Free UCAC4 DVD star catalog from USNO for US residents

"oriel36" wrote in message
...



Is there any chance that readers can lift astronomy out of right
ascension dullness and look what is in front of them ?
==============================================
We find right ascension more exciting than Ascension, so no chance.

Is there any chance that a babbling moron like you will understand
RA and DEC are merely angles?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

oriel36 wrote:
For goodness sake,this is right ascension software that tries to
bundle daily and orbital motions off a common axis even though the
most astonishing images taken from the great Hubble telescope clearly
demonstrate that axial precession as it is presently understood must
be modified to an annual orbital trait as the East to West component
as Uranus turns to the central Sun while daily rotation turns
separately South to North -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

As clearly as it can possibly be,readers can see that the equation of
time as these two motions are applied to the Earth represents the
uneven rate of change of the orbital component as the Earth speeds up
and slows down.Is this so difficult to understand ?,you cannot do if
if you are all still enamored by right ascension software which is
great for cataloguing and predicting within the calendar format but
not much else.

I am looking at the Mid Jurassic period when the Mid Atlantic Ridge
emerged and created an enormous shift in geological and biological
evolution where the underlying mechanism is possibly differential
rotation in the fluid interior acting to create the spherical
deviation of the Earth and simultaneously create crust at the mid
ocean boundary as the orientation of that ridge runs South to
North.The geomagnetic signatures which fix evolutionary geology to
daily rotation since the Mid Jurassic period don't lie yet here we
have this right ascension cult which borders on a creationist level of
understanding of planetary dynamics unable to move on this rich topics
of research.

Is there any chance that readers can lift astronomy out of right
ascension dullness and look what is in front of them ?

You like Hubble images. How does it point at the right place?

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/.../pointing2.php

On Feb 28, 12:58*am, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
For goodness sake,this is right ascension software that tries to
bundle daily and orbital motions off a common axis even though the
most astonishing images taken from the great Hubble telescope clearly
demonstrate that axial precession as it is presently understood must
be modified to an annual orbital trait *as the East to West component
as Uranus turns to the central Sun while daily rotation turns
separately South to North -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...99/11/video/b/

As clearly as it can possibly be,readers can see that the equation of
time as these two motions are applied to the Earth represents the
uneven rate of change of the orbital component as the Earth speeds up
and slows down.Is this so difficult to understand ?,you cannot do if
if you are all still enamored by right ascension software which is
great for cataloguing and predicting within the calendar format but
not much else.

I am looking at the Mid Jurassic period when the Mid Atlantic Ridge
emerged and created an enormous shift in geological and biological
evolution where the underlying mechanism is possibly differential
rotation in the fluid interior acting to create the spherical
deviation of the Earth and simultaneously create crust at the mid
ocean boundary as the orientation of that ridge runs South to
North.The geomagnetic signatures which fix evolutionary geology to
daily rotation since the Mid Jurassic period don't lie yet here we
have this right ascension cult which borders on a creationist level of
understanding of planetary dynamics unable to move on this rich topics
of research.

Is there any chance that readers can lift astronomy out of right
ascension dullness and look what is in front of them ?

You like Hubble images. How does it point at the right place?

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/...acecraft_syste...

Ra/Dec,the equatorial coordinate system,the ICRS,call it what you
will,it is impossible to extract the daily and orbital motions of the
Earth from a homocentric viewpoint of stellar circumpolar motion and
there are a dozen reasons why it cannot substitute for the 24 hour AM/
PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system in that a ground based
telescope at whatever latitude tracks the same star in stellar
circumpolar motion at the same speed whereas the Lat/Long
system,speeds vary with latitude - astronomers are supposed to know
this stuff inside out.

You talk to me about 'liking' Hubble images but it is simply
astonishing that any reader here can look at the motion of Uranus and
observe what looks like axial precession but is really a component of
the orbital cycle of the planet where the polar coordinates are
carried around in a circle to the central Sun -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

Are the images not spectacular enough for minds jaded with
mathematical novelties ?,the information contained in that sequence is
enormous,everything from a climate spectrum to a new way to explain
the seasons,the isolation of daily rotation from the separate turning
of a planet to the central Sun, why natural noon cycles vary and so
many topics,one more vibrant and enjoyable than the next.

