a) A pole/polus represents the "end of an axis", with axis representing an "imaginary motionless straight line around which a body rotates".
In nature...rotation can only be shaped within motion, hence a straight line (inception towards death) allowing each body (life) within to be shaped.
Notice that a body (life) cannot perceive the beginning (inception) or end (death) of the axis while being in-between. What if...few shape a mental (logic) and physical (reason) rotation around the body of many by tempting each to pivot off-center by choosing one side or the other?
b) Polaris was once called "Phoenice" aka sound...the articulation of natural sound into words like polaris or pheonice tempts one to consent to a DEFINITION, which makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka one deaf to phonics (sound).
constellation
Con (together) stella (star) tion (action)...action moves each reacting star apart from one another. A constellation requires one to hold a suggested measurement together (synthesis), while ignoring the perceivable division (analysis).
I am not sure what the picture is representing, but Polaris (the North star) is at the tail of the constellation Ursa Major - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris
The symbol would be out of context because you chose 4 specific dates. It goes round and round in a circle throughout the year, why isn't the symbol a circle then?
I am not very convinced about all those symbols, because I recognize some of them and they are false:
Christianity never used a swastika. If you dig around, you'd find that the swastika is of Hindu origin, therefore, it wouldn't be at all Christian to use it. Christian symbols remain to this day - the fish, the cross, the dove. Nothing else.
Hindu religion doesn't include the hexagram. I was able to find this strange symbol of swastika in a hexagram used by the UFO society - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism
I don't know about the rest, but I am not at all convinced this picture is showing any truth. Therefore, it would be folly to derive any truth from it.
I would encourage anyone here to do their own research.
I saw this post Friday and was going to respond and decided not to because I am pretty sure that no one here wants to hear about real astronomy and physics and whatever. But since you said something, I gotta say that, no if you read the Wikipedia link you posted, Polaris is in the tail end of The Little Dipper / Ursa Minor. And yes, in fact the Big Dipper does revolve around the pole as in the meme posted, almost like it is drawing out a swastika (if you only look at 90 degree increments).
That said, the original post is not correct and I cannot really believe that the historical swastika symbol has much to do with the Polaris and Ursa Major. This is because, notwithstanding all the flat earth / space is fake conspiracies, Polaris is not permanently the earth's pole star. It is not really even aligned today, currently being more than 3/4 of a degree away from the north pole (this is 1.5 times the size of the full moon). Even 2000 years ago (let alone "millions") the star we call Polaris was pretty far from the pole. Ancient Greek writings indicate that the pole was relatively devoid of stars. Even 1000 years ago it was not aligned, and it was not until the Renaissance that the star got the name "Stella Polaris" even though it was still more than 3 degrees from the pole at the time.
The alignment of Polaris with the north pole will continue to improve until the middle of the next century, at which point it will start moving away. All of this can be found in the Wikipedia article you linked and its generic Pole Star article as well. I am only pointing this out because one thing I notice in these sorts of debates is that generally both sides say incorrect things, which is why the "shape of the earth" debate continues despite there being literally zero room for science to be wrong about this question.
I personally do find nature to be very beautiful and existence and reality to be amazing, but I never understand why people attach so much significance to some of these things. I have been consuming a lot of material in that generic "shape of the earth" type area of the internet, and while some are just biblical literalists, there is a faction that are almost like the right wing version of new age / hippie types.
Thank you for the correction on the Ursa major/minor. I was incorrect on that one. I'm also glad you commented!
You seem pretty knowledgeable about space. I would benefit greatly if you could share your insights about some things I've found... You probably know these already, but if you don't, can I ask you some questions about space, or near space? For example:
So, based on all these, it would seem like there is a wall of ice created by the oxygen in our atmosphere. I might be wrong again, so you would be helping me greatly if you could take a look and let me know of your conclusions.
I am not an astronomer. I'm an engineer, but I do have a general interest in space because I like physics and all that. I'll assume your questions are in good faith and try to provide answers.
I am not a chemist and don't work with ozone, but the conventional science claims about ozone, how it is produced, and the so called "layer" where it has a significant concentration in the stratosphere are well known. I have no reason to doubt those claims, but would look into anything someone offered that was disputing them. Otherwise, as far as I know, ozone (O3) exists, can be made from ordinary oxygen (O2), and there is a layer with a lot of it in the stratosphere.
