NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 5:20:54 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 4:27:16 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:



The indoctrination has been broken however the real unnerving situation is that after the collapse of a perspective there is a period when a replacement is sought and here much damage is done...



But Gerald, no perspective that I am aware of has been broken, this only exists in your own private hell. Perspective, after all, is something that you admit you can't understand.


You will be unlikely to find any trace of the 'solar vs sidereal' contrivance and its insistence on a mismatch between rotations and days in future but that is not the issue. The architecture which connects timekeeping to planetary dynamics has a distinct foundation in a specific observation as Sirius comes into view after a period behind the Sun's glare thereby fixing the Earth's orbital position in space so this is what will emerge into mainstream explanations with time as timekeeping was constructed in historical order. It doesn't really matter who does it even though I have provided the core structure in dynamical terms but trust me, the clockwork solar system and ideologies based on that careless,mangled and contrived celestial sphere foundation is finished.






You could read about rotation as a mechanism here in sci.astro.amateur a decade ago when nobody was discussing it elsewhere just as now you can read about the second surface rotation to the Sun and its impact on climate and the climate spectrum based on rotational inclination. That is the way things are done these days Alsing, it slowly creeps into mainstream policy in an awful way because these guys lack the talent and confidence to discuss the matter openly and with transparency.



I can't break it to you gently, Gerald, but your new favorite topic, 'secondary surface rotation' is yet another apparent motion, like retrogrades, analemmas, and it doesn't actually exist.


Break it whatever way you want,direct observations showing two surface rotations to the central Sun is hardly going to be disturbed by a malcontent distributing meaningless quotes meant to provoke a reaction.

The astronomy of cause and perspective is such a cinch and fun in this era so that there is nothing apparent in the orbital surface rotation as it will continue to turn at a rate of roughly 4 degrees per Earth year so that in 20 years or so,the polar coordinates will face the central Sun while the rings run roughly parallel with the circle of illumination-

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

I have testimony that far exceeds some of the great astronomical works insofar as modern tools permit such appreciation and you know what Alsing - it is simply fun sorting out whether perspectives are due to relative motions between the Earth and the other planets or intrinsic to the planets themselves. In this case when people view the sequence of images they can without hesitation apply the same dynamics to the Earth and especially dual surface rotations to the central Sun.



You need to say to yourself "the north pole always points towards Polaris, the north pole always points to Polaris", over and over again, whenever these 'secondary surface rotation" thoughts enter your mind.

I am afraid that is a cult mindset which is fairly easy to escape insofar as the first thing you encounter at the North and South polar coordinates is the polar day/night cycle and especially the current transition between one 6 month state into another. This day/night cycle forces the genuine astronomer to take note of the cause aside from and in addition to daily rotation so the surface coordinate is addressed to the central Sun than a remote star.

Keeping things front and center for years does eventually break the indoctrination and it does it in such a way as a growing realization until it finally is impossible to imagine otherwise.



The only direct measurement we can make that comes to mind it the Earth's rotation WRT the fixed stars, AFAIK all the rest are a form of apparent motion.


Astronomy with contemporary tools is so different once people get into the flow of discoveries as opposed to the old terminology of the 'fixed stars' and the celestial sphere scaffolding built around such homocentric notions.







...In my astronomy things happen and there is always something new to look at...



Well, sure, you keep seeing things that just aren't there...



\Paul A



It is not that you can't visibly see two surface rotations,it is that you can't absorb it as reasoning and you are not alone here. Your repetition of making Polaris and a celestial sphere important for rotation prevents you from refocusing your observations to planetary experiences such as the polar day/night cycle where astronomy really becomes productive for terrestrial sciences.

The true innovator learns to live with their impatience while the dull and scowling empty heads are impatient for nothing. It shows in the way progress is made on multiple fronts as dynamics are terrestrial sciences are back in focus using proper perspectives.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:00:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:16:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:





I am not confusing anything, but you certainly seem to be confused. A poor economic system, such as socialism, inevitably requires a coercive government to inflict it, otherwise people will naturally tend to abandon it.



So, we'll add both political science and economics to the categories

of things you know little about.

