How is it that Ancient Chinese Astronomers, made no mention of Venus, the brightest star in the sky by far!?

Question

Why is it that science teaches us that earth's mountains, canyons, easily recognized puzzle piece separations of continents and tipped stratta we see everywhere across the face of our fair planet all are the result of billions of years of jerky incremental earth movement varying from inches to feet upon the occurence of any one movement? Add the multi-directional movement & collapse caused by those earth quakes, to erosion by winds, water flow, water freezing/thawing, gravitational forces coupled with the sun's heating & night's cooling of our earth's exposed surfaces. Slowly but surely, the sum of those actions, plus the continual bombardment by comets/asteroids,cause those same surfaces of planet Earth's to crack, crumble, explode & tumble about over the eons of her tortured existence. Yet everywhere the lofty cragged peaks of mountain ranges around the globe fail to show the rounded time worn faces we would expect to see from the action of those same unending incremental forces.

Read: Worlds in Collision by Immanuel Velikovsky to see his viewpoints. He was a close personal friend of Albert Einstein, & a writer of many books dealing with our planet, it's recent history, as researched from ancient writings, generational hand down information, mythology, the Bible & related writings, & the sameness of the teachings of widely separated civilizations all around the globe. His writings were rejected by the scientific community, ridiculed & soon forgotten. I think they deserve a new examination. Even before I read the Worlds in Collision, It did not make sense 2 me that gradual movement of tektonic plates over eons of time would account 4 majestic & jagged mountain ranges we see in place today. Granite or not, those eons would have had a far more pronounced errosive effect on their appearance than what we see today. The tops of these jagged peaks would have been the first parts of the eventually 2 be mountain exposed 2 erosion. They should be worn the most.

Answer 1

Because Chinese astronomers recognized that Venus is a planet, not a star.

Answer 2

Well, you are incorrect about Venus. Depending on it's position in relation to earth, it can be seen at EITHER dawn or dusk. Although currently it is indeed the "morning star". Are you sure it's not Jupiter? Jupiter (magnitude –2.8, in Capricornus) shines low in the east-southeast during twilight. It's higher in better telescopic view around midnight. Appearing in the east this month is the constellation of Pegasus, the Flying Horse, commemorating the fabulous steed of the mythical hero Bellerophon when he rode into battle against the fire-breathing, three-headed monster the Chimaera. Four bright stars make up the Square of Pegasus, but for some unexplained reason one of the four, Alpheratz, has been transferred to the neighbouring constellation of Andromeda. Delta Pegasi is now Alpha Andromedae. Also in Pegasus is the star 51 Pegasi, the first star that was found to have its own planet. This planet, found in 1995 and unofficially called Bellerophon, has half the mass of Jupiter and is so close to its parent star that the star almost grazes it. The planet's temperature must be roastingly hot. West of Pegasus, in and around the Summer Triangle, lie two somewhat neglected constellations. The brightest star in Vulpecula the Fox, Alpha Vulpeculae or Anser (a German word meaning ``the goose being chased by the fox''), is 115 times brighter than the Sun. Binoculars will show easily that it is a binary. Also in this region is M27, the blue and red Dumb-Bell Nebula, one of the most photographed objects in the sky which resembles a ghostly face seen in a mirror. South of Vulpecula lies the constellation of Aquila, the Eagle. It contains Altair, the southernmost most member of the Summer Triangle, a star that lies at the edge of the Milky Way. Altair and its two neighbouring stars, Tarazed and Alshain (respectively Gamma and Beta Aquilae), form the Wings of the Eagle. They appeared in the insignia of the first Moon-landing mission, as they do in those of Nasa's future manned exploration of the Moon.

Answer 3

The earth is in a constant cycle, while some newer peaks, the Himalayas are "sharp and craggy", older ranges such as the Appalachians are very round. And the earth has sustained very few space collisions since our moon has become our partner. And what does your question have to do with venus at all?

Answer 4

Ancient Chinese Secret!

Answer 5

The Chinese have a habit of sitting down for dinner at sunset, taking approx 1 hour to consume their 10 courses. Unfortunately, Venus had set by the time they could leave the table - so they missed it.

Answer 6

Venus is not a star. And the features visible on Earth do show signs of erosion to varying degrees.

Answer 7

ancient chinese astronomers made no mention of venus because they think it is a planet
they made a chart of stars of course and venus is appearing not in the same location with the stars they have charted before so it is concluded to be a planet

"The long-tradition in China of searching the sky for celestial omens has, therefore, led to an early and unsurpassed precision in star catalogues"

chinese are not interested in planets, they are interested in the stars to guide them in their navigation and prediction of bad omens and weather


with regard to the latter, the earth do is an everchanging planet so as its living components adapt to it..

Answer 8

They did. Or rather the ancient Chinese astrologers did. All ancient astronomy was really astrology. What we today call astronomy dates back only a few hundred years.

