Predictions and astronomy

I have been surprised sometimes that really nobody is interested in the rise of predictive modeling as a result of the unresolved issues surrounding the Galileo affair,either that or few have the talent or concentration to go through the tangled material which separates predictive astronomy from interpretative astronomy.

If I had to explain the fundamental difference in astronomical terms I would say the differences between predictive and interpretative astronomy falls along the line of recent developments which shifts the perspective from the annual motion of the Sun through the Zodiac and inherent in the RA/Dec system to the more accurate and productive annual motion of the stars along the ecliptic plane and behind the central Sun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

The term 'prediction' itself is problematic insofar as the great astronomers used the term 'prediction' in context of events such as eclipses or the position of objects to each other whereas the term 'prediction' in empirical circles is based on the idea that the behavior of a falling apples can be scaled up to a celestial scale hence 'predictive/modeling power'. The fudging of terms like 'predictions' is fatally disruptive for interpretative astronomy which relies only on a clarity of perspectives.

At what point do people engage in a meaningful way with issues we inherited from antiquity right up to recent times ?. I would give readers a lot of credit for staying within the confines of SAA and dealing with matters which encompass many of the difficulties I see outside the forum,for instance, the hype surrounding climate is an issue between interpretation and predictions or rather the issue is a facet of systemic failure rather than an issue which can be dealt with in isolation or separate to the main issue.

Anyone can be a commentator and fall to one side or another with their opinions, very few or none at all seem to be capable of dealing with the issues as they really present themselves. The real science innovators will be those who are not afraid to use contemporary tools and change what is needed to bring insight back into astronomy and terrestrial sciences rather than force through conclusions for some social/political agenda or merely as a funding device.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

I have been surprised sometimes that really nobody is interested in the rise
of predictive modeling as a result of the unresolved issues surrounding the
Galileo affair,either that or few have the talent or concentration to go
through the tangled material which separates predictive astronomy from
interpretative astronomy.

If I had to explain the fundamental difference in astronomical terms
=================================================
Fortunately you don't have to, and if if you did you'd be ignored anyway.
You couldn't even predict the when and where of the next eclipse of the Sun.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas...2001-25T-1.GIF

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD £1000
I'm not the government,
if I were it would £20,000,000,
but I am offering £1000 for the
head of the murderer(s) of
James Foley or Steven Sotloff,
on a spike, mounted on London
Bridge as we would have done
in medieval times. Add your own
contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,
head for a head, barbarism for
barbarism.

On Wednesday, September 3, 2014 4:22:45 AM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

The term 'prediction' itself is problematic insofar as the great astronomers
used the term 'prediction' in context of events such as eclipses or the
position of objects to each other whereas the term 'prediction' in empirical
circles is based on the idea that the behavior of a falling apples can be
scaled up to a celestial scale hence 'predictive/modeling power'. The fudging
of terms like 'predictions' is fatally disruptive for interpretative astronomy
which relies only on a clarity of perspectives.

In the Law of Universal Gravitation, Newton in fact *did* discover the
mechanism of the Solar System - as _proven_, to brilliant effect, in the
successful *prediction* of Adams and Leverrier.

What you speak of as "interpretative astronomy" is _subjective_, and hence not
amenable to the kind of impressive and steady progress that the science of
celestial mechanics has seen, where even the need for corrections due to the
Special and General theories of relativity has been confirmed - the latter most
lately in the operation of the Global Positioning Satellite system.

You appear to be saying we should throw away all this, and go back to the days
of Kepler and start over. Why would anyone want to do that?

John Savard

In well over a decade here I have yet to encounter anywhere near the type of people who would be able to basically surf the information in order to partition the system based on timekeeping averages from the perspectives which make sense of observations and assign cause and effect such as the daily cycle and the Sun rising and setting within every 24 hour period or the seasons and on to climate proper.

Instead we have the modeling bunch who use a watch to predict that a star will return to the same spot after 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and then assign a cause for that observation in that it is supposed to represent one complete rotation and from there into the horrible attempt to insinuate a mismatch between 24 hour days and rotations. This runs through all empiricism where a conclusion is built around a 'prediction' such a stellar circumpolar motion and all things distorted to suit that conclusion. It is the basis of all that followed including the current hype surrounding a climate prediction and modeling.

An astronomer would simply begin with the 24 hour day and all the effects in it which correlate with one rotation to the central Sun and fill in the details regarding the extra 24 hour day and rotation which completes 4 full annual circuits of the Sun.

