Oriel - what again?

On Dec 31 2012, 6:51*pm, oriel36 wrote:
the fact that
the polar day/night cycle requires a turning to the Sun to explain
it.

It is true that day and night require that the Earth brings a given
location on its surface to the Sun's light, and then away from it.

But that does not mean that this motion must be simple and not
compound.

After all, you hold that the Moon does not rotate, since you reckon
its rotational motion with respect to its primary, the Earth, rather
than with respect to the fixed stars, as we do.

Either way, the Moon's rotational motion is *not* with respect to the
Sun.

And yet, as the Moon goes through its phases, a given crater on the
Moon will alternate from being in light to being in darkness. That
does not imply the Moon must rotate with a period of 29 1/2 days
because the view with respect to the Sun must be fundamental.

John Savard

On Jan 1, 8:02*am, Mike Collins wrote:

You don't love astronomy. You have a compulsion to convert the world to
your personal delusions. If you succeeded in this science and technology
would cease since we would have to abandon almost all of physics.

For the most part, this is correct. However, your first sentence is a
non sequitur: since his delusions _are_ his delusions, he believes
them to be the truth. And a love of astronomy is exactly what would
motivate one to wish fervently to restore the truth to the general
knowledge of astronomy.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 1, 8:02 am, Mike Collins wrote:

You don't love astronomy. You have a compulsion to convert the world to
your personal delusions. If you succeeded in this science and technology
would cease since we would have to abandon almost all of physics.

For the most part, this is correct. However, your first sentence is a
non sequitur: since his delusions _are_ his delusions, he believes
them to be the truth. And a love of astronomy is exactly what would
motivate one to wish fervently to restore the truth to the general
knowledge of astronomy.

John Savard

They are his delusions. They are NOT astronomy but a kind of warped
personal religion.
He wants to teach myths to the children if the world instead of science.

On Jan 1, 12:31*pm, Mike Collins wrote:

He wants to teach myths to the children if the world instead of science.

English is an ambiguous language.

My point is that he is, in fact, deluded by his delusions.

Thus, the sentence quoted above is true; but you have to parse it the
right way.

He wants to teach (certain statements) to the children of the world
instead of (what we know to be) science;

these statements are objectively false, hence mythical;

however, they are *not* statements *he* knows to be false and
mythical.

The extent to which his intellectual laziness is culpable is another
matter; the point there is, it is a complicated matter, not easily
settled.

He wishes to teach things that are in fact false, but you cannot infer
an intent to deceive from that, for we know that he is mistaken.

John Savard

On Monday, December 31, 2012 5:51:06 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You couldn't help it could you,you couldn't end the year with

something other than snipes and personal attacks.

That is only because you are such an easy target for such snipes. I'm sure you mean well, but you have only the vaguest notion of how the solar system works, and even the simplest concepts continue to confuse you. You never, ever answer a direct question, therefore leaving yourself wide-open to further ridicule. There is no shame in stating that you don't understand something, but being stubborn and bullheaded is not the way to encourage a conversation. When a participant does most of the talking and never any of the listening he usually ends up talking to himself for the most part.

"palsing" wrote in message
...

On Monday, December 31, 2012 5:51:06 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

You couldn't help it could you,you couldn't end the year with

something other than snipes and personal attacks.

That is only because you are such an easy target for such snipes. I'm sure
you mean well, but you have only the vaguest notion of how the solar system
works, and even the simplest concepts continue to confuse you. You never,
ever answer a direct question, therefore leaving yourself wide-open to
further ridicule. There is no shame in stating that you don't understand
something, but being stubborn and bullheaded is not the way to encourage a
conversation. When a participant does most of the talking and never any of
the listening he usually ends up talking to himself for the most part.

===========================================
Could the Electric Orrery help?
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/lt...rery/orrap.htm
Probably not, I doubt he has Java.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

He wants to teach myths to the children if the world instead of science.

English is an ambiguous language.

My point is that he is, in fact, deluded by his delusions.

Thus, the sentence quoted above is true; but you have to parse it the
right way.

He wants to teach (certain statements) to the children of the world
instead of (what we know to be) science;

these statements are objectively false, hence mythical;

however, they are *not* statements *he* knows to be false and
mythical.

