What's up with Sirius?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

In other words, our solar system is traveling many times too fast relative to Sirius for it to be a "companion star."

No, that is not why Sirius is blue. It's blue because it's actually blue, not because it's so dramatically blue shifted tInhat it completely changed colors.

The red and blue kachina in the Hopi prophecy have always meant red shift/blue shift to me. Incoming is blue and outgoing is red.

Red Shift

If a star is moving closer to us, the light it gives off gets squeezed together, which makes it appear bluer than it actually is. If the star is moving away from us, the light gets stretched out, which makes it appear more red than it really is. If the star is also going faster all the time, or accelerating, this effect is even greater.

I know what red shift/blue shift is. That is not why Sirius is blue. Doppler shift of light shifts the spectrum of absorption lines, we would see those lines dramatically shifted if it were being blue shifted from a completely different redder color.

I have actually read about the escape velocity as it relates to Sirius. In fact, I read about it in the link you quoted. It was this that caused them to say that Sirius, as a binary candidate, is a remote possibility.

Well "they" are wrong, it's not a possibility at all. We know for a fact our relative velocity is many times too large to allow for it even as a possibility.

Further, none of this speculation really takes into consideration the warps of space-time.

We know how fast we're moving relative to Sirius, we can see it in the proper motion of the star. It is not high enough for relativistic effects to be important.

reply to post by ngchunter

We know how fast we're moving relative to Sirius, we can see it in the proper motion of the star. It is not high enough for relativistic effects to be important.

I don't think we know enough about stars and about the universe to make statements like this. I don't think we even know enough to know when our observations are based on preconceived ideas which may be entirely incorrect.

Clocking the Speed of Stars

The speed of light and power of gravity, for example, “could just be sort-of ‘by-laws’ for our local time and place in the universe,” says Murphy. If these physical constants turn out to be variable, then this finding may break new ground on the fundamental theories of how the universe works “that people have been chasing since Einstein,” says Murphy.

The apparent movement of Sirius in the sky is not the same as the apparent movement of the other stars. This is one of the reasons that the Egyptians chose Sirius as a calendar. It seems to be in concert with our solar system.

A Sirius Revolution

"Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes -- and so from the solstices -- throughout these many centuries, despite precession"

The reason why the Egyptians and many other civilizations of that era used Sirius as their marker for the passage of time is because they picked the most stable object as their reference point.

But even Sirius was not accurate enough for the "Keeper's of Time", the Mayans. With their remarkably advanced astronomy they quickly detected the inaccuracies in using Sirius as a marker for the passage of time, and switched to an even more accurate cycle involving the Pleiades. There is however an even more stable reference point than the Pleiades and that is the Galactic center, which from the perspective of our galaxy is the ultimate center of rotation.

Sothic Cycle

It has been noticed, and the Sothic cycle confirms, that Sirius does not move retrograde across the sky like other stars, a phenomenon widely known as the precession of the equinox.

For the same reason, the helical rising (or zenith) of Sirius does not slip through the calendar (at the precession rate of about one day per 71.6 years), as other stars do.

The original pulsing of Sirius that I saw seems to be best explained here. Essentially saying that it was not Sirius but a star, normally not visible, close enough to Sirius that with an unaided eye it would look like Sirius, emitting a pulse. In 2010 this was happening and in this description in 2007 it was also happening.

Sirius, mystery of red color

I am writing with regard to a visual and photographic observation of a red flaring star in the apparent vicinity of alpha CMa [Sirius]. It happened some time ago, but, as usual, we don't have time to investigate.

The object appeared to be flaring

The object was almost inseparable from Sirius with the naked eye, but it was clear that Sirius and the flaring object do not have the same point source. Visually the object appeared to be between a 1 and 5 o'clock position relative to Sirius and the horizon. The object was flaring with a lighthouse effect: the light source appeared either unseen or very bright. The "dimming" was very abrupt, lasting less than 2 seconds

I am experienced in visual observations, but I have never seen anything like that. I believe that a terrestrial source for the phenomenon can be eliminated due to the prolonged duration of the event (30 min) with no apparent change of position in relation to alpha CMa and confirmation by another observer who was almost 100 km away. Furthermore, it was a cold night (-6°C) and there was no perceptible star twinkling even at the horizon

While I do not have the exact explanation of the nature of the event my guess is that it might be a high frequency rotating brown or red dwarf flaring at that particular time. The event happened at approx. 9 PM GMT +2, on 18 Feb 2007.

