| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2008 11:19:35 AM · #951 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Gleen" this: without specific times and dates, planets are all but useless as directional guides. Need evidence? Go outside and pick any star or planet. Walk ten paces toward it and note where you're headed. Go outside a few hours later and walk 10 paces toward that same star or planet. |
Except, when the planets (2 bright planets), due to their orbit, "appear" to be connected and travel a singular line from point A to point B, maintaining position to each other over the course of several months/years. This planetary event is a perception from earth and its viewable occurrence is on some "x" time table - typically thousands and thousands of years apart. |
No.
Every night, the planets visible at that time will travel across the sky along the ecliptic, rising in the east and setting in the west.
The stars do it too only they are outside the plane of the solar system that defines the planets' ecliptic path.
It's caused by the earth's rotation.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:20:06 AM · #952 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Without specific dates and times, any directional information you glean from a planetarium will be meaningless. You give me a window of months or years, and I'll find a bright star or planet that points to anywhere you want. This is evidence? |
1. I believe you have misused the term "planetarium".
2. Evidence - No. As stated above. Plausible explanation for the prose - yes. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:23:53 AM · #953 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The modern definition of astrology is the same as the historical one. |
I believe this is incorrect. |
Rather than simply believing, this is something you could actually check out. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:24:13 AM · #954 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Gleen" this: without specific times and dates, planets are all but useless as directional guides. Need evidence? Go outside and pick any star or planet. Walk ten paces toward it and note where you're headed. Go outside a few hours later and walk 10 paces toward that same star or planet. |
Except, when the planets (2 bright planets), due to their orbit, "appear" to be connected and travel a singular line from point A to point B, maintaining position to each other over the course of several months/years. This planetary event is a perception from earth and its viewable occurrence is on some "x" time table - typically thousands and thousands of years apart. |
No.
Every night, the planets visible at that time will travel across the sky along the ecliptic, rising in the east and setting in the west.
The stars do it too only they are outside the plane of the solar system that defines the planets' ecliptic path.
It's caused by the earth's rotation. |
I must respectfully disagree. You are correct for most times. You are not correct for this particular movement between mars/venus in whch they appeared together for many months, and "walked" accross the night sky in unison (as observed from earth). |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:26:11 AM · #955 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Without specific dates and times, any directional information you glean from a planetarium will be meaningless. You give me a window of months or years, and I'll find a bright star or planet that points to anywhere you want. This is evidence? |
1. I believe you have misused the term "planetarium".
2. Evidence - No. As stated above. Plausible explanation for the prose - yes. |
1. How so? I used it exactly as intended.
2. That a bright celestial body can be found to match any proposed direction is not an plausible explanation of anything. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:27:08 AM · #956 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The modern definition of astrology is the same as the historical one. |
I believe this is incorrect. |
Rather than simply believing, this is something you could actually check out. |
Thus my attempt to at cordiality by allowing you an opportunity to restate should you choose. Since you do not, I will with hold any future curtesys. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:30:09 AM · #957 |
Originally posted by Flash:
You are not correct for this particular movement between mars/venus in whch they appeared together for many months, and "walked" accross the night sky in unison (as observed from earth). |
Got any reference for this or are you just making it up? This is the closest I could find, albeit with different planets (which still would have moved across the sky every night):
"It was in 1968 when Roger Sinnott wrote a highly influential article in Sky and Telescope pointing to the June 17th 2 BC conjunction of Venus and Jupiter as having been particularly spectacular from Babylon that this theory took off. Sinnott’s work is still one of the finest ever carried out in this field and all the more laudable for having been done from planetary tables, without the assistance of a computer. Sinnott investigated conjunctions over a wide range of dates from 12 BC to 7 AD finding more than 200 conjunctions of the major planets. He also found no less than 20 compact groupings of three or four planets, of which only 4 would have been observable. After carefully filtering the events, Sinnott concluded that the 2 BC conjunction, in Leo, would have fitted the bill.