I can understand the Christian perspective at the time of Galileo when Galileo tried to justify Biblical texts to fit astronomy even if there concerns veered towards the drastic nevertheless those concerns don't plague our era and it enhances appreciation of that Spirit that runs through Christian perspectives and lights up astronomy as it truly should.

You cannot dictate to people who don't have that background feeling which makes sense of astronomical observations and puts them in context for,in over a decade, I haven't seen an individual get stuck into the 24 hour system in tandem with the Lat/Long system with the closest bearing to daily and orbital dynamics.

So,when everyone hears of the 'predictive power' of such and such a theory they can come to sci.astro.amateur and discover the roots of that misguided agenda where the perspectives inherent in the narratives of visual astronomy are ignored for contrived notions with no direction and no purpose.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

In well over a decade here I have yet to encounter anywhere near the type of
people who would be able to basically surf the information in order to
partition the system based on timekeeping averages from the perspectives
which make sense of observations and assign cause and effect such as the
daily cycle and the Sun rising and setting within every 24 hour period or
the seasons and on to climate proper.
============================================
In well over a decade here I have yet to encounter anyone who babbles
idiotic nonsense every 361 degrees of rotation quite as much as you do.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD £1000
I'm not the government,
if I were it would £20,000,000,
but I am offering £1000 for the
head of the murderer(s) of
James Foley or Steven Sotloff,
on a spike, mounted on London
Bridge as we would have done
in medieval times. Add your own
contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,
head for a head, barbarism for
barbarism.

On Wednesday, 3 September 2014 20:42:34 UTC+2, Lord Androcles wrote:

In well over a decade here I have yet to encounter anyone who babbles

idiotic nonsense every 361 degrees of rotation quite as much as you do.

And so, with absolute certainty, one can make the perfect prediction that his behaviour will be repeated ad nauseum [burp] until they stop force feeding him.

Or the universe ends.

Whichever comes first.

"Chris.B" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, 3 September 2014 20:42:34 UTC+2, Lord Androcles wrote:

In well over a decade here I have yet to encounter anyone who babbles

idiotic nonsense every 361 degrees of rotation quite as much as you do.

And so, with absolute certainty, one can make the perfect prediction that
his behaviour will be repeated ad nauseum [burp] until they stop force
feeding him.

Or the universe ends.

Whichever comes first.
================================================== ==========
He can't help it, really. He's an idiot. Like all idiots, he doesn't know
he's an idiot and isn't smart enough to learn he's an idiot, and even if he
was it would no difference, he'd still be an idiot.

-- The Reverend Lord Androcles.
REWARD £1000
I'm not the government,
if I were it would £20,000,000,
but I am offering £1000 for the
head of the murderer(s) of
James Foley or Steven Sotloff,
on a spike, mounted on London
Bridge as we would have done
in medieval times. Add your own
contribution and spread the word.
It's eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth,
head for a head, barbarism for
barbarism.

On Saturday, September 6, 2014 1:16:13 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
ad nauseum [burp]

That should be (sic); it's ad nauseam.

John Savard

There is a great sense of satisfaction knowing that the stars will appear and disappear from view 1461 times it takes the Earth to make it across 4 orbital circuits of the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFpe...0DD0E0B592F99D

I doubt if many stargazers here would sit through that spectacular viewing and come away from it appreciating the intervention of the light of the central Sun at sunrise or its disappearance after sunset within a 24 hour period,an observation which fixes rotations to days and days to the annual cycles including the important fixture of February 29th.

The issue of predictive astronomy is incidental to what actually matters so that observers can take the issue or leave it as long as the stable and basic narrative surrounding the Lat/Long system and the 24 hour AM/PM system to one rotation is not disturbed as it has been for more than a few centuries.

I cannot imagine any greater pain than attempting to destroy a simple fact that the stars come out each night and every night as the Earth turns once in order to believe that the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml


So much for trying to get people to engage in the history of that error as it arose from the unresolved issue which was central to the acceptance of heliocentricity and the motions of the Earth and planets around the Sun. The people involved with the Christian Churches may not see the point of what it created and more to the point may not care.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

There is a great sense of satisfaction knowing that the stars will appear
and disappear from view 1461 times it takes the Earth to make it across 4
orbital circuits of the Sun
================================================
If you are satisfied by being wrong or proving you can't count because you
are a ****ing idiot then be as smug as you like, nobody will care.