M36 / NGC 1960 in Auriga

In article ,
wrote in crayon on my screen...

Why the hell are you quoting that nutter? Learn to sodding snip, or even
better ignore the nutters, you prat.
--
Craig Oldfield

John wrote:

OK, I'll make it clearer for you, take your crap elsewhere, as no one
here is interested...

John.

An unmoderated forum and you are being told to shut your mouth,anyone
would think that you had a choice to reply or not or even read the
response or not.

Astronomy is the most exhilerating experience of our participation in
the great astronomical cycles and everyone is an astronomer by
experiencing the daily and annual cycles and adapting to them.The great
division of astronomy as noted by Kepler still applies and although the
observing part of astronomy has a cozy relationship with the inferior
tribunal of non geometric theorists,the astronomer with intutive
intelligence still governs the discipline -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [viasplanetarum
apparentes] and the record of their motions is especially the task of
the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true
and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the task of
contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct
images of those true motions may be depicted onpaper is the concern of
the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

This ostracism business only works where there is vibrant discussions
going on so the guy who tells you to shut up is terrified of posting
anything beyond magnification equipment.So much for that coward and
many like him for if you want to believe in something you fight for it
instead of hiding in corners.Astronomy is for the brave of heart and
those willing to match the magnificence of what they are observing,it
is not for idiots who try to force their notions into the celestial
arena and makes fools of themselves doing so.

Viriliter Agite

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:27:52 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , John
wrote:

OK, I'll make it clearer for you, take your crap elsewhere, as no one
here is interested...

Assuming you're replying to oriel36, you're wasting your time. Its
either a bot, an elisa or a troll, just thread- and name-plonk him.
--
Mark McIntyre

Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:27:52 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , John
wrote:

OK, I'll make it clearer for you, take your crap elsewhere, as no one
here is interested...

Assuming you're replying to oriel36, you're wasting your time. Its
either a bot, an elisa or a troll, just thread- and name-plonk him.
--
Mark McIntyre

You do realise that your concepts are built on a correlation between
clocks,axial rotation through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds when the actual correlation value is and always will be
precisely 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making 24 hours /360
degrees.

Have you any idea just how chronically bad the situation is in
astronomy when a false celestial sphere correlation was allowed to
snowball for centuries.Western civilisation is resilient but
undermining its two greatest achievements in astronomy - the
clock/axial rotation correlation and the Copernican reasoning,will
slowly rot the foundations of a civilisation which allows disciplined
individuality to affirm or reject ideas based on physical
considerations.In short,you cannot justify the Earth's motions using
celestial sphere geometry

Terrestial ballistics is fine but terrestrial ballistics applied to
planetary motion via the Ra/Dec system is not.In an era where there
should be a vibrant two way discussion between climatologists and
astronomers there is only a primitive correlation between axial tilt
and the Sun's position.

Turning the situation around to being both productive and exciting is
now possible by using modern imaging and this is what surprises me
about participants here.The people who have careers relying on the
false celestial sphere foundations are unlikely to abandon their
agendas but those who are genuinely interested in the astronomical
arena can easily adapt and enjoy the brilliant and careful work of a
shared astronomical heritage which stretches back,in some parts,to
remote antiquity.

Craig Oldfield verbally sodomised in
:

In article ,
wrote in crayon on my screen...

Why the hell are you quoting that nutter? Learn to sodding snip, or even
better ignore the nutters, you prat.

Yeah, like you did so successfully in DL, eh fatboi? LARF!

--
Phil Kyle™

T
h i
i s
s l
f i l
S o n o
i u e n
g r s g