what's your bet?

On Dec 5, 11:49*am, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 22 Nov, 03:08, palsing wrote:





On Nov 21, 5:30*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Newton and his *precepts no longer govern the thinking of men so get
use to it,contemporary dynamicists are going to have to adapt very
quickly to modern imaging and start behaving like real me for a
change.

This statement alone says volumes about your psyche. Volumes and
volumes. You are clearly delusional, and you are clearly all alone in
your thinking.

Newton's calculus and other contributions will be with us forever, and
there is nothing you can do about it, except perhaps do some reading
and learn a thing or 2... but then, you have so far proven to be
absolutely unteachable...

\Paul

I'm quite happy with the standard explanatiions. But you claim to have
the "true" explanation. I'm still waiting for you to explain it!

Do you clearly understand that I am perfectly content to leave you
with the empirical idea that the rotation of the constellations around
Polaris can determine daily rotation whereas no astronomer worthy of
the name would consider it,not even the astronomers from antiquity and
one in particular who created the equable day/calendar system as a
single unit.The transfer of the average 24 hour day to the daily cycle
as a constant is such an easy maneuver that I would have nothing to
gain by seen to be arguing with individuals who can't get their heads
around it even when the sprawling history of clocks,longitude and
planetary geometry organised around the Earth's rotational
characteristics is ubiquitous and depends on the simple observation
that the Earth's equatorial diameter turns at 1669.8 km per hour and
an entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE

The climate issue is merely an outrigger of the core approach to
celestial and terrestrial phenomena and at the heart of it all is that
brief historical time frame which saw Flamsteed draw a silly
conclusion and Newton act on it ,the former an error no astronomer
would make and the latter merely an opportunistic mathematician
distorting humanity's astronomical heritage for little more than an
attempt to reduce planetary dynamics to a human 'law' level.

The poor creatures here who engage in threads about mirror
grinding,lens caps and bad grammar and imagine themselves to be
astronomers and if Peterson and his unintelligent kind wish to explain
to you why correlating planetary rotation directly with daily
constellation rotation is a bad idea then let them,as far as I am
concerned it is like explaining the validity of the Piltdown man
skull,it can only be done by knowing what is correct first.

On 5 Dec, 13:27, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:49*am, Mike Collins
wrote:





On 22 Nov, 03:08, palsing wrote:

On Nov 21, 5:30*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Newton and his *precepts no longer govern the thinking of men so get
use to it,contemporary dynamicists are going to have to adapt very
quickly to modern imaging and start behaving like real me for a
change.

This statement alone says volumes about your psyche. Volumes and
volumes. You are clearly delusional, and you are clearly all alone in
your thinking.

Newton's calculus and other contributions will be with us forever, and
there is nothing you can do about it, except perhaps do some reading
and learn a thing or 2... but then, you have so far proven to be
absolutely unteachable...

\Paul

I'm quite happy with the standard explanatiions. But you claim to have
the "true" explanation. I'm still waiting for you to explain it!

Do you clearly understand that I am perfectly content to leave you
with the empirical idea that the rotation of the constellations around
Polaris can determine daily rotation whereas no astronomer worthy of
the name would consider it,not even the astronomers from antiquity and
one in particular who created the equable day/calendar system as a
single unit.The transfer of the average 24 hour day to the daily cycle
as a constant is such an easy maneuver that I would have nothing to
gain by seen to be arguing with individuals who can't get their heads
around it even when the sprawling history of clocks,longitude and
planetary geometry organised around the Earth's rotational
characteristics is ubiquitous and depends on the simple observation
that the Earth's equatorial diameter turns at 1669.8 km per hour and
an entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE

The climate issue is merely an outrigger of the core approach to
celestial and terrestrial phenomena and at the heart of it all is that
brief historical time frame which saw Flamsteed draw a silly
conclusion and Newton act on it ,the former an error no astronomer
would make and the latter merely an opportunistic mathematician
distorting humanity's astronomical heritage for little more than an
attempt to reduce planetary dynamics to a human 'law' level.

