Kelleher flunk the test - again!

Well Kelleher your response to the challenges offered by the posting
copied below were, sadly, exactly as many of us predicted. You ran
back into your comfort zone which for you is just posting yet another
minor variation of the same boring material.

No comment on the issues raised and no answers to questions. Just
mindlessly chanting out the same old story!

Quote starts
1) I cannot remember a single example of your changing your published
views on any matter astronomical based on contributions made by other
readers of this group.
2) In the vast majority of cases attempting to engage in any debate
with you just results in you posting yet another minor variation of
your material. There is no evidence that you have read or considered
the evidence present by your opponent.
3) When asked a direct question you seldom if ever reply insteadt -
yes you have guessed it - you just post another variation of the same
old material. So much easier than thinking!
4) I cannot believe that you really consider that this group is the
correct place to publish your material. If you really are in a
position to prove generations of astronomers wrong then peer reviewed
publication must be the way to go.
5) I have never seen a clear and well explained summary of where your
theories depart from main-stream thought. Goodness knows you have
been asked enough times over several years to provide an explanation.
All related to issue 3) I suppose.

You know, I have been following interaction between Oriel and others for
quite some time now. It appears to me to be an attention defecit, not only
on his behalf, but also for everyone who keeps responding to him. You, for
one, keep starting a new thread completely independent of something he has
just repeated.

The bottom line is this: we all know how he repeats the same material over
and over sometimes without any purpose or reasoning. Many, many folks here
have tried to correct him on his reasoning but in no case has anyone been
successful. Why in the world keep starting threads relating only to him?
It only serves his purpose for attention and none other.

PLONK, filter, whatever to him and be done with it. That is my
recommendation.

WS

"Martin Nicholson (NMR)" wrote in
message
...

Well Kelleher your response to the challenges offered by the posting
copied below were, sadly, exactly as many of us predicted. You ran
back into your comfort zone which for you is just posting yet another
minor variation of the same boring material.

No comment on the issues raised and no answers to questions. Just
mindlessly chanting out the same old story!

Quote starts
1) I cannot remember a single example of your changing your published
views on any matter astronomical based on contributions made by other
readers of this group.
2) In the vast majority of cases attempting to engage in any debate
with you just results in you posting yet another minor variation of
your material. There is no evidence that you have read or considered
the evidence present by your opponent.
3) When asked a direct question you seldom if ever reply insteadt -
yes you have guessed it - you just post another variation of the same
old material. So much easier than thinking!
4) I cannot believe that you really consider that this group is the
correct place to publish your material. If you really are in a
position to prove generations of astronomers wrong then peer reviewed
publication must be the way to go.
5) I have never seen a clear and well explained summary of where your
theories depart from main-stream thought. Goodness knows you have
been asked enough times over several years to provide an explanation.
All related to issue 3) I suppose.

On Jun 22, 2:45*pm, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:


4) I cannot believe that you really consider that this group is the
correct place to publish your material. If you really are in a
position to prove generations of astronomers wrong then peer reviewed
publication must be the way to go.

Incredulity is something that I experience daily here,especially when
observations back any particular area of study I focus on,nothing
personal,just plain technical details -

"..the equator and the earth's axis must be understood to have a
variable inclination. For if they stayed at a constant angle, and were
affected exclusively by the motion of the centre, no inequality of
days and nights would be observed. On the contrary,it day or the day
of equal daylight and darkness, or summer or winter, or whatever the
character of the season, it would remain identical and unchanged."
Copernicus

He had good reason to use variable axial/equatorial tilt to the Sun
because that is what it looks like -

http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Solar-Sc...nrise-Seas.htm

A reasonably intelligent person then considers that the 'no tilt'
hypothesis doesn't work as there is a symmetry of daylight/darkness at
the Equator all year around and between the maximum and minimum
altitude of the Sun there is the Equinox which is supposed to have the
same attributes in terms of daylight/darkness as 'no tilt'.

By adding an additional orbital specific,the problems disappear,it can
even be seen in the time lapse footage of Uranus,hence the Earth
orbitally turned yesterday to the central Sun generating the specific
relationship with rotational orientation otherwise known as the
Solstice.

The orbital motion and the specifics of that motion when allied with
daily rotation and its characteristics cause both the experienced and
observed seasonal changes and the variations in the natural noon
cycle,this displaces the contemporary ideas which dump everything into
'axial tilt' .The only people I have not appealed to are NOAA in
demonstrating the dynamics behind the seasons and it is about time
they raised the standard to this perspective -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

Like the inability to see that Newton was talking the Equation of Time
references in terms of absolute/relative time thereby demonstrating
his use of the flawed inverted Ra/Dec reference system which wrecked
the minds of people like Mach who took these things seriously,it
appears that the same thing happens with Copernicus,the inability to
see that he uses variable tilt to the Sun to explain the seasons.