The extent to which his intellectual laziness is culpable is another
matter; the point there is, it is a complicated matter, not easily
settled.

He wishes to teach things that are in fact false, but you cannot infer
an intent to deceive from that, for we know that he is mistaken.

John Savard

I stand by everything I wrote. He wants to teach myths to the children of
the world instead if science.
He may not know that they are myths but that doesn't change the fact that
that are.
Don't lend these myths credibility by pandering to them.
He steals words like precession and immediately tries to hijack the
meaning for his myths. Don't let him get away with it.

On Jan 1, 3:09*pm, Mike Collins wrote:

He may not know that they are myths but that doesn't change the fact that
[they]
are.

That's true. But it's also true the other way around; the fact that
they are myths doesn't change the fact that, if he's deluded into
thinking they're true, he doesn't know they are myths.

Therefore, he doesn't want to deceive people... and, therefore, he
does not hate astronomy.

When you claim that Oriel hates astronomy, you are now making a
statement about his subjective world view. (He does seem to hate
"real" or "orthodox" astronomy... but you didn't use qualifiers to
overcome what is a strong default parsing for that case.)

He _wants_ to save astronomy, not destroy it. He is going about it the
wrong way; fortunately, he does not have the power to destroy
astronomy, which is the direction in which his ineffective actions in
fact tend.

John Savard

"Mike Collins" wrote in message
...

Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

He wants to teach myths to the children if the world instead of science.

English is an ambiguous language.

My point is that he is, in fact, deluded by his delusions.

Thus, the sentence quoted above is true; but you have to parse it the
right way.

He wants to teach (certain statements) to the children of the world
instead of (what we know to be) science;

these statements are objectively false, hence mythical;

however, they are *not* statements *he* knows to be false and
mythical.

The extent to which his intellectual laziness is culpable is another
matter; the point there is, it is a complicated matter, not easily
settled.

He wishes to teach things that are in fact false, but you cannot infer
an intent to deceive from that, for we know that he is mistaken.

John Savard

I stand by everything I wrote. He wants to teach myths to the children of
the world instead if science.
He may not know that they are myths but that doesn't change the fact that
that are.
Don't lend these myths credibility by pandering to them.
He steals words like precession and immediately tries to hijack the
meaning for his myths. Don't let him get away with it.

============================================
Calm down, he's autistic and can't help it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism
"Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social
interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.
These symptoms do not imply sickness, fragility, or emotional disturbance."
It's ok to laugh at the fool, he won't be upset by it, but don't get angry
or you'll upset yourself.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On Jan 1, 10:09*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 1, 12:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

He wants to teach myths to the children if the world instead of science.

English is an ambiguous language.

My point is that he is, in fact, deluded by his delusions.

Thus, the sentence quoted above is true; but you have to parse it the
right way.

He wants to teach (certain statements) to the children of the world
instead of (what we know to be) science;

these statements are objectively false, hence mythical;

however, they are *not* statements *he* knows to be false and
mythical.

The extent to which his intellectual laziness is culpable is another
matter; the point there is, it is a complicated matter, not easily
settled.

He wishes to teach things that are in fact false, but you cannot infer
an intent to deceive from that, for we know that he is mistaken.

John Savard

I stand by everything I wrote. He wants to teach myths to the children of
the world instead if science.
He may not know that they are myths but that doesn't change the fact that
that are.
Don't lend these myths credibility by pandering to them.
He steals words like precession and immediately *tries to hijack the
meaning for his myths. Don't let him get away with it.

Look,I am going to draw a line under all this.I could go on and try
and demonstrate that axial precession to the central Sun is best
served by an annual orbital component as the polar coordinates are
carried around in a circle so that the older perspective can be
matched up with Hubble imaging -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_precession.svg

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

The unmoderated forums are quite important in the scheme of things,at
least for those who have no intention of abusing the liberties
afforded by having an individual point of view outside institutional
empiricism in astronomical and terrestrial sciences yet no one person
should dominate no more than one viewpoint.

I have no need to take a parting swing at anyone here - they come and
participate in a forum and that counts for quite a lot and long may it
last.