Star of Bethlehem

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Jupiter and Saturn are coming really close  together and likely to look like a double star on the 21st. Very nicely visible out here. Clear sky. Not sure about the UK.

Some people are suggesting that this was probably the alignment that was seen as the Star of Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Aruntraveller]

Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.

Or a coincidence.

[Sriram]

Significant for believers...!

One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east?  It should have been seen in the west. 

[ippy]

Significant for believers...!

One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east?  It should have been seen in the west. 

Hi there Sriri, I wouldn't worry yourself about any alignment of stars or anything else of that nature, they were clutching at straws in those days, and still are in some ways, when they came out with all of that nonsense.

Makes as much sense as announcing you'll probably the best deal you'll ever get at Joe Blogs Supermarket on Thursday, because you always do when Jupiter aligns with Mars on that day, or even better make a run for the super market if your dog farts on a Tuesday and it can only be a Tuesday fart too, same formula.

It's all superstition as I'm sure you're aware, are you still into your science magazines, I like our UK 'New Scientist', terrific stuff in the Q & A letters section where the Brit sense of humour's inclined to present itself from time to time.

The 'N S' is a really good read and it also gives you a refreshing reminder of how many people there are nowadays that prefer to be living in and having a more realistic view of the world.

Don't forget to celebrate Newtons birthday on the 25-12-20 and a happy new year to you and yours Sriram, ippy.   

[Sriram]

  Newton's birthday is on 4th January!  I'll celebrate that and the supposed birthday of Jesus too...and Krishna's supposed birthday ...and anyone else...! Why not?!

I'll check out New Scientist ...thanks

Happy New Year to you too, ippy...

[Spud]

Significant for believers...!

One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east?  It should have been seen in the west. 

The Persians knew about the Messiah through Daniel, and were able to read the signs of his arrival in the stars. I would guess what they saw was a planet or conjunction of planets in a specific constellation, indicating that He had been born. If it was Jupiter, don't forget that from earth, Jupiter appears to move backwards and forwards along the ecliptic, so it could have moved from East to West and then stopped for a time (over a stable??). Stars are not important for us now since God has now spoken through his son.
I saw a film on the subject years ago and recall something about Jupiter being in Virgo, but that's all I remember.

[SteveH]

Significant for believers...!

One doubt I have had is ...how can the star be seen in the east....if the Magi were travelling from the east?  It should have been seen in the west. 

A point I made in 'Extreme Pedantry', on Facebook, with regard to the Christmas hymn "Brightest and Best of the Sons of the Morning". The "star of the East" should, as you say, be a "star of the West".

[Harrowby Hall]

  Newton's birthday is on 4th January!   

Well, it would be now. But since the whole of Isaac Newton's life was spent living with the Julian calendar, and he celebrated his birthday on 25 December it seems a bit pedantic to transfer it into the Gregorian calendar.

I went to the same school as Isaac Newton. I wasn't there at the same time as him but I think we may have had some of his teachers

Another Julian/Gregorian story is that Shakespeare and Cervantes died on the same day. They both died on 23 April - but Cervantes had died ten days before Shakespeare.

[ippy]

  Newton's birthday is on 4th January!  I'll celebrate that and the supposed birthday of Jesus too...and Krishna's supposed birthday ...and anyone else...! Why not?!

I'll check out New Scientist ...thanks

Happy New Year to you too, ippy...

I can't remember the interview the N S Editor gave but in reply to some religious nut or other that had tried to put over some of the usual nonsense religionists are inclined to come out with I do remember, using his own words, he told the religionist if that was what he thought he could fuck off.

Yes you could say he's not that keen on anything to do with superstition or anything that borders around that subject either.

Regards Sriram, ippy.

[Sriram]

I can't remember the interview the N S Editor gave but in reply to some religious nut or other that had tried to put over some of the usual nonsense religionists are inclined to come out with I do remember, using his own words, he told the religionist if that was what he thought he could fuck off.

Yes you could say he's not that keen on anything to do with superstition or anything that borders around that subject either.

Regards Sriram, ippy.

I get your problem with superstition and blind belief. I agree with that.

However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition.  Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes.  That is the issue.

Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of  our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.

Science is fine in its place...so is spirituality.

Cheers ippy.

[Stranger]

However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition.  Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes.  That is the issue.

The problem is that you've never actually managed to demonstrate that any of your beliefs about this sort of thing are anything more than blind belief or superstition. You clearly have a set of beliefs that you desperately want to be true (which is a feature of blind faith, rather than honest investigation) and all you do is cling to anything from the fringes of scientific speculation and philosophy that you think (sometimes wrongly) supports said beliefs.

The result is a bit of a confused mess of often mutually contradictory speculations (at best).

Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of  our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.

