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

Roger Halstead wrote:
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.

I suppose we can't really call it orbiting around the center, it's more like
everyone orbits everybody (well, at least those of us far from the central
black hole?). It's one nasty n-body gravitational system...

--
Well, did the butler do it?

"Lou" wrote in message
t...
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 you see in the night sky are relatively very close
neighbours within our Milky Way galaxy. They are within
a handful of light years, while the galaxy as a whole is
in excess of 100,000 light years in diameter. The whole
lot is gravitationally bound together, and all the stars
pursue their own particular orbits around the overall mass,
in a general pattern that forms a rotating disc. Individual
orbits can be quite chaotic, but the overall pattern appears
stable. They all have different speeds according to their
particular orbit characteristics.

The stars of our galaxy are not separating due to the Big
Bang; the expansion applies at scales where things are
not gravitationally bound, larger than the local
cluster of galaxies.

Yes, they would be different due to proper motion and precession.
Polaris was not always the North Star as the Earth wobbles like a Top
every 24,000 years.

The Big Bang happened everywhere at once since there was no universe or
space/time in existance. Stars move at different individual speeds
outside of the speed of the fabric of space/time and closer stars will
appear to move faster. so the Big Dipper did not look like a dipper in
the past and won't in the future especially when it's stars go
supernova.

In article , Lou
writes:

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.

Hi Lou,

Don't let the off-topic comments get to you. For scope advise
"sci.astro.amateur" has a higher proportion of people willing to be more than
helpful. When asking questions, try to provide as much information as possible
about what sort of observing you plan to do. Be realistic about how much time
you have available to spend observing. Local astronomy clubs are a valuable
resource.

What did I miss? If there are other factors, let me know.

The main factor to consider is that present "knowledge" of things astronomical
is not even a drop in the bucket. Opinions are a dime a dozen. (Astronomers
sitting in the dark are not all that brilliant.

Clear Skies, Astro-Peeps! --Richard

http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/science/starlite.htm


The Mote around the Beam?
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Getting the Right Interpretation
http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/interpre.htm

In article ,
(Christopher) writes:

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

There are free and shareware (try before you buy) astronomy programs available
from numerous web sites.


The Mote around the Beam?
http://members.aol.com/RichClark7/read/mote.htm

Getting the Right Interpretation
http://members.aol.com/AVBibleTAB/av/interpre.htm

"Douglas Iverson" wrote in message
...
The Big Bang happened everywhere at once since there was no universe or
space/time in existance.

Wasn't there? That's crap methinks........

I bet if you go back 100 trillion light yrs there woulda been a universe in
existence..........

"Whisper" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Iverson" wrote in message
...
The Big Bang happened everywhere at once since there was no universe or
space/time in existance.

Wasn't there? That's crap methinks........

I bet if you go back 100 trillion light yrs there woulda been a universe
in
existence..........

Light years are not a measure of time. They're a measure of
distance.

If the current model is anything near correct, both space
*and* time were created in the Big Bang. You couldn't
go back 100 trillion years.

(Douglas Iverson) wrote in alt.astronomy:

Yes, they would be different due to proper motion

Yes.

and precession.

No.



--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

"Whisper" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Iverson" wrote in message
...
The Big Bang happened everywhere at once since there was no universe or
space/time in existance.

Wasn't there? That's crap methinks........

I bet if you go back 100 trillion light yrs there woulda been a universe
in
existence..........

So far in this newsgroup, in reference to the Big Bang, you have said ...

"There was no 'big bang'"
"The 'big bang' theory is a load of crock......"
"It's pretty idiotic to think the whole of existence started form a single
big bang...."
"but no way did everything start from 1 single bang...."
"How can you say there was nothing before the big bang? That makes no
sense....."
"That's crap methinks........"

Do you have any actual arguments to present or are you just going to
continue to stomp your little feet on the ground???