What are people at the meteorological services worldwide going to
do ? ,spend the next 40 years with 'axial tilt to the orbital plane'
as a means to ignore the simple orbital specific which gets rid of
this nasty habit of dumping everything into 'axial tilt'.They can take
the orbital specific if they want and pretend it is the means by which
they understood things all along if they are so desperate to ignore me
yet there is little point even here if they can't even reason out how
the Earth turns once in 24 hours.

On 22 June, 16:24, oriel36 wrote:

Meaningless crap deleted

Back into your comfort zone which for you is just posting yet another
minor variation of the same boring material.

Poor, sad, Gerald

On 22 June, 18:43, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:
On 22 June, 16:24, oriel36 wrote:

Meaningless crap deleted

Back into your comfort zone which for you is just posting yet another
minor variation of the same boring material.

Poor, sad, Gerald

There is a comfort zone indeed and it exists at such a basic
astronomical level that somehow I still think people are just being
lazy and silly in not securing their position which links daily
rotation to the noon cycle instead of running off to an astrological
framework.

Now,I have done my time on the USENET,good as it is and was,and it is
time to put the material in its molten form on to a footing of an
organisation or institution to deal with,preferably NOAA .I do not
care if you think I am mad because of the reasoning which supports the
24 hour value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and subsequently
the consequences for planetary dynamics as it ripples outwards from
that value,astronomy is about dynamics as much as it is taking pretty
pictures and constellation observing.

oriel36 wrote:

There is a comfort zone indeed and it exists at such a basic
astronomical level that somehow I still think people are just being
lazy and silly in not securing their position which links daily
rotation to the noon cycle instead of running off to an astrological
framework.

Newton was right: "always direct."
http://tinyurl.com/movabo

It's worthy to note that astronomers realized the pitfalls of
intuition before anyone else in the Wastern world.

"Astronomers do not arrive at conclusions starting from hypotheses, as
is done in the other sciences, but instead use observations to
construct hypotheses, which are tested against other observations to
save the appearance of the phenomena."
-- Proclus Diadochus, ca. 450 AD

Now,I have done my time on the USENET,good as it is and was,and it is
time to put the material in its molten form on to a footing of an
organisation or institution to deal with,preferably NOAA.

Well, if you must... good luck with that.
--
Dave

On Jun 22, 10:42*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Now,I have done my time on the USENET,good as it is and was,and it is
time to put the material in its molten form on to a footing of an
organisation or institution to deal with,preferably NOAA .

* *Are you leaving USENET for lack of converts, Gerald?

I do not

care if you think I am mad because of the reasoning which supports the
24 hour value for daily rotation through 360 degrees and subsequently
the consequences for planetary dynamics as it ripples outwards from
that value,astronomy is about dynamics as much as it is taking pretty
pictures and constellation observing.

* *Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
* *of the earth -- and verify it to be ~86,164.09 seconds. Let me
* *know if you need airfare.

Still hard to believe that nobody objects to the inverted references
for daily and orbital motions which generate that monstrosity with no
links to the rotational characteristics of shape of the Earth.

It is the same reasoning that leads to the 'axial tilt to the orbital
plane' representing humanity's knowledge of cyclical seasonal weather
patterns and global climate -

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/astro/season.php

Are you thrilled that future generations will not stand a chance
because of your kind and your loyalty to a late 17th century mistake ?
-

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed

You can live comfortably with that error without the slightest sense
of repsonsibility to what it actually represents,an Earth at the
center of a celestial sphere universe, but the real insanity is that
you can sound authoritative about it.

You wrote the following without any objections and that is the lowest
point a person can descend to and exempts me from ever having to
consider you again-

Rotation of bodies, including the Earth has nothing to do with the
equation of time. The Equation of time deals with the "solar day" and
elliptical orbit of the earth about the sun.... totally independent
of the measure of rotation of the earth. Sam Wormley

How,for goodness sake,do you manage to do what you do ?.

On Jun 22, 4:04*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Are you thrilled that future generations will not stand a chance
because of your kind and your loyalty to a late 17th century mistake ?

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." Flamsteed

You can live comfortably with that error without the slightest sense
of repsonsibility to what it actually represents,an Earth at the
center of a celestial sphere universe, but the real insanity is that
you can sound authoritative about it.

The stars are very, very far away. Thus, even though we can tell how
far some nearby stars are through parallax, these changes in the
apparent positions of stars are absolutely miniscule (when compared at
the rate of 15 degrees = one hour) to the difference in time involved
in the Equation of Time.

The return of a star to the meridian does indeed take place at a
regular interval of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, as measured
by a mechanical clock so calibrated that 24 hours corresponds to the
average of the natural noon cycle.

This shows that the rotation of the Earth is uniform in time. This is
as to be expected; if a heavy body is spinning, friction, or some
other applied force, is needed to slow it down (or, for that matter,
make it spin faster) - as, of course, Newton taught us.

So our observations of the return of a star do show that the Earth's
rotation is "isochronical", and since we expect that of the Earth's
rotation, it also shows that it is reasonable to consider the
directions to stars - with suitable corrections and averaging for
parallax - as the standard to which to reference the Earth's rotation.

Our view is not flawed or misleading.

John Savard