A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The night sky 7,000,000 years ago above Earth?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 6th 04, 12:52 AM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Lou
writes

CeeBee wrote:
"Grunt" wrote in alt.astronomy:

Not much,

The current constellations would be unrecognizable. It doesn't take
millions of years for constellations to change. Some tens of thousands
of years will distort the constellation due to the movement of the
individual stars. None of the current constellations was present in
its current form 7 million years ago.

but you could see them better.

No doubt.


The night sky was very similar to the sky of today. And the
constellations were the same. The only change was with the procession
of the earth's axis. The wobble on it's axis. Real astronomers have
figured this and have created programs that can show the sky at any
given date. Past or future.

Lou


Utter nonsense. As I've already said, the proper motion of the other
stars, not to mention our own sun, will distort the constellations
beyond recognition.
Real astronomers are well aware of this, and most predictions aren't
valid for more than a few thousand years past and future.
7,000,000 million years is about 1/30 of a galactic year, the time our
sun takes to go round the galaxy.
In fact I wonder if precession (note spelling) will be the same as it is
now. There are other cycles in the Earth's motion.
Top posting corrected.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #12  
Old January 6th 04, 01:41 AM
Lou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not a real astronomer. Nor am I even an amateur. I came to this
group to find some help in setting up an observatory and purchasing a
high quality scope. Never thinking that the egos of people would be
strong enough to override the natural desire help others out.

A little knowledge of engineering (which does make people dangerous) and
and some common sense led me to the conclusion that the writing that I
have seen on the subject might be correct.

The precession of the earth's axis is a fact, I know this from the my
engineering background and because I am a pilot and must take into
consideration the changes in magnetic declination.

The big bang theory if correct means that all things are separating at
the same rate (so they wouldn't change but maybe grow over time.). Now
the tricky part is where the bang took place, this could slew the
separation slightly. And possibly the galaxy might have a spin to it
that I don't understand as being equal to all stars.

What did I miss? If there are other factors, let me know. No digs are
necessary.

Lou

  #14  
Old January 6th 04, 03:22 AM
CeeBee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lou wrote in alt.astronomy:

I'm not a real astronomer. Nor am I even an amateur. I came to this
group to find some help in setting up an observatory and purchasing a
high quality scope. Never thinking that the egos of people would be
strong enough to override the natural desire help others out.


Relax. That's not the case. Maybe you should just refrain from
statements that "real astronomers have". It a. indicates that you have
inside knowledge, which you now claim not to have, and b. people who
just gave other answers here are dopeys, as opposed to "real
astronomers".


A little knowledge of engineering (which does make people dangerous)
and and some common sense led me to the conclusion that the writing
that I have seen on the subject might be correct.


No big deal, it might be correct, but it isn't.


The precession of the earth's axis is a fact, I know this from the my
engineering background and because I am a pilot and must take into
consideration the changes in magnetic declination.


The precession of the Earth has nothing to do with the constellations.
Constellations are imaginary 2D images against the imaginary background
of the night sky. That background shifts as a whole due to precession,
not in detail. The proper motion of the stars is not related to
precession of the Earth axis.


The big bang theory if correct means that all things are separating at
the same rate (so they wouldn't change but maybe grow over time.).


No, this is not correct. The Big Bang Theory theorizes that the universe
as a whole is expanding, but this tells nothing about gravitational
bound systems on the scale of groups of galaxies.

Now
the tricky part is where the bang took place,


The Big Bang didn't "took place" somewhere inside the universe. The Big
Bang contained the whole universe from moment 0 - or better: the Big
Bang is an expansion of the space/time, the universe itself. There is no
point where it happened.

this could slew the
separation slightly. And possibly the galaxy might have a spin to it
that I don't understand as being equal to all stars.


What did I miss? If there are other factors, let me know. No digs
are necessary.



As indicated by others, the proper motion of stars itself relative to
our Sun, responsible for changing the constellations. All stars you see
and are part of constellations are stars relatively close to our own
Sun. As said above: in tightly gravitational bound systems like groups
of galaxies, let alone groups of nearby stars, objects don't run from
each other due to expansion of space itself.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

  #15  
Old January 6th 04, 03:25 AM
CeeBee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Ugo" wrote in alt.astronomy:


So you say. Prove it. :-)))



Ah - but you accuse, while I deny..



