Age of Universe

[shernren]

You never understand science, I keep saying Sirius back then is a red GIANT. you distorted it into red dwarf. why are you arguing here if you can't distinguish a giant from a dwarf? just to disgrace your allies?

Some science knowledge for you: Current astronomy says when fuel on sun is running out, it will become a red giant then a white dwarf. it will never be a red dwarf. a red dwarf is a star starting with low speed of fussion and produces less temperature so it appears red to us all. it's will not because a white dwarf easily. more irony if sirius back then were a red dwarf. it only meant more absurdity of secular astronomy.

You're right, I mistyped. But then again if you really want to start looking for petty grammatical and spelling errors ...

He gets whatever conclusion he wish, I'm not interested but can you doubt his observation? Have you lived in his time to varify his account?

Seneca observed Red Sirius. Weird site gets strange New Agey conclusion. Please read carefully before replying.

more lies of TalkOrigin discovered:

Senecca is comparing the color Sirius Mars Jupiter at the same. He means Sirius is redder than Mars at the same time. but TalkOrigin twisted it into Sirius is redder than Mars at different time.

Credit to shernren for prividing the context.

TalkOrigin thinks Senecca means "Sirius is redder than Mars"
I don't know how you can twist it into Sirius is less redder than Mars. keep twisting and revealing yourself shernren. you have to admit either your understanding of the text is wrong or TalkOrigin's is wrong.

TalkOrigins' FAQ doesn't even mention Mars. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what source you're saying it from.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You're right, I mistyped. But then again if you really want to start looking for petty grammatical and spelling errors ...

Then don't suppose you're smarter than me. it's not a mistake others can automatically correct.

Seneca observed Red Sirius. Weird site gets strange New Agey conclusion. Please read carefully before replying.

I just ask you about the fact: Did Senecca observed Sirius is redder than Mars? others like "pagan, new age", are ad hominem attack.

more lies of TalkOrigin discovered:


TalkOrigins' FAQ doesn't even mention Mars. I have no idea what you're trying to say or what source you're saying it from.

The problem IS TalkOrigin doesn't even mention Mars. by not mentioning the comparison with mars. TO said the redness of Sirius is absolute. how red Sirius is depend on the feeling of Seneca. However it isn't. it's a comparison, now matter how red is red for Senecca, it doesn't matter. it's redder than Mars.

 

[shernren]

I just ask you about the fact: Did Senecca observed Sirius is redder than Mars? others like "pagan, new age", are ad hominem attack.

Have you so much as read the link I gave you??

The quote I gave was a quote from a scholarly article by Ceragioli, who is quoting Seneca. I am not attributing pagan, new age characteristics to them. However, I obtained the quote itself from a site which clearly has pagan and new age significance to Red Sirius and ascribes an astrological meaning to it:

quoted from site:
* Why Nibiru wasn't charted astronomically as an anomalous wandering star during its last passage.
* Why Christ emerged as a Messianic figure later in his adult life, despite the mythology attached to his birth.
* How Horus, the Messianic Star, can be readily identified with the advent of Christianity, and the appearance of Nibiru.
* How the hidden teachings of heretical Christian Sects, almost persecuted out of existence by the Church, tie in with Dark Star Theory, enabling us to link Nibiru with Christ.
* Why the Early Christian church is so readily identifiable with Egyptian Mythology, particularly the ancient myths associated with Isis, Osiris and Horus.


This clearly has pagan / new age leanings to me at least.

The problem IS TalkOrigin doesn't even mention Mars. by not mentioning the comparison with mars. TO said the redness of Sirius is absolute. how red Sirius is depend on the feeling of Seneca. However it isn't. it's a comparison, now matter how red is red for Senecca, it doesn't matter. it's redder than Mars.

Fine, Sirius is redder than Mars for Seneca. Does that make a difference to TalkOrigins' arguments? In what way?

I presume you are arguing that since Seneca compares Sirius' redness to Mars' it necessitates a synchronous, at-the-same-time comparative observation. But it does not. Since Seneca never explicitly mentioned "at the time" it is an open possibility that he was mentally comparing observations at two different times. In analogy, let's suppose I say

"Today the sun is redder than blood!"

does that imply that I have to observe the redness of blood and the redness of the sun simultaneously to make that a true statement? Not necessarily. If I make this statement I'm probably looking at the Sun, and then comparing it mentally with the redness of blood which I have seen somewhere else before.

Just the same with Seneca. When he was writing he may not have even been looking into the sky at all, but rather remembering how he once saw Sirius, and how he once saw Mars, and how he once saw Jupiter, and putting it together. Besides, his discourse was concerning the nature of the atmosphere, and given the scientific knowledge of the day the time and altitude of the observation may not have mattered to him (whereas it does to us today, knowing the mechanism of scattering).

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Have you so much as read the link I gave you??