The other explanation follows below.

reply to post by ngchunter

The other explanation would be the third star making Sirius a trinary that the Dogon claimed existed. A neutrino star would explain a clockwork pulse. And it may well be what the person in 2007 described and saw. This would also explain the various sightings of Sirius through the ages as red, blue, white.

It would be wonderful to know what that incredible saphire blue, almost electric blue color signifies but I was unable to find an explanation for this very appealing effect. Except as below.

Neutrinos

The energy shed by particles moving faster than the speed of light in a medium like glass or water (light moves through water at only three-quarters of its speed in vacuum) is called Cherenkov radiation, and is perhaps most familiar as the blue glow made by fast-moving electrons in a pool surrounding a nuclear reactor. The same visible-light-wavelength Cherenkov radiation is used to detect charged-particle events created by neutrinos in detectors like IceCube.

Originally posted by Baldryck
As far as the reference to Sirius from wikipedia, there is a second part you left out.

Sirius

Sirius is gradually moving closer to the Solar System, so it will slightly increase in brightness over the next 60,000 years. After that time its distance will begin to recede, but it will continue to be the brightest star in the Earth's sky for the next 210,000 years

So even though it's moving towards us, it is not going to continue "all the way in".

Busted.

Typical for someone desperate to prove that her belief is the only belief. I hope you find your doom, sweetie.

reply to post by ColAngus

Your well wishes and stalking are becoming tiresome. A revolution means that objects revolve around each other, not that they crash into each other. Several posters had said that Sirius and the solar system were not getting closer. I put up the link to show that they are, not to show that they are colliding. Red shift/blue shift dictates this. Sirius is variously described as blue, red and white and blue-white throughout the ages. In red shift/blue shift this means that sometimes it is approaching and sometimes it is receding - like in a revolution wherein things revolve around each other.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ColAngus

 

Your well wishes and stalking are becoming tiresome.

What you call stalking, I call normal posting activity. I know you'd like to personally dictate the rules of this board, but alas, I'm allowed to continue posting on topics that interest me for the time being.

Which leads to my next point...Nice to see you gave up arguing the moon being upside down. Did you follow that link I gave you multiple times to the Nancy Leider/pole shift site? I was trying to be genuinely helpful by offering you a safe haven to discuss the issue with your peers without being constantly debunked.

The first step to being ok with conceding a point is understanding that everything will seem like a pack mentality when you're so blatantly wrong.

As you were...

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

We know how fast we're moving relative to Sirius, we can see it in the proper motion of the star. It is not high enough for relativistic effects to be important.

I don't think we know enough about stars and about the universe to make statements like this.

Well then there's another thing you're wrong about.

I don't think we even know enough to know when our observations are based on preconceived ideas which may be entirely incorrect.

There's nothing "preconceived" about the proper motion of Sirius. We can see it, its relative velocity compared to our solar system is many times too high for it to be a companion star, end of story. It's not even close, it's not even a possibility.

The apparent movement of Sirius in the sky is not the same as the apparent movement of the other stars.

Sirius' proper motion is not up for debate. It shows proper motion just like other stars. That quantity has been determined and measured.

A Sirius Revolution

"Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes -- and so from the solstices -- throughout these many centuries, despite precession"

Thinking "viewzone" is a reliable source of information is one of your problems. In fact now I see why you hold to these notions that are completely wrong. It takes Buchwald's quote out of context, badly. He is speaking specifically of a period in time in Egyptian history (about 2500 BC to 1000 BC) where thanks to Sirius' declination in the sky, it will appear to rise heliacally shortly before solstice, and a thousand years later it will appear to rise heliacally shortly after solstice, still making it a good marker of the coming Nile floods. A star on the ecliptic, on the other hand, will not precess at the same rate, so Regulus as an example would not make a good maker for the Nile floods throughout that same period of Egyptian history (even though in 3100 BC it rose heliacally on July 22, which made it a good marker for the floods in that time period, but not later in Egyptian history due to its position on the ecliptic and the precession that resulted). He is not saying that Sirius does not experience precession. There's a reason he says "centuries" not "an entire precession cycle." Look it up.