--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

  #16  
Old January 6th 04, 10:29 AM
Christopher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:22:57 GMT, Lou wrote:

The night sky was very similar to the sky of today. And the
constellations were the same. The only change was with the procession
of the earth's axis. The wobble on it's axis. Real astronomers have
figured this and have created programs that can show the sky at any
given date. Past or future.


Cool, which public available program would you reccomend I buy?

CeeBee wrote:
"Grunt" wrote in alt.astronomy:


Not much,



The current constellations would be unrecognizable. It doesn't take
millions of years for constellations to change. Some tens of thousands of
years will distort the constellation due to the movement of the individual
stars. None of the current constellations was present in its current form
7 million years ago.



but you could see them better.



No doubt.



  #17  
Old January 7th 04, 01:05 AM
Lou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Too many votes for a drastic change in star patterns. I stand humbly
corrected.

One thing I still do not understand is the movement of stars. I was
under the impression that the only movement of the stars were the
separation due to the big bang. Are they traveling at different
speeds? What's causing the movement?

Lou

Christopher wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:22:57 GMT, Lou wrote:


The night sky was very similar to the sky of today. And the
constellations were the same. The only change was with the procession
of the earth's axis. The wobble on it's axis. Real astronomers have
figured this and have created programs that can show the sky at any
given date. Past or future.



Cool, which public available program would you reccomend I buy?


CeeBee wrote:

"Grunt" wrote in alt.astronomy:



Not much,


The current constellations would be unrecognizable. It doesn't take
millions of years for constellations to change. Some tens of thousands of
years will distort the constellation due to the movement of the individual
stars. None of the current constellations was present in its current form
7 million years ago.




but you could see them better.


No doubt.




  #18  
Old January 7th 04, 01:14 AM
Ugo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lou wrote:
Too many votes for a drastic change in star patterns. I stand humbly
corrected.

One thing I still do not understand is the movement of stars. I was
under the impression that the only movement of the stars were the
separation due to the big bang. Are they traveling at different
speeds? What's causing the movement?

Lou


The stars we see with our naked eye are those in our galaxy. Just like the
planets orbit the Sun, the stars orbit around the galactic center, each star
has its own direction and velocity. They are not static at all. If they
were, they would have all fallen to the galactic center a long time ago.

--
The butler did it.


  #19  
Old January 7th 04, 01:38 AM
Jonathan Silverlight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In message , Lou
writes
Too many votes for a drastic change in star patterns. I stand humbly
corrected.

One thing I still do not understand is the movement of stars. I was
under the impression that the only movement of the stars were the
separation due to the big bang. Are they traveling at different
speeds? What's causing the movement?


Just random motions within our galaxy, mostly. There's also the fact
that most stars probably start in clusters which then break up, so you
get stars which start in roughly circular orbits and then start
travelling across the galaxy.
Add to that, slingshot effects (like Voyager's grand tour) in multiple
star systems and the fact that all the stars are going around the
galactic centre.
The only speed I can quote easily is for our sun, which is moving at 12
miles per second in the approximate direction of Vega ("the apex of the
Sun's way")
Coincidentally, Andrew Yee has just posted an article in sci.astro
"Young Star Caught Speeding" about the star PVCeph, which is now 30
light years from the cluster NGC7023.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~agoodman/Presentations/aas04PVCeph/
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
  #20  
Old January 7th 04, 02:34 AM
Roger Halstead
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 01:14:48 +0100, "Ugo"
wrote:

Lou wrote:
Too many votes for a drastic change in star patterns. I stand humbly
corrected.

One thing I still do not understand is the movement of stars. I was
under the impression that the only movement of the stars were the
separation due to the big bang. Are they traveling at different
speeds? What's causing the movement?

Lou


The stars we see with our naked eye are those in our galaxy. Just like the
planets orbit the Sun, the stars orbit around the galactic center, each star
has its own direction and velocity. They are not static at all. If they
were, they would have all fallen to the galactic center a long time ago.


Take our sun for instance. It not only orbits the core, but moves up
and down through the galactic plane.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What an awful mistake Oriel36 Astronomy Misc 92 December 29th 03 04:30 PM
UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) Kazmer Ujvarosy SETI 2 December 25th 03 08:33 PM
Saw a NOSS triad this evening... Jim Jones Amateur Astronomy 8 August 29th 03 07:02 PM
Space Calendar - August 28, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 August 28th 03 05:32 PM
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 July 24th 03 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.