During the middle of the Eocene, about 40 million years ago...

On Nov 5, 1:25*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and
generally wind-up people.

If you don't believe me let's do a little test.


Kelleher wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"

So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this.

On Nov 5, 1:58*pm, badastrobuster wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:25*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and
generally wind-up people.

If you don't believe me let's do a little test.

Kelleher wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"

So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this.

Long before that CO2 scam disintegrated,despite the continuing
drumbeat,there is the introduction of fundamentals of temperature
fluctuations arising from the changing relationship between the
independent daily and orbital motions and especially visual
affirmation through observations of Uranus where the planet fairly
quick rotation to the central Sun and the slow orbital turning to the
central Sun -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...999/11/video/b

The imitation analogy using broom and central object basically
supports what can be observed directly in that time lapse footage,the
very fact that I once expressed exasperation that the images of Uranus
make it an absolute certainty that the major factor for temperature
fluctuations between January and July arises from the length of time a
latitude spends in solar radiation rather than inclination led me to
turn to the broom analogy and the orbital daylight/darkness cycle.

A few years ago at about the same time I began using the Hubble
images,they were about to launch an assault on the connection between
astronomy and climatological sciences for nothing more than social
engineering with trillions of dollars at stake,today it has been shown
what a monster scam that was based on a minor atmospheric gas and it
would have ruined the connection between astronomy and terrestrial
sciences.I have to realize just how dysfunctional terrestrial sciences
such as geology and climate are in the absence of clean and clear
directions from astronomy and specifically planetary dynamics,in
short,doctorates are not behaving like doctorates presently by
ignoring the failure at the level of fundamental facts that govern
cause and effect.

The next time a few climatologists decide to shove a conclusion based
on carbon dioxide down the throat of the wider population as a means
for social control,they should ask astronomers about fundamental facts
such as the relationship between daily rotation and the day/night
cycle and the orbital variations which causes temperatures to
fluctuate across 6 month periods with larger variations coinciding
with variations in daylight/darkness symmetries at higher latitudes.

On Nov 5, 6:58*am, badastrobuster wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:25*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Remember Kelleher simulates stupidity to annoy, frustrate and
generally wind-up people.

If you don't believe me let's do a little test.

Kelleher wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"

So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this.

Gerald is a quack. Read all about him here;

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

"Quacks, like criminals, often blame others for their own crimes. They
call real science "belief". If you try to explain to a quack the
actual physics at even high school level, he will immediately claim
that you are the one who is ignorant... fortunately, the world depends
on the technology derived from modern physics for its economy,
communication, leisure, etc."

\Paul A

On Nov 5, 7:11 pm, oriel36 wrote:

with variations in daylight/darkness symmetries at higher latitudes.

That there insight came from where the sun don't shine, did it,
Professor Feckwit?

I spect yure a real martyr to that there See-Oh-Two an' methane wot
you do spout so continuous like?

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

On Nov 5, 6:11*pm, oriel36 wrote:


So far Gerald after 1 attempt you have scored 0/10

You wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"

So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this. Your
previous attempt was just a stream of words but was not even close to
an explanation

On Nov 6, 8:04*am, badastrobuster wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:11*pm, oriel36 wrote:

So far Gerald after 1 attempt you have scored 0/10


Thanks for posting something that only remotely looks like a
response,it saves me from having to create individual threads so even
the lilliputian intellects here are good for something,at least within
reason.Most people are excused from this topic as they think science
and astronomy is like these talent shows where people sing and then
get judged on their performance but this material is for people who
are competitive in a sense that I only have interest in how
technically proficient an individual is,there are no medals and
applause involved and indeed those who engage in genuine astronomy can
only expect unrelenting hostility at the moment,not much comfort there
but such is this era dominated by trivia and those who have extremely
limited views of astronomy.

You wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"

So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this. Your
previous attempt was just a stream of words but was not even close to
an explanation

Even in this information saturated era,the loss of the correspondence
between the number of rotations in a year and the day/night cycles
over the same orbital period is breathtaking but evenso,i still think
that when readers here can actually see how Uranus turns to the
central Sun as a means to visually affirm the slow and uneven turning
of a planet as a signature of its orbital motion and which is crucial
for explaining the seasons when allied with daily rotation, it
exasperates me no end -

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

The daily rotation of Uranus to the central Sun follows the line of
the Equatorial ring which in turn acts like an orbital longitude
meridian,the imitation analogy of broom and the specific way to walk/
orbit around a central object only supports the reasons why there is a
single daylight/darkness cycle arising from the orbital motion of the
Earth and experienced at thee polar coordinates as 6 months of
daylight followed by 6 months of darkness and coincident with the
orbital period of the Earth.

There are people here who wouldn't boil an egg without looking for a
citation to do so but in the informal environment of the unmoderated
Usenet,and for all its faults,there has to be some people who can
comprehend the geometric certainty behind all this and are not afraid
to say so.The reasons we suffer from the largest and most expensive
scam ever perpetrated is because no astronomers exist who can explain
the major factors for temperature fluctuations over a 6 month period
thereby allowing the modelers to run amok using an extremely minor
atmospheric gas and speculative ideas of global temperatures.