I am not familiar with the oxygen phase diagram, but I took thermodynamics as a part of engineering school so I am aware of the fact that pretty much everything can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas (and even plasma), although the conditions may be extreme. The video you linked shows that the triple point of O2 is around 54.4 K and 0.0015 bar. Further, you can get some data on solid oxygen at Wiki. I have no reason to doubt these numbers, but would not vouch for them.
The "temperature of space" is dependent upon where you are. The temperature you are quoting is the background temperature that would be expected far from anything. Near the earth, there is tremendous variation from the day side to the night side. The day side sees sun no different than we would see in the tropics, but even stronger since there is no atmospheric filtration. The night side can get closer to the background temperature of space, but still substantially higher because the warm earth radiates up at you. If you move far enough away from the earth that this is negligible, then the notion of "the night side" goes away because the earth gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get. For example, a full solar eclipse is what "the night side" of the moon looks like from earth, if that makes sense.
I don't want to attribute something to you that you are not saying, but it kind of sounds like you are asking a firmament sort of question. I am not sure if this "wall of oxygen ice" you are referring to is supposed to be a dome over a flat earth or a bubble surrounding a spherical earth. In either case, it seems rather doubtful to me. This question need not even apply to oxygen. That just makes it seems more mysterious (and therefore plausible). But your question could just be in regards to ordinary water ice, since water will be frozen at the background temperature of space. So in that case, why is there no wall of water ice in the sky?
We all know why, of course. Ice is too heavy and not strong enough hold itself up like this. Igloos are limited in size, and such a wall needs to hold together during the sunshine on the day side of the earth which will warm and soften it. Using the density quoted at the Wikipedia article I linked, oxygen ice is also too dense to form such a giant sky wall, although it does seem to be less dense than water ice.
If you are asking about a firmament, it does not bother me if people believe these things but I'll tell you that it is not too difficult to understand how the atmosphere remains attached to the earth and does not just evacuate into space.
I'm not trying to avoid anything. You referred to the common "temperature of space" that is often seen quoted. This is the background temperature of deep space, and is really the equivalent blackbody temperature of the electromagnetic radiation profile in space far from any other objects. Obviously if you are 200 miles above the earth (or even 1000 miles or whatever) in the sunshine, it is not 2.7 K there. You will measure a much higher value since there is sun blazing on you worse than would be at the equator. On the night side of the earth, the temperature drops rapidly due to the cold background temperature of space you referred to.
I am not sure why this would be confusing, but I am not making it up or avoiding anything. This is the conventional view of space in the vicinity of earth. At the radius of earth's orbit (i.e. ~ 93 million miles), a reasonable estimate of the temperature will likely be around that day side figure, i.e. ~60 Celsius which is about 140 Fahrenheit (a value that makes sense since maximum temperatures on earth are about 120 F and the atmosphere provides some shielding down here).
As you can see, it is hard to imagine a wall of oxygen ice in space near earth unless it is in earth's shadow. Even then, I am not sure how such a wall could hold up its own weight.
LMAO. Every "alternate cosmology" person always ends up being exactly the same. As I said, I don't mind what people believe, so believe what you want. I will point out, though, that if you had read the entire article you linked in your third question, you would have seen exactly what I have been saying to you (please take the time to read this and think about what the words mean before responding):
The temperature of outer space is measured in terms of the kinetic activity of the gas, as it is on Earth. The radiation of outer space has a different temperature than the kinetic temperature of the gas, meaning that the gas and radiation are not in thermodynamic equilibrium. All of the observable universe is filled with photons that were created during the Big Bang, which is known as the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). (There is quite likely a correspondingly large number of neutrinos called the cosmic neutrino background.) The current black body temperature of the background radiation is about 2.7 K (−270 °C; −455 °F). The gas temperatures in outer space can vary widely. For example, the temperature in the Boomerang Nebula is 1 K (−272 °C; −458 °F), while the solar corona reaches temperatures of 1,200,000–2,600,000 K (2,200,000–4,700,000 °F).
Like I said, I am not making anything up. You are welcome to not accept this and substitute your own beliefs, I was just telling you what the conventional science answer is. But your idea is relying on "the temperature of space" being 2.7 K. That is not your own figure, it is the "conventional science" figure. Your understanding of what it means to say "space is 2.7 K" is not quite right, and I was just letting you know. If you want to tell yourself that I am avoiding the question because I don't have a factual answer, then that is fine.
This is not a hard question.
Agreed. The answer is quoted right here. The temperature is dependent upon what you are near. Where the earth is, due to the proximity to the sun the ambient radiation temperature is about 140 degrees F, unless you are in the earth's shadow, where it can be a couple hundred degrees less than that. The temperature of the rarefied gases can be all over the place. Just look at the thermosphere to see how extreme it can be. It may seem like I am dodging the question, but this is the right answer.