Science can only deal with things that have some actual supporting empirical evidence. Ideas must be testable and falsifiable. And you're once again trying to co-opt the word "non-classical". It has a perfectly good meaning already, in the context of science, so it's bordering on the dishonest to try to redefine it.

[ippy]

I get your problem with superstition and blind belief. I agree with that.

However, not all spiritual matters are blind belief or superstition.  Most of it is about matters connected to the mind and consciousness that are deeper than normal material science can examine with its microscopes and telescopes.  That is the issue.

Just as religious fanatics rejected science in earlier centuries....scientists should not make the same mistake of rejecting subtle, exotic and non-classical aspects of  our lives merely because of a fixation with the material world.

Science is fine in its place...so is spirituality.

Cheers ippy.

All in your opinion, nothing wrong with anyone having the freedom to think whatever they like to think.

Science as you must know is fed by all sorts of mostly suspicion based ideas with a lot of informed ideas too and eventually when they're presented to the public they're described as either as near as you can get substantiated ideas or some form of bin job admission is usually freely given.

I don't see anything remotely similar to the above in with the magical, mystical and superstition based brigade whoever or wherever they come from, I wonder why that is?

In the end it has to be far less of an embarrassment to anyone that sits with the scientists.

ippy.

[Sriram]

The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students.  Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.

It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.

[Stranger]

The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students.  Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.

It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.

Stamping your foot will not make it so.   

[Harrowby Hall]

The essential, central defining characteristic of science is falsifiability. For a concept to be scientific, there must be a general agreement that the concept exists and can be appropriately examined. The concept must be capable of being  examined in such a way that there is the possibility that it can be shown to be incorrect or that its effects have identifiable limits. The most usual method of doing this is the experiment, in which attributes of the concept are examined in varying circumstances in order to test its validity.

There is no way in which spirituality can be scientifically examined because there is no agreement among those who maintain its existence as to what form it takes or what its purpose is. However, a large number of people are willing to attest that spirituality exists.

Whether or not I believe that spirituality is a reality is not important. Plenty of people do and I respect their right to hold this belief. Sriram, clearly, is one of them and I support his right to express his beliefs.


As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.

[SweetPea]

Hi everyone,

Jupiter and Saturn are coming really close  together and likely to look like a double star on the 21st. Very nicely visible out here. Clear sky. Not sure about the UK.

Some people are suggesting that this was probably the alignment that was seen as the Star of Bethlehem 2000 years ago. Coming close to Christmas...quite significant.

Cheers.

Sriram

Hi Sriram, yes, Jupiter and Saturn will meet in a “great conjunction,” the closest they could be seen in the sky together for nearly 800 years. It sounds as though you can view this phenomenon with the naked eye from your part of the world, if this is so you are very lucky. Here in the UK we need a telescope or binoculars to be able to do so. Apparently, here we need to look for this wonderful sight at around 4.30pm just after sunset tomorrow evening. I'll have my binoculars ready!

Regards the star of Bethlehem, what some are saying may not be right because although we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th it is thought by some theologians that in fact he was probably born towards the end of September.

[Udayana]

...
As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.

This seems wrong... over the course of a night, stars and planets do appear to move from east to west precisely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction. Observations at the same time each night over a long period will generally show movement of the planets from west to east, due to differing orbits, though some "retrograde" movement in the opposite direction will also be seen at times.

This is a blog post on the great conjunction as the "Star of Bethlehem" by someone who has looked into it in detail:
https://openspacescience.blog/2020/12/10/is-this-the-star-that-the-magi-saw/

[ippy]

The very argument of Science vs Spirituality is an archaic one typical of the old science students.  Such a division is artificial, born of scientism.

It is like looking out of two windows on opposite sides of the house and wondering why they are different. If we broaden our perspective, they can be understood as parts of the same reality.

Going for the woo side on these things is a purely a preference whereas taking the scientific approach is the use of reason.

Rather obvious I would think Sriram, nothing complicated about it.

Regards, ippy.

[jeremyp]

As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.

All of the stars move East to West across the sky every night. Even the planets move East to West across the sky at night. The only way the ancients could tell they are planets is because they changed position relative to the other stars over the course of many nights. A real star or planet that people could literally follow and that could stop over a specific house^* is physically impossible.

^*Yes, a house, not a stable.

[Sriram]

The essential, central defining characteristic of science is falsifiability. For a concept to be scientific, there must be a general agreement that the concept exists and can be appropriately examined. The concept must be capable of being  examined in such a way that there is the possibility that it can be shown to be incorrect or that its effects have identifiable limits. The most usual method of doing this is the experiment, in which attributes of the concept are examined in varying circumstances in order to test its validity.

There is no way in which spirituality can be scientifically examined because there is no agreement among those who maintain its existence as to what form it takes or what its purpose is. However, a large number of people are willing to attest that spirituality exists.