One thing,it is love and nature and astronomy that is the guiding
principle here and not speculative knowledge about astronomy and
nature that drives those insights which are the most satisfying,that
is why many of you waste your time trying to make things personal as a
means to dilute the technical arguments while a genuine scientist and
especially an astronomer allows the technical arguments to become
personal and that is why the original astronomers ,including
Galileo,admired what Copernicus achieved and then appreciated the man.

Unless you haven't noticed,you and many of the other nuisances are off-
topic in what should be a sprawling discussion.I actually know the
first actual attempt to manipulate temperatures by selective placement
of thermometers and that is a fact.

On 11/6/10 5:26 AM, oriel36 wrote:
Unless you haven't noticed,you and many of the other nuisances are off-
topic in what should be a sprawling discussion.I actually know the
first actual attempt to manipulate temperatures by selective placement
of thermometers and that is a fact.

Now Gerald, why must you always assume a conspiracy concerning
climate data, when the data indicates something you don't want
to hear. You did accept that 40% of the land mass of Pakistan
flooded this year, right?

On Nov 6, 10:26*am, oriel36 wrote:

So far Gerald after 2 attempts you have scored 0/10


You wrote "on acknowledging the slow and uneven orbital turning
of the Earth to the central Sun"


So Gerald please explain in extreme detail what you mean by this.
Your
previous attempts were just a stream of words but were not even close
to
an explanation.

A hint - are you talking about annual or daily turning?

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/10 5:26 AM, oriel36 wrote:
Unless you haven't noticed,you and many of the other nuisances are off-
topic in what should be a sprawling discussion.I actually know the
first actual attempt to manipulate temperatures by selective placement
of thermometers and that is a fact.

Now Gerald, why must you always assume a conspiracy concerning
climate data, when the data indicates something you don't want
to hear. You did accept that 40% of the land mass of Pakistan
flooded this year, right?

And how is it possible to be 'off-topic' in a 'sprawling
discussion'? Methinks Gerald's mental machinery is running
on ethanol.

On Nov 6, 11:00*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/6/10 5:26 AM, oriel36 wrote:

Unless you haven't noticed,you and many of the other nuisances are off-
topic in what should be a sprawling discussion.I actually know the
first actual attempt to manipulate temperatures by selective placement
of thermometers and that is a fact.

* *Now Gerald, why must you always assume a conspiracy concerning
* *climate data, when the data indicates something you don't want
* *to hear. You did accept that 40% of the land mass of Pakistan
* *flooded this year, right?

Conspiracy ,you wish ! , it is no more than technical idiocy and as
far as I am concerned,if you and your colleagues could figure out how
365 1`/4 rotations correspond to 365 1/4 days in a year hence there
are no more than a full 365 day/night cycles in an orbital year,I
would consider it a minor miracle.Intellectually you can't even rise
to this basic cause and effect,in attempting to believe in an utterly
stupid 366 1/4 rotations in a year therefore a conversation at a more
complex level such as weather and climate is impossible.

It is now possible to visibly affirm,through the time lapse footage of
Uranus, the additional information needed to explain the 6 month
temperature fluctuations between January and July and which, as an
individual insight from an orbital perspective, explains the orbital
daylight/darkness cycle at the polar coordinates so forget trying to
compete with me using a minor atmospheric gas and natural temperature
variations when I have the principles which govern huge temperature
fluctuations over a day/night cycle and an orbital cycle.

This is not the first time you miserable creatures tried to distort
the progress of science using thermometers,the great inventor John
Harrison complained that in attempting to wreck his supreme invention
of a watch,the guys following 'sidereal time' reasoning tried to put
his watch in conditions that do not exist in any climate,in his own
words -

"Mr. Maskelyne then proceeds to tell us of a change that happened in
the going of the Watch, and says, 'this change began in the beginning
of August, on 'the few and only hot days we had last Summer, 'which
yet were not extreme, the Thermometer 'within doors having never risen
above 73 degrees, 'the rest of the Summer in general was remarkably
'cool and temperate.' When I took this Watch to pieces I informed Mr.
Maskelyne and the other Gentlemen, that in trying any experiments with
it, in respect to heat and cold, it would be proper that it should be
so fixed that, as far as could be, the heat should have an equal
influence on all sides of it; and it is obvious that the Thermometer
ought to have been kept in the same Box with it; but as this was not
done, I apprehend the effects of beat mentioned above do not merit
much attention; and therefore shall only observe that the Watch was
placed in a Box with a Glass in the lid and another in one side, in
the seat of a window level with the lowest pane of the window, and
exposed to the South-East, whilst the Thermometer, which was to
ascertain the degree of heat the Watch was exposed to, was placed in a
shady part of the room: now it is obvious that while the Air
surrounding the Thermometer might be very temperate, there might, if
the Sun shone upon it, be a heat in the Box, superior to what was ever
felt in the open air in any part of the world; and perhaps greater
than any human being could subsist in, and consequently improper, or
at least unnecessary for this experiment" John Harrison

http://books.google.ie/books?id=8roA...&output=t ext

This would be today's equivalent of one guy building a computer from
scratch including processor,hard drive,screen and so on and then being
challenged by boring people who don't like the invention and try to
wreck it by putting it under water or something like that,there was
always this consensual peevishness which I know all too well and has
no goodness to it.

Tell me again how many times the Earth rotates in a year ?.