The poor creatures here who engage in threads about mirror
grinding,lens caps and bad grammar and imagine themselves to be
astronomers and if Peterson and his unintelligent kind wish to explain
to you why correlating planetary rotation directly with daily
constellation rotation is a bad idea then let them,as far as I am
concerned it is like explaining the validity of the Piltdown man
skull,it can only be done by knowing what is correct first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again you duck the question.
The northern constellations appear to rotate around polaris with a
much more regular period than the solar day.
The empirical equation of time has to be used to produce a regular
mean solar day.

You insist on using empirical data to profess the "errors" of the
"empiricists.

Please answer the question.

On Dec 5, 2:37*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 5 Dec, 13:27, oriel36 wrote:





On Dec 5, 11:49*am, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 22 Nov, 03:08, palsing wrote:

On Nov 21, 5:30*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Newton and his *precepts no longer govern the thinking of men so get
use to it,contemporary dynamicists are going to have to adapt very
quickly to modern imaging and start behaving like real me for a
change.

This statement alone says volumes about your psyche. Volumes and
volumes. You are clearly delusional, and you are clearly all alone in
your thinking.

Newton's calculus and other contributions will be with us forever, and
there is nothing you can do about it, except perhaps do some reading
and learn a thing or 2... but then, you have so far proven to be
absolutely unteachable...

\Paul

I'm quite happy with the standard explanatiions. But you claim to have
the "true" explanation. I'm still waiting for you to explain it!

Do you clearly understand that I am perfectly content to leave you
with the empirical idea that the rotation of the constellations around
Polaris can determine daily rotation whereas no astronomer worthy of
the name would consider it,not even the astronomers from antiquity and
one in particular who created the equable day/calendar system as a
single unit.The transfer of the average 24 hour day to the daily cycle
as a constant is such an easy maneuver that I would have nothing to
gain by seen to be arguing with individuals who can't get their heads
around it even when the sprawling history of clocks,longitude and
planetary geometry organised around the Earth's rotational
characteristics is ubiquitous and depends on the simple observation
that the Earth's equatorial diameter turns at 1669.8 km per hour and
an entire 40,075 km circumference in 24 hours.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF85O9SJCaE

The climate issue is merely an outrigger of the core approach to
celestial and terrestrial phenomena and at the heart of it all is that
brief historical time frame which saw Flamsteed draw a silly
conclusion and Newton act on it ,the former an error no astronomer
would make and the latter merely an opportunistic mathematician
distorting humanity's astronomical heritage for little more than an
attempt to reduce planetary dynamics to a human 'law' level.

The poor creatures here who engage in threads about mirror
grinding,lens caps and bad grammar and imagine themselves to be
astronomers and if Peterson and his unintelligent kind wish to explain
to you why correlating planetary rotation directly with daily
constellation rotation is a bad idea then let them,as far as I am
concerned it is like explaining the validity of the Piltdown man
skull,it can only be done by knowing what is correct first.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Once again you duck the question.
The northern constellations appear to rotate around polaris with a
much more regular period than the solar day.

The average 24 hour day is a consequence of average natural noon
cycles taken over the course an an annual cycle -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy." Huygens

Take a sampling of two natural noons and neither will show an
equality,take a sample of 20 natural noons,homogenize them and then
split them into 20 equal parts as an average and the result will be
pretty close to 24 hours,the more sample the better the average and
closer to 24 hours,even in antiquity this could be done with a water
clock and using the average it is possible to determine the fractional
days an annual orbit takes when using the 24 hour timekeeping average.

As the daily cycle is responsible for the return of the Sun to noon,it
does not take a huge leap of the imagination to see how the average 24
hour cycle was exploited to act as constant rotation through 360
degrees over the course of an annual cycle but intelligence and lively
minds are in short supply here and so far,certainly no
astronomers.This timekeeping stuff is not only easy but thoroughly
enjoyable as I always remind people and marks it off from the dull
catastrophic tendencies of this era which mistakes fear mongering for
genuine astronomical excitement.

