|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 22, 2009 09:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Astronomy has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING AT ALL!
You are just babbling, Death.
Are you kidding me?
http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/solpar/
(read the site's name please)
How do ASTRONOMERS measure the distance to stars?
what the hell do you suggest "measures the distance to celestial bodies" if not astronomy? Biology?
I'm getting angry now. Parallaxe is an invention of the damn 20th century. The Babylonians had no idea about that. The DID NOT KNOW DISTANCES AND SIZES, for FRAG'S SAKE! Still they did DARN ASTRONOMY. They watched the celestial body, developed a (wrong) model, and laid the foundations for determining "the way" of he celestial bodies.
I repeat, show me a reference that the Babylonians knew about those distances or sizes or SHUT THE HELL UP about it!
Quote:
I made that assumption, he COULD HAVE BEEN one of those people. Why are you so stubborn to understand this?
Because an ASSUMPTION on why someone errs and then starts an elaborate post about it is just the off-topic meandering that is completel irrelevant and leads to threads with your participation are avalanching into off-topic essays.
Quote:
Quote:
You don't see a problem with that last sentence?
Is there any problem in saying "I have no idea how one would experience if his brain would freeze its mechanism"?
That wasn't what you said. You said you had no idea how it would feel to fall into a black hole.
Now, I'm pretty sure it would HURT, so much so you'd just die actually.There is no way for any organized material body to exist under black hole conditions - the acceleration would simply kill everything. For your memory: black hole means that beyond the event horizon the gravitational acceleration or flight speed is higher than light speed. There is no way to escape either, except as a QUANTUM EFFECT! So it's just as impossible as flying with exactly light speed or any body with any mass. Which means the question ho it would feel makes as much sense as asking how it would feel to be a sun. It just cannot happen.
EDIT:
Death, just a question. Why do you insist on slamming away on topics you don't have much of an idea about? Vokial went in with two wrong statements, both quite obviously being based on some vague half-knowledge paired with reading the posts superficially - and you just bang into it a) in the field of "astronomy - or, more correct, large scale measuring - without much of an idea and b) in the other on an assumption of why a poster may have fallen to a wrong idea?
And to top it off your third point is philosophying about how a human mind may experience the event horizon and beyond. I mean, CHRIST!
Death, get a freking grip, that is looking like some opining addiction or something.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 12:16 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:25, 23 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Parallaxe is an invention of the damn 20th century.
sorry but Giovanni Cassini measured it in 1672 with parallax. Is that 20th century for you?Quote:
The Babylonians had no idea about that. The DID NOT KNOW DISTANCES AND SIZES, for FRAG'S SAKE! Still they did DARN ASTRONOMY. They watched the celestial body, developed a (wrong) model, and laid the foundations for determining "the way" of he celestial bodies.
What are you babbling about? Who said that just because they did not do sizes/distance it means that those aren't astronomy? That would be like saying that let's say Corribus, who is interested in physical chemistry, and doesn't do much electronics, is doing physics (astronomy)... but electronics isn't physics since he doesn't do it! (aka distances/sizes). And please don't say that you didn't say that, read below before you quote this and I provide FACTS what YOU SAID. (I don't think you know what fact even means)
Quote:
I repeat, show me a reference that the Babylonians knew about those distances or sizes or SHUT THE HELL UP about it!
What's this then?Quote:
Astronomy has NOTHING to do with it. NOTHING AT ALL!
I don't see the word Babylonian or Babylon there.
But you know what? Here are a few facts.Quote:
The distance of the sun is measured with simple trigonometric functions. The greeks did that over two thousand years ago. They just needed lunar and solar eclipses, after they had determined the size of the earth.
this is what YOU said. Then Vokial replied:Quote:
It happens in the middle east. Greeks have their knowledge from there.
which I backed up with that wiki article.
And Greeks measured the distance to the Sun? Yeah, off by about 20 times. I quote:
Aristarchus of Samos estimated the distance to the Sun to be about 20 times the distance to the moon, whereas the true ratio is about 390. His estimate was based on the angle between the half moon and the sun, which he estimated as 87°.
can't be much "wronger" than that.