Answer 9

ok, to answer both your questions... first of all the early chinese very much reconized Venus, they associated it with metal, and wealth and refered to it as the beautiful white one.

Second, your knowledge of geological formation and erosion processes is incomplete... you have partially answered your own question, so lets put a few remaining pieces of the puzzle together for you...

First of all, regarding meteor impacts... in the early stages of our worlds formation the solar system was rife with impact activity, space was filled with debris moving about the star we call Sun. However as time passed this debris began to collect in small groups due to the gravitational forces between them. The groups tightened and joined forming spheres and the foundations of the planets and moons we are familiar with... as these spheres grew in size and traversed their path around the sun, they experienced many impacts from the remaining debris... over the eons, they effectively swept up, and gather unto themselves the remaining debris, leaving very little in their wake... In short...the planets have been running into asteroids for billions of years.... the number of asteroids is finite... there is only so much material out there that can feasibly impact the earth... over the course of time, as more and more of this material is collected, the less there is to collect and therefore the less likely a collision. This is the reason we do not see a large amount of meteor colliosion based geological destruction.

Next depending on the composition of a given rock, it can take thousands, or millions of years to erode. Just because a rock, or mountain is still there does not mean it has not been there for millions of years.... mountains are huge, they take forever to wear down additionally you have to look at the types of erosion that take place at higher elevations... you have very little liquid water this means very little chemically based erosion. It also means you have very little erosion due to the expansion of freezing water. You have usually, snow pack and large glaciers these act as erosive fources over the period of many many thousands of years, and also act as a barrier to other forms of erosion. Next you have to look at the composition of the mountains themselves.... granite? sandstone? what is it? many types of stone do not erode into nice little rounded hills... the fall apart in blocks, large chunks of marterial falling, stipped away from the rest. build a mountain of legos, and then start stripping it away its never going to be smooth, its going to be rough and craggy.

Next... look at the geological structures your talking about... mountains... What moutains. They Himalayas? These mountains are geologically active! They are the collision zone between 2 continental tectonic plates... they are still growing! Of course they are huge and craggy. The Andes? The Cascades? These are volcanic mountains formed by the subducting pacific plate... again, they are still growing and forming... geologically speaking they are at best teenagers. The rockies? Nothern rockies are again, recent formations, though they are considerably more geologically stable... they are almost completely characterized by faulting, including overthrust faulting, volcanic activity, and acquired accreceatory terrains. These areas still experience earth quakes as the earth settles from its disruption from these mountains being created. and the whole of eastern Idaho, western Wyoming and southern Montana are testamants to recent and continuing thermal activity, gysers, hot springs, and lava flows that track miles upon miles... Southern Rockies? considerably more weathered, however when you get into arizona, southern colorado and newmexico you are looking at a primarily sandstone composition... which while erodes in a interesting fashion, erodes fairly quickly... What other mountians? The Urals? The Appalachans? The Catskills? These mountains are not geologically recent formations and show the effects of erosion well, they are mere hills compared to the peaks of the Himalayas....

Geological processes take time, and building mountains is far easier for the earth than tearing them down... Thats just the way it is

Edit:

SO then it is your theory that if you built a 10 foot tall mountain of clay rock and sand, and then covered the top 3 feet of it with a tarp (the equivilent of a permanent snow cap) and then let it set for a year under a sprinkler that the top would erode faster than the bottom.... that is definately and interesting theory...

Apparrantly its also your theory that if you chip away at a boulder at random with a sledge hammer, that over a short period of time you will make it smoother instead of creating jagged edges... very interesting again....

You also propose that in a collision between 2 bodies there should be no significant uplift of either of those bodies... tell ya what... go get yourself some play dough... and created flat pieces about an half inch thick. Put them a few inches away from each other on a floured surface and move them towards each other till they touch... then keep moving them... I guarantee that you will see buckling and uplifting in the dough.... the same process that created mountians like the Himalayas....

You also propose that the erosive forces of nature work faster than the creation forces... The Indonesian plate is currently moving at a painfully slow 6.7 centimeters a year...this causes the Himalayas to grow about 5 millimeters a year... so... here is another experiment for you to conduct... go get yourself a few cut slabs of stone... say 20 cm x 20 cm x 2 cm... get several different types... get 3 each of sandstone, granite, marble... that will cover sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic rocks... now go put 1 of each out in your back yard, 1 of each on top of the highest elevation you can get to (preferably something with snow on it most of the year) and then put 1 of each in a nice fast moving stream... leave em there and go and collect them in a year... NONE of them will have eroded 5 mm. I mean honestly.. does your driveway and sidewalk lose 5 mm a year in thickness? No they dont, neither do natural stones (on average).

Oh and by the way... the only way a celestial impact erodes a mountain is if it hits it... other than that it just makes for even more of a change in elevation...

Seriously though... you can conduct many experiments on your own to verify these things... its fairly intuitive... it makes sense if you think about it.

Answer 10

most of the above is true, not all, but most.