You push a global warmer enough, you'll find a socialist with dreams of world government, where of course, their people run everything. Marxism was discredited in the eyes of the public, so they latched onto global warming as a means to push force the world-wide redistribution of wealth. There have been numerous examples of global warmers "slipping up" and spilling the beans of their real plans and it has little to do with C02 production.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:43:34 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

The Eurotrash socialists are busy bankrupting their countries by squandering money on solar and wind power. Spain was a good example of this. I hardly think they'll pony up any more money for a space mission.



And conventional nuclear energy that's going to cost future generations those extra billion per year (and that's only if nothing bad ever happens) is not a bankrupting consideration?

A billion per year is chump change compared to the cost of overall much more expensive energy.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:52:35 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

You will be unlikely to find any trace of the 'solar vs sidereal' contrivance and its insistence on a mismatch between rotations and days in future but that is not the issue.

That is always the issue with you. You don't understand that there is no mismatch whatsoever between solar and sidereal days, just like there is no mismatch between US dollars and Australian dollars. There is no contrivance. They have different definitions and can each exist without interfering with each other. No conflict, except in your tiny mind.

It doesn't really matter who does it even though I have provided the core structure in dynamical terms but trust me, the clockwork solar system and ideologies based on that careless,mangled and contrived celestial sphere foundation is finished.

Ha! The joke's on you. You don't know Jack about the workings of the solar system...













You could read about rotation as a mechanism here in sci.astro.amateur a decade ago when nobody was discussing it elsewhere just as now you can read about the second surface rotation to the Sun and its impact on climate and the climate spectrum based on rotational inclination. That is the way things are done these days Alsing, it slowly creeps into mainstream policy in an awful way because these guys lack the talent and confidence to discuss the matter openly and with transparency.

Your incredibly disconnected ramblings will never be incorporated into mainstream policy, they lack basic logic and have never come close to being the 'way thing really are'. There is no second surface rotation, it is imaginary and exists only in your own person hell...

... direct observations showing two surface rotations to the central Sun is hardly going to be disturbed by a malcontent distributing meaningless quotes meant to provoke a reaction.

Direct observation? Gerald, direct observation tells us that the superior planets turn around and travel in the opposite direction in the sky every year... direct observation seems to indicate that the moon doesn't rotate... direct observation tells us that the Earth rotates in 23:56:04 WRT the fixed stars... direct observation can fool you, unless you are smart enough to know when the motion is apparent and when it is real. The north pole continuously points to Polaris, by direct observation, so clearly there is no secondary rotation, it is all in your mostly empty head.

I have testimony that far exceeds some of the great astronomical works insofar as modern tools permit such appreciation and you know what Alsing - it is simply fun sorting out whether perspectives are due to relative motions between the Earth and the other planets or intrinsic to the planets themselves. In this case when people view the sequence of images they can without hesitation apply the same dynamics to the Earth and especially dual surface rotations to the central Sun.

You, of all people, cannot comprehend various perspectives, because if you did, we would not be having these conversations. You think you understand 'modern images' but the sad truth is that they confuse you no end, you continue to misinterpret the simplest of concepts.

You need to say to yourself "the north pole always points towards Polaris, the north pole always points to Polaris", over and over again, whenever these 'secondary surface rotation" thoughts enter your mind.


Keeping things front and center for years does eventually break the indoctrination and it does it in such a way as a growing realization until it finally is impossible to imagine otherwise.

There is virtually no chance that you will change the mind of anyone with even half a brain, you definitely march to the beat of a different drummer.

On Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:43:11 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:52:35 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

... direct observations showing two surface rotations to the central Sun is hardly going to be disturbed by a malcontent distributing meaningless quotes meant to provoke a reaction.



Direct observation? Gerald, direct observation tells us that the superior planets turn around and travel in the opposite direction in the sky every year... direct observation seems to indicate that the moon doesn't rotate.... direct observation tells us that the Earth rotates in 23:56:04 WRT the fixed stars... direct observation can fool you, unless you are smart enough to know when the motion is apparent and when it is real. The north pole continuously points to Polaris, by direct observation, so clearly there is no secondary rotation, it is all in your mostly empty head.


