On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:51:28 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:

I have nothing against this person however a few remarks are necessary at this juncture given that many of the remaining contributors to this forum have been here since its infancy. The emergence of empiricism in astronomy also heralded the tendency to create science fiction which eventually became science fantasy in the early 20th century. The overlap between the magnification/identification RA/Dec framework with its predictive capabilities and Royal Society theoreticians always contained the elements of fiction by exploiting the intricacies of astronomical arguments, in this case the usefulness of the former was misused by experimental practitioners and their clockwork solar system.

The usefulness of predicting when and where an eclipse occurs was never meant to carry the idea of predicting 'climate change' among many things but unfortunately one was conflated with the other via 'universal theories' or 'laws of nature'.

The remaining contributors, at least some of them, would have seen the Usenet evolve and it has transferred over to the comment sections of most newspapers but what most today call 'trolling' is really a lowering of intellectual standards. I steered clear of contributors like the one responding to me in this thread as they live in a fantasy world and I have noticed a few other contributors stayed clear for the same reason. Unlike the magnification enthusiasts who still retain some semblance of astronomical discipline, those who drift from fantasy characters to real characters are the worst case scenario.

Where the work of the original Sun centered astronomers and the empirical mutations meet there is a huge amount of work to be done, in this case basically extracting science fiction from propositions which in themselves are not entirely accurate and are deficient, for instance the partitioning of inner and outer planetary retrogrades by perspective.