetay disk of HL Tauri...



... "photographed"  by ALMA, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array — a giant telescope consisting of 66 individual antennas, located high up in the Atacama desert in northern Chile.

HL Tauri, is only about a million years old. The glowing rings are dust and gas swirling around the protostar gradually forming into planets and asteroids.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2017, 02:17:47 PM by smartcooky »
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1013
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #316 on: January 11, 2017, 02:48:58 PM »
Quote
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?

Why shouldn't it be possible? Or, to turn the question back to you, what would be stopping them from moving ahead of the Sun? The Moon moves ahead of the Earth and back again every orbit too.
"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 Abaddon

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 712
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #317 on: January 12, 2017, 01:28:37 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?
Yes. It is a trivial fact to which an invented meaning has falsely been attached.

Imagine I am in my car in a multi-storey car park seeking a space to park in. As I drive up through the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc floors, one could plot my trajectory and quickly find that my path was helical. There it stops. That helical trajectory has no further meaning. It is simply a consequence of physical reality.

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 680
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #318 on: January 12, 2017, 08:58:09 AM »
...
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

There's an interesting contrast between these two attitudes bolded above. Absolute certainty is, IMHO, an unhelpful attitude to hold. Personally, I know my own limitations. That's why, for example, I've posted little in this thread as I know little about photography.

But the opposite attitude which you appear to hold - that you aren't certain about anything - can be just as unhelpful. This is the sort of attitude that can lead to the casual dismissal of legitimate expertise. It's frustrating and disrespectful when it happens because it appears to equate the expertise of someone who's studied a topic for years with someone who's undertaken a couple of Google searches.

Sure, we can't be absolutely certain about anything. But equally, there are plenty of things we can be as good as certain about - the Earth is a globe not flat, water boils at 100 degrees C, and so on - that to keep repeating "I'm not certain about anything" is to be perverse.

As I said in an earlier post, all of the evidence available about Project Apollo points to the same conclusion - that it happened pretty much as NASA said it did. Saying so doesn't mean we endorse everything that NASA has ever said or done - far from it. There are some harsh critics of NASA even on this forum, and people who post here have a variety of political views (look at the threads about Trump to see how we disagree there). But none of that alters the stunningly wide array of evidence that's available for people to look at and ask questions about.

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 680
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #319 on: January 12, 2017, 09:06:23 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?

One thing you need to consider is that there are many solar systems other than ours. The planets in those solar systems orbit their suns at all sorts of angles to the galactic plane, from being exactly parallel to the plane to being at 90 degrees to it. These angles are determined by the characteristics of the collapsing dust-and-gas clouds that formed those solar systems, not the fact that those solar systems orbit the centre of the Milky Way galaxy just like us.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #320 on: January 13, 2017, 07:31:23 AM »
...
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

There's an interesting contrast between these two attitudes bolded above. Absolute certainty is, IMHO, an unhelpful attitude to hold. Personally, I know my own limitations. That's why, for example, I've posted little in this thread as I know little about photography.

But the opposite attitude which you appear to hold - that you aren't certain about anything - can be just as unhelpful. This is the sort of attitude that can lead to the casual dismissal of legitimate expertise. It's frustrating and disrespectful when it happens because it appears to equate the expertise of someone who's studied a topic for years with someone who's undertaken a couple of Google searches.

Sure, we can't be absolutely certain about anything. But equally, there are plenty of things we can be as good as certain about - the Earth is a globe not flat, water boils at 100 degrees C, and so on - that to keep repeating "I'm not certain about anything" is to be perverse.

As I said in an earlier post, all of the evidence available about Project Apollo points to the same conclusion - that it happened pretty much as NASA said it did. Saying so doesn't mean we endorse everything that NASA has ever said or done - far from it. There are some harsh critics of NASA even on this forum, and people who post here have a variety of political views (look at the threads about Trump to see how we disagree there). But none of that alters the stunningly wide array of evidence that's available for people to look at and ask questions about.

