[Home Page]
KryssTal Feedback Pages:
KryssTal Pages:
|
Readers' Feedback
Astronomy
Page 1 of 3
|
Support this web site
|
|
[Home Page]
KryssTal Feedback Pages:
KryssTal Pages:
|
Readers' Feedback
Astronomy
Page 1 of 3
|
Support this web site
|
Dear webmaster,
In found some mistakes in your list of inventions: not Hans Lippershey was the inventor of the telescope, he only created the binocular. Most likely the basical techniques of both microscope and refractor-telescope were invented around 1590 by Zacharias Jansen, a very young spectaclemaker - some say he was only a child - from Middelburg in the Netherlands (not Denmark). Hans Lippershey was a competitive spectaclemaker from the same city of Middelburg who may have used the inventions of Jansen for his own sake. Anyway, his patent request in 1608 was not granted, because Maurits, the prince of Orange, allready posessed a telescope made by Jansen for many years. By the way, there was a third Dutch spectaclemaker, Jacob Adriaanszoon, who claimed the invention of the telescope, and there must be a few others. But Zacharias Jansen still holds the best cards.
You have a great and factual page. I found it a great deal of help, however I need more info on the Moon's temp! Can you help?!
KryssTal Reply: Thank you,
Try my page www.krysstal.com/solarsys_moon.html
There is a large difference between day and night temperatures because:
1 - the day / night period is 2 weeks for each.
Good luck.
2 - there is no atmosphere to soften the heat of the day or hold the heat at night.
Thank you soooo much for info.
can you tellme the age of the star of aries sharatan??? for a project for school???
KryssTal Reply: Hello,
I don't have any information about that particular star.
If you can look the star up in an astronomy book, you need to look up its SPECTRAL TYPE or SPECTRAL CLASS. This will be a letter (O, B, A, F, G, K, M) or a letter with a number (A7, G2, etc). Ignore the number and take the letter. The following table will give you a rough idea of the star's age:
Types: O, B - less than 100 million years old
Hope that helps. Good luck with your project.
Types: A, F - less than 1,000 million years old
Type G - about 5,000 million years old
Type K - about 15,000 million years old
Type M - about 30,000 million years
Kryss,
If you want to know what astrology is REALLY about, why don't you correspond with a REAL astrologer, and not rely only upon popular belief. There are not many of us who take astrology seriously enough to look for the hows and whys. Thanks for a great website. I am open to any response.
KryssTal Reply: I am happy to correspond with you if you are a real astrologer.
Kryss,
Thanks for your response...I visited your website in the course of my research, and find it very informative.
You devote some space to your opinion on astrology and how it is practiced. I want you to know that few 'astrologers' know the mechanics behind it, and many actually don't know that they are doing it wrong. I would like to correct some of the assumptions about astrology. I know that you take it somewhat seriously because you write about it on your website and even include a link to others about it. One of my goals is not to prove that astrology 'works'...but to clarify it and explain how and why.
Let's start with the number one common assumption...true astrology is not based on the zodiac of the constellations. 'Sign energy' does not come from the stars in the constellations. That is a fallacy that is frequently supported by many uneducated astrologers in an attempt to explain their 'work' to an even less informed public. Our zodiac, which we call the 'zodiac of the signs' is actually the corona of force around the Earth, as she spins, and the point known as 0 Aries is located where the equator cuts the ecliptic plane.
The opposite point is, of course, 0 Libra. The point that the North Pole leans towards is 0 Cancer, while the opposite point is 0 Capricorn. If I diverge in any way from the astronomer's terminology, remember, astrology is not astronomy...it is a science of energy and in practice I deal with issues of behavior, not physics. In astrology, when we say 'zodiac', we don't mean the zodiacal belt of constellations, but the ring around the Earth at the ecliptic. The signs are named intuitively, according to the behavior orientation their energy supports, which is analogous to their positioning regarding the equator.