Wrong, the north star is the tail end of ursa MINOR (the LITTLE dipper). The "spoon" end of ursa MAJOR points to the north star no matter what time or season. Ursa MAJOR's orientation in the sky tells us the date, and mapping the solstices (like in the picture above) gets us something like symbol that has appeared in nearly every culture north of the equator.
Wrong. It has been found in countless Christian artworks. North star is the origin and it's far older than Hinduism, it's literally been found in cave paintings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Oh, Ursa minor, not Ursa major. Thank you for correcting me on this. Still doesn't confirm it was used to map anything, like you suggest. I don't know why you say "like the picture above"... This picture was never used to map anything, since it's a modern picture... Sorry, if I don't understand your point.
You said "It has been found in countless Christian artworks" - Can you prove it? If they are countless, you'd have no problem to give me one at least, right?
So, the point was the swastika in the hexagram... You sent me only a picture of a hexagram... I must again ask you to defend the specific symbol of swastika in a hexagram, please. Can you deliver such an example, or no?
Oh, and please give me the origin of the jewish swastika... :D I just now saw it. That's ludicrous if it were true.
Sorry, but the burden of proof falls onto you, since you shared the picture. Also, any of the other symbols would be useful knowledge to anyone to understand this symbology. And if those symbols were falsely attributed to the corresponding religions, as I suspect, this is useful knowledge too, wouldn't you agree?
This was the main argument against the heliocentric model but it was later proven that the stars are not fixed and indeed "wobble" from the Earth's revolution around the sun.
Poor lapland has just 4 arrows.
Barry Soetoro is to blame for that...
a) A pole/polus represents the "end of an axis", with axis representing an "imaginary motionless straight line around which a body rotates".
In nature...rotation can only be shaped within motion, hence a straight line (inception towards death) allowing each body (life) within to be shaped.
Notice that a body (life) cannot perceive the beginning (inception) or end (death) of the axis while being in-between. What if...few shape a mental (logic) and physical (reason) rotation around the body of many by tempting each to pivot off-center by choosing one side or the other?
b) Polaris was once called "Phoenice" aka sound...the articulation of natural sound into words like polaris or pheonice tempts one to consent to a DEFINITION, which makes one a DEAF PHONETICIAN aka one deaf to phonics (sound).
Con (together) stella (star) tion (action)...action moves each reacting star apart from one another. A constellation requires one to hold a suggested measurement together (synthesis), while ignoring the perceivable division (analysis).
Sleight of hand: https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/moby/weareallmadeofstars.html
Notice also the line: "You can't ignore what is going 'round"...because ignorance implies circular confinement.
What's a dip? The temporary immersion of form (life) into flow (inception towards death)...that's the biggest dip any being can make.
Does form (life) directed within flow (inception towards death) require a guide to find ones position at center?
What about the etymological root of guide/weid - "to see"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/guide ?
Does self discernment require guidance by another or does any suggestion by another corrupt ones perception if consented to?
Why is it called a TV (tell-a-vision) GUIDE? How could one see if one allows another to tell a vision to one?
are you one of u/then's synthetic affectations?
Affiliations contradict ones free will of choice if taken close...so nope. Also synthesis represents a syn/sin which only analysis unburdens.
that's a bot, block it
I am not sure what the picture is representing, but Polaris (the North star) is at the tail of the constellation Ursa Major - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris
The symbol would be out of context because you chose 4 specific dates. It goes round and round in a circle throughout the year, why isn't the symbol a circle then?
I am not very convinced about all those symbols, because I recognize some of them and they are false:
Christianity never used a swastika. If you dig around, you'd find that the swastika is of Hindu origin, therefore, it wouldn't be at all Christian to use it. Christian symbols remain to this day - the fish, the cross, the dove. Nothing else.
Hindu religion doesn't include the hexagram. I was able to find this strange symbol of swastika in a hexagram used by the UFO society - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlism
I don't know about the rest, but I am not at all convinced this picture is showing any truth. Therefore, it would be folly to derive any truth from it.
I would encourage anyone here to do their own research.
I saw this post Friday and was going to respond and decided not to because I am pretty sure that no one here wants to hear about real astronomy and physics and whatever. But since you said something, I gotta say that, no if you read the Wikipedia link you posted, Polaris is in the tail end of The Little Dipper / Ursa Minor. And yes, in fact the Big Dipper does revolve around the pole as in the meme posted, almost like it is drawing out a swastika (if you only look at 90 degree increments).