Peter, you can't really argue with how I see the world, or my Philosophy on life; and your post appears more Philosophical in nature that relating to the question or the Facts.  My thinking and resolution is mine and mine alone.  The workings of my mind are not up for debate.  Knowledge is Archaic and can change daily.  New theories and evolution of thought occur often at random but on a regular basis.

For this reason alone, I question everything; as unhelpful as you may deem it to be.

Your post hasn't really been helpful to me; if at all!

No harm done, however. 

Thank you.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #321 on: January 13, 2017, 08:18:01 AM »
If that vortex garbage was correct and the heliocentric model incorrect then the method that we have used for decades to send probes to the planets would not work. Using our existing models we can do things like launching the Rosetta probe in 2004 and 12 years later have the probe in exactly the right place to rendezvous with a comet.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/iEQuE5N3rwQ[/youtube]

New Horizons was launched in 2006 and a decade after launch it arrives at Pluto with an error in the order of a few tens of kilometres after travelling 4.7 billion Kms.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/78U0_XcFP_I[/youtube]

The problem is not with our existing models of how planets move, it's with some peoples inability to think critically.

Surely anyone with a modicum of critical analysis can look at a video, no matter how snazzy the graphics and music, and think "well, if that's correct then all the other stuff - Voyager, New Horizons, Mariner, Rosetta, the hundreds of Earth-orbiting, GPS, satellite TV and international phone calls are all wrong. Therefore, it must be the video that's bunkum" . 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???

« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 10:03:44 AM by Zakalwe »
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Offline Apollo 957

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #322 on: January 13, 2017, 09:50:57 AM »
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #323 on: January 13, 2017, 10:08:01 AM »
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....

"I question everything" is just another version of "I'm only asking questions". No, he doesn't question everything. No one does.
Does Icarus1 wake up in the morning and think "I wonder if gravity is bunkum or has vanished overnight? I best question it before taking the stairs down to the kitchen"
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #324 on: January 13, 2017, 10:59:00 AM »
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....

"I question everything" is just another version of "I'm only asking questions". No, he doesn't question everything. No one does.
Does Icarus1 wake up in the morning and think "I wonder if gravity is bunkum or has vanished overnight? I best question it before taking the stairs down to the kitchen"

haha Yes......... Erm......not to be taken Literally! :P

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #325 on: January 13, 2017, 11:28:24 AM »
If that vortex garbage was correct and the heliocentric model incorrect then the method that we have used for decades to send probes to the planets would not work. Using our existing models we can do things like launching the Rosetta probe in 2004 and 12 years later have the probe in exactly the right place to rendezvous with a comet.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/iEQuE5N3rwQ[/youtube]

New Horizons was launched in 2006 and a decade after launch it arrives at Pluto with an error in the order of a few tens of kilometres after travelling 4.7 billion Kms.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/78U0_XcFP_I[/youtube]

The problem is not with our existing models of how planets move, it's with some peoples inability to think critically.

Surely anyone with a modicum of critical analysis can look at a video, no matter how snazzy the graphics and music, and think "well, if that's correct then all the other stuff - Voyager, New Horizons, Mariner, Rosetta, the hundreds of Earth-orbiting, GPS, satellite TV and international phone calls are all wrong. Therefore, it must be the video that's bunkum" . 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???

I don't actually know why the erst would become impossible because of this video.  I'm actually assuming this vid is just a visualisation of the SS moving thru space?  I haven't considered this isn't the case.

I'm obviously seeing something that I shouldn't, understanding it wrongly or simply lacking in so much knowledge on the subject I appear retarded!

I don't know why so many people are against this idea.  So I'll break my understanding down into specific questions, relating only to what I understand.  For now, forget that video of the Vortex!



Our Solar System has the Sun at the centre.  The Sun is the greatest Gravitational influence, locally (though the planets act upon each other).  We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun? 

How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?  Is it like me being on a plane and swinging a cat around me head?  In my head it can't be because of the forces involved.  Swinging a cat creates an outward force, yet Gravity is a pulling force, therefore they're not the same equation?