Many astrologers (some misinformed, some just trying to make a fast buck if they can) take on a fatalistic approach, and this has done more harm than good for us. Newspaper astrology only makes it worse. I have never been inclined to say that 'such and such will happen when this planet is in that sign'. In practice I am more inclined to take note of the energy that I see present in a look at transits for a future date, and what types of actions or events it would support. Even more inclined to see whether it would support what I had planned for that date.
We do take account of precession('we', meaning serious astrologers). The most commonly used reference work in astrology is called, as you know, an ephemeris, and mine (and most others published in the States) gets its data from the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, CA. Precession is indeed taken into account, and in fact my ephemeris includes data for those astrologers (though few) who do use the sidereal zodiac(ie zodiac of the constellations). But to me, that is energetically incorrect, but oh well.
Another common assumption is that we astrologers do not acknowledge the multitude of other influences present in the universe. That is only partly true. Us serious astrologers do. The thing is that there is just so many many of them. Could you write out an interpretation of the zodiacal positions of every star in a birth chart? The individual stars do have some influence on their own individual merit (though not as signs). But there are billions of them. In serious astrology, the forces that are most directly pertinent are the ones that have the most direct influence. Gravity-wise, the Earth (which determines the sign locations, not the stars) and the Moon are the top two, with the Sun contributing not only gravity but heat and light, which has astrological significance.
The planets each have their own fundamental meaning and pull on the Earth with various strengths. Not to mention the thousands of other objects. We just prefer to focus on the most powerful ones. Earth is the center (remember, this is not astronomy) because Earth is where we live. In making a birthchart (or any other chart) we use the local longitude and latitude, and use trigonometry to determine the rising degree (or 'rising sign' as most people would call it).
These are the most common points of contention that some astronomers have with our study, I think. There are probably more that have slipped my mind. I am just frustrated with seeing so many assumptions made about astrologers and how we think. I am an astrologer, but I am also math- and science-minded, this means I skip all the books about 'Love Signs', 'So-and-so's Moon Signs', etc. I have done astrology for 13 years, and these days, I am more of a writer on the subject. I use my intuition and other knowledge to guide me in my research.
I think that, more than anything else, astrologers who have not researched their methods and relied purely upon what they have read, have damaged the reputation of astrologers. Especially those who claim to practice it. My research has led me to change the way I practice, while others have held to fundamental beliefs (you called it a belief system, and that is often how it is taught). I am seeking a way to merge it with physics and that can only work by being willing to change, or correct, how I see it. Many others just won't see it that way, because it is a challenge.
We study astronomy, like other fields, as a means of understanding ourselves. Astrology is to the same end. I hope I have encouraged you somewhat to have a more open mind. I am not writing to sell you anything, I don't even advertise or sell my services anywhere. I am a researcher. I do charts and help people understand themselves through astrology, but I often do not charge. I earn my income as the second-highest paid stocker at a local supermarket. I am a college graduate, but money is only a peripheral concern, I am in search of some other purpose.
I am open to any further questions. I meant no resentment towards you, I just felt that you were serious enough about your work to receive better insights on how serious astrologers look at their subject. I guess I am more astronomy-geometry conscious than most of my 'colleagues'. If you have any questions about your chart, I'd be happy to take a look and offer an opinion (I would need the time, date and place of your birth).
Thanks for your time.
KryssTal Reply: I cannot say that I understand or believe your notes. However, I do believe in open debate. therefore I am publishing them in my feedback pages (under astronomy) so that others can read them.
You appear to be talking about imaginary entities called "signs" rather than the astronomical constellations. How would you measure these and what are their properties? You use the term "corona of force" which is scientifically meaningless.
It would not be a good test to produce predictions or personality based on my chart because we have communicated and that gives you information about me.
Dear Mr. Tal -
Are you aware of any scientific consensus on increases in the orbital path of the moon ?
KryssTal Reply: The Moon affects the Earth's tides. This causes the Earth to lose energy and slow down. The Moon gains energy by moving a way from the Earth.
That's a summary.