That said, the original post is not correct and I cannot really believe that the historical swastika symbol has much to do with the Polaris and Ursa Major. This is because, notwithstanding all the flat earth / space is fake conspiracies, Polaris is not permanently the earth's pole star. It is not really even aligned today, currently being more than 3/4 of a degree away from the north pole (this is 1.5 times the size of the full moon). Even 2000 years ago (let alone "millions") the star we call Polaris was pretty far from the pole. Ancient Greek writings indicate that the pole was relatively devoid of stars. Even 1000 years ago it was not aligned, and it was not until the Renaissance that the star got the name "Stella Polaris" even though it was still more than 3 degrees from the pole at the time.
The alignment of Polaris with the north pole will continue to improve until the middle of the next century, at which point it will start moving away. All of this can be found in the Wikipedia article you linked and its generic Pole Star article as well. I am only pointing this out because one thing I notice in these sorts of debates is that generally both sides say incorrect things, which is why the "shape of the earth" debate continues despite there being literally zero room for science to be wrong about this question.
I personally do find nature to be very beautiful and existence and reality to be amazing, but I never understand why people attach so much significance to some of these things. I have been consuming a lot of material in that generic "shape of the earth" type area of the internet, and while some are just biblical literalists, there is a faction that are almost like the right wing version of new age / hippie types.
Thank you for the correction on the Ursa major/minor. I was incorrect on that one. I'm also glad you commented!
You seem pretty knowledgeable about space. I would benefit greatly if you could share your insights about some things I've found... You probably know these already, but if you don't, can I ask you some questions about space, or near space? For example:
Do you believe that oxygen in the air (O2) turns into ozone (O3) with higher altitude? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone
Do you know that oxygen can freeze? Solid ice made out of oxygen, did you know about it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik9J9NgBhoc (4.2K)
What is the temperature in space, according to your knowledge? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_space (2.7K)
So, based on all these, it would seem like there is a wall of ice created by the oxygen in our atmosphere. I might be wrong again, so you would be helping me greatly if you could take a look and let me know of your conclusions.
Thank you in advance!
I am not an astronomer. I'm an engineer, but I do have a general interest in space because I like physics and all that. I'll assume your questions are in good faith and try to provide answers.
I am not a chemist and don't work with ozone, but the conventional science claims about ozone, how it is produced, and the so called "layer" where it has a significant concentration in the stratosphere are well known. I have no reason to doubt those claims, but would look into anything someone offered that was disputing them. Otherwise, as far as I know, ozone (O3) exists, can be made from ordinary oxygen (O2), and there is a layer with a lot of it in the stratosphere.
I am not familiar with the oxygen phase diagram, but I took thermodynamics as a part of engineering school so I am aware of the fact that pretty much everything can exist as a solid, liquid, and gas (and even plasma), although the conditions may be extreme. The video you linked shows that the triple point of O2 is around 54.4 K and 0.0015 bar. Further, you can get some data on solid oxygen at Wiki. I have no reason to doubt these numbers, but would not vouch for them.
The "temperature of space" is dependent upon where you are. The temperature you are quoting is the background temperature that would be expected far from anything. Near the earth, there is tremendous variation from the day side to the night side. The day side sees sun no different than we would see in the tropics, but even stronger since there is no atmospheric filtration. The night side can get closer to the background temperature of space, but still substantially higher because the warm earth radiates up at you. If you move far enough away from the earth that this is negligible, then the notion of "the night side" goes away because the earth gets smaller and smaller the farther away you get. For example, a full solar eclipse is what "the night side" of the moon looks like from earth, if that makes sense.
I don't want to attribute something to you that you are not saying, but it kind of sounds like you are asking a firmament sort of question. I am not sure if this "wall of oxygen ice" you are referring to is supposed to be a dome over a flat earth or a bubble surrounding a spherical earth. In either case, it seems rather doubtful to me. This question need not even apply to oxygen. That just makes it seems more mysterious (and therefore plausible). But your question could just be in regards to ordinary water ice, since water will be frozen at the background temperature of space. So in that case, why is there no wall of water ice in the sky?
We all know why, of course. Ice is too heavy and not strong enough hold itself up like this. Igloos are limited in size, and such a wall needs to hold together during the sunshine on the day side of the earth which will warm and soften it. Using the density quoted at the Wikipedia article I linked, oxygen ice is also too dense to form such a giant sky wall, although it does seem to be less dense than water ice.