On June 17th 2 BC, as seen from Babylon, Venus and Jupiter would have set 3 hours after sunset, with the two planets too close together to separate by eye, having closed considerably in the time since sunset. In fact, we now know that the disk of Venus actually passed in front of Jupiter, occulting it partially.
The problem with conjunction though is that they are too common. When the Magi have been waiting several hundred years for the birth of the Messiah, they would have seen all kinds of occultations and it is hard to believe that a single occultation, however spectacular, could have been the Star of Bethlehem, quite apart from the fact that this one happened several years too late."
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 11:32:15. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:31:07 AM · #958 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Gleen" this: without specific times and dates, planets are all but useless as directional guides. Need evidence? Go outside and pick any star or planet. Walk ten paces toward it and note where you're headed. Go outside a few hours later and walk 10 paces toward that same star or planet. |
Except, when the planets (2 bright planets), due to their orbit, "appear" to be connected and travel a singular line from point A to point B, maintaining position to each other over the course of several months/years. This planetary event is a perception from earth and its viewable occurrence is on some "x" time table - typically thousands and thousands of years apart. |
No.
Every night, the planets visible at that time will travel across the sky along the ecliptic, rising in the east and setting in the west.
The stars do it too only they are outside the plane of the solar system that defines the planets' ecliptic path.
It's caused by the earth's rotation. |
I must respectfully disagree. You are correct for most times. You are not correct for this particular movement between mars/venus in whch they appeared together for many months, and "walked" accross the night sky in unison (as observed from earth). |
Yes, they may have "walked across the sky" every night, from east to west, but there is no physical way for two planets visible in the night sky to stay in one location in the sky for any amount of time. If the planets became visible just after sunset in the east, by midnight, they would be slightly south of overhead and by sunrise, they would be setting in the west. The ONLY star that does not appear to move is Polaris, the North Star.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:37:56 AM · #959 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Without specific dates and times, any directional information you glean from a planetarium will be meaningless. You give me a window of months or years, and I'll find a bright star or planet that points to anywhere you want. This is evidence? |
1. I believe you have misused the term "planetarium".
2. Evidence - No. As stated above. Plausible explanation for the prose - yes. |
1. How so? I used it exactly as intended.
2. That a bright celestial body can be found to match any proposed direction is not an plausible explanation of anything. |
Planetarium
From this definition, your sentence Without specific dates and times, any directional information you glean from a planetarium will be meaningless. does not make sense to me. One does not glean outside directional information from inside a planetarium dome. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:44:45 AM · #960 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
You are not correct for this particular movement between mars/venus in whch they appeared together for many months, and "walked" accross the night sky in unison (as observed from earth). |
Got any reference for this or are you just making it up? This is the closest I could find, albeit with different planets (which still would have moved across the sky every night):
"It was in 1968 when Roger Sinnott wrote a highly influential article in Sky and Telescope pointing to the June 17th 2 BC conjunction of Venus and Jupiter as having been particularly spectacular from Babylon that this theory took off. Sinnott’s work is still one of the finest ever carried out in this field and all the more laudable for having been done from planetary tables, without the assistance of a computer. Sinnott investigated conjunctions over a wide range of dates from 12 BC to 7 AD finding more than 200 conjunctions of the major planets. He also found no less than 20 compact groupings of three or four planets, of which only 4 would have been observable. After carefully filtering the events, Sinnott concluded that the 2 BC conjunction, in Leo, would have fitted the bill.
On June 17th 2 BC, as seen from Babylon, Venus and Jupiter would have set 3 hours after sunset, with the two planets too close together to separate by eye, having closed considerably in the time since sunset. In fact, we now know that the disk of Venus actually passed in front of Jupiter, occulting it partially.