Whether or not I believe that spirituality is a reality is not important. Plenty of people do and I respect their right to hold this belief. Sriram, clearly, is one of them and I support his right to express his beliefs.


As far as the Star of Bethlehem is concerned, one of the problems about the idea of wise men from the east following this star to Bethlehem is that the mental image which this tales conjures is of a bright point of light, a "star", moving from east to west in the sky. This would be extremely unlikely because the Earth's rotation is in the opposite direction.

The point I am making is that....spiritual phenomena are exotic and non classical.   They are in a different domain and probably follow different set of laws.  They cannot be examined using the standard instruments and methodologies. So, the idea of these phenomena not being measurable or falsifiable or whatever....is irrelevant.

Spiritual ideas are philosophical and speculative.... but as long as they fit in with the experiences of a majority of the people and do not contradict scientific discoveries....they can be taken as valid hypotheses.

About the Star...my point was not about a star moving from east to west in the normal course. It was about a Star in the East ...that was pointing to something in the West. How could that be possible...even as merely a legend?!

[Sriram]

Hi Sriram, yes, Jupiter and Saturn will meet in a “great conjunction,” the closest they could be seen in the sky together for nearly 800 years. It sounds as though you can view this phenomenon with the naked eye from your part of the world, if this is so you are very lucky. Here in the UK we need a telescope or binoculars to be able to do so. Apparently, here we need to look for this wonderful sight at around 4.30pm just after sunset tomorrow evening. I'll have my binoculars ready!

Regards the star of Bethlehem, what some are saying may not be right because although we celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th it is thought by some theologians that in fact he was probably born towards the end of September.

Yes...we could see it through our naked eyes just after sunset...right from our balcony.  It was good. One of my friends even took a photograph through a telescope...which showed the Saturn rings clearly.

[Stranger]

The point I am making is that....spiritual phenomena are exotic and non classical.   They are in a different domain and probably follow different set of laws.  They cannot be examined using the standard instruments and methodologies. So, the idea of these phenomena not being measurable or falsifiable or whatever....is irrelevant.

Dishonest use of 'non-classical' again. It has a meaning Sriram, it is dishonest to pretend to applies to your claims here. If something is not testable and falsifiable then it simply cannot be part of accepted science. It will always remain conjecture at best. In this case, it isn't even scientific conjecture because you have not connected it to any science.

Science is a methodology that relies on testability and falsifiability - you can't remove those and still have science.

Spiritual ideas are philosophical and speculative.... but as long as they fit in with the experiences of a majority of the people and do not contradict scientific discoveries....they can be taken as valid hypotheses.

Nonsense. A hypothesis must make (or at least aim to make) testable predictions, that is its purpose. You cannot rationally conclude that something is true because it cannot be shown to be false. That is a logical fallacy (meaning that it's illogical to do so). Neither can you rationally go from a set of vague experiences to some sort of interpretation of them and what is behind them without any evidence.

Yet again, it seems that you have no grasp at all of either logic or science.

[ippy]

Dishonest use of 'non-classical' again. It has a meaning Sriram, it is dishonest to pretend to applies to your claims here. If something is not testable and falsifiable then it simply cannot be part of accepted science. It will always remain conjecture at best. In this case, it isn't even scientific conjecture because you have not connected it to any science.

Science is a methodology that relies on testability and falsifiability - you can't remove those and still have science.

Nonsense. A hypothesis must make (or at least aim to make) testable predictions, that is its purpose. You cannot rationally conclude that something is true because it cannot be shown to be false. That is a logical fallacy (meaning that it's illogical to do so). Neither can you rationally go from a set of vague experiences to some sort of interpretation of them and what is behind them without any evidence.

Yet again, it seems that you have no grasp at all of either logic or science.

Actually Sriram's not that bad when it comes to science, it just seems he can't make that logical jump/step away from the magical, mystical and superstition based silly stuff. (Woo if you like).

Of course I don't know nor can I know why exactly but it seems to me there's is a split there between the magical stuff that does exist inside his head and 'wot is real like', my guess is he's like so many that're unable to make that jump away from early childhood indoctrination, something that all of the religions are so skilled at. 

Actually Sriram's not that bad a bloke N T S, but he is inclined to get a bit ratty with anyone he thinks, responding to his posts, might be a little bit better looking than he is.

ippy

[Sriram]

Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.

You still haven't given us the privilege of seeing your charming mug shot...that's not fair.     I agree I am not good looking, but my photo is nevertheless available at my blog site.   

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/

[ProfessorDavey]

Or maybe its just that most old science people are fixated with scientism and are unable to perceive what lies beyond the material.

And what exactly is old science, and also what exactly is new science.

I suspect what you are actually mean is:

old science = science
new science = not science