Adults required

The behavior towards known planetary facts is unconscionable and
surely somebody else must be feeling it acutely,after all,what could
possibly be in anyway difficult is reasoning out cause and effect
based on known rotational speeds and that daily rotation is the cause
of the daylight/darkness cycle.

This should not be acceptable for a single day let alone the 8 years
since the error was pointed out,the error created by Flamsteed, for
what could be worse than a deliberate indifference to something which
has the same level of comprehension as wind has to wave heights,the
slower the rotational speed at a given latitude away from the
equator,the longer the twilight with 1037.5 miles per hour being the
maximum equatorial speed.

All the resentment directed towards me is not going to do anything to
solve this crisis and if people assume that they have to go through
Kepler in order to follow Newton then they are wrong,the point of
departure is the basic rotation of the Earth and its effects,firstly
the daylight/darkness cycle and then the spherical extension of
twilight variations,something which is not possible to express using
the Ra/Dec reasoning for daily rotation.

The loss of planetary facts to a dominant group is extremely difficult
to bear,not because people make a living out of throwing around
associations with Newton,Einstein and so on but just people who have
no financial stake in the matter and who genuinely want to be
considered astronomers by virtue of a magnification exercise.What
possible good can come out of being hostile to what is a simple and
effect proof for a round and rotating Earth using known rotational
speeds as proof for rotation once in 24 hours regardless of how
inconvenient it may be for the prediction/modelling agendas,maybe
individuals can ask that of themselves that question because I
certainly cannot answer as to why this is happening in an era of
supreme technological achievement

Adults are not acting like adults and that may be the only conclusion
I can draw from this forum,the attempt to be drawn into a usenet brawl
has failed as it is only a matter of finding a more appropriate and
responsible group who will discover just how far people are willing to
go to be indifferent to basic planetary facts let alone the effects of
planetary dynamics and insofar as empiricists have no compunction in
mixing fiction with facts,the effects of these shortcuts have been
catastrophic.

Something has to give here and what that is I cannot imagine.

On Apr 21, 5:54*pm, kelleher mumbled:

Something has to give here and what that is I cannot imagine.

Roll up! Roll up! Get your fresh tripe and offal 'ere! Cheap at half
the price.

Plenty more left. No need to push, madam! Plenty to go around! I
thank you!

On 4/21/10 10:54 AM, oriel36 wrote:
Something has to give here and what that is I cannot imagine.


http://sh1.webring.com/people/nj/jef...eblindmice.htm

Three blind mice
Three blind mice
Dame Julian
Dame Julian
The Miller and his Merry Old Wife
She scraped her tripe, lick thou the knife

____________________


It was a particular joy to me to apply Kepler's third law to
the observations of the Fomalhaut System and find that the mass
falling out of Kepler's equation agree beautifully with the mass
predicted by the spectra of that star.

Gerald I don't think you have the mathematical background to
understand Kepler's third law in its modern applications, but
do look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law

4Ï€^2a^3 = P^2G(M + m)

Gerald, just because you can't understand the mathematics, does
not make it wrong.

Fomalhaut's mass is about 2 solar masses.
Fomalhaut-b's orbital RADIUS is 115 astronomical units, a = 115 AU.
Fomalhaut-b's orbital PERIOD is 872 years, T = 872 years.

And using Kepler's third law, we get,

P^2 = (2Ï€)^2 a^3 / G M

(872 yr)^2 = (2π)^2 (115 AU )^3 / G (3.978 × 10^30 kg)

Kepler's third law works beautifully for the Fomalhaut system! The
observations agree beautifully with Kepler's law of Harmony!

On Apr 21, 5:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 4/21/10 10:54 AM, oriel36 wrote:

Something has to give here and what that is I cannot imagine.

* *http://sh1.webring.com/people/nj/jef...eblindmice.htm

* *Three blind mice
* *Three blind mice
* *Dame Julian
* *Dame Julian
* *The Miller and his Merry Old Wife
* *She scraped her tripe, lick thou the knife

This may be your lamentable idea of plugging you ears but at least
you were never willing to turn this into a Usenet brawl and for that I
am grateful,however, these times have to be considered in terms of
holocaust conditions given what people are deliberately willing to
sacrife for the predictions/modelling agenda of empiricism.How,for
goodness sake,is it possible to reject the cause and effect of a round
and rotating Earth and then go on to applying reasoning to
climate,geology,biology or any of the Earth sciences ?,I will tell you
that the rage I feel is just slightly ahead of the dismay which
accompanies such a large scale indifference to the fact that rotation
causes the daylight/darkness cycle,and latitudinal variations in speed
determine twilight lengths with the most rapid transition at the
equator,the value for rotation per hour at any given latitude is
known so what should be a normal explanation with no real effort
behind it ends up with you chanting nursery ryhmes as a way of
responding.

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.

Maybe the last sentence should be,something has to give,it has to give
soon otherwise God help us all.

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. 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

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.

On Apr 21, 10:51*pm, oriel36 wrote:
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.

“Stubborn and ardent clinging to one's opinion is the best proof of
stupidity”
- Michel de Montaigne

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the
state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams

On 4/22/10 12:51 AM, oriel36 wrote:
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.

Gerald, Newton made a good choice to choose the "fixed stars" as
a reference for rotation, because it turns out that's the way the
universe works and is verified by any gyro.

Rotation is absolute.

One can say the earth turn on revolution in 24 hours, but that's
not really true. The earth actually turns about 361° in 24 hours
because the sun reference is continually moving with respect to
the earth. This simple fact is lost on you. Most grade school kids
get it!

Scientific instruments used to measure rotation do not include any
human philosophies. The just measure rotation and they measure that
the earth rotates 360° in one sidereal day.

On Apr 21, 10:51*pm, oriel36 wrote:

... 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...

Years ago I had a telescope with a clock drive and a drive corrector,
it enabled me to track the stars. It also had a switch for "solar
rate" and a switch for "lunar rate". These were needed because the sun
and the moon move across the sky at a different rate than do the
stars. Of course, this is because the moon orbits the earth, and the
earth orbits the sun. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Forgetting
about the moon, it is quite clear that 360 degrees with respect to the
sun is different than 360 degrees with respect to the stars, and you
can prove this to yourself night after night and day after day. The
difference is about 4 minutes a day. This is empirical data in its
simplest form, anyone can measure this.

You find this extremely difficult to absorb because your educational
foundation is lacking. My 14 year-old granddaughter, however, has no
problem at all resolving this "mystery", I have made sure that her
foundation is built on solid ground.

"It's what you learn after you know it all that counts."
~Attributed to Harry S. Truman

"Some people will never learn anything, for this reason, because they
understand everything too soon."
~Alexander Pope

"It is not hard to learn more. What is hard is to unlearn when you
discover yourself wrong."
~Martin H. Fischer

\Paul A

On Apr 21, 11:51*pm, oriel36 wrote:
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.

Unfortunately, anyone you might find in NASA would be as deeply
committed to the Newtonian view of things as those in these newsgroups
who are critical of you.

But in this case, I think your question was rhetorical, and you were
not in fact entertaining false hopes of finding an open mind in NASA.

John Savard