The Red Sirius Discussion

[shernren]

This thread grew out of a heating-up debate over at the "Age of Universe" thread. Basically, it concerns claims that 2,000 years ago Sirius was consistently observed to be red by ancient astronomers. The implication is that since current theories of stellar evolution cannot accommodate both this chronological sequence of events (Sirius B going from red giant to white dwarf in the last 2,000 years) and current astronomical evidence (lack of accompanying cosmological debris) this causes problems for the Big Bang idea and cosmological dating in general.

Having said that, some particular issues are:

1. Seneca's observation that "Sirius' light is piercing red, while Mars' light is milder red, and Jupiter's light is clear white" (to paraphrase). Does this indicate conclusively that the Sirius star system was producing red light at the time Seneca was observing it? Or can this redness of light be attributed to heliacal observation?

2. External sources. Pilegrim put up some study of Chinese data "showing" that Sirius was producing white light for their observation. I haven't looked directly at his source (college computer limitations) but if ThaiDuyKhang is not quoting out-of-context I would agree with him that my impression is that the text doesn't conclusively show a white Sirius. Does anybody have any conclusive data on independent observations dating from then showing that Sirius was white / was red? Primary texts?

3. Implications. So what if there is a hitherto-unknown mechanism of rapid collapse from red giant to white dwarf? What laws are involved and does this (as creationists require) directly affect measurements of the age of the universe?

Happy hunting!

 

[shernren]

When one compares things of different time, one should explicitly speak about the condition. if I hadn't said "I'm comparing human baby and adult monkey" the it would have been a lie and personal attack and you SHOULD report it. but I explicitly told it's a comparison of human baby and adult monkey and it's just a simple fact.

If one only conducts observations on humans who are babies and monkeys who are adults, then it would be accurate to say that "humans are dumber than monkeys". The basic thrust of the Ceragioli explanation of Seneca's Red Sirius observations is that in the context of the discussion it was obvious that Seneca was performing a heliacal observation. The context explained the observation.

But I can't really gauge this without looking at Ceragioli's full text.

To me, it's more likely a case of selective reporting. Seneca was more concerned with the colour of Sirius per se rather than the time at which the colour was observed. Furthermore if Ceragioli is right and heliacal observations were the predominant observations of the time, then Seneca would not have seen any significance in explicitly naming a heliacal observation.

It is highly ironic that you consider old-earth dates a result of selective reporting by modern, educated scientists ... and yet won't consider selective reporting a possibility for someone in whose time there wasn't even a proper field of knowledge explicitly called "science".

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

It is highly ironic that you consider old-earth dates a result of selective reporting by modern, educated scientists ... and yet won't consider selective reporting a possibility for someone in whose time there wasn't even a proper field of knowledge explicitly called "science".

That Sirius is red is observed and TalkOrigin admits it. facts don't cheat. humans do.Show me a dinosaur skeleton. it's not lying or selective reporting. it's there less than 6000 years ago. if you say it's 65000000 years old. it's lie/selective reporting. have anyone observed a dinosaur 65m years ago? it's simply not facts.

 

[The Lady Kate]

That Sirius is red is observed and TalkOrigin admits it. facts don't cheat. humans do.Show me a dinosaur skeleton. it's not lying or selective reporting. it's there less than 6000 years ago. if you say it's 65000000 years old. it's lie/selective reporting. have anyone observed a dinosaur 65m years ago? it's simply not facts.

So only things people have actually observed are real?

Show me your brain.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

In law, no one is obliged to find evidence against himself. that's the problem called burden of proof. YECs claim there're no hidden context on the color of Sirius. TEs claim there're hidden context, so let them find one. they can't. so they're ignored.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

So only things people have actually observed are real?

Show me your brain.

You haven't observed evolution during the supposed millions of years. right? It's all a bizzarre assumption based on circular reasoning.Show you my brain? where's your brain when you can't even make on topic posts?

 

[FreezBee]

So only things people have actually observed are real?

