#1
|
|||
|
|||
No standard
Astronomers you ain't,that much is certain.Even if you hijack the title
and others do not notice you are little more than cataloguers. An astronomer has the final say on what works and what does'nt,the very fact is that my astronomical heritage is in the hands of a bunch of mathematical freaks who could'nt make an observation to save their lives let alone distinguish between perceived motions from Earth and actual motions. Powerful telescopes supply more data but they are worthless in the hands of theorists and it has been that way for centuries.Passing on Newton's empirical illness to future generations assures that astronomy will eventually die in all but name for the theorists have left you nothing left to observe. Good enough for people who have no standards , no sense of the scale and majesty of the cosmos and no way to pass that on to future generations. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:36:24 GMT, DH wrote:
Poor Grammar : * ain't,that : no space between comma and next word, * certain.Even : see above, * centuries.Passing : see above, * could'nt : apostrophe in wrong position, * does'nt : see above, * does'nt,the : double fault, * standards , no : unrequired space between standards and comma, Let's hope, for goodness sake, that he has never taught children! Perhaps he once got a job as a teacher and was kicked out for being carp. This would explain his pointless ranting against those who could command far more respect than this moron with the nail on their little finger. * for the theorists have left you nothing left to observe : Wow, tautology, that's cool ! Back to teaching again ;-) 3/10 for Grammar, +1 for the tautology, which I rather enjoyed, 0/10 for making any sense whatsoever ! Try to keep a constant angular score of 1 point per mistake and you will find that at a greater distance from the meaningful point your intention will cover a greater distance around the circumference of the bowl. Now you are probably too courteous to figure out that this is contrary to Kipper lotion as the Earth travels slower when it's relatively faster on two orbits than it's inclination and Thuban was the true pole star of degrees of circumpolar distance. You dumbass! ;-) Ta dah... I can talk his language too - aka bollox. -- Pete http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder if you would force your child to make sense of the NMM
explanation for axial rotation and the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec. "Each solar day the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the Sun. Similarly the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the background stars in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361=BA with respect to the background stars." http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000 No doubt there has to be at least one responsible parent out there who can recognise that something went badly wrong without trying to make excuses, insofar as that error is the thin end of a very big wedge that ends in relativity and the exotic trash of that cartoon concept. Again,would you force your child to make sense of that explanation from the NMM ?. I suspect you lot are cruel enough to make excuses and wangle your way out but then you become subhuman. At least I can say I tried. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Read and absorb a few books (not pop)
Try to understand what they are saying. Stop listening to the chavs in the pub. Read some of DJ Min's posts and you'll see how poor a troll you really are. jc -- http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A location along longitude does NOT rotate to face the Sun every 24
hours. Our ancestors ASSUMED constant axial rotation and corrected it by the Equation of Time hence there is no external reference for axial rotation through 360 degrees ,neither against the Sun nor the stars. It may eventually dawn on somebody that the Equation of Time format based on axial rotation/terrestial longitudes precedes the calendrically based sidereal system or rather the sidereal format is based on the 24 hour/360 degrees equivalency. Big topic,small people ( at least so far). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Lawrence wrote:
Let's hope, for goodness sake, that he has never taught children! Perhaps he once got a job as a teacher and was kicked out for being carp. You Fish-ist *******...... Steve |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote:
Big topic, small people ( at least so far). Big topics contain big nuts... -- Pete Lawrence http://www.digitalsky.org.uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Proposal for an APO "standard:" TMBs 100mm f8 | RichA | Amateur Astronomy | 24 | November 30th 04 04:50 AM |
Fractal Wavicles and the Incomplete Standard Model | Mad Scientist | Misc | 0 | August 26th 04 07:13 AM |
The Standard of BBC reporting nowadays | James Cook | UK Astronomy | 2 | February 27th 04 12:32 PM |
Anyone had success with afocal photography using standard digital cameras? | Tim Powers | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | December 13th 03 02:28 AM |
How are 'standard' Celestron eyepieces? | Timothy O'Connor | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 30th 03 02:57 AM |