And even if they did, as it has been outlined, they drew their knowledge from the middle east Babylon. So why are you arguing? It all started from there. So how about this then:
In the 14th century, the Arab astronomer Ibn al-Shatir accurately determined the distance between the Sun and the Earth as 23,212 times the Earth radius, which comes very close to the modern value of 23,481 times the Earth radius.
hmm still middle east, don't you think?
Also Babylonians did know angular distances, because their concept was around that or the Celestial Sphere.
You see, you make claims, and even say stuff that I didn't say. I look at facts, which in this case, is the PRECISE text that we write.
I'm pretty sure however that you will dismiss this as not worthy of reply because it's off-topic. Didn't stop you from posting about it though.
Quote:
Because an ASSUMPTION on why someone errs and then starts an elaborate post about it is just the off-topic meandering that is completel irrelevant and leads to threads with your participation are avalanching into off-topic essays.
No because I've experienced people like these on other forums as well. "Elaborate assumption"? Yeah, pretty elaborate.
Quote:
That wasn't what you said. You said you had no idea how it would feel to fall into a black hole.
Now, I'm pretty sure it would HURT, so much so you'd just die actually.There is no way for any organized material body to exist under black hole conditions - the acceleration would simply kill everything. For your memory: black hole means that beyond the event horizon the gravitational acceleration or flight speed is higher than light speed. There is no way to escape either, except as a QUANTUM EFFECT! So it's just as impossible as flying with exactly light speed or any body with any mass. Which means the question ho it would feel makes as much sense as asking how it would feel to be a sun. It just cannot happen.
Supermassive black holes tidal forces would not tear you apart at the Event Horizon at all.
The tidal forces in the vicinity of the event horizon are significantly weaker. Since the central singularity is so far away from the horizon, a hypothetical astronaut travelling towards the black hole center would not experience significant tidal force until very deep into the black hole.
And who gave you the idea that gravitational acceleration is higher than light speed? What physics do you base this on? There is no such thing as going higher than light speed in relativity. An object with any mass will require infinite energy to move at that speed. Are you saying a black hole has more than infinite energy.
I think you lost some concepts along the way.
Quote:
Death, just a question. Why do you insist on slamming away on topics you don't have much of an idea about?
Hmm I wonder what I PRECISELY quoted above, FACTS, and the references I gave meant really...
there's no interpretation here you see.. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. And no amount of babbling about me "had no idea about what I'm talking about" is going to cover that... well maybe except an edit or delete of the post.
Quote:
Vokial went in with two wrong statements, both quite obviously being based on some vague half-knowledge paired with reading the posts superficially - and you just bang into it a) in the field of "astronomy - or, more correct, large scale measuring - without much of an idea and b) in the other on an assumption of why a poster may have fallen to a wrong idea?
Look who's talking.
You said astronomy has NOTHING to do with it. I didn't see there "Babylonian astronomy" has nothing to do with it.
Now, because I, unlike you, BACK UP MY DAMN POINTS, you get angry because you ONLY MAKE CLAIMS.
Not once have you SUPPLIED A DAMN BACKUP of your points and yet you claim to know much about it. Good show me, and I will relate to your post which OBVIOUSLY reads that ASTRONOMY, not BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMY, has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, according to what you said, with measuring distances.
I really don't like being passed the guilt on when someone doesn't want to admit he was wrong and even says that the opposition has no idea what he is talking about. It's not like you're the first one who does it (and NOT on this forum mind you).
Quote:
And to top it off your third point is philosophying about how a human mind may experience the event horizon and beyond.
Someone obviously hasn't done his research it seems. Nope, supermassive black holes don't exist. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 12:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm getting angry now.
Oh dear.