Hi,
I have been traveling the www for years. Your site has to be one of the most interesting I've ever come across. I never email webmasters of sites, but in your case, I just had to say .... GREAT PAGE! ... it contains many fascinating and wondrous things.
I was looking for a scale of the Universe to understand the immensity of it all ... and happened upon your page. Seeing many things which interest me on your site, I'm sure to have some enjoyable reading.
Regards, Jim Bell
KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your kind comments.
I'm glad you found something useful.
Dear Sir,
your history of astronomy was very interesting and enjoyable to read. I found the information very useful. The information was presented in a very organized and easy to understand way. Thank you for your help.
I do have a problem, however, with your view of fundamentalists. I am a Bible-believing fundamentalist. That does not mean that I am stupid or close my eyes to observations or scientific data. I think that the recent discoveries in astronomy are wonderful. I acknowledge and understand the data that has been collected. I do not cling to the scientifically archaic ideas once held by the Catholic Church, or any other religious group for that matter. The subject of how the earth came into existence is not science. For something to meet the criteria of science, it must be measurable and repeatable. The formation of the earth is not measurable and repeatable. Scientists and church leaders can both guess by observing the universe around them. No one can say for definite, based on science alone, how the earth came into existence. It is outside of the realm of science. The process of the universe's formation would fit much better into the category of faith-that is, trusting in what we cannot see.
When astronomers observe and record data, they make guesses about why certain phenomenon occur. They do not, for instance, know that the gases and other phenomena in the heavens will eventually evolve into another galaxy. They do not know that the earth came into existence that way. They are only guessing. There are certain things science will never tell us. Thank you again for your history of astronomy.
KryssTal Reply: Thank you for your thought-provoking email. I will attempt to respond to your points as well as I can.
The essay mentions fundamentalists after the entry for 1200. These were certainly the views of the Vatican until very recently. Galileo's books were on the Index of Forbidden Books until the 1980s. In addition there are many people around the world (not necessary all Christians) whose view of the Universe is along these lines. I was referring to these events and not calling anybody stupid. The need to believe in a religion is nothing to do with stupidity. But I don't look at those issues.
The essays do not actually go that much into the origin of the Universe except to describe the Big Bang and the Steady State theories. It is an account of how our position in the Universe was slowly worked out.
Obviously, the origin of the Universe is not a repeatable phenomenon. However, any explanation of its origin has to account for the existing properties of the Universe and make predictions that are measurable. The Big Bang theory is the best explanation for the observations at present. But remember, science works on evidence and is continuously changing - it is not absolute truth. However long or strongly a theory is accepted, new evidence may arrive that disproves it. This is the fundamental difference between science and religion: the latter talks of absolute truth.
Science looks at observations, proposes hypotheses (what you call guesses) consistent with the observations, tests the hypotheses until they are accepted as theories, but is always open to changing even its most established theories. Religion has a given truth which does not depend on evidence but rather on faith. The two work in totally different ways. Different religions will tell us different things about origins and it is by faith that one or other of their models is accepted.
Thank you for writing and I am glad you enjoyed the history.
In the studying of geocentric cosmology which celestial bodies are considered planets, which are not, and why?
Thanks
KryssTal Reply: In geocentric cosmology, the planets are the moving objects as opposed to the fixed stars. They consist of the sun, moon and traditional five "naked eye" planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn). The Greek word planet means "wanderer".
Hi:
My name is Jacob and I am interested in doing a science fair project on planet x or the 10th planet. I have been searching the internet for info but have not been able to find much. Can you tell me where I might go to find current info about planet x? Thank you.
KryssTal Reply: Hello there
Planet X has yet to be discovered.
Hello,
I like your site particularly the We Are Stardust page. So I was wondering if you would mind if I put a link on my links page to your site. My site is at:-
for your perusal.
It gets very hot indeed in suns, black holes and big bangs. :)
KryssTal Reply: Your site is excellent. I would be honoured with a link. I think you may need to change your background graphic as it really slows the loading and that might scare away impatient surfers!
I'll put a link to your site from my astronomy and science page.