Sirius, however, does not lie on the ecliptic. Precisely for that reason, and uniquely at the latitude of Luxor, matters are quite different for it than for an ecliptic star like Regulus. At Luxor in the year 2500 BCE, Sirius rose heliacally toward mid-July, just before solstice. Moving ahead, to 1000 BCE, we find that Sirius still rose heliacally in about mid-July, while the solstice occurred nearly a week and a half earlier. So the date of the solstice has moved from shortly after the heliacal rising to ten or so days before it-not a large shift in comparison to the one for Regulus.

The zodiac of Paris by Jed Buchwald

reply to post by ngchunter

He is not saying that Sirius does not experience precession.

That's exactly what he's saying.

Sothic Cycle

It has been noticed, and the Sothic cycle confirms, that Sirius does not move retrograde across the sky like other stars, a phenomenon widely known as the precession of the equinox. As prof. Jed Buchwald has pointed "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes — and so from the solstices — throughout these many centuries, despite precession." [7] For the same reason, the helical rising (or zenith) of Sirius does not slip through the calendar (at the precession rate of about one day per 71.6 years), as other stars do. This remarkable stability within the solar year may be one reason that the Egyptians used it as a basis for their calendar whereas no other star would have sufficed.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

He is not saying that Sirius does not experience precession.

That's exactly what he's saying.

No, it is not. I explained to you what he was saying, you ignored me. It isn't true either. If it were, Sirius would be moving at 50 arcseconds per year with respect to the other stars. I can tell you right now, it's not doing that. I know that for a fact. If you claim it is, prove it. Furthermore, explain why even according to him, Sirius' position changed in his own example relative to the solstice...

Sirius, however, does not lie on the ecliptic. Precisely for that reason, and uniquely at the latitude of Luxor, matters are quite different for it than for an ecliptic star like Regulus. At Luxor in the year 2500 BCE, Sirius rose heliacally toward mid-July, just before solstice. Moving ahead, to 1000 BCE, we find that Sirius still rose heliacally in about mid-July, while the solstice occurred nearly a week and a half earlier. So the date of the solstice has moved from shortly after the heliacal rising to ten or so days before it-not a large shift in comparison to the one for Regulus.

By your own primary source (wikipedia is not a primary source, but this is the primary source used in your quote), you're wrong.

reply to post by ngchunter

So you're trying to tell me that only stars on the ecliptic precess? Do you have a reference for that? No of course you don't because you are full of dis-information and mis-information. In fact, it is your stock in trade.

What I find ludicrous is that there is observational history for an absolute minimum of 4000 years on the heliacal rising of Sirius and you, of the observationally bereft, want to argue with the quotes I've given you from people who teach this stuff and write books about it for a living.

In 800BC the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on July 14. In 2000AD the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on August 8. Do you want to explain to me how that's precession? Let me see, the earth goes around the sun and the sun slips back against the constellations at the rate of 1 degree every 72 years. So wait, what does that mean? Perhaps field of motion can explain it for us. Tired of it and tired of you.

Originally posted by VenomVile.6
Dont for get Cali, too

Hey, wasnt that star the home system of the dongo people ( the fish men ) ???, forgive me if I spelt it wrong lol

their coming aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

edit on 11-11-2010 by VenomVile.6 because: adding to

It's the Dogon people.

The Dogon, the Nommos and Sirius B

www.unmuseum.org...

In Mali, West Africa, lives a tribe of people called the Dogon. The Dogon are believed to be of Egyptian decent and their astronomical lore goes back thousands of years to 3200 BC. According to their traditions, the star Sirius has a companion star which is invisible to the human eye. This companion star has a 50 year elliptical orbit around the visible Sirius and is extremely heavy. It also rotates on its axis.

Please see the entire article - very interesting. I have known about the Dogons for years.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

So you're trying to tell me that only stars on the ecliptic precess?

No, that is not what I said at all. That is not what Jed Buchwald said either. But the amount a star precesses depends on where it is in the sky (indeed, answer this very simple question: how much does a star precess if it is 90 degrees north or south of the ecliptic). Sirius happened to make a good marker for the Nile floods for a considerable period of time, but it still experienced precession (it is less than 90 degrees south of the ecliptic, but it is still quite far from the ecliptic, unlike Regulus which Buchwald used in his example). If you disagree, explain why Jed Buchwald said it rose heliacally before solstice and then later after solstice; such would not be the case if Sirius did not experience precession...

At Luxor in the year 2500 BCE, Sirius rose heliacally toward mid-July, just before solstice. Moving ahead, to 1000 BCE, we find that Sirius still rose heliacally in about mid-July, while the solstice occurred nearly a week and a half earlier. So the date of the solstice has moved from shortly after the heliacal rising to ten or so days before it-not a large shift in comparison to the one for Regulus.

No of course you don't because you are full of dis-information and mis-information. In fact, it is your stock in trade.

Personal attacks are not allowed on ATS.

What I find ludicrous is that there is observational history for an absolute minimum of 4000 years on the heliacal rising of Sirius and you, of the observationally bereft, want to argue with the quotes I've given you from people who teach this stuff and write books about it for a living.

Wow, I just showed you with quotes from the very person you are using as an appeal to authority that your claim is false.

In 800BC the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on July 14. In 2000AD the heliacal rising of Sirius took place on August 8. Do you want to explain to me how that's precession?

So you don't see how the dates changed, you don't see how it changed relative to the equinox and solstices, you don't get it at all. By what you just said you just admitted that it DOES experience precession.

Let me see, the earth goes around the sun and the sun slips back against the constellations at the rate of 1 degree every 72 years. So wait, what does that mean? Perhaps field of motion can explain it for us. Tired of it and tired of you.

And I'm tired of your uncalled for personal attacks. I am not full of "disinformation." I know for a fact Sirius experiences precession. By your own words you admitted it. The "one degree in 72 years" does not describe how much any given star precesses (in fact it's a rip from wikipedia where it says "where the angle is taken from the observer, not from the center of the circle" - it's the maximal rate a star will precess if it is on the ecliptic, not distant from the ecliptic), the math to calculate how much a particular star precesses will depend greatly on its position in the sky. In fact, here's the full formula for doing so:

zeta(A) = 0.6406161T + 0.0000839T^2 + 0.0000050 T^3
z(A) = 0.6406161T + 0.0003041T^2 + 0.0000051T^3
theta(A) = 0.5567530T - 0.0001185T^2 - 0.0000116T^3
T = (Julian Day of starting epoch - 2451545)/36525
Then you construct the following matrix:
P' =
[cos(zeta(A))*cos(theta(A))*cos(z(a))-sin(zeta(A))*sin(z(a)) cos(zeta(A)) * cos(theta(A)) * sin(z(a)) + sin(zeta(A)) * cos(z(a)) cos(zeta(A)) * sin(theta(A))

-sin(zeta(A))*cos(theta(A))*cos(z(a))-cos(zeta(A))*sin(z(a)) -sin(zeta(A))* cos(theta(A)) * sin(z(a)) + cos(zeta(A)) * cos(z(a)) -sin(zeta(A)) * sin(theta(A))

-sin(theta(A)) * cos(z(a)) -sin(theta(A)) * sin(z(a)) cos(theta(A)) ]
Then you calculate the following column vector v with the decimal coordinates from the epoch:
alpha = right ascension in decimal coordinates
delta = declination in decimal coordinates
v =
[cos(alpha)*cos(delta)
sin(alpha)*cos(delta)
sin(delta)]
Then you multiply P' and v to form column vector s.
Now you convert to the precessed epoch, recalculating zeta(A), z(A), and theta(A) with T = (Julian day of precessed epoch - 2451545)/36525.
Now construct the following matrix, which is really just a transposition of the first matrix but with the new values for zeta(A), z(A), and theta(A):
P =
[cos(zeta(A))*cos(theta(A))*cos(z(a))-sin(zeta(A))*sin(z(a) -sin(zeta(A))*cos(theta(A))*cos(z(a))-cos(zeta(A))*sin(z(a)) -sin(theta(A)) * cos(z(a))
cos(zeta(A)) * cos(theta(A)) * sin(z(a)) + sin(zeta(A)) * cos(z(a)) -sin(zeta(A))* cos(theta(A)) * sin(z(a)) + cos(zeta(A)) * cos(z(a)) -sin(theta(A)) * sin(z(a))
cos(zeta(A)) * sin(theta(A)) -sin(zeta(A)) * sin(theta(A)) cos(theta(A)) ]
Then calculate column vector w by multiplying matrix P by the previously calculated column vector s.
w=
[m
n
p]
Then you extract the precessed coordinates by the following formula:
Precessed Right Ascension = tan^-1(n/m)
Precessed declination = sin^-1(p)

reply to post by ngchunter

So I have a couple of problems with your theory. Which is, near as I can tell, that rate of precession is a function of latitude and degrees from the ecliptic and, of course, proximity to the equinoctal positions. So, because Sirius moves, you think it precesses.

Your theory doesn't have anything to do with Luxor, itself, near as I can tell, which is at the unremarkable latitude of 25+ degrees north latitude.

Also, without reading more of the context that the Luxor quote is in, I can't be certain but it seems like Buchwald is using a Julian calendar.

Sirius is basically without an observable marker that I've been able to find since the ecliptic won't do here. The only observations of precession moving on and leaving Sirius behind is Procyon.

Procyon is the Little Dog Star

Likewise, Procyon no longer rises before Sirius – before the Dog Star. Thousands of years ago, Procyon did rise first. In fact, in 3000 BC, Procyon preceded Sirius by about 51 minutes at the location of today’s Cairo.

An observer in Cairo today, however, would find that Sirius actually rises a couple of minutes before Procyon! This contradictory fact is due to a kind of long-term wobble in Earth’s motion, called precession.

Further, there were two people who undertook a 20 year study of Sirius and found that it does not precess. And a few more people have mentioned this. Basically saying that it moves in concert with our sun and of course Buchwald saying that as well.

Sothic Cycle

As prof. Jed Buchwald has pointed "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes — and so from the solstices — throughout these many centuries, despite precession."

Are You Sirius?

The idea that Sirius could be a companion star to the sun was first proposed by the mathematician and Egyptologist R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, who made his deductions from studying the ancient Egyptian calendars that used the helical rising of Sirius as their New Year date. In his book Sacred Science, he observed, “It is remarkable that owing to the precession of the equinoxes, on the one hand, and the movement of Sirius on the other, the position of the sun with respect to Sirius is displaced in the same direction, almost exactly to the same extent.”

Homann's paper on Precession

If the measurement of Sirius is taken from a precessing earth, can anyone explain why the mean transit time of Sirius is identical to the mean transit time of the vernal equinox, considering the indisputable fact that Sirius does not retrograde around our sun by about 1223 seconds per year?

Response to The Precession Dialogues

CM also comments that we do not observe Sirius moving at a high rate relative to the background stars. Actually, this has been an issue in question ever since Arabic records mentioned that Sirius (and Canis minor) crossed the Milky Way. The great mathematician Fourier also noticed that Sirius seems to move with the Sun, against the background stars, although Biot disagreed. A recent article by Jed Buchwald, astronomer at Caltech, mentioned this issue and published a diagram that shows Sirius seems to track the sun “in spite of precession”. Also, the Homann’s of Canada have made specific transit measurements of Sirius for over 20 years and found no “precession” adjustments are required to track the star Sirius.

Even more surprising is the observation that the mean time interval of the sidereal year, as measured with respect to Sirius is nearly identical (by less than one second) to the time interval of the tropical year. According to the theory of 'precession', a yearly time difference of about 1223 s is supposed to occur between a sidereal year and the tropical year.

where do you people live where you can actually see stars at night???? lol...

vancouver sucks for that reason, can't wait for summer.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

So I have a couple of problems with your theory. Which is, near as I can tell, that rate of precession is a function of latitude and degrees from the ecliptic and, of course, proximity to the equinoctal positions. So, because Sirius moves, you think it precesses.

Your theory doesn't have anything to do with Luxor, itself, near as I can tell, which is at the unremarkable latitude of 25+ degrees north latitude.

You mean Jed Buchwald's theory? You know, they source you were handwaving to as an authority on the matter? Just pointing out the hypocrisy there, but that aside, yes your latitude on earth DOES matter. It will affect how high Sirius is over the horizon relative to the sun at sunrise.
astro.unl.edu...
And yes, it does matter how far the star is from the ecliptic. That's not a theory, that's a well-known demonstrable fact. It comes into play for me all the time with all kinds of stars, particularly Polaris. Now answer the question you ignored; if a star is 90 degrees north or south of the ecliptic, how much precession will you see in its position?

Also, without reading more of the context that the Luxor quote is in, I can't be certain but it seems like Buchwald is using a Julian calendar.

Irrelevant. Use whatever calendar you want, use julian days for all I care, when Sirius rises heliacally from Luxor it will not rise heliacally from everwhere else on the globe at the same time (latitude-wise):
astro.unl.edu...

Sirius is basically without an observable marker that I've been able to find since the ecliptic won't do here. The only observations of precession moving on and leaving Sirius behind is Procyon.

LMFAO! It's called astrometry, look it up sometime. You can measure Sirius' position using astrometry and see that yes it does experience precession because it is not "left behind" at the expected rate of precession.

Further, there were two people who undertook a 20 year study of Sirius and found that it does not precess.

And once again you try to cite Buchwald even though I already proved he disagrees with you. Now I have to conclude that you're just trying to be deliberately deceptive to people.

As prof. Jed Buchwald has pointed "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes — and so from the solstices — throughout these many centuries, despite precession."

Same out of context quote I already explained in previous posts on this thread. Your more loony sources claim Sirius flat-out doesn't experience precession and it moves in the sky as such relative to the other stars. That's utter BS, I know that for a fact.
i319.photobucket.com...
These images of Sirius were taken 28 years apart. If Sirius were not experiencing precession, it should be displaced in this image relative to the background stars by about .3 degrees. The image is 1 degree by 1 degree wide, so if it were not experiencing precession, its position should have changed by more then 300 pixels, about 30% of the image's diameter. That's clearly not happening at all, Sirius is precessing with the other stars.

I'm in Colorado and it looks that way to me as well. However, it has looked exceptionally bright and twinkly since last Spring, yet to me, it just looks bigger lately, which makes it look more twinkly, in my opinion. Everything seems brighter lately doesn't it? The moon, the sun, that freak Jupiter! I am getting freckles on my face, under my eyes, even with sunglasses on, the sun is just so bright, especially up high where I live in CO, it's almost like it's just too much

Anyway, the thing is, even if it was going supernova, it has already happened, a long time ago, and are just seeing the visual effects of it now. So, I don't think that there'd be any other effect to us, right? I just remember from an astronomy class in college that when we look at the night sky, we're witnessing history from hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, that we just now are able to see. In fact, some of the stars we may see now might not exist. This kind of blew my mind when I was in school

My question is, why does everything in the night sky seem so much brighter, especially planets? Or, am I the only one seeing this?

reply to post by ngchunter

yes your latitude on earth DOES matter. It will affect how high Sirius is over the horizon relative to the sun at sunrise

Duh...we were talking about precession - remember?

Irrelevant. Use whatever calendar you want, use julian days for all I care, when Sirius rises heliacally from Luxor it will not rise heliacally from everwhere else on the globe at the same time (latitude-wise):

Double duh...are you just now recognizing these concepts?

You have not explained how Procyon moved on, leaving Sirius in the dust. And calendars do matter when you're figuring a date for the equinox which all seem to think Sirius remains in remarkable stability to. There have been hundreds of calendar systems, perhaps thousands, in use since 3000BC. Some of them, like the Mayan, are to this day, too complicated for our current savage intellect to understand. When you're bringing dates like the heliacal rising of Sirius and the equinox through so many calendar systems, it can make a big difference.

Now I have to conclude that you're just trying to be deliberately deceptive to people.

My sentiments about you too except that I think in addition to that you are deliberately trying to confuse and also to make things seem vastly more complicated than they are. Stop interpreting quotes for me. Take them as they are. There's nothing remarkable about Luxor except that there were apparently people there to notice the non-precession status of Sirius. And depending on how you want to date the pyramids, there were people there to see it's sudden appearance 10,000 or so years ago and to commemorate that in a structure that seems able to withstand the ravages of time and apocalypse.

These images of Sirius were taken 28 years apart. If Sirius were not experiencing precession, it should be displaced in this image relative to the background stars by about .3 degrees.

So you're telling me that you can eyeball .3 degrees. Come on!! I gave you the Procyon reference. 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. I think that's clear. Something is precessing and something ain't. Since Procyon is supposed to be ahead of the dog, Sirius, and not behind it, I think there's a problem with your theory.

Still...because I like the observational differences by latitude I'm willing to entertain your theory even though your use of observation by latitude seems highly selective and in this case seems to be something you're throwing out because you have nothing else. If you have something else to offer other than degrees from earth for the changes in the pole star, offer it. Arcturus would be a good one to show precession as opposed to Sirius - don't you think?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

yes your latitude on earth DOES matter. It will affect how high Sirius is over the horizon relative to the sun at sunrise

Duh...we were talking about precession - remember?

Irrelevant. Use whatever calendar you want, use julian days for all I care, when Sirius rises heliacally from Luxor it will not rise heliacally from everwhere else on the globe at the same time (latitude-wise):

Double duh...are you just now recognizing these concepts?

Drop the insulting tone, you're the one who lost the plot here. We were talking about the date of heliacal rising of Sirius in relation to the equinox as well as how precession affects that. I again quote Jed Buchwald:

Sirius, however, does not lie on the ecliptic. Precisely for that reason, and uniquely at the latitude of Luxor, matters are quite different for it than for an ecliptic star like Regulus. At Luxor in the year 2500 BCE, Sirius rose heliacally toward mid-July, just before solstice.

There are two factors at play that affect the date of heliacal rising, not one. The fact that Sirius doesn't lie on the ecliptic means it precesses more slowly than Regulus. The latitude of Luxor affects the date of which Sirius will rise heliacally.
Let's further review what I said:

But the amount a star precesses depends on where it is in the sky

Where did I say anything about the amount of precessing depending upon latitude? Then you said:

Your theory doesn't have anything to do with Luxor, itself, near as I can tell, which is at the unremarkable latitude of 25+ degrees north latitude.

Once again, the latitude does matter, remember we're talking about the date of heliacal rising, not just precession.

You have not explained how Procyon moved on, leaving Sirius in the dust.

Yes, I did; it didn't "move on" - they both precess, the amount of which is driven by their position in the sky or do I need to remind you of the formula?

And calendars do matter when you're figuring a date for the equinox which all seem to think Sirius remains in remarkable stability to.

It doesn't matter, we know when the equinox date is according to the calendar. The calendar itself is a non-factor as long as the equinox date is known.

My sentiments about you too

Show me where I was at all deceptive. I already showed you how that quote was taken out of context as well as what Jed actually said about it, you ignored that and continued to use the same out of context quote. That's deception.

except that I think in addition to that you are deliberately trying to confuse and also to make things seem vastly more complicated than they are. Stop interpreting quotes for me.

No interpretation was required, the fact that you continued to use the same out of context quote was all that was required. That is not a matter of interpretation, it is simply a fact. I am not being deceptive and if my posts are too complicated for you that is not my problem.

There's nothing remarkable about Luxor except that there were apparently people there to notice the non-precession status of Sirius.

Already explained why the latitude matters and...
i319.photobucket.com...

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.

I gave you the Procyon reference.

Procyon is about half the distance to the ecliptic that Sirius is.

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 will occur. I looked for myself.

Wow thats interesting i just went outside and saw a bright strobing star in the sky. The only difference here is that i dont see any colors just white but yes definitely strobing. And the one im seeing is on the left of orions belt and it is the brightest star in the sky so im guessing it is sirius. But i know it cant be a satellite because it isnt moving at all.
By the way it is 8:23 pm central time if that makes any difference.

Originally posted by mountaingirl1111
I'm in Colorado and it looks that way to me as well. However, it has looked exceptionally bright and twinkly since last Spring, yet to me, it just looks bigger lately, which makes it look more twinkly, in my opinion. Everything seems brighter lately doesn't it? The moon, the sun, that freak Jupiter! I am getting freckles on my face, under my eyes, even with sunglasses on, the sun is just so bright, especially up high where I live in CO, it's almost like it's just too much

Anyway, the thing is, even if it was going supernova, it has already happened, a long time ago, and are just seeing the visual effects of it now. So, I don't think that there'd be any other effect to us, right? I just remember from an astronomy class in college that when we look at the night sky, we're witnessing history from hundreds of thousands and millions of years ago, that we just now are able to see. In fact, some of the stars we may see now might not exist. This kind of blew my mind when I was in school

My question is, why does everything in the night sky seem so much brighter, especially planets? Or, am I the only one seeing this?

Yeah i have noticed this too and i am in alabama its weird its like everything seems closer to me, although i havent really noticed anything different about the sun.