Anybody but Kelleher can reply

On 28 May, 19:01, palsing wrote:

What follows is a really excellent analysis of the situation that
Kelleher - and Kelleher alone - refuses to accept.

Faced with material of this quality what does Kelleher do? Same as
always! - he just starts to repeat minor variations of the same old
material he has posted thousands of time before.

We he to admit to any scientific error on his own part he would have
to accept that he has wasted many hours a week over several years
promoting his incorrect views. So he will not.

The same argument applies to the, perfectly valid, questions about his
failure to fully write up and explain exactly how his views differ
from main stream opinion.

Posting his rubbish is his hobby and his obsession. Perhaps we should
just ignore him and/or create an FAQ about him which we use to respond
to his madness.

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

On May 28, 8:40 am, oriel36 wrote:

The 3 basic facts are connected -

The Earth is round.
The Earth is rotating.
The Earth rotates once in 24 hours.
Terrestrial longitudes carry the specific information such as
rotational characteristics by converging at the geographical poles
along with the shape of the Earth based on 4 minutes of clock time for
each degree of geographical separation.

This is exactly correct, each degree of longitude represents 4 minutes
on the clock and results in a 24-hour 360 degree day, but ONLY with
respect to the sun. There is no argument about this, we can all deal
with this, and we also understand the equation of time adjustments
needed due to the non-circular nature of the orbit and the earth's
varying speed along its orbital path throughout the year.

The actual creation of the 24 hour day and clocks that reflect this
value are based on an inviolate set of principles which refer and
fixed the daily cycle to natural noon and the orbital cycle to the
stellar background,there is no ambiguity in these principles
whatsoever -

Right again, even if you are just restating what you already said in
the previous paragraph.

Insofar as Flamsteed inverted the references by fixing daily rotation
to the background stars and orbital motion to the central Sun in one
awful 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax,surely somebody has an
inkling of the terrible consequences -

Flamsteed didn't invert anything, he only noted that when choosing to
mark time by referencing the earth's rotation against the fixed stars
instead of the sun, there is a difference of a few minutes each day.
Of course, it turns out that this is due to the earth's motion along
its orbit, so we see that reference star from a slightly different
perspective each night, with respect to the fixed stars, a difference
that we do NOT see with respect to the sun.

Just because actual measurements show that it takes an average of 24
hours to go from noon to noon, and also that is takes a few minutes
less to go from star A to star A, doesn't make either measurement
invalid, it is what it is, and anyone with half a brain can make the
same measurements, day after day and night after night. So what? We
all mark our daily lives with solar time because using sidereal time
would serve no purpose. I would guess that 99% of the earth's
population have never even heard of sidereal time, and there is no
reason for them to do so, it has no consequence whatsoever in their
lives, and it has very little value in mine. Sidereal time is about as
important to humanity as boobs on a bullfrog, but it definitely
exists.

What exactly do people wish to do ?,the basic facts linking
shape,rotation and time for rotation only support the reasoning which
reflects the creation of the 24 hour day and its transfer to daily
rotation as a constant and this involves the principles which separate
natural noon from 24 hour clock noon.

I don't see where anyone wants to change anything. We will move
forward using solar time (until the actual length of the day changes
enough to measure it), and a few of us will understand sidereal time
for what it is.





I do not understand how this is happening ,I can understand the
trekkie and Sam who live in an unreal astrological realm where there
are no *boundaries between speculation and fiction but this is the
most basic,basic planetary facts imaginable and that an alternative
value is posited for the third fact is close to being catastrophic by
any measure.If a person believed in a flat Earth through his own
conclusions they would rightly be ignored,likewise people who believe
in a stationary Earth through their owjn reasoning yet here we have
that awful reasoning which switches the reference for daily rotation
from natural noon to the stellar background hence the 23 hour 56
minute 04 second value !.
This is not a game,this is dead serious and it needs to be treated for
the actual crisis that it is.This is also the usenet and all my
attempts for years can be set aside as nothing just so long as people
can actually spot the same distortion I am looking at by making
comparisons with Huygens treatise.There is nothing honorable in
distorting the 3 planetary facts *that are linked one to the other by
shape.rotation and time for nothing will make sense in terms of
planetary dynamics and *besides,the 'sidereal time' fact is so bad
that it cannot even be considered for pure political reasons.