Do you really think I want to talk to people who,in astronomical
terms,adhere to something worse than creationism because they can't
adapt to a mistake centering around an extremely poor conclusion of
John Flamsteed ?.I always thought it was a lack of confidence or
courage to give some substance to this era but perhaps the symptoms of
this homocentricity are so chronic that no trace of adaptability can
be found as readers rely more and more on definitions and mantras.I
would have thought that a person who values their intelligence could
ringfence the Ra/Dec system as a calendar based convenience thereby
opening up ,for the first time in many centuries,a torrent of
information between cause and effect as dynamics impact on terrestrial
sciences,both short term and long term.

I cannot compel anyone to look at those images above and try to make
sense of the East to West motion as an orbital trait and shouting
doesn't work on the Usenet so I am forced to recycle the arguments
until some spark of recognition moves readers to participate in what
will be the largest shakeup in astronomy since the emergence of the
system of planetary dynamics 500 years ago but this requires a
societal change - the willingness to accept that predictive sciences
have their place but not at the expense of interpretative sciences.

On Feb 28, 6:53*am, oriel36 wrote:
I cannot compel anyone to look at those images above and try to make
sense of the East to West motion as an orbital trait and shouting
doesn't work on the Usenet so I am forced to recycle the arguments
until some spark of recognition moves readers to participate in what
will be the largest shakeup in astronomy since the emergence of the
system of planetary dynamics 500 years ago but this requires a
societal change - the willingness to accept that predictive sciences
have their place but not at the expense of interpretative sciences.

And here - finally - we have it. Oriel wants the biggest shake up in
astronomy in 500 years, based on a viewpoint that he consistently
refuses to explain. Somehow he expects this change to take place
without him having to answer any questions on his alternative
approach. A fully detailed article in a peer reviewed journal plus a
series a question and answer sessions with leading astronomers at
which he could explain why he is right and they (all) are wrong is
surely the way forward.

That Oriel has recycled his arguments for many years without going
through peer review should tell readers all they need to know. Crank,
nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

On Feb 28, 9:47*am, Martin Nicholson
wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:53*am, oriel36 wrote:

I cannot compel anyone to look at those images above and try to make
sense of the East to West motion as an orbital trait and shouting
doesn't work on the Usenet so I am forced to recycle the arguments
until some spark of recognition moves readers to participate in what
will be the largest shakeup in astronomy since the emergence of the
system of planetary dynamics 500 years ago but this requires a
societal change - the willingness to accept that predictive sciences
have their place but not at the expense of interpretative sciences.

And here - finally - we have it. Oriel wants the biggest shake up in
astronomy in 500 years, based on a viewpoint that he consistently
refuses to explain. Somehow he expects this change to take place
without him having to answer any questions on his alternative
approach. A fully detailed article in a peer reviewed journal plus a
series a question and answer sessions with leading astronomers at
which he could explain why he is right and they (all) are wrong is
surely the way forward.

That Oriel has recycled his arguments for many years without going
through peer review should tell readers all they need to know. Crank,
nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

Peer review !,let me see -

"Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth's equatorial radius of
6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2ð radians needed by both
cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m/s, 1,674.4 km/h or
1,040.4 mi/h. Some sources state that Earth's equatorial speed is
slightly less, or 1,669.8 km/h.This is obtained by dividing Earth's
equatorial circumference by 24 hours. However, the use of only one
circumference unwittingly implies only one rotation in inertial space,
so the corresponding time unit must be a sidereal hour. This is
confirmed by multiplying by the number of sidereal days in one mean
solar day, 1.002 737 909 350 795, which yields the equatorial speed in
mean solar hours given above of 1,674.4 km/h."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_rotation

That is asylum material so don't make me laugh about peer review,to be
fair,that process secures the reputations and salaries of those doing
the reviewing rather than sanctioning anything original and productive
so you are either extremely naive or extremely stupid if you imagine a
process with integrity,at least in the area where astronomy and
terrestrial sciences meet.

The 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains
all the information on the Earth's rotation and dimensions as a point
of departure for discussing cause and effect but with pseudo-
astronomers in love with their mechanical celestial sphere creation
and dominating the education system and research,who and by what means
is going to counter this tragedy ?.The inability to convert days/years
into rotations/orbital circuits is a testament to the lack of any sort
of authority and these stupid attempts to personalize the arguments
only bolster the indication that people are operating at the lowest
intellectual level imaginable.