Death, I think you hurt his feelings. I can't believe you've been so insensitive to mention a parallax.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 01:20 AM |
|
|
Guys, what are you even arguing about?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 01:34 AM |
|
|
Yeah I realize it's off topic, especially the babylon part (the black hole part, though, is more on topic), but being called that I have no idea of something -- not that I am wrong (would be ok, if provided as to why), but that I have no idea (which is a totally different thing), when he says some stuff that I can't connect in reasonable ways (and without any reference) -- is not something that I can ignore.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 01:37 AM |
|
|
Just a personal note . Mixing new unknown medicine, extreme fatigue, and posting is never a good idea
____________
Message received.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 01:51 AM |
|
|
beats sleeping mixed with new unknown medicines.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 04:47 AM |
|
|
At first I thought I would be picky if I were to mention Eratosthenes. Then fortunately JJ covered me. What is lacking from Death's arguments is
i) a name of a man,
ii) size of the distance,
iii) period (chronological), and
iv) exact method of estimating the distance or the circumference of the Earth.
Until then, keep on writing "Babylonians". Why not Egyptians?
____________
The empty set
|
|
darmo
Known Hero
True Gentleman
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 05:22 AM |
|
|
AFAIK a time machine will never invented because we've never seen a man from the future
____________
 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 06:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
At first I thought I would be picky if I were to mention Eratosthenes. Then fortunately JJ covered me. What is lacking from Death's arguments is
i) a name of a man,
ii) size of the distance,
iii) period (chronological), and
iv) exact method of estimating the distance or the circumference of the Earth.
I gave freaking links. LOTS of names. Not my problem you didn't read them. Just to show you how much ignorance you have (which was there mind you, if you bothered to check it):
http://www.livius.org/k/kidinnu/kidinnu.htm
But I'm not a babysitter for references, I've got better things to do.
The problem here is, of course, as I have pointed out, the actual size to the Sun was precisely measured only in the 17th century with parallaxe method (not in 20th as JJ said). Anything before was WAY OFF (except that arab in the 14th century who was pretty damn close, without parallaxe though). Therefore it isn't right to say that anyone before has attempted to do it successfully, and to quote JJ's words "they based it on a wrong model", but obviously he doesn't seem to apply that to the greeks for some reason.
But this doesn't undermine the fact, and the original point, that greeks had borrowed all from babylonians.
Just a question however. Do you people who argue with me even read my posts in full detail, (nevermind the stuff I link to)?
Quote:
Until then, keep on writing "Babylonians". Why not Egyptians?
Why is fire hot? Why not cold?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 07:38 AM |
|
Edited by dimis at 07:46, 23 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Just a question however. Do you people who argue with me even read my posts in full detail, (nevermind the stuff I link to)?
Not any more Death, because they are usually not worth it. Too much blah-blah and not a point. Even your answer above is not a good narrative. Where is the name? And where is the method in your link? I am not a mod to read every crazy link everybody comes up with.
Quote:
Quote:
Until then, keep on writing "Babylonians". Why not Egyptians?
Why is fire hot? Why not cold?
At least now we have a conversation in your terms. It's interesting, right?
____________
The empty set
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 09:34 AM |
|
|
Death you are WRONG and insist on being it. I'll explain it again to you.
1) Astronomy in the Middle East had NOTHING to do with measuring distances and sizes. It HAD something to with following the ways of the nearest and brightest "celestial bodies" and finding methods to compute their ways, that is, to be able to foretell where a certain celestial body would be at a certain given point.
Period. That's all that is to say about it. (And in this respect the Greeks like Ptolemäus and others of course drew on them.)
2) Measuring of distances and sizes (which is what was talked about here; Mytical mentioned a relation between lightspeed and distances) has been done in GREECE for the first time.
Greeks were pretty sure that the Earth was a sphere. They determined the reason why people on the other side wouldn't fall down that everything would be drawn to the centre of the universe and the Earth would be this centre.
Eratosthenes, in 276 BC, was the first who measured circumference. He had a brillant idea. He heard that in the town Syene in Southern Egypt there was a well where, on the longest day of the year, the sun would shine down to the ground, meaning that it stood vertically over the well. Syene was indeed very much near the Northernmost line where the sun can shine vertically down. This was never the case in Alexandria, and he knew that the reason for this was the curving of the Earth. At noon on 21. of June he put a stick into the ground in Alexandria and measured the angle between sun rays and stick which amounted to 7.2 degrees. This was the same then (they had pretty good knowledge of geometry at that point) then between the lines from centre of the Earth to Syene and to Alexandria.
All that was left was to measure the distance between those two cities which was 5000 Stadions. This was multiplied with 360/7.2. The Egypt Stadion had a different length than the Olympic stadion, and depending on that his result was either 46500 km or 39250 km.
Since this was the first time that someone had actually made a reasonable and founded estimation of the size of the Earth he could now go ahead and measure the size of the sun and the size of the moon. The ideas of how to do it had been around for some time, but no one had been able to do it, since you needed to know the size of the Earth first.
Anaxagoras and Aristarchos developed an idea of how to do it. Aristarchos was the one to develop the basic ideas how to do it, and Aristarchos (not Erathosthenes) measured the decisive abgle as being 87 degrees (which was a question of precision). The angle is 89.85 degrees, though, and since the decisive thing is the differenve between that angle and 90 degrees the error in measurement was 3/0.15, so he assessed that the sun was 20 times farer away from the Earth then the moon, a significant error, but just an error in MEASUREMENT, not in the METHOD which was correct.
Science agrees today that the Babylonians are NOT the fathers or forefathers of science. Collecting endless tables with positions of celestial bodies is statistics at best, but not science. Their universe was reingned by gods and myths and they didn't try to see through to causes and reasons. They just RECORDED stuff.
Egyptians were no scientists either, but TECHNICIANS. The Egyptians were practically thinking and looking for practical solutions to their practical problems.
The Greeks were the first what we would call scientists. They tried to explain things.
Now, note the context of this: there was Mytical, connecting distances in space with lightspeed, and I answered lightspeed had nothing to do with it, and to explain that I told her how distances in (deep) space are measured. (She then said she had meant the distance Earth-Sun and that's when I explained to her that you'd measure the distance with trigonometry, not with lightspeed - you know that light travels around 8 minutes because you know distance and lightspeed, not the other way round).
Since you may have an interest in this - astronomy has been done since the Babylonians and maybe even earlier, but there has ALWAYS been the problem to determine THE DISTANCE to the things they saw - and to cover that, astronomy has been and still is astronomy even without people determining distances. The reason here is that you cannot determine distances with astronomy, you need something else. You need the right instruments for one and the right ideas for another.
Triangulation, as a mathematic method has indeed been known to the Egyptians. Since the beginning of the 17th century it has been used for chart-making. But to use it to determine distance to far away stars you need two things:
1) A correct model of the universe. You need to know that the Earth is circling the sun within a year and you need to know the distance earth-sun.
Moreover, that as with Aristarchos you need PRECISE instruments to measure the angles, since due to the large distances milliseconds of degrees are of importance.
So, the first successful distance measurement using parallaxe (the only known way to measure cosmic distances) was made in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel.
At the end of the 19th century people watched the heaven on a regular basis and made catalogues of the stars. There was NO WAY, though, to determine all the distances. There was a WEALTH of stars and nebulas with names and all - and there was just no darn way to estimate the distance, since people always only saw RELATIVE brightness of the stars, not the ABSOLUTE brightness and parallax is quite obviously a pretty complex method that needs TIME, instruments and extremely accurate measurements.
This time a woman did it. Henrietta Leavitt was fascinated by the phenomenon of what we call pulsars today, stars that change their brightness in a certain pattern. She picked the Small Magellan Nebula - she didn't know how far it was away. Leavitt painstakingly searched and compared the fotos that were made of it and found 25 pulsars within. Her assumption was that the nebula had to be relatively far away with the pulsars all more or less within equal distance to Earth, since they were concentrated within a small areal. (The nebula allowed determining that.) Now, if they all WERE approximately equally distant, it followed that a relatively brighter star had to be an absolutely brighter star as well.
She then went on to check whether there was a relation between brightness and pusling period, and published her result in 1912, an immensely IMPORTANT year for astronomy: there was a simple mathematical relation between brightness and pulsating time (the time between the points of highest brightness): the longer the period, the brighter the star.
In case people are still following me here, Mytical, now comes the point where you may pause: She (and everyone else, mind you) made the assumption now that equal periods mean equal brightness - everywhere in the universe, as far as our telescopes reach. This allowed a COMPARISON of distances, since it is known that Distance = SqRt(brightness factor): If you have two stars with the same absolute brightness and one appears 9 times darker, then it is 3 times as far away.
So far so good, but STILL the problem was that no distance to any pulsar was known.
Around the same time that Leavitt made her observations, a group of astronomers, the well-known Dane Hertzsprung among them, managed to measure the distance to a pulsar. With one distance there, the rest could be determined with Leavitts method.
As an EDIT I add, that Leavitt did not get the Nobel prize she deserved for her work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact this is all pretty interesting stuff.
Babylonians anyone?
Now, Death, for Black Holes. Yeah, indeed you have a point: if the Black Hole is big enough - consists of enough mass, that is - the event horizon -, a human astronaut would be able to pass the boundary of the event horizon - ignoring the difference between absolute and apparent horizon for the moment - without his molecules being teared apart immediately. Of course, once within the horizon there is no way back and no way to communicate, so there is no way to tell anyone what's happening. For all intents and purposes, debating about what will happen upon entering the event horizon is like debating about what will happen after death.
This is all not mentioning the fact, that all this is considering general relativity ALONE when talking about Black Holes, which is leaving out a significant part: quantum mechanics. If you add this, temperature and entropy is added into a black hole, and for full explanation there is at least the problem of quantum gravity to be solved.
So, Death, do you really think it is worth the while here in this thread to discuss Black Holes and "how it would feel to enter one"? I mean, I'm not unintelligent and I read a couple of stuff about it, but there is no one who would actually be able to tell you what exactly is happening there, since no one knows. Understanding what people believe to know is another thing.
Frankly, I don't like the way how you simplify these things into a line and then blast on the way dimis describes it.
And it's just OFF-topic as well.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 09:46 AM |
|
|
Can we please make a new thread about black holes? Now despite my blunder with certain things lets get back to this. We do not know if there are things that interfear with time, space, gravity, etc by SMALL ammounts which might change everything we think we know. But that is not even the point. The black hole was just to give an example of WHAT could interfear with things. And IT isn't the point either.
The point is..we are here on a little speck (considering the size of the universe) thinking that everything has to play by our rules. That it fits nice and neat into our little box. Yet we have not even mastered our own ocean, and what might be in even that little part of our speck. Yes we need to make things rational, to make sure everybody is 'on the same page' so to speak. After all if one person calls something 'red' another 'blue' etc..then we will have no clue of what each other is talking about.
I just am one of those people who have experienced things that would be considered 'out of the box'. Things that, at least so far, don't make 'rational' sense. Like dreaming of future events, incountering somebody (or something) that passed completely through my body, knowing things before I could possibly know them..but I also know I can't do these things 'on demand' and realise that it is hard to quantify what can not be tested.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 10:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The point is..we are here on a little speck (considering the size of the universe) thinking that everything has to play by our rules...
... but I also know I can't do these things 'on demand' and realise that it is hard to quantify what can not be tested.
No one is interested in Black Holes. 
Anyway, I think that the first part of this quote is not right. We try to merely DISCOVER the rules that ARE valid in the great play we are taking a part in. It's not OUR rules. But rules there ARE - as I said, if not then the universe would dissolve itself in contradictions and paradoxes; it would be fundamentally unstable. However, everything hints on the universe being STABLE, after all it seems to exist already for a mighty long time.
If you don't like THAT, see it this way.
ASSUMING this stability hasn't been all that wrong as developments shows. It makes no sense now to assume that the fact that this assumption seems to deliver results is a mere coincidence, since there is no evidence for it.
Which brings us to the second part of the quote. While it is right, it also is half the coin. If you read my last post you'll have seen that people always have been busy to try and find ways to "test" or "determine" the untestable or undeterminable. This is an important part of science. Based on an hypothedis what a phenomenon might be to develop methods to "dig deeper":
a) What MIGHT be a possible explanation
b) How COULD we verify that
I don't think there is any other way, really.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
|
We think we know the rules, but we may be playing with the exceptions. Of course the exceptions to the rules can be very enlightening in and of themselves. Again, I am not talking catastrophic differences, but slight variances. Now I realise that we have to go on the information we have until we learn for certain that information is flawed.
It just seems when there is a possibility of something that does not fit our expectations that it is dismissed, disbelieved, or outright ignored.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 10:46 AM |
|
|
|
Yes, there is that danger.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 10:51 AM |
|
|
Heck one of my favorite things in the whole wide world was discovered by accident (this really has nothing to do with the thread and is WAYYY offtopic sorry). ICEE was discovered when somebody left a 'coke' in a freezer too long. Yummy accidental discovery there. 
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 11:05 AM |
|
|
Yeah, but the point is that the "accidental discovery" COULD BE REPRODUCED! Easily, in this case, and the only remaining question was, how to construct a machine to specifically produce that effect.
Would be the same with paranormal effects and ghosts, really, IF...
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:38, 23 Jun 2009.
|
Look JJ I'm not going much into that argument and I'm sorry for getting off topic with you, but what you say you "meant" isn't cosistent with what you actually said, and what I actually replied to.
Example:Quote:
1) Astronomy in the Middle East had NOTHING to do with measuring distances and sizes.
That's not what you said. You said this:Quote:
Astronomy has NOTHING to do with it.
Doesn't it look to you like the bold part is missing.
(more, actually you also sustained this idea of the second quote in this post, see below!)
Quote:
Science agrees today that the Babylonians are NOT the fathers or forefathers of science. Collecting endless tables with positions of celestial bodies is statistics at best, but not science. Their universe was reingned by gods and myths and they didn't try to see through to causes and reasons. They just RECORDED stuff.
Well obviously I never said that they were forefathers of ALL science. I said astronomy, that doesn't include ALL science mind you. And I disagree about them just recording things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics
I can understand if you don't have time to read it, but I do advise you to because I wouldn't like to drift this much more off topic. By the way the entire system with 60 seconds comes from them. You may ask why? Because it is a highly composite number (read the link). They did that for a reason.
They weren't just "collecting data". Their influence is noted even today. How can you say they "just recorded data" and never actually drew any reasonable conclusions or calculations from it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_mathematics#Influence (for the influence, note that greeks borrowed a LOT from them, in mathematics, not just "in recorded data" as you claim)
and they had concepts of angular distance as used in the Celestial sphere so pretty much shows, they weren't just recording data but also calculating/interpolating new data.
Quote:
The reason here is that you cannot determine distances with astronomy, you need something else.
See? This was your point before and it is wrong. Because the instrument themselves have nothing to do with the field. Are you saying that physics has nothing to do with observing atoms, because we use instruments called electron microscopes (for instance)? The instrument has nothing to do with the field. It is the study of celestial bodies -- and that study is regardless of instrument.
Quote:
So, the first successful distance measurement using parallaxe (the only known way to measure cosmic distances) was made in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel.
Cassini did it in 1672, also with parallaxe
Quote:
In case people are still following me here, Mytical, now comes the point where you may pause: She (and everyone else, mind you) made the assumption now that equal periods mean equal brightness - everywhere in the universe, as far as our telescopes reach. This allowed a COMPARISON of distances, since it is known that Distance = SqRt(brightness factor): If you have two stars with the same absolute brightness and one appears 9 times darker, then it is 3 times as far away.
So far so good, but STILL the problem was that no distance to any pulsar was known.