You are making a big deal about absolutely nothing. NOTHING AT ALL!
Sidereal time is not now and never has been offered as an alternative
to solar time, they are just observations of earth's motions using
different frames of reference. There is no crisis, there is no
illusion, there are no terrible consequenses, and no one is trying to
fool you with a game of 3-card Monty.

You seem to be really upset about this, but your fears are groundless.

The earth moves how it moves, and it has been doing it for a long
time, and we can do nothing about it. We can only make observations
and then try to come up with a model that explains "how things really
are". Many great thinkers, all of them a lot smarter than you or I,
seem to have figured it out to a high degree of precision, and none of
them did it entirely on their own, each built upon the ideas preceding
themselves, and I marvel at their results. I learn something new about
astronomy every day.

It amazes me that you never, ever seem to question your own
conclusions, because we all make mistakes, no one is perfect. Would it
be so terrible for you to admit that sometimes you get it wrong, like
everyone else does?

"Only having a curious mind and making mistakes gains us real wisdom."

"You have the ability to learn from your mistakes. You will learn a
lot today."

\Paul A- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 29, 2:47*pm, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:
On 28 May, 19:01, palsing wrote:

What follows is a really excellent analysis of the situation that
Kelleher - and Kelleher alone - refuses to accept.

Faced with material of this quality what does Kelleher do? Same as
always! - he just starts to repeat minor variations of the same old
material he has posted thousands of time before.

We he to admit to any scientific error on his own part he would have
to accept that he has wasted many hours a week over several years
promoting his incorrect views. So he will not.

The same argument applies to the, perfectly valid, questions about his
failure to fully write up and explain exactly how his views differ
from main stream opinion.

Posting his rubbish is his hobby and his obsession. Perhaps we should
just ignore him and/or create an FAQ about him which we use to respond
to his madness.

Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

'We' indeed ! and besides this is the unmoderated usenet,if you don't
wish to read a thread then don't,if you feel like responding do and I
uphold the right of any person to respond regardless of what they do
or do not believe just so long as it is not scatological or truly
offensive.

All this has a direction,the breaking in two of a bottleneck that is
stopping our race from pursuing its natural adventurous spirit by
wasting efforts of wide sweeping speculative notions that exist in the
minds of theorists alone,many of which are entirely infected with an
astrological framework.Speculation is an magnificent human faculty but
it can happen that it turns into fiction without the safeguards of
physical considerations,in this instance,a very poor conclusion from
the late 17th century.

The moon missions remain unmatched for human achievements in terms of
technology and ingenuity however they lacked the context to extend the
achievements beyond the journey there and back.With so much effort
given towards affirming speculative notions of 'dark matter/
energy',life elsewhere in the Universe and the speculative and
nonsensical bb framework for the universe, there is little sense of
exploring near space and the ocean depths in context of planetary
existence.The lament of David Leckrone is that there is no direction
to build on when all that exists are mathematical models and theorists
following their astrologically based inclinations which are
founded,not on speculation but fiction.

It may be that the next spirit of human adventure will be discovering
the planet beneath the ocean with something like a command module
(submarine) and the equivalent of a 'moon rover' with all the
incredible power of modern imaging techniques to light up the dark and
view the landscapes in the same manner as surface features,anything to
keep the human spirit of adventure alive.Until scientists drop the
pretense and consider planetary dynamics in the way they should,human
exploration of space will always lack that context which is needed to
build venturing there and that is why I come here day and and day out
to break in two that stranglehold of late 17th century astrological
mutations.

As for your endeavor,it looks like you are looking at a handful of
sand and taking note how one grain shines a bit different than
another,I sure you get a great thrill out of it but I think our race
can do much better.

In any case,I did not find an astronomer here who thought more about
the wider implications of what they believed,at least beyond the
magnification exercise,hence the lack of context or the prevalence of
speculative novelties that have more in common with fiction than
substance.

On May 29, 8:53*am, oriel36 wrote:

'We' indeed ! and besides this is the unmoderated usenet,if you don't
wish to read a thread then don't,if you feel like responding do and I
uphold the right of any person to respond regardless of what they do
or do not believe just so long as it is not scatological or truly
offensive.

It certainly is true that no one has the authority to forbid you to
respond to a post on an unmoderated USENET group.

Generally speaking, however, a statement of that nature should be
taken as meaning the poster is only interested in replies from a
person other than that named.

John Savard