ThaiDuykhang is not completely wrong here - we can only argument from that which is observable in the present. We have no other evidence. Of course we project the present into the past, assuming that to reflect the real past, but that is on certain assumptions in the present. Did dinosaurs walk the earth 65+ million years ago? The only way to answer that is from observations in the present, e.g. radiometric measurements.

- FreezBee

 

[The Lady Kate]

In law, no one is obliged to find evidence against himself. that's the problem called burden of proof.

No, that's called the Fifth Amendment.

In science, everyone is required to find evidence in favor of and against their ideas.

That's why YECs have long abandoned scientific arguments in favor of legal ones... the system is easier to twist.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

No, that's called the Fifth Amendment.

In science, everyone is required to find evidence in favor of and against their ideas.

That's why YECs have long abandoned scientific arguments in favor of legal ones... the system is easier to twist.

This is a debate. and debate use laws. At least I failed to find any context. now it's your turn to find some context.
Ask any other TE. they all think Creationism should be banned from public schools by law. who like to twist laws?

 

[shernren]

I'm getting pretty irritated at not being able to find the full Ceragioli article. Any help?

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I'm getting pretty irritated at not being able to find the full Ceragioli article. Any help?

Check out TalkOrigin. Even a site like that can't produce any damaging context effectively means there's no context.

 

[shernren]

Regarding the Chinese article Pilegrim put forward:

http://shss.sjtu.edu.cn/shc/031207/sirius.htm

I agree partially with Thai, it's difficult to critique and assess this particular article without looking at the primary text from which the author is quoting. However Thai's interpretation of the first two quotes about Sirius is wrong. The author's intent was not to show from those two quotes that Sirius was observed as white, but that many Chinese astrological observations cannot be reliably used to discern the color that was observed by them. The only reliable observations are the ones establishing certain stars as colour standards.

Unfortunately I cannot locate this crucial quote. I have a soft copy of the Shi-Ji [ Tian-Guan-Shu online here: http://www.tianyabook.com/shiji/027.htm but the text is formatted in a confusing way and I have to resort to unaided sifting since I can't type Chinese into my Mozilla. Any help?

Regarding "Zhinfü" the article has a typo / improperly inputted text that probably reads "Zhi-nü" i.e. the Weaver, namely Vega. The article clearly refers to it as Vega in the last paragraph of that section.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I didn't interpret the first one quotations wrong. in fact the only intended damaging claim is the paragraph by Sima Qian. I just want to go through all quotes to show there're nothing inside until I get bored reading irrelevent quotations at the backThe text you wanted is here"太白白，比狼；①赤，比心；黄，比参左肩；苍，比参右肩；黑，比奎大星。②五星皆从太白而聚乎一舍，其下之国可以兵从天下。"Translation, TaiBai(Venus) is as 'white' as 'lang' star; (Venus is) as red as xin star; as yellow as 'can zuo' star; as blue as 'can you' start, as 'black' as large 'kui' star. all five stars all follow venus and come together. the nation under them can use army to conquer the whole world.This is a quotation from an astrologer (search for 天官占云：“太白者，西方金之精，白帝之子，上公﹑大将军之象也")1. venus observed with a naked eye can't show 5 colors. this kind of comments is enough to disqualify the whole passage.2. this passage is quoted out of context in the article found by Robert.I type chinese using a Vietnamese Chu nom tool. ironic isn't it.

 

[shernren]

I don't really agree with your translation. Looking at the text I would translate it as:

The white of Venus is the kind that is of Lang;
its red the kind that is of Xin;
its yellow the kind that is of Orion's left shoulder;
its blue the kind that is of Orion's right shoulder;
its black the kind that is of Big Kui.

and while I agree that it says nonsense about Venus' colour, it does provide some circumstantial evidence for the Chinese having observed a white Sirius. These five stars are mentioned distinctly for their colour here, and the other four (as noted in the article) have correct colours, instead of the distorted colours they are given in the rest of the treatises. The fact that Sirius was noted as a standard for white is not discounted by the fact that the white it's being compared to here is a nonsense white.