I don't beg questions but act out of the authority of my astronomical
heritage and with the power of modern imaging it exposes just what a
mess empiricists have turned science into with specific attention to
the ground zero when Newton attempted to hijack the calendar based
predictive nature of Ra/Dec use it to connect planetary dynamics with
terrestrial ballistics.

You must understand that empiricists complaining about me without
have a technical leg to stand on is pretty pathetic yet these groups
are invaluable as a conduit for actual astronomy and the great link
between planetary dynamics and their terrestrial effects rather than
some sort of wasted effort to explain timekeeping and structural
astronomy to you and your buddies like Peterson.So what if people have
yet to become familiar with how the average 24 hour day transfers to
daily rotation as a constant 360 degrees and marked on a normal globe
as a 15 degree/1 hour geographical separation organised around
rotational dynamics,it is there for all those who genuinely love
astronomy and its place in the highest levels of human achievement.

See how I praise the greatness of humanity rather than engage is
sniping and diminishing the great talents we all have,that is the way
it should be.














The empirical equation of time has to be used to produce a regular
mean solar day.

You insist on using empirical data to profess the "errors" of the
"empiricists.

Please answer the question.

On Dec 5, 4:03*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Take a sampling of two natural noons and neither will show an
equality,take a sample of 20 natural noons,homogenize them and then
split them into 20 equal parts as an average and the result will be
pretty close to 24 hours,the more sample the better the average and
closer to 24 hours,even in antiquity this could be done with a water
clock and using the average it is possible to determine the fractional
days an annual orbit takes when using the 24 hour timekeeping average.

* *In the next 20 days, the Equation of Time changes by a full
* *nine (9) minutes Gerald. The time of sunrise change being the
* *most dramatic.

The Equation of Time acts as a daily leap correction which adjusts
natural noon to a 24 hour average and keeps these averages elapsing
seamlessly so that the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of
Tuesday and so on,it is supposed to be astronomy at it most
magnificent as it takes only a short conceptual leap to graft in daily
rotation as a constant at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.

The utter contempt for astronomy and our ancestors makes me want to
vomit sometimes and I will never get used to this wanton vandalism
from people who are all too willing to crow about children's futures
and climate.The entire empirical foundation is built on the idea that
the planetary dynamics of daily rotation correlates directly with the
rotation of the constellations around Polaris thereby destroying all
the information about planetary dimensions and rotational
characteristics organised around the 24 hour value.

All the investigations of climate fraud will amount to nothing until
people come to their senses and stop trying to destroy an astronomical
heritage that is many magnitudes older and more graceful than the
empirical agenda of the late 17th century that tried to hijack it,if
anyone doubts the importance of getting this right they need only look
at what is happening currently with the new simpleminded correlation
which tries to get carbon dioxide to dictate global temperatures.

You should just stick to measuring the return of a star in a
constellation to a meridian in 'sidereal time' and then drawing your
conclusion for daily rotation,it is that and that alone which marks
you off as being on the level of flat Earthers hence the dangerous
condition that prevails in the world today from the same people who
have a very dangerous view of climate as a social policy.

On Dec 5, 6:18*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:03 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Take a sampling of two natural noons and neither will show an
equality,take a sample of 20 natural noons,homogenize them and then
split them into 20 equal parts as an average and the result will be
pretty close to 24 hours,the more sample the better the average and
closer to 24 hours,even in antiquity this could be done with a water
clock and using the average it is possible to determine the fractional
days an annual orbit takes when using the 24 hour timekeeping average..
* *In the next 20 days, the Equation of Time changes by a full
* *nine (9) minutes Gerald. The time of sunrise change being the
* *most dramatic.

The Equation of Time acts as a daily leap correction which adjusts
natural noon to a 24 hour average and keeps these averages elapsing
seamlessly so that the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of
Tuesday and so on,it is supposed to be astronomy at it most
magnificent as it takes only a short conceptual leap to graft in daily
rotation as a constant at a rate of 15 degrees per hour.

