What's up with Sirius?

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

In 3000BC from Cairo, Procyon, (ahead of the dog), rose 51 minutes (almost an hour) before Sirius. Now, in Cairo, Procyon rises several minutes behind Sirius.

Indeed, thanks to precession, whose amount varies with the star's position in the sky.

Something is precessing and something ain't.

Wrong. They both are.

Since Procyon is supposed to be ahead of the dog, Sirius, and not behind it, I think there's a problem with your theory.

No, the only problem is with your level of understanding of precession. Go take a look at it in any program that accounts for precession; you'll see it precess Sirius and Procyon and exactly that shift of relative rise time.

I figured you won't follow my advice and take a look at how precession should impact Procyon vs Sirius rise time from Cairo provided they both precess at their expected rates, so I took the liberty of generating the data for you. First up, the data for 3000 BC, the rise time of Procyon from Giza:

J2000 RA: 7h39m18.10s DE:+05°13'30.0"
Date RA: 3h15m51.73s DE:+01°16'06.6"

El-Giza 3000BC-1-1 1h04m ( TU + 2h00m )
Sideral Time : 6h13m
Hour Angle : 2h57m
Azimuth :+244°00'
Altitude :+39°09'

Rise : 16h02m Azimuth:+88°12'
Culmination : 22h07m
Set : 4h13m Azimuth:+271°48'

Now here's Sirius at the same location and time:

J2000 RA: 6h45m08.90s DE:-16°42'58.0"
Date RA: 3h06m55.28s DE:-24°20'28.2"

El-Giza 3000BC-1-1 1h04m ( TU + 2h00m )
Sideral Time : 6h13m
Hour Angle : 3h06m
Azimuth :+224°32'
Altitude :+19°43'

Rise : 16h56m Azimuth:+118°04'
Culmination : 21h58m
Set : 3h00m Azimuth:+241°56'

Now here's the situation for Procyon today from Giza:

J2000 RA: 7h39m18.10s DE:+05°13'30.0"
Date RA: 7h39m57.09s DE:+05°11'46.7"

El-Giza 2012-3-28 21h22m ( TU + 2h00m )
Sideral Time : 9h53m
Hour Angle : 2h13m
Azimuth :+238°14'
Altitude :+49°58'

Rise : 12h57m Azimuth:+83°40'
Culmination : 19h12m
Set : 1h27m Azimuth:+276°20'

And here's the situation for Sirius today:

J2000 RA: 6h45m08.90s DE:-16°42'58.0"
Date RA: 6h45m41.72s DE:-16°43'46.3"

El-Giza 2012-3-28 21h22m ( TU + 2h00m )
Sideral Time : 9h53m
Hour Angle : 3h08m
Azimuth :+230°27'
Altitude :+25°00'

Rise : 12h55m Azimuth:+109°05'
Culmination : 18h18m
Set : 23h40m Azimuth:+250°55'

Here's what the sky looked like in 3000 BC (I labeled Procyon for you, you should be able to figure out where Sirius is...):
i319.photobucket.com...
And here's what it looks like today (Again, Procyon is labeled, you should know where Sirius is...):
i319.photobucket.com...
Sirius precessed with the other stars. But because of how precession alters the north celestial pole's position relative to the stars, Procyon rose first in 3000 BC, but rises second in 2012 AD. So there you have it, when accounting for precession affecting both Procyon and Sirius, the swap in who rises first from Cairo is exactly what is expected!

I would say it would be a dieing/exploding star... But I'm pretty sure dieing stars don't flash like that.

I would say it, like all stars, is a construct, a world, and a station/craft.

Its souls that SHINE. The Family's SHINE is Love.

Its a Matrix Program that makes the brick heavy and sunlight hot.

reply to post by ngchunter

The fact that Sirius doesn't lie on the ecliptic means it precesses more slowly than Regulus.

Could you provide some substantiation for this?

Where did I say anything about the amount of precessing depending upon latitude?

they both precess, the amount of which is driven by their position in the sky

Right there you're saying that the rate of precession is driven by latitude, in this case, ecliptic latitude. So if that's true other stars in relative to Sirius positions, like Arcturus, should also exhibit a major slow-down in precession in relation to other stars. Your theory would rather rapidly, in 2000 years, rather obviously disorder the heavens. This has not been observed, hence the term 'fixed stars.'

The calendar itself is a non-factor as long as the equinox date is known.

Calendars are an easy way to confuse the masses. Rulers, Julius, and religions, the Pope, have used them consistently to recreate dates and events to fit within their agendas. Taking observations of Sirius back through time and calendars and cultures and languages is a daunting task where no Rosetta stone exists. Lucky for us, devoted scholars have done so with varying results but some quite sound.

Indeed, thanks to precession, whose amount varies with the star's position in the sky.

Again, got to say, there's not a lot of evidence for this, taking, for instance, Arcturus.

No, the only problem is with your level of understanding of precession. Go take a look at it in any program that accounts for precession; you'll see it precess Sirius and Procyon and exactly that shift of relative rise time will occur. I looked for myself.

