On Apr 22, 5:31*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/21/10 12:44 PM, oriel36 wrote:

Have any of you the slightest idea what it means to get something so
basic so wrong or do people know already when they see the attempt to
make people believe they can control global temperatures *within a
certain range ?,it all begins and ends here with the simple and
effective proof for rotation at a rate opf 15 degrees per hour
organised around the Earth's rotational characteristics.

* *I would ask you the same thing, but I know that self-examination
* *of your ideas is not something you do routinely.

I looked at this new NASA idea of 'citizen scientist' but they should
have gone the whole way and called it 'comrade scientist' insofar as
it offers no opportunities but sets limitations as to what people can
do the way the old commie ideologies once did ,considering just how
limited their understanding actually is,great with imaging detail but
catastrophically poor with context,it is up to the individual to
reinvigorate astronomy and in the greater sense recover intelligent
discussion based on interpretation rather than speculation.If I am
experiencing huge difficulties in getting people to affirm basic
planetary details in context of cause and effect,slower rotational
speeds generating longer twilights away from the equator with the
known physical values attached,then so much for 'citizen/comrade'
scientist



Whatever happened
* *to your faith that scientific questions are often answered by
* *direct observation... such as the 360° rotation of the earth in
* *one sidereal day.
* * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

Whatever happened to NASA that it lost its way with its original
purpose for human space exploration and the development of the next
generation of spacecraft beyond the space shuttle and it all comes
down to contextual bankruptcy, theorists are driving the organisation
by convincing the wider population that science is done on paper
instead of experience.I worked on twilight variations because I
noticed them on my travels,worked on the modification for the
explanation for the seasons because things didn't look right through
'tilt',geology is everywhere hence inspiration for the underlying
rotational mechanism is so easy to find,so tell me Sam,who in NASA do
you call to inform them that an enormous error was created by John
Flamsteed in the late 17th century,an error that is driving these 'no
center/no circumference ideologies of black hole/big bang and an error
which you just repeated in that paragraph.

People should be ashamed of themselves at the moment even though they
should not dwell on it,the possibilities which modern imaging allows
should allow the natural interpretative talents to emerge,something
which is unique to this era because of time lapse footage and fine
details of the characteristics of planets,the Sun and other objects
but this talent is not going to emerge in an era where people are
insistent that circumpolar motion of the constellations equates to a
rotating Earth where no cause and effect exists and what amounts to a
timekeeping average.

I do not fault you Sam for being honest,at least with things as you
see it,but the scale and depth of the indifference to a simple and
effective proof for rotation in 24 hours with physical geometry/
geography attached is something I am find extremely difficult to
absorb,not because the proof is correct but because what exists beyond
the reasoning for rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.It is not
a game in detaching the distorting agendas built around the Ra/Dec
framework in order to free up this conceptual gridlock plaguing the
links between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects and it is
time for people to engage instead of being bystanders in this
holocaust.