If you are asking about a firmament, it does not bother me if people believe these things but I'll tell you that it is not too difficult to understand how the atmosphere remains attached to the earth and does not just evacuate into space.
Sorry, I didn't understand why you avoid answering the temperature around the Earth in Kelvin...
I'm not trying to avoid anything. You referred to the common "temperature of space" that is often seen quoted. This is the background temperature of deep space, and is really the equivalent blackbody temperature of the electromagnetic radiation profile in space far from any other objects. Obviously if you are 200 miles above the earth (or even 1000 miles or whatever) in the sunshine, it is not 2.7 K there. You will measure a much higher value since there is sun blazing on you worse than would be at the equator. On the night side of the earth, the temperature drops rapidly due to the cold background temperature of space you referred to.
I am not sure why this would be confusing, but I am not making it up or avoiding anything. This is the conventional view of space in the vicinity of earth. At the radius of earth's orbit (i.e. ~ 93 million miles), a reasonable estimate of the temperature will likely be around that day side figure, i.e. ~60 Celsius which is about 140 Fahrenheit (a value that makes sense since maximum temperatures on earth are about 120 F and the atmosphere provides some shielding down here).
As you can see, it is hard to imagine a wall of oxygen ice in space near earth unless it is in earth's shadow. Even then, I am not sure how such a wall could hold up its own weight.
I didn't ask you to imagine, I am asking about the factual temperature of space beyond the Earth in Kelvin.
Can you please give an answer, or just say you don't have an answer? So far you haven't given an answer... This is not a hard question.
LMAO. Every "alternate cosmology" person always ends up being exactly the same. As I said, I don't mind what people believe, so believe what you want. I will point out, though, that if you had read the entire article you linked in your third question, you would have seen exactly what I have been saying to you (please take the time to read this and think about what the words mean before responding):
Like I said, I am not making anything up. You are welcome to not accept this and substitute your own beliefs, I was just telling you what the conventional science answer is. But your idea is relying on "the temperature of space" being 2.7 K. That is not your own figure, it is the "conventional science" figure. Your understanding of what it means to say "space is 2.7 K" is not quite right, and I was just letting you know. If you want to tell yourself that I am avoiding the question because I don't have a factual answer, then that is fine.
Agreed. The answer is quoted right here. The temperature is dependent upon what you are near. Where the earth is, due to the proximity to the sun the ambient radiation temperature is about 140 degrees F, unless you are in the earth's shadow, where it can be a couple hundred degrees less than that. The temperature of the rarefied gases can be all over the place. Just look at the thermosphere to see how extreme it can be. It may seem like I am dodging the question, but this is the right answer.
Wrong, the north star is the tail end of ursa MINOR (the LITTLE dipper). The "spoon" end of ursa MAJOR points to the north star no matter what time or season. Ursa MAJOR's orientation in the sky tells us the date, and mapping the solstices (like in the picture above) gets us something like symbol that has appeared in nearly every culture north of the equator.
Wrong. It has been found in countless Christian artworks. North star is the origin and it's far older than Hinduism, it's literally been found in cave paintings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatkona
Correct, always do your own research. Never fully trust information gathered from internet memes and anonymous comments.
Oh, Ursa minor, not Ursa major. Thank you for correcting me on this. Still doesn't confirm it was used to map anything, like you suggest. I don't know why you say "like the picture above"... This picture was never used to map anything, since it's a modern picture... Sorry, if I don't understand your point.
You said "It has been found in countless Christian artworks" - Can you prove it? If they are countless, you'd have no problem to give me one at least, right?
So, the point was the swastika in the hexagram... You sent me only a picture of a hexagram... I must again ask you to defend the specific symbol of swastika in a hexagram, please. Can you deliver such an example, or no?
Oh, and please give me the origin of the jewish swastika... :D I just now saw it. That's ludicrous if it were true.
Sorry, but the burden of proof falls onto you, since you shared the picture. Also, any of the other symbols would be useful knowledge to anyone to understand this symbology. And if those symbols were falsely attributed to the corresponding religions, as I suspect, this is useful knowledge too, wouldn't you agree?
Crazy Polaris never moves and is located directly in line with the north pole axis.
Wild that every star and constellation circles Polaris almost like its fixed in position.
This was the main argument against the heliocentric model but it was later proven that the stars are not fixed and indeed "wobble" from the Earth's revolution around the sun.
Proven eh? Lol
As u can see everything is revolving around Polaris but I'm sure there's some answer that needs a shit ton of mental gymnastics..
https://youtu.be/tp6UkqIwVfk?si=fW5usqxZyMj-lLMG