Furthermore in the margin / notes there is a passage that explicitly talks about interpreting and comparing colours in terms of the five stars: 注②正义晋书天文志云：“凡五星有色，大小不同，各依其行而应时节。色变有类：凡青，比参左肩；赤，比心大星；黄，比参右肩；白，比狼星；黑，比奎大星。不失本色而应其四时者，吉；色害其行，凶也。”

Sudden random question: How do you know the Seneca quote is not of the same nature as these quotes? After all Seneca wasn't an astronomer, he was a philosopher.

 

[FreezBee]

I'm getting pretty irritated at not being able to find the full Ceragioli article. Any help?

Not really ( ), but the name of the article is:

Roger Ceragioli: Behind the "Red Sirius" Myth.
- Sky and Telescope, 1992, Vol.83, No.6.

But it's not for free download!


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

Not really ( ), but the name of the article is:

Roger Ceragioli: Behind the "Red Sirius" Myth.
- Sky and Telescope, 1992, Vol.83, No.6.

But it's not for free download!


- FreezBee

Exactly! I have been seeing citations all over the Net for this article but never the actual text, besides the portion that the site I visited reproduced (which is not enough).

TalkOrigins only summarizes it sufficiently for those who want to refute the fallacious creationist argument. Right now for me it has gone beyond refuting creationism to actually learning something new. I realize that I have never really wondered how astronomy began and what are the roots of our knowledge concerning matters of the sky.

I have always enjoyed it when cr-evo discussions turn into an honest, wonderful search for new truth. I sincerely hope that creationist polarization will not drive this enthusiasm away ...

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I don't really agree with your translation. Looking at the text I would translate it as:

The white of Venus is the kind that is of Lang;
its red the kind that is of Xin;
its yellow the kind that is of Orion's left shoulder;
its blue the kind that is of Orion's right shoulder;
its black the kind that is of Big Kui.

and while I agree that it says nonsense about Venus' colour, it does provide some circumstantial evidence for the Chinese having observed a white Sirius. These five stars are mentioned distinctly for their colour here, and the other four (as noted in the article) have correct colours, instead of the distorted colours they are given in the rest of the treatises. The fact that Sirius was noted as a standard for white is not discounted by the fact that the white it's being compared to here is a nonsense white.

Furthermore in the margin / notes there is a passage that explicitly talks about interpreting and comparing colours in terms of the five stars: 注②正义晋书天文志云：“凡五星有色，大小不同，各依其行而应时节。色变有类：凡青，比参左肩；赤，比心大星；黄，比参右肩；白，比狼星；黑，比奎大星。不失本色而应其四时者，吉；色害其行，凶也。”

Sudden random question: How do you know the Seneca quote is not of the same nature as these quotes? After all Seneca wasn't an astronomer, he was a philosopher.

Your translation isn't in fluent English. so I'm afraid other members have to use mine.
as one observes a black star which isn't possible. I suggest you take "white" "black" as luminosity. and the rest as color. if you take "black" as "dark red" then you have to take "white" as "bright red". in chinese literature things usually appear in pairs, triples etc but rarely appear as a singleton. Remember I prefer interpreting "black" as dark red. not you.

In "Tianwenzhi" you can see the "white" is immediately followed by "black". they're a pair. The author didn't want to talk about actual colors but their luminosityIf there're such absurdities in Senecca's account, you can bet it will appear on TalkOrigin.

 

[shernren]

Your translation isn't in fluent English. so I'm afraid other members have to use mine.

I think your idea of "fluent" is different from mine. In any case, I'm simply referring to the footnotes which denote that the word 比 used there has not only a sense of comparison but of being the same kind as. The implication of course is that if there was a colour kind named after a star, that star must have been accurately observed as being that particular colour to be the "founding / primary member" of that colour kind.

as one observes a black star which isn't possible. I suggest you take "white" "black" as luminosity. and the rest as color. if you take "black" as "dark red" then you have to take "white" as "bright red". in chinese literature things usually appear in pairs, triples etc but rarely appear as a singleton. Remember I prefer interpreting "black" as dark red. not you.