The quote I gave was a quote from a scholarly article by Ceragioli, who is quoting Seneca. I am not attributing pagan, new age characteristics to them. However, I obtained the quote itself from a site which clearly has pagan and new age significance to Red Sirius and ascribes an astrological meaning to it:
...

Personal attacks. even you find it in an atheist website, can you say it's false just because atheists are saying so? No, at least I don't refute evolution this way.
Satanists are saying 1 + 1 = 2, and you will say "wrong, because Satanists say so, the result has to be 3. "

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Seneca described Sirius(3BC-65AD) as being redder than Mars

Are you talking about the American-Indian Seneca nation? If so could you site the source? How did this source determine the legend of the red Sirius star was from 3BC to 65AD since the Seneca had no written language until after 1500AD? I live next to the Seneca Nation of Northeastern Oklahoma and I have not heard of this legend, but I could check up on it if you give me some sources of your claim to look at.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Are you talking about the American-Indian Seneca nation? If so could you site the source? How did this source determine the legend of the red Sirius star was from 3BC to 65AD since the Seneca had no written language until after 1500AD? I live next to the Seneca Nation of Northeastern Oklahoma and I have not heard of this legend, but I could check up on it if you give me some sources of your claim to look at.

No. it's a Roman named Seneca. and since even TalkOrigin doesn't doubt Seneca indeed talked about Sirius. I don't think there's any need for sources.

 

[Deamiter]

I don't have time to go through this one, but I too voted "none of the above." The Gen1 creation "event" is allegory. The actual instant of creation was some billions of years ago (don't recall current estimates at the moment). Creation is all around us. Trying to define a historical timeline for a story with a non-literal purpose is like trying to get a signal out of KDP with an applied field when you've set your polarizers to 45 degrees of the axes as measured with zero applied voltage!

 

[shernren]

Personal attacks. even you find it in an atheist website, can you say it's false just because atheists are saying so? No, at least I don't refute evolution this way.
Satanists are saying 1 + 1 = 2, and you will say "wrong, because Satanists say so, the result has to be 3."

Good grief, you have gotten my logic completely wrong! Fine, forget where I got the Seneca quote from. Let it stand as it is. Happy?

The fact that Seneca was comparing the color of Sirius to the color of Mars does not prove that this comparison was made during a simultaneous observation of both.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If one were to 'deconstruct' the 'creation' that occurred in Genesis One you would have your answer. What was created is what know as the biosphere, nothing more. Study the account carefully. The 'substrate' of lifeless mineral forms could well be billions of years old. However, the elements of a complicated, interdependant living biosphere must be brought 'online' very quickly.

oldwiseguy

 

[KerrMetric]

Good grief, you have gotten my logic completely wrong! Fine, forget where I got the Seneca quote from. Let it stand as it is. Happy?

The fact that Seneca was comparing the color of Sirius to the color of Mars does not prove that this comparison was made during a simultaneous observation of both.

Why is the colour of Sirius being debated. All the Chinese references to the colour are white, as are the Korean ones.

One should also read the papers of Roger Ceragioli who researched this topic in the 1990's and his explanation of why it was listed as red in Roman times due to astrology not astronomy.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

The fact that Seneca was comparing the color of Sirius to the color of Mars does not prove that this comparison was made during a simultaneous observation of both.

If you think so, then you should accept you're dumber than a monkey. I compare the intelligence of you at birth with that of an adult monkey.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Why is the colour of Sirius being debated. All the Chinese references to the colour are white, as are the Korean ones.

One should also read the papers of Roger Ceragioli who researched this topic in the 1990's and his explanation of why it was listed as red in Roman times due to astrology not astronomy.

Doubt the conclusion not the fact. Show me the Chinese observation.
TalkOrgin accepts Senecca indeed saw a red Sirius. that should be convincing enough.

 

[KerrMetric]

Doubt the conclusion not the fact. Show me the Chinese observation.
TalkOrgin accepts Senecca indeed saw a red Sirius. that should be convincing enough.

If you already haven't found the Chinese observations then you obviously have never researched this subject - yet somehow you have been arguing it as if you know something about it. Seems you know this area as poorly as radiodating on the other thread.

I didn't say he didn't see it as red - I am saying there is research as to why it was seen as red. Again, you obviously are lacking in research capabilities or scientific knowledge.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

If you already haven't found the Chinese observations then you obviously have never researched this subject - yet somehow you have been arguing it as if you know something about it. Seems you know this area as poorly as radiodating on the other thread.

I didn't say he didn't see it as red - I am saying there is research as to why it was seen as red. Again, you obviously are lacking in research capabilities or scientific knowledge.

You better show it to me. You're trying to bluff your way through here. Better yet, show me the text in Chinese decribing a white Sirius.

 

[KerrMetric]

You better show it to me. You're trying to bluff your way through here. Better yet, show me the text in Chinese decribing a white Sirius.

You should be able to find them rather easily if you'd actually exhibit some effort. Why is the internet the domain of the lazy?

You will find, if you take the time (a few minutes) that over a several hundred year period (straddling the 1 AD date) that the Chinese recorded Sirius every time as the same white we see today. You will also find, with a little more effort, as to why various philosophers and poets in the Roman era referred to Sirius as red instead of white.

Now why don't you actually do the work yourself and quit doing two things I see from your posts. 1) insulting people left and right 2) speaking from a position based upon little to no knowledge of the topic at hand.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You should be able to find them rather easily if you'd actually exhibit some effort. Why is the internet the domain of the lazy?

You will find, if you take the time (a few minutes) that over a several hundred year period (straddling the 1 AD date) that the Chinese recorded Sirius every time as the same white we see today. You will also find, with a little more effort, as to why various philosophers and poets in the Roman era referred to Sirius as red instead of white.

Now why don't you actually do the work yourself and quit doing two things I see from your posts. 1) insulting people left and right 2) speaking from a position based upon little to no knowledge of the topic at hand.

If you're not willing to prove I'm wrong, why should myself? Burden of prove is on you.

 

[KerrMetric]

If you're not willing to prove I'm wrong, why should myself? Burden of prove is on you.

No the burden is on you since you are the one going against the mainstream scientific community. Otherwise you just seem to be the typical creationist - full of pomp about a subject they have never take the time to research except for trotting out some tired rubbish from a crazy website or book.

Why not actually learn to research something yourself? Why not use this as an opportunity to get beyond the nonsense? It isn't my job to provide a link that in a minute you should, if you are capable, be able to find yourself. Heck, I even gave you hints to find it earlier.

The facts are that the Chinese consistently and without contradiction over many centuries recorded Sirius (of course) as white. There are also reasons why a few Roman poets/philosophers might not have.

The fact is that for physical reasons it really could not have been red, we know it was recorded as white in ancient times and that the only sources for the red colour have plausible explanation.

That you aren't willing to spend a couple of minutes time to see this but you are willing to waste many posts on here with nonsense speaks volumes. Don't quit the day job (or high school) since research isn't in your future I feel.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No the burden is on you since you are the one going against the mainstream scientific community. Otherwise you just seem to be the typical creationist - full of pomp about a subject they have never take the time to research except for trotting out some tired rubbish from a crazy website or book.

Why not actually learn to research something yourself? Why not use this as an opportunity to get beyond the nonsense? It isn't my job to provide a link that in a minute you should, if you are capable, be able to find yourself. Heck, I even gave you hints to find it earlier.

The facts are that the Chinese consistently and without contradiction over many centuries recorded Sirius (of course) as white. There are also reasons why a few Roman poets/philosophers might not have.

The fact is that for physical reasons it really could not have been red, we know it was recorded as white in ancient times and that the only sources for the red colour have plausible explanation.

That you aren't willing to spend a couple of minutes time to see this but you are willing to waste many posts on here with nonsense speaks volumes. Don't quit the day job (or high school) since research isn't in your future I feel.

I'll not reply to this since this is off-topic. consulting a legal book to see who has the burden of proof is suggested.

 

[KerrMetric]

I'll not reply to this since this is off-topic. consulting a legal book to see who has the burden of proof is suggested.

How convenient for you. Hey, if you want to play ostrich then fine. Of course, people will continue not to take your argument seriously when you refuse to actually check the data.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

You better show it to me. You're trying to bluff your way through here. Better yet, show me the text in Chinese decribing a white Sirius.

Google chinese sirius astronomy ancient
http://shss.sjtu.edu.cn/shc/031207/sirius.htm

Abstract: At present, Sirius is white, but in the West there has long existed a succession of records purporting that the star is red, which would mean difficulty for the current theory of stellar evolution. In this paper, I have systematically examined the more reliable records regarding the colour of Sirius in extant ancient Chinese texts from B. C. times to the +7th century and found that, during this period, Sirius was unquestionably white, thus relieving the present theory of stellar evolution of any threat from this direction.
[]
The reality of the Western descriptions of the colour of Sirius is by no means unimpeachable. Seneca, Cicero and Flaccus were either philosophers, politicians or poets, and there is no testimony to their astronomical competence; as for Ptolemy, although he was a great astronomer, there is room for doubt on specific details even in his writing. As to the red star described by Bishop Gregory, other scholars [3] have maintained it to be Arcturus ( Boo), which is, of course, a well-known bright red giant.
In another direction, ancient Chinese astronomical/astrological records are well-known for their abundance, systematic character and fine description of the heavenly phenomena.[]
while in the reliable kind of records, Sirius was always white. Not only there has never been any mention of it being red, it was, over the millennia, taken as a standard for white star. This is the case in the early literature examined in this paper, and there has no subsequent change in later times.
​