* *OMG, I had no idea--I had no idea the equation of time was used
* *in civil time keeping and calendars.

What can the world expect now that the title of scientist is now
synonymous with duplicity regardless of whether that scientist is
following a genuine line of investigation or just promoting the latest
bandwagon for just as the anonymity of the 'scientific method' was
used effectively to promote ridiculous agendas now it comes back to
taint even those concepts which are stable such as climate change and
clues found in geological features .

You had no idea once that Newton expressed the difference between
clock noon and natural noon in terms of absolute/relative time and to
be fair,neither did anyone else but I discovered early on that nobody
could untangle that mess he created by attempt to force planetary
orbital dynamics into the calendar system by exploiting the predictive
nature of the timekeeping averages of Ra/Dec or to be more exact
trying to fit orbital motion into right ascension.

So,thousands of years of astronomy and now we face a crucial point in
our history as a race - to recover the 24 hour/360 degree correlation
which anyone can see by spinning a globe is no big intellectual feat
but it is the festering cunningness of empiricism which blocks it by
promoting an alternative value for daily rotation through 360 degrees
and how many hundreds of people now know exactly where ground zero for
science is now that the difference between the correct value and the
erroneous one is known.

There is no such thing as an astronomer who believes that the rotation
of the constellations around Polaris demonstrates daily rotation
through 360 degrees no matter how many empirical numbskulls believe.

On Dec 5, 11:02*am, oriel36 wrote

There is no such thing as an astronomer who believes that the rotation
of the constellations around Polaris demonstrates daily rotation
through 360 degrees no matter how many empirical numbskulls believe.

The word "daily" refers to the solar day, the one containing 24 hours
and 360 degrees of rotation, with respect to the sun, whereas the
apparent rotation of the constellations around Polaris, 360 degrees in
something under 24 hours, is the sidereal day. The difference between
the two is due to the fact that the earth travels a degree or so along
its path around the sun about every 24 hours, thus requiring the earth
to rotate a while longer to complete those 360 degrees relative to the
sun. Every astronomer knows this and understand this. Since YOU don't
understand this simplest of concepts, YOU are clearly no astronomer.

There is no conflict between solar days and sidereal days, except
maybe in your little pea-sized brain, they are independent
measurements using different frames of reference. If you can't or
won't accept these concepts, maybe you need to get a new hobby, this
one is just too difficult for you...

On Dec 5, 10:43*pm, palsing wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:02*am, oriel36 wrote

There is no such thing as an astronomer who believes that the rotation
of the constellations around Polaris demonstrates daily rotation
through 360 degrees no matter how many empirical numbskulls believe.

The word "daily" refers to the solar day, the one containing 24 hours
and 360 degrees of rotation, with respect to the sun, whereas the
apparent rotation of the constellations around Polaris, 360 degrees in
something under 24 hours, is the sidereal day. The difference between
the two is due to the fact that the earth travels a degree or so along
its path around the sun about every 24 hours, thus requiring the earth
to rotate a while longer to complete those 360 degrees relative to the
sun. *Every astronomer knows this and understand this. Since YOU don't
understand this simplest of concepts, YOU are clearly no astronomer.


That 'sidereal time' view exists only in the imagination -

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...al_Time_en.PNG

Judging from the hysteria surrounding the idea that humanity can
adjust global temperature via the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is probably now the most visible symptom of the original
shocking correlation between the circumpolar rotation of the
constellations and the planetary dynamic of daily rotation.No
person,no matter how indifferent ,can live with an obvious 'sidereal
time' error that makes no sense and especially as all planetary facts
(contained in the 24 hour value) based on rotational characteristics
and dimensions are lost and it is this scandal that really is the
focal point for all that came after its inception through Flamsteed
and particularlythe empirical agenda.