Nope, in this case the colours are appearing as a quintuple. If the black-white is really a pair then why are they split and even moved to opposite ends of the description in the shi-ji quote?

The five-color theory is prevalent in Chinese astrology:

http://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+five+colors+five+elements&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

(with some sites substituting the color "brown" for yellow in the original five colors)

showing that it is far more obvious and reasonable to interpret both the shiji and the tianwenzhi as portraying a quintuplet than as a pair (which is put together in one, and put at opposite ends in the other) and what? a triplet or three singles?

In that case it is not obvious to assume that white-black is a luminosity comparison. It is more obvious to assume that since the Chinese had five colours, and had found four stars that fit the four observable colours, they therefore chose the dimmest observable star with the color closest to black that could match the colour black. Only a dim red star can look anything close to black (not dim yellow or dim blue) and so black happened to be dim red, which cannot be extended to show that white is bright red.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I think your idea of "fluent" is different from mine. In any case, I'm simply referring to the footnotes which denote that the word 比 used there has not only a sense of comparison but of being the same kind as. The implication of course is that if there was a colour kind named after a star, that star must have been accurately observed as being that particular colour to be the "founding / primary member" of that colour kind.

No one speak english in the way you translated. It's simply not understandable without looking at the Chinese text.

Nope, in this case the colours are appearing as a quintuple. If the black-white is really a pair then why are they split and even moved to opposite ends of the description in the shi-ji quote?

The five-color theory is prevalent in Chinese astrology:

http://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+five+colors+five+elements&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N

(with some sites substituting the color "brown" for yellow in the original five colors)

showing that it is far more obvious and reasonable to interpret both the shiji and the tianwenzhi as portraying a quintuplet than as a pair (which is put together in one, and put at opposite ends in the other) and what? a triplet or three singles?

In that case it is not obvious to assume that white-black is a luminosity comparison. It is more obvious to assume that since the Chinese had five colours, and had found four stars that fit the four observable colours, they therefore chose the dimmest observable star with the color closest to black that could match the colour black. Only a dim red star can look anything close to black (not dim yellow or dim blue) and so black happened to be dim red, which cannot be extended to show that white is bright red.

You should consult wikipedia to see what "white" means

在中国古代文化中，白色象征西方和五行中的金，是五色之一
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/zh/5/5a/Fiveelement.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/46/Interactions_of_Five_Chinese_Elements.png/350px-Interactions_of_Five_Chinese_Elements.png

Water is black, Metal(or Gold) is white, Wood is green, Fire is red, earth is yellow. that's the 5 color. and how do you understand Water is black? Water isn't dark red that's for sure and won't be black unless you use it to wash writing brushes.
If you can't explain why you don't take black literally and take white literally. your arguments... are DOOOOOOOOOOMed.

 

[shernren]

Water is black, Metal(or Gold) is white, Wood is green, Fire is red, earth is yellow. that's the 5 color. and how do you understand Water is black? Water isn't dark red that's for sure and won't be black unless you use it to wash writing brushes.
If you can't explain why you don't take black literally and take white literally. your arguments... are DOOOOOOOOOOMed.

To be honest, when I first looked at the five colors that was my natural reaction too. I have a personal hypothesis that comes right away from my computer graphics experience but I'll need professional Sinological input to confirm my experience.

The Chinese liked elemental groupings of five - five tastes, five elements. Since their astrological theories required five colours, they used the three subtractive primary colours (red, blue yellow) and white and black that are the natural endpoints of the colour scale. Having no other element to associate with black (since the other four associations come naturally) the association of water with black was made.

There might also be a thematic reason for this: water in Chinese culture has an intrinsic property of chaos (indeed, in all cultures) given that the predominant disaster of primitive Chinese civilization on riverbanks would have been annual flooding. While black has an obvious connection to evil. The connection between water, tragedy, evil, and black may have been obvious.

(And who says water can't be black? Remember Dark Water? XD)

Besides, there has been nothing at all pertaining to issue #3 on my OP.

(Frustrating! My library's academic journal subscription only has a citation of Ceragioli, not the full article! Sheesh.)