The problem with conjunction though is that they are too common. When the Magi have been waiting several hundred years for the birth of the Messiah, they would have seen all kinds of occultations and it is hard to believe that a single occultation, however spectacular, could have been the Star of Bethlehem, quite apart from the fact that this one happened several years too late." |
What makes me think that this might reference the presentation I am referring is that:
1. It includes 2 planets
2. It was in summer time at 2 BC.
What makes me question it, is the commonality of the occulting. As I recall, it was very specific about the rarity of the event and the duration of time it took (months/years) for the planets to travel accross the sky.
If I stumble accross it, I obviously will post a link. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:45:26 AM · #961 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The modern definition of astrology is the same as the historical one. |
I believe this is incorrect. |
Rather than simply believing, this is something you could actually check out. |
Thus my attempt to at cordiality by allowing you an opportunity to restate should you choose. Since you do not, I will with hold any future curtesys. |
Even when faced with something that could easily be shown factually correct or incorrect, you choose to rely on what you believe and dismiss the chance to actually find out. This is an historical field, not some intangible deity, so if you believe the statement is false, I cordially invite you to prove it. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 11:58:29 AM · #962 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
The modern definition of astrology is the same as the historical one. |
I believe this is incorrect. |
Rather than simply believing, this is something you could actually check out. |
Thus my attempt to at cordiality by allowing you an opportunity to restate should you choose. Since you do not, I will with hold any future curtesys. |
Even when faced with something that could easily be shown factually correct or incorrect, you choose to rely on what you believe and dismiss the chance to actually find out. This is an historical field, not some intangible deity, so if you believe the statement is false, I cordially invite you to prove it. |
1. The Magi were astrologers.
2. They studied the heavens (as in planets/stars)
3. The Magi are a major factor in the "christmas" story presented in modern Christianity.
4. Modern Christianity denounces astrology as non-christian (even pagan).
5. If the Magi were practicers of modern astrology (as opposed to historical astronomy) and they are a key component of the recognition of Christ as Messaiah, then how could modern christianity denounce the very method that allowed them insight to the recognition of Christ's birth? They couldn't. Therefore, either the "church" is a hypocrite or the definition of astrology in this historical context is DIFFERENT than modern astrology.
Since the chruch is not a hypocrite, then the definitions are different.
The "hypocrite" part I put in just for you - scalvert. Kind of like feed raw meat to the lions. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:01:46 PM · #963 |
Originally posted by Flash:
One does not glean outside directional information from inside a planetarium dome. |
Sure you can, and that's exactly what the planetarium presentation you referenced attempted to verify, but you need specific times and dates to do so.
Originally posted by Flash:
What makes me think that this might reference the presentation I am referring is that:
1. It includes 2 planets
2. It was in summer time at 2 BC. |
Planetary conjunctions usually involve two planets, and this would have been a gradual event as the gap between the planets closed over months of time. The planets still moved from east to west across the sky every night, and this conjunction occurred well before Jesus was even conceived. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:02:46 PM · #964 |
astrology in the past used to combine both what we currently call astrology and astronomy. Astronomy split off as a more provable science, leaving the fortune telling, stars influencing life on earth etc to the Astrological branch.
It seems pretty self evident that the 3 wise men of the bible were heavily invested in the modern fortune telling/astrological aspect of the combined discipline of astronomy/ astrology, as well as astronomy.
Just like alchemy was largely what is now further refined to be chemistry and alchemy.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:04:45 PM · #965 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. The Magi were astrologers.
2. They studied the heavens (as in planets/stars)
3. The Magi are a major factor in the "christmas" story presented in modern Christianity.
4. Modern Christianity denounces astrology as non-christian (even pagan).
5. If the Magi were practicers of modern astrology (as opposed to historical astronomy) and they are a key component of the recognition of Christ as Messaiah, then how could modern christianity denounce the very method that allowed them insight to the recognition of Christ's birth? |
If the 3 wise men didn't believe the stars were indicators of events or earth, or foretold the future (ie. modern astrology) why would they bother following a star ? I don't find many modern astronomers thinking that a comet is worth traveling around the world for, other than to observe it - not to find a baby born under it... The distinction you are drawing seems very at odds with their reported actions.