Is our Orbit around the Sun always the same, apart from it being elliptical?;  The orbital pattern itself, not the spiraling effect as the entire SS move thru space.


In fact...............PPPPffffftttt.  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, or is the Plug Hole drama not accurate?

I need some visual aid of the moving solar system AS it's traveling around the galaxy??  Does this exist?  Or more specific, does a video of what is currently understood exist that clearly points out the flaws in the Vortex vid?


« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 11:36:34 AM by Icarus1 »

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #326 on: January 13, 2017, 11:29:42 AM »
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! "

Prof. Walter Kotschnig
1940 February, The Smith Alumnae Quarterly, Volumes 31, Number 2
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #327 on: January 13, 2017, 11:38:20 AM »
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! "

Prof. Walter Kotschnig
1940 February, The Smith Alumnae Quarterly, Volumes 31, Number 2

haha.  Maybe this is the case here. :D

Offline sts60

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #328 on: January 13, 2017, 11:47:36 AM »
Icarus1, the Sun doesn't "pull" the rest of the solar system around the galaxy - that is the impression I get of your mental picture.  The entire solar system is in free fall about the barycenter of the galaxy, just like the Earth-Moon system is in free fall about the Sun, and Cassini is in free fall about Saturn, and so on. 

On the scales of interest for each objects motion, each object is dominated by its primary's gravity: for example - sure, Cassini is in free fall about the center of the galaxy too, but there's generally no point in considering it that way.  So we naturally view it as us falling about the Sun, and the Sun falling about the galactic center.  It doesn't take any extra "effort" on the Sun's part for us on Earth to move about the galaxy.

I hope I undersood where your coming from on this and that this helps.

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1121
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #329 on: January 13, 2017, 12:01:22 PM »
I don't know why so many people are against this idea.
Because it is incorrect.




We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun? 
No we are not. We (as in the planets) orbit the Sun (strictly speaking, both the Sun and the individual planets orbit a a barycentre, which because the Sun is so massive, is inside the Sun's volume). The Solar System, in turn, orbits the Galactic Centre.



How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?  Is it like me being on a plane and swinging a cat around me head?  In my head it can't be because of the forces involved.  Swinging a cat creates an outward force, yet Gravity is a pulling force, therefore they're not the same equation?
It doesn't "accelerate past the Sun". Gravity isn't a "pulling force". The planet orbits the Sun because the mass of the Sun distorts spacetime in such a way that the orbit is the most stable way for the planet to move. During its orbit a planet's orbital velocity will increase near perihelion and slow at aphelion. This has been known for hundreds of years



Is our Orbit around the Sun always the same, apart from it being elliptical?;  The orbital pattern itself, not the spiraling effect as the entire SS move thru space.

What do you mean? As above, the planet's orbital velocity will differ at different points of it's orbital path.



In fact...............PPPPffffftttt.  I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something inthe vortes of the plug hole is the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction??


That's a failure in your knowledge, not a failure in gravity or orbital mechanics.
An orbit is not a vortex.




I need some visual aid of the moving solar system AS it's traveling around the galaxy??  Does this exist?
If our SS was on an exact Horizontal plane to the Galaxy

Please read the Phil plait debunking of the vortex video that I've shown you not once, but twice. That contains a description of the Solar System's path around the galaxy.
Our SS is not on a flat plane...as it orbits it "oscillates" due to the gravitational attraction of the mass in the arms of the Galaxy.



The Sun is is being pulled around the galactic centre by what? 

It's not.
The Galaxy's mass distorts spacetime. This distortion means that the mass in our SS follows a certain path.

assuming gravity is acting upon everything constantly, is it arguable that the Arms of our Spiral Galaxy are more of a thick cosmic soup? 
I've no idea what you are talking about here.

what I mean is, are we encased in a space time relative only to it's own locality, not influenced by the motion of the galaxy?
Ditto.
"Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur"
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens.