Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,095 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,031,720
Pageviews Today: 1,851,909Threads Today: 805Posts Today: 14,189
08:57 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Star charts proof universe isn't expanding

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74806446
Singapore
05/01/2017 05:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
How are all the star constellations unchanged in 5000+ years of recorded human history? Ancient star charts match perfectly with modern ones.

Big dipper, Orion's belt, Sagittarius, etc....

The stars move according to the seasons and return back where they started, year after year.
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 74806446
Singapore
05/01/2017 06:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
Don't forget the Sun and the Moon appear to be exactly the same size [NASA confirms, think eclipses] and move the same exact speed across the sky.

NASA will tell you the sun is 400x the size of the moon and coincidentally 400x further away so they appear the same size.

Why do they move the same speed then?

Why are all the stars roughly the same size, and only the Sun and Moon are bigger? They claim there are stars larger than the sun, why aren't there a variety of star sizes in the sky?
Larry D. Croc

User ID: 70736097
United States
05/01/2017 06:15 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
The idiocy of your "questions" makes answering them a waste of time. You're not worth the effort, OP, sorry.
"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell, where they already have it." Ronald Reagan

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 74806446
Singapore
05/01/2017 06:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
You can't deny that none of the Stars have changed in 5000 years. If you could refute that fact, you would have.

Thanks for the bump
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 69712812
United States
05/01/2017 06:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
Don't forget the Sun and the Moon appear to be exactly the same size [NASA confirms, think eclipses] and move the same exact speed across the sky.

NASA will tell you the sun is 400x the size of the moon and coincidentally 400x further away so they appear the same size.

Why do they move the same speed then?

Why are all the stars roughly the same size, and only the Sun and Moon are bigger? They claim there are stars larger than the sun, why aren't there a variety of star sizes in the sky?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446


The distance n size would be some kind of mathematical

energy density mass constant,

Do u often get confused why four comes after three

And considering all the great libraries where burnt

Down ur ancient star charts r probably fake

Now fuk off cuk
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74787416
United Kingdom
05/02/2017 02:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
How are all the star constellations unchanged in 5000+ years of recorded human history? Ancient star charts match perfectly with modern ones.

Big dipper, Orion's belt, Sagittarius, etc....

The stars move according to the seasons and return back where they started, year after year.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446

The stars do move, but very slowly. There are no ancient star charts accurate enough to measure changes over 5,000 years, but we can certainly see proper motion comparing photographs taken over several decades.

Anyway, the expansion of the universe is an effect only measurable on very large scales, and all the stars you can see are very close by. Even the local galactic cluster is not affected by the expansion, and you have to take much larger structures of glaxies into account to measure it.

Don't forget the Sun and the Moon appear to be exactly the same size [NASA confirms, think eclipses] and move the same exact speed across the sky.

NASA will tell you the sun is 400x the size of the moon and coincidentally 400x further away so they appear the same size.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446

Yes, they appear to be approximately the same size, which is a lucky conicidence which lets us have nice eclipses. However, because the earth's and moon's orbits aren't circular, the relative sizes change, so you also get annular eclipses, and total eclipses of different durations.

Make the most of it though - the moon is slowly moving away from the earth, and in a few million years we'll never get a total eclipse again.

Why do they move the same speed then?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446

They don't. The moon moves in the sky relative to the sun which is why we only get eclipses occasionally.

Why are all the stars roughly the same size, and only the Sun and Moon are bigger? They claim there are stars larger than the sun, why aren't there a variety of star sizes in the sky?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446

The stars are so far away that to the naked eye they appear to be nothing but points of light. Even the best telescopes can only see very large, close-by stars as more than that.

The sun is a pretty unremarkable star, and pretty small compared to what is out there. It's just the vast distances that make the stars look smaller...
The Deplorable AstromutModerator
Senior Forum Moderator

05/02/2017 02:29 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Star charts proof universe isn't expanding
You can't deny that none of the Stars have changed in 5000 years. If you could refute that fact, you would have.

Thanks for the bump
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 74806446


Refuted.
Lol, so what constellations would that be? The same ones we have now? Because if were moving 483,000 miles per hour pretty sure after the fucking stars would have changed by now, thousands of years ago. Funny how only doom comes from fake ass space. Sheep porn
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73325676

Proper motion is real and can be measured, but it's incredibly slow in human terms.
Quite right, proper motion is relative to our movement. Anybody else find it incredibly divine a star can line up to celestial North with all this movement going.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 73466979


Here's "all the movement" of Polaris over about a half century of time. It's just barely detectable in old photographic sky surveys. The high resolution measurements of the proper motion of Polaris come from the 2007 reduction of the Hipparcos data:
[link to www.aanda.org]
The proper motion of Polaris can be independently verified using ground-based telescopes; since proper motion builds up over time, using high resolution images taken decades apart you can see its effect from one image to the next. For example, you can detect the proper motion of Polaris in images from the first and second Palomar Sky Survey that were taken using the same telescope almost 50 years apart. I used the following photographic film plates:

Plate XO001 (A2TX) photographed Aug 22, 1952 5:20 UT
Astrometrically solved image:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]

Plate XJ896 (A2NG) photographed Jan 17, 1998 5:12 UT
Astrometrically solved image:
[link to nova.astrometry.net]

The images 46 years apart should have a total motion of Polaris of about 2.1 arcseconds according to the hipparcos data (44.48 x 11.85 mas = combined vector of 46 milliarcseconds per year = 0.046 arcseconds per year * 46 years = 2.1 arcseconds).

For diffraction centroiding of Polaris, I measured the intersection of the diffraction spikes to find the position of Polaris in each image:
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]

Zooming in on the difference between the intersection points in the diffraction spikes, and drawing a line between those intersection points, you can see that Polaris has moved about 2 arcseconds between 1952 and 1998, just as expected according to the Hipparcos data. And just as expected, the direction of motion is positive in right ascension and negative in declination (resulting in a higher right ascension value and slightly lower declination value in the 1998 image):
[link to h.dropcanvas.com]

So yes, Polaris has proper motion and does move over time, but due to the vast distance between our solar system and Polaris it takes years for these motions to become noticeable even in telescopic images at arcsecond resolution. Even over tens of thousands of years that it takes precession to cycle through, it would only move a fraction of a degree.
 Quoting: The Deplorable Astromut


46 milliarcseconds per year * about 13,0000 years = about 598 arcseconds or 10 arcminutes, about 1/3rd the diameter of the full moon. Even if you could hop through time and go back tens of thousands of years, Polaris would barely seem to move by eye. It's very far away, so much so that even with a relative motion of at least 48,000 mph to our solar system, the motion is too small to see by eye over human time spans. Precession does mean that Polaris has not always been the north star in human history though, but that's due to the earth's axis of rotation, rather than a motion of Polaris itself.

 Quoting: The Deplorable Astromut

astrobanner2





GLP