You also base the 'logical' conclusion on the church not being a home to contradictions. That seems a like a good place to look for the flaw in your thinking, too.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 12:06:55. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:13:52 PM · #966 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
and this conjunction occurred well before Jesus was even conceived. |
This is the second time you have posted this and I am confused. Why is 2 BC a problem? My study indicates that Christ's birth/death/age are approximations. Even our current calender of January 2008 could be off by years. Am I missing something here? Herod ordered all males 3 and under to be executed. If specific dates/times are known, why have such a range in execution. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:17:45 PM · #967 |
| What Gordon said. Modern Christianity had no problem assigning the celebration of Jesus' unknown birth date to a formerly pagan seasonal festival, and the Magi themselves were Zoroastrian (a religion that Christianity also denounces), so there appears to be more to reconcile than just their occupations. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:25:39 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My study indicates that Christ's birth/death/age are approximations. Even our current calender of January 2008 could be off by years. Am I missing something here? Herod ordered all males 3 and under to be executed. If specific dates/times are known, why have such a range in execution. |
What makes your personal study the official benchmark? A birthday of 2 B.C. poses a definition problem (and specific dates of such well prophecized and heralded events should be WELL known). Was a calendar based solely on the date of Jesus' birth not the result of some study, too? Apparently Herod didn't know the date/age any better than you do, despite being MUCH closer to the event.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 12:27:45. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:30:57 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by Flash:
1. The Magi were astrologers.
2. They studied the heavens (as in planets/stars)
3. The Magi are a major factor in the "christmas" story presented in modern Christianity.
4. Modern Christianity denounces astrology as non-christian (even pagan).
5. If the Magi were practicers of modern astrology (as opposed to historical astronomy) and they are a key component of the recognition of Christ as Messaiah, then how could modern christianity denounce the very method that allowed them insight to the recognition of Christ's birth? They couldn't. Therefore, either the "church" is a hypocrite or the definition of astrology in this historical context is DIFFERENT than modern astrology.
Since the chruch is not a hypocrite, then the definitions are different. |
Firstly, I think the story of the magi is just that – a story and not based on any actual events, seeing as it was first written around 70 CE by third party individuals.
It’s interesting to note that since you define the church as not being hypocritical, then astrology must have had a different definition than the modern definition. (If it wasn’t astrology in the modern sense, why follow a star to find a king?) The reasoning behind this strikes me as someone saying that when Johnny took that pack of gum for which he did not pay, he couldn’t have been stealing, because Johnny doesn’t steal.
Mind you, I really don’t have a pony in this race, but I just thought it was interesting.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:32:23 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
My study indicates that Christ's birth/death/age are approximations. Even our current calender of January 2008 could be off by years. Am I missing something here? Herod ordered all males 3 and under to be executed. If specific dates/times are known, why have such a range in execution. |
What makes your personal study the official benchmark? A birthday of 2 B.C. poses a definition problem (and specific dates of such well prophecized and heralded events should be WELL known). Was a calendar based solely on the date of Jesus' birth not the result of some study, too? Apparently Herod didn't know the date/age any better than you do, despite being MUCH closer to the event. |
A birthday of 2 B.C. poses a definition problem (and specific dates of such well prophecized and heralded events should be WELL known).
This is specifically what I am requesting an explanation on. Why does 2 BC pose a definition problem? |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:34:11 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Why is [a date of 2 years Before Christ] a problem [for announcing his birth]? |
Gee.... I dunno... anybody see a problem here? :-/
|
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:39:11 PM · #972 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Firstly, I think the story of the magi is just that – a story and not based on any actual events, seeing as it was first written around 70 CE by third party individuals.
