Talk:Galactic year/Archive 1

Hindu

User Rpba repeatedly edited the page to include a large amount of reference to Hindu mythology. While the Hindu description of the Universe is fascinating and worthy of discussion, the entry for Galactic Year isn't the place to do this. Perhaps create a new article for these sort of references. I have simplified the article as best I can to simply state what a Galactic Year is.

I have added a link to the site where this is discussed. The vedic link to the concept is of great importance. Renown scientists like Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer were inspired by the vedic view of the universe. The hindu knew already about the galaxy when the West still thought the earth was flat. So let's not be too arrogant in this matter. It is not surprising to involve such information discussing the galactic year. But o.k., considering our apparent western scientific xenophobia and the fact that the concept of galactocentric time after heliocentric time might be the new paradigm for the 21th century, let's keep it to a link to the site discussing this and much more of philosophy, politics and religion to it.

--rpba 08:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just came here from Milky Way and I was appalled by the nonsense. Suffice it to say that "theorderoftime.org" is not a reliable source on either philosophy, politics, religion, or science. Melchoir 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appalled? Nonsense? Psychology!

You see? The xenophobiac even tries to rule with insults... we call it projection and denial; a product of ignorance and materialism.

rpba 11:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating I'm sure, but "theorderoftime.com" is just as unreliable a source as "theorderoftime.org". Melchoir 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable?

Well Melchoir, science is not based on facts only: there is philosophy and paradigm. The facts of in our case the galaxy, are weighed and associated in a model, in a paradigm. Your judgement of what you call 'unscientific' or "unreliable' seems to be unfounded. You give no arguments. There are many theories and approaches under the heading of science. My approach with theorderofime.com.org is founded on the pure fact of natural timing; of direct observations. It is not unreliable this basis. It is more the invalidity of civil time-measurement relating to nature that is the issue here. As far as I can see it you confuse the concept of reliability with the one of validity. The standardtime consciousness you reason from misses - even though reliable to the unit of measurement - the original direct 'sundial'/ 'moonphase' external validity, which was cancelled by political pragmatist decisionmaking in our cultural history. But inconsiderate and not aware of this you see unreliability with others. Your are still talking with projections, and provide no evidence of what would be factually incorrect or unreliable of the things presented at the pages I link to, or the page I initiallly presented here under this heading of the galactic year of which you also deleted the link. To my opinion as a psychologist is the matter of time difficult to discuss without further cultural connotations. The cyclic of it is what conditioned us into cultures. We are always bound to paradigms of time management. That is an undisputed fact. My contribution in science is to add to the awareness of this paradigmatic relativity relating to the order of the sun, the moon and the galaxy. I appreciate it that you want to discuss this, but cannot accept a totally repressive attitude in this important matter. That's why I added the link to the site that discusses much of the classical philosophy on this from different authoritative sources. For the novelty of the research I can accept that my original article was deleted. But I demand that you substantiate your accusations of the alleged 'unreliability', of the site which is of reference while Melchoir apparently is not. So let him be silent and no longer repress the information I offer with my links to the rare, and in some respects surely groundbreaking (is that a sin?), site so excellent in this matter: theorderoftime.com/theorderoftime.org. Better study before pronouncing judgement! True for me, true for you and important for the status of our wikipedia.

--rpba 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your personal website is not a reliable source, no matter what you say on it. And groundbreaking research is a sin on Wikipedia. Melchoir 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. you say the institutional is reliable, the personal is not - even though the institution consists of individuals - and also say that the vedic reference I gave to the galaxy as a wheel or a dolphin (here is is) has nothing to do with the galactic year, while wheels evidently spin and dolphins evidently jump. To me, as a psychologist, you remain an interesting case, and that is that.
--rpba 07:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sin?

Strange such a sin. Once contaminated with it Wiki would ban us from association, while we are discussing straight matters widely accepted all over the world. Don't you confuse the rule that Wiki for itself is not the medium for such info, but still may link to sites that are of interest for certain subjects like the vedic reference to this subject? Why wouldn't that be a reliable source, being a reference to a library that exists for thousands of years already? Why would my site or specifically written article for the subject of galactic time offering such reference not be reliable in this? Because also original things are said there? You want the books for it? Are we only reliable when we refer to printed materials? And then we have the issue of 'reliable publishers'; where is the end of this judgement? The many, many other links to comparable sites on the internet that are also found in the wikipedia render your policy of campaigning against my 'unreliability' highly incredible. But I'm getting tired of this, I am wasting my time and committed good will here.. I leave it be, it is your conscience to block the way to this reference.

I finally add this from the knowledge-base about reliability:

A fact is an actual state of affairs. To say of a sentence or proposition that it is true is to say that it refers to a fact. As far as the encyclopedia is concerned, a fact is a statement agreed to by the consensus of scholars or experts working on a topic. (New evidence might emerge so that the statement is no longer accepted as a fact; at that time the encyclopedia should be revised.)

A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.

Considering these statements, the concept of 'personal website' might need some revision.

Further I've added a relevant link to the VedaBase; a to your concept 'reliable' source for the vedic truth in this matter. To my opinion this info shouldn't be presented without a thorough discussion like I offer at my site. But you may be the one that is not that scientifical, may God have your soul.

--rpba 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That link says nothing about the galactic year. This is an article on the galactic year. It's so simple. Melchoir 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty

The length of a galactic year is still rather uncertain (±>10%).

A galactic year is simply the circumference of our galactic orbit, divided by our orbital velocity (how far / how fast = how long). 2 × pi × R / V. Where R is our distance from the galactic core, and V (usually called Θ) is our velocity along the orbit. But R and V are not yet accurately known. R may be 8 kpc, or 8.5, or even 7. V may be 220 km/s, or 230, or even 200.

8 *(1000*2*3.14*3.086/3.15)/ 220 = 223 Myr. But 7.5 km/s and 230 kpc is only 200 Myr. And 8.5 km/s and 210 kpc is 249 Myr.

So the best one can currently say is a galactic year is likely between 200 and 250 Myr.

"Despite decades of effort, the local MW rotation rate remains poorly known, with measurements varying by 25%." [1] 2005

Mr X said that, so the text, when explaining it to be a good unit, is not accurate. It sometimes used as a unit in popularizations of Earth history – but it's specifically a very bad unit. Rursus 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have such a year at all?

It is good not to forget that speaking of 'years' like this there might not be such a year at all in reality. We just speculate about its existence because of the rotation of the stars in the galaxy . What exactly happens to this rotational nature in such a span of time, is not known with absolute certainty; we would have to wait 250 Myr (?) for that. E.g. the proof of stars around the center making years, is no proof for us ever making such a year, even though it is likely. The whole issue of the debate here is thus founded on unverified claims. The galactic year has never been observed for our solar system, nor for the entirety of the celestial sky.

--rpba 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it need to be - we have millions of galaxies to study, and draw our conclusions from the fact that our galaxy is not much different from them. It is not necessary to see the elephant when you find footprints in your peanut butter. Denni ^talk 04:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]