That assumption isn't correct because not all stars have the same brightness, it would be like saying that all light bulbs have the same brightness (at the same distance) which is incorrect.
Quote:
Now, Death, for Black Holes. Yeah, indeed you have a point: if the Black Hole is big enough - consists of enough mass, that is - the event horizon -, a human astronaut would be able to pass the boundary of the event horizon - ignoring the difference between absolute and apparent horizon for the moment - without his molecules being teared apart immediately. Of course, once within the horizon there is no way back and no way to communicate, so there is no way to tell anyone what's happening. For all intents and purposes, debating about what will happen upon entering the event horizon is like debating about what will happen after death.
This is all not mentioning the fact, that all this is considering general relativity ALONE when talking about Black Holes, which is leaving out a significant part: quantum mechanics. If you add this, temperature and entropy is added into a black hole, and for full explanation there is at least the problem of quantum gravity to be solved.
Hey that's not what I took issue with. I took with this, and I quote from you:
Now, I'm pretty sure it would HURT, so much so you'd just die actually.There is no way for any organized material body to exist under black hole conditions - the acceleration would simply kill everything. For your memory: black hole means that beyond the event horizon the gravitational acceleration or flight speed is higher than light speed. There is no way to escape either, except as a QUANTUM EFFECT! So it's just as impossible as flying with exactly light speed or any body with any mass. Which means the question ho it would feel makes as much sense as asking how it would feel to be a sun. It just cannot happen.
And to top it off your third point is philosophying about how a human mind may experience the event horizon and beyond. I mean, CHRIST!
Death, get a freking grip, that is looking like some opining addiction or something.
It sounds completely different doesn't it? (the bolded part is what I actually replied by using Supermassive Black Holes as an example -- and mind you acceleration doesn't kill you, it is the difference in forces applied on different parts of the body that does).
Quote:
So, Death, do you really think it is worth the while here in this thread to discuss Black Holes and "how it would feel to enter one"? I mean, I'm not unintelligent and I read a couple of stuff about it, but there is no one who would actually be able to tell you what exactly is happening there, since no one knows. Understanding what people believe to know is another thing.
But is there no reason to INTERPRET that? No one has actually experienced how it was to be on the Moon, and (assuming that it was real, not a hoax, let's not get into that!) they still had to "interpolate" how it would be like. Yes this is much more distant (a black hole), but trust me, real theoretical scientists' jobs is to actually hypothesize about it (or philosophize, whatever you like to call it).
What's so wrong in trying to imagine how it would be like? At least, when we can measure it (if we will ever be able to) we can test if that theory was right or not. Theories are made BEFORE measurements, that's the whole point of them. Measurement is supposed to TEST them. Otherwise you're just "recording data" 
And I never said you're unintelligent, actually you're a very bright person. Bright but a bit arrogant, but I guess that's a common attribute to most bright people
And dimis, if you don't bother to read my posts then why do you ask me questions? Aren't those supposed to be answered?
And as for what I said about the Babylonians-Egyptians-fire-hot-cold thing, that was meant to say, that it just happened to be. It would be like saying "why is the Earth smaller than Jupiter"? It just happened to be that way for various reasons of course. You can't change history, why do you ask me something like that?
Why not ask me the next time if we ever talk about communism "Why Stalin and not Mussolini?". I mean lol
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2009 06:14 PM |
|
|
Death, Cassini measured the distance to MARS. Since when is Mars a "far away star"?
But that is typical for the way you argue. Hair-splitting, sidetracks, half quotes, deliberate miss-interpretations - and all of it irrelevant and OFF-topic.
Death, ou can discuss your stuff with whomever you want, but not with me.
I repeat this: Mytical came up with distances and light speed, and I explained to her that distances would measured differently, to distant stars as well as earth-sun.
Vokial slipped in the Middle East, but the Middle East NEVER did measure any distances before the Greeks found a working method.
Period. That's what there is, nothing else, no matter how much astronomy the Babylonians or anyone else did, whether they made a fine calender around the same or knew angles - all irrelevant, since this was about distances.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