It’s interesting to note that since you define the church as not being hypocritical, then astrology must have had a different definition than the modern definition. (If it wasn’t astrology in the modern sense, why follow a star to find a king?) The reasoning behind this strikes me as someone saying that when Johnny took that pack of gum for which he did not pay, he couldn’t have been stealing, because Johnny doesn’t steal.
Mind you, I really don’t have a pony in this race, but I just thought it was interesting. |
I think Gordon posted my position best when he stated that prior to "X" time, astrology and astronomy were "one" discipline which separated to become 2 [astrology in the past used to combine both what we currently call astrology and astronomy. Astronomy split off as a more provable science, leaving the fortune telling, stars influencing life on earth etc to the Astrological branch.]
Thus my claim of different definitions - one historical and one modern. The historical included astronomy whilst the modern does not. That was the true crux of my argument, not the "church/hypocrite" part. Since astrology before and after the separation of astronomy are different, then by definition I was accurate - as posted. Exactly what I said I said.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 12:51:11. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:44:16 PM · #973 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Why is [a date of 2 years Before Christ] a problem [for announcing his birth]? |
Gee.... I dunno... anybody see a problem here? :-/ |
You are attempting a mockery and truthfully I don't much care for it. I have asked for your position on why a 2 BC date is a problem. You seem to imply that the current calendar is irrefutabley accurate, since christ was born at exactly year zero. My simple question is, why do you believe that? What evidence do you have to PROVE the accuracy of the modern calendar and the current year as exactly 2008 years after the birth of christ? |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:48:18 PM · #974 |
Well, to your original question 'Is [historical] astrology (the study of the heavens), a science?' Half of it was (which became astronomy) Half of it wasn't (which is still astrology)
I would consider the part that involves traveling across the world, to find a king under a star, part of the modern and historical astrological definition and the most common understanding of the story of the Magi. |
|
|
|
01/03/2008 12:50:54 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
You are not correct for this particular movement between mars/venus in whch they appeared together for many months, and "walked" accross the night sky in unison (as observed from earth). |
Got any reference for this or are you just making it up? This is the closest I could find, albeit with different planets (which still would have moved across the sky every night):
"It was in 1968 when Roger Sinnott wrote a highly influential article in Sky and Telescope pointing to the June 17th 2 BC conjunction of Venus and Jupiter as having been particularly spectacular from Babylon that this theory took off. Sinnott’s work is still one of the finest ever carried out in this field and all the more laudable for having been done from planetary tables, without the assistance of a computer. Sinnott investigated conjunctions over a wide range of dates from 12 BC to 7 AD finding more than 200 conjunctions of the major planets. He also found no less than 20 compact groupings of three or four planets, of which only 4 would have been observable. After carefully filtering the events, Sinnott concluded that the 2 BC conjunction, in Leo, would have fitted the bill.
On June 17th 2 BC, as seen from Babylon, Venus and Jupiter would have set 3 hours after sunset, with the two planets too close together to separate by eye, having closed considerably in the time since sunset. In fact, we now know that the disk of Venus actually passed in front of Jupiter, occulting it partially.
The problem with conjunction though is that they are too common. When the Magi have been waiting several hundred years for the birth of the Messiah, they would have seen all kinds of occultations and it is hard to believe that a single occultation, however spectacular, could have been the Star of Bethlehem, quite apart from the fact that this one happened several years too late." |
What makes me think that this might reference the presentation I am referring is that:
1. It includes 2 planets
2. It was in summer time at 2 BC.
What makes me question it, is the commonality of the occulting. As I recall, it was very specific about the rarity of the event and the duration of time it took (months/years) for the planets to travel accross the sky.
If I stumble accross it, I obviously will post a link. |
The planets would have traveled across the sky from East to West once every night. Had someone used them for navigation, they would have started out going east, and gradually turned south as the night went on, then turned west as morning came. Planets are pretty much useless as terrestrial navigational guides.
Message edited by author 2008-01-03 12:53:55.
|
|