What does a program for precession consist of? It consists of preset precession degrees. Garbage in = garbage out. Maybe you've heard of it? That's what makes Sirius so very interesting. There is observational evidence going back, some say, 10,000 years or so. You are so willing to lap up whatever you are told by the authorities of our time. Let me direct you to previous authorities: the Roman Empire, the church etc. All of these had a vested interest in the heavens being viewed in a certain way. Today...nothing has really changed on that front. There is still a vested interest in the heavens being viewed in a certain way.

reply to post by Unity_99

You're a reality check in an out-of-control world. Thankyou for your contribution on many levels.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

The fact that Sirius doesn't lie on the ecliptic means it precesses more slowly than Regulus.

Could you provide some substantiation for this?

That you even have to ask this shows you don't know anything about how precession actually works in astronomy. I refer you once again to the formula for how to precess a given set of coordinates for a star:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here's what precession looks like over 6000 years of time. The white circle around the center of the image is the line of the ecliptic.
i319.photobucket.com...
As you can see, precession causes an apparent rotation of all the stars and constellations around an axis perpendicular to the ecliptic, so they all rotate around the center point of that circle. Therefore, the answer to the question I asked you in the above post that you could not answer (the one about approximately how much precession a star 90 degrees north or south of the ecliptic would experience) was this; none.

Where did I say anything about the amount of precessing depending upon latitude?

they both precess, the amount of which is driven by their position in the sky

Right there you're saying that the rate of precession is driven by latitude, in this case, ecliptic latitude.

I was clearly asking you to point where I said it depended on geographic latitude, not ecliptic latitude. Nice attempt at deception once again, we were just talking about whether or not I claimed Luxor's latitude, that's geographic latitude, would affect precession. You switch what you're talking about at will to suit your argument and then attribute it to the other person. That's some of the worst intellectual dishonesty I've seen on this forum.

Your theory would rather rapidly, in 2000 years, rather obviously disorder the heavens.

Wrong. See above. It's not a "theory," it's an observed fact. Precession of a given set of coordinates IS dependent on how far those coordinates are from the ecliptic. You don't understand that, you don't even understand what precession actually looks like from an earth-bound perspective.

Taking observations of Sirius back through time and calendars and cultures and languages is a daunting task where no Rosetta stone exists.

It's real simple, there is NOTHING confusing about ANYTHING I just presented to you with regards to the dates. You can freely convert it to another calendar if you like, that's your call, I really don't care. Nothing is being obscured by the calendar here though, we know the dates of the equinox and how it relates to the heliacal rising of Sirius.

Again, got to say, there's not a lot of evidence for this, taking, for instance, Arcturus.

Moving the goalposts. Just a minute ago you were asking about Procyon. Yes, the amount a set of coordinates will precess depends on their distance from the ecliptic. There is no question at all about that. I've witnessed precession for myself, I've had to take into account in my own observations and measurements.

What does a program for precession consist of? It consists of preset precession degrees. Garbage in = garbage out.

It's not garbage in, I use the same program to steer my telescope and must account for precession or else it won't point correctly. Guess what? It works.

You are so willing to lap up whatever you are told by the authorities of our time.

You are so willing to lap up whatever you are told by complete woo woos who are completely ignorant about how astronomy actually works. It's no wonder that you're just as ignorant. See? Two can play that game. The difference is, I backed up what I said with proof. Sirius precesses with the background stars. I proved it. You ignored it. The amount of precession a star experiences depends on its position in the sky. I proved it. You'll no doubt ignore it again.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Luxor you too are a reality check for me. Its nice to see someone be able to defend common sense against the ignorance of those in fancy dress with the tone of clueless desperation. It's as if they are ready to cross their legs and hold their noses, while they grunt to try to clear out their minds.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

Luxor you too are a reality check for me. Its nice to see someone be able to defend common sense against the ignorance of those in fancy dress with the tone of clueless desperation. It's as if they are ready to cross their legs and hold their noses, while they grunt to try to clear out their minds.

Do you have anything useful, substantive, or significant to contribute? Right now all I see you doing is lobbing insults while cheerleading for luxor, offering nothing of substance and pretending to be in touch with reality. I would suggest you deny your ignorance and learn a thing or two about precession, but I know you won't listen. It would be nice though if you would at least try to actually debate the matter at hand, though I suppose after the thorough trouncing luxor received you don't feel up to it.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

So you're telling me that you can eyeball .3 degrees.

Easily. That's what telescopic images like this are for.

Come on!!

What part of the entire 1024x1024 pixel image is 1 degree by 1 degree wide did you not understand? What part of, .3 degrees would be 30% of the diameter of this image did you not understand? What part of, that would be over 300 pixels did you not understand? This image is indisputable proof that Sirius experiences precession along with the other stars. Yes, 0.3 degrees would be easily, easily detected at this scale - the entire image is only a degree wide.

For what it's worth, I notice this has still not received a reply from Luxor, nor do I expect it will. Perhaps Cherub you could start by explaining why if Sirius does not undergo precession, it is seen precessing with the other stars in these images taken 28 years apart?
i319.photobucket.com...

What's everyone debating over this pretty star for. Just go out and enjoy looking at it. It is kinda amazing with it's colors. I like when the atmosphere magnifies these things. One time I saw mars really big when it was close to earth during the harvest moon. You could almost see craters on it.

Somebody might have said this but from the direction and description it sounds like Arcturus not Sirius.