It is one thing to judge a group of people as 'flat Earthers in a
promiscuous way but quite another to present clear evidence that
contemporary scientists are technically flat Earthers by the very fact
that there is one and only one fact attributed to daily rotation where
15 degrees of geographical separation equates to 1669.8 km and as the
Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,that distance translates
into the turning of the equatorial distance through its 40,075 km
circumference in 24 hours.There is no external celestial reference
for this rotation,just a brilliant use of timekeeping averages to get
the average 24 hour day to act as a foundation for constant daily
rotation.

Surely people must now know just how unstable the reasoning is
regarding any terrestrial effect originating from planetary dynamics
but with not the slightest hint that the outrageous conclusions on
which the late 17th century agendas are based are being dealt with.It
is not climate change that is the problem,it is getting people to
change their way of thinking and allow the interpretative intelligence
to negate the hysterical speculation which is actually threatening the
ability of society to function and reason its way to more productive
endeavors.








There is no conflict between solar days and sidereal days, except
maybe in your little pea-sized brain, they are independent
measurements using different frames of reference. If you can't or
won't accept these concepts, maybe you need to get a new hobby, this
one is just too difficult for you...

On Dec 6, 3:48*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

That *'sidereal time' view exists only in the imagination -

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...al_Time_en.PNG

* *Gerald, the link you posted clearly depicts a sidereal day--a
* *rotation of exactly 360° in 86,164.09+ seconds (23h 56m 4.09+s)

* *Gerald, your homework assignment is to study these sections

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

* * *1. Sidereal time and solar time
* * *2. Precession effects
* * *3. Definition
* * *4. Exact duration and its variation
* * *5. See also
* * *6. References
* * *7. External links

* *Approximate Sidereal Time
* * *http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/GAST.php

* *Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac - Google Books Result
* *by P. Kenneth Seidelmann - 2005 - Science - 752 pages
* *Although this paperback edition carries a 2006 copyright date, it is the
* *same material published in 1992 hardcover edition.

http://books.google.com/books?id=uJ4...al+day&printse....

How,for goodness sake,anyone can reason out 'sidereal time' using
planetary dynamics is beyond me insofar as it is literally a flat
Earth ideology which cannot express the rotation of the Earth at all
latitudes where the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour with given
geographical distances corresponding to each latitude .

The pool of people who would be familiar with this intellectual
holocaust has grown due to the current symptom of attempting to turn
an atmospheric gas into a global temperature dial but effectively the
amount of people capable of handling the planetary dynamics remains
quite small in comparison to the sheer responsibility needed to
correct the situation.I have been correct in targeting this group as
it can be seen how empirical science,the media and social/political
agendas work in tandem as opposed to those who have a genuine interest
in astronomy and the link between planetary dynamics and their
terrestrial effects,one of which is global climate.

I give you credit for being forthright,could do without the pathetic
attempt to condescend but that goes with the newsgroup territory and I
have nothing to say against it and especially given the constant
global insult that correlates circumpolar constellation rotation
directly with daily rotation.People do have a good reason to listen
now that the public views of the authorities and the social
authorities which hang on to these reckless conclusions have descended
into a mess insofar as at the core of this mess is the attempt to use
the predictive calendar convenience of Ra/Dec to link planetary
dynamics with the behavior of objects on a human scale and
experimental sciences.I do something none of you do,I judge Newton
according to his technical distortions and the reasoning that goes
into it whereas I have yet to see someone else who is not adrift in
his obfuscations and can deal with the matter seriously and given that
you still present 'sidereal time' as something actual in terms of
planetary dynamics,I already know where you stand.

On Dec 6, 10:23*am, oriel36 wrote:

... I do something none of you do...

Actually, you do a LOT of things that no one else does...

Really, you need a new, simpler hobby, because this one just
overwhelms you no end...

On Dec 6, 1:53*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *Beauty is in the simplicity--Any spinning body has a sidereal day
* *independent of its orbital period. Stars, asteroids, moons, planets,
* *comets all have sidereal days.

It really is a simple concept, even my 11 and 13 year-old
grandchildren have had no problem understanding it.

\Paul