On Feb 28, 3:03*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Usual rubbish deleted.

It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
submitting his ideas to peer review.
It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
bothering to explain why he is right and everybody else (for 500 years
to use his own claim) is wrong.

If Oriel believed what he was writing he would be keen to do both but
as I said - be he crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

On Feb 28, 5:29*pm, Martin Nicholson
wrote:
On Feb 28, 3:03*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Usual rubbish deleted.

It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
submitting his ideas to peer review.

What a sight it is to see the peer review crowd try to handle my work
on evolutionary geology and the planet's spherical deviation through
an ubiquitous observed astronomical mechanism of differential
rotation,some of which was developed here in outlines back in
2005.Instead of following the trajectory of reasoning which partially
uses planetary comparisons with Venus,they threw the kitchen sink at
rotation with no shape nor make to it - just flinging assertions willy
nilly in the hope that they would be taken seriously.I understood
almost immediately that sooner or later the cause of the spherical
deviation would have to work together with crustal evolution,and
especially off the Mid Atlantic Ridge and naturally an uneven
rotational gradient (differential rotation) slotted in nicely.Peer
review !,is that what they call stealing without proper attribution
but it doesn't matter anyway,without assigning the correct maximum
equatorial speed,no work on fluid dynamics of the interior Earth can
begin.

Unlike the easily understood linkage between rotation and plate
tectonics , the major modification of axial precession as it is
currently understood to an annual orbital feature is not for the
novice and certainly out of bounds for the right ascension crowd who
bundle daily and orbital motions off a common axis for their clockwork
solar system modelling.


It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
bothering to explain why he is right and everybody else (for 500 years
to use his own claim) is wrong.


This is not about wrong,empirical involvement in astronomy is now
wound itself down to a type of mediocrity that could only entertain
the vacuous,it is like the Guinness Book Of Records nowadays -
scientist discover the furthest star,scientists discover the smallest
planet,scientists discover the most dense planet,scientist discover
the oldest galaxy,scientist discover the fastest spinning star/planet
and things like that - all novelty and no satisfaction with very
little to back their assertions up.

Contemporary imaging allows for a new type of astronomy that breaks
down the boundaries with evolutionary terrestrial sciences or even
immediate experiences like the daily and seasonal cycles and all that
is asked is that people who call themselves astronomers identify the
error underpinning their modeling and work to isolate it while
retaining it as a convenience.It requires a type of courage and
confidence that it rarely seen today but was once integral to people
at NASA who risked their lives for the space program.


If Oriel believed what he was writing he would be keen to do both but
as I said - be he crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

Good old English pomp - doesn't work when you are not an academic
empiricist so get used to it.

On Feb 28, 5:29*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Usual rubbish deleted.


It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
submitting his ideas to peer review.
It was of course 100% predictable that Oriel would reject the idea of
bothering to explain why he is right and everybody else (for 500 years
to use his own claim) is wrong.


If Oriel believed what he was writing he would be keen to do both but
as I said - be he crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:58:33 -0800 (PST), Martin Nicholson
wrote:
as I said - be he crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

Frankly, people here care a lot, judging from the large number of
responses he receives. Those who do not care would just ignore him.

On Feb 28, 11:36*pm, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:58:33 -0800 (PST), Martin Nicholson

wrote:
as I said - be he crank, nutter or bot - frankly who cares?

Frankly, people here care a lot, judging from the large number of
responses he receives. Those who do not care would just ignore him.

You were finished a long time ago Schlyter when you decided to explain
the equation of time using declination,a very stupid thing to do,
so,of course,you stay well enough away like many uninspired academics
are want to do.

Turns out you couldn't interpret an observation to save your life like
many others here and I bet anyone with the slightest talent for
astronomy could figure out that a planet turns n two ways to the
central Sun,South to North for daily rotation of Uranus and East to
West turning as a component of its orbital motion and the component
that causes natural noon cycles to vary -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/...gs_changes.jpg

Remember now child,those rings will continue to turn through 360
degrees and carry the polar coordinates around in a circle as they do
so,just like Earth.