You know what an element of faith is Alsing - loving what you cannot see and in this case it is loving that future generations of children who will not have to face the suffocating voodoo of your cult. The polar day/night cycle and its rotational cause demonstrates dual surface rotations but the real proof is direct observational proof -

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

Spirit burns through the scowling empirical facade and the mind soars into the realm of genuine astronomy. You won't look at the images which tell a story of the polar day/night cycle at the polar locations by way of the orbital motion of the Earth through space creating a second surface rotation.

This is here to stay as visible proof through imaging so no need to descend into a world of meaningless insults and voodoo as the growing realization of something new and enjoyable makes its way into the consciousness of people. You call people into an intellectual grave ,a grave devoid of imaging and graphics which drive astronomy forward which deadens the mind and heart to creation and the connection between the individual and the Universal.

Come back to me with images for a change and then we can talk as men but not before then.

http://londonastronomer.files.wordpr..._2001-2007.jpg

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:04:14 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:33:14 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Global warming doesn't even make the first cut.

Loss of biodiversity via poaching and habitat destruction ranks at the top. Fossil fuel depletion is up there too.
Rampant socialism, fascism, statism, collectivism, are serious concerns.

Loss of biodiversity to climate change is a couple of magnitudes
higher than loss due to poaching.

Large, slow breeding animals and plants are in imminent danger of extinction, with or without a change in climate.

Much habitat destruction is due to
climate change, as well (most is simply due to their being far to many
humans, but climate change is the biggest immediate threat to what
remains).

Habitat destruction has occurred and is continuing to occur independent of any real or imagined climate change. Forests are being cleared to make way for biofuel production, ironically enough.

Fossil fuel depletion is one of the few things that could
save us, although probably not in time.

The other things, of course, simply reflect your antisocial paranoia.

Your ignorance is astounding. Your inability to learn from history even more so.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:58:31 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:53:25 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:

On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:43:34 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:

The Eurotrash socialists are busy bankrupting their countries by squandering money on solar and wind power. Spain was a good example of this. I hardly think they'll pony up any more money for a space mission.

And conventional nuclear energy that's going to cost future generations those extra billion per year (and that's only if nothing bad ever happens) is not a bankrupting consideration?

A billion per year is chump change compared to the cost of overall much more expensive energy.

Agreed. An extra $1000 per year on utilities will result in $200 billion lost by US consumers alone. And that's a VERY conservative estimate. The resultant drag on the economy and incomes will make the situation even worse.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:00:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:16:33 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I am not confusing anything, but you certainly seem to be confused. A poor economic system, such as socialism, inevitably requires a coercive government to inflict it, otherwise people will naturally tend to abandon it.

So, we'll add both political science and economics to the categories
of things you know little about.

Socialism doesn't allow for individualism; some may prefer to work for, or divert personal resources to, perfectly fine goals not supported or allowed by the rest.

Socialism doesn't provide incentives. Why work harder or sacrifice one's time if one must then share the benefits with those who did no extra work, or took no risk?

People have attempted to get away from Cuba on small boats, rafts and floating vehicles. People had attempted to escape the Eastern Bloc by scaling the Berlin Wall or crossing the Iron Curtain. North Koreans take dangerous routes in an attempt to escape.

Are you so out of touch with recent history or do you just lack common sense? Maybe both?

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:55:30 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:00:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:16:33 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I am not confusing anything, but you certainly seem to be confused. A poor economic system, such as socialism, inevitably requires a coercive government to inflict it, otherwise people will naturally tend to abandon it.

So, we'll add both political science and economics to the categories
of things you know little about.

You push a global warmer enough, you'll find a socialist with dreams of world government, where of course, their people run everything. Marxism was discredited in the eyes of the public, so they latched onto global warming as a means to push force the world-wide redistribution of wealth. There have been numerous examples of global warmers "slipping up" and spilling the beans of their real plans and it has little to do with C02 production..

They're called "watermelons" ... green on the outside, red on the inside.

On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:01:48 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 03:26:52 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Then you admit that you are against having a space program?

Once again, your complete lack of reading comprehension skills rears
its ugly head.

I wrote:

"That effectively excludes the 'other stuff' which then leaves the US without a
space program. But that's what you socialists have wanted all along."

Then you wrote:

"Of course."

How else should that be comprehended?