Oriel - what again?

Second Attempt

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.


He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.


Yes or no?

On Dec 30, 6:37*am, oriel36 wrote:

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by
what circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be
depicted on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of
geometers" *Kepler

And the trouble is that the true and ideal path of the planets - not
in an arbitrary sense of circular orbits, which Kepler disproved, but
in terms of both their actual paths and the true causes of those paths
- is now known, but this knowledge rests on the laws of gravitation,
of mechanics, and of special and even (particularly in the case of
Mercury) general relativity... all things you have rejected as
empiricism, the opposite of contemplative astronomy.

So you seek knowledge, but you spurn the very well from whence true,
accurate, and dependable knowledge on these matters comes. And you
wonder why so contradictory an action has made you a subject of
ridicule.

John Savard

On Dec 30, 2:40*pm, Martin Nicholson
wrote:

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

He disputes no facts as far as the simple situation of the naked-eye
stars was as known to Galileo, so he will admit that the stars will be
displaced about 180 degrees in relation to the poles in the sky
between those viewings.

Even if he does not deign to answer questions from those of us he
holds in contempt for so savagely rejecting his great revelations.

John Savard

On Dec 30, 5:03*pm, Quadibloc wrote:

He disputes no facts as far as the simple situation of the naked-eye
stars was as known to Galileo, so he will admit that the stars will be
displaced about 180 degrees in relation to the poles in the sky
between those viewings.

Even if he does not deign to answer questions from those of us he
holds in contempt for so savagely rejecting his great revelations.

Having, at an earlier stage in his presence on this newsgroup, engaged
him in discussion, I have slowly and patiently worked out what his
misconceptions appear to be.

He accepts the Copernican model of the Solar System. He considers
Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler as great astronomers, worthy of our
respect.

Most of us see Newton as a worthy successor to those men; by providing
a physical explanation for the motions of the planets as accurately
described by Kepler, it was Newton that changed the Copernican system
from a hypothesis people could choose, even with increased difficulty,
to reject, to a hard fact that it would be madness to deny.

However, Oriel sees it as an indignity to the heavens to explain the
motions of the Moon and planets by the same physical laws as govern
cannonballs on Earth - as an offensive insult to God, to explain the
workings of His heavens by the rules which govern our hellish death-
dealing instruments.

That's what is at the root of his problem: he thinks with his
*feelings*, and assumes that intuition (guided by some responsible
hierarchy, i.e. the Catholic Church) rather than theory plus
mathematics tested by experiment, the empirical scientific method, is
the way to gain trustworthy knowledge.

The other issues are minor in comparison. Basically, he sees the Solar
System as having a hierarchical structure; thus, the Earth's
rotational motion exists in relation to the Sun and the Earth's orbit
around the Sun... and similarly the Moon's motions exist in relation
to the Earth and the Moon's motion around the Earth.

Trying to tie the Earth's rotation to the stars is... homocentric, sub-
geocentric, and an illegitimate bypassing of the Solar System's chain
of command!

I mean, it's not as if the Sun was giving the Earth illegal orders, so
that we had to relieve the Sun of its command... the Sun is behaving
entirely in accordance with God's Law, so we have to accept the
Earth's place in the hierarchy... or we'll get into the kind of
trouble that the Silmarils got those Elves into!

I suspect it will take an audience with the Pope to get him to see
reason, and likely not even that.

John Savard

On Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:52:20 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:

Sirius lies along the same orbital plane as the Earth...


No, it does not, it is far south of the orbital plane of the earth...


and as a

consequence ,for a period it will become lost behind the glare of the

central Sun as the Earth move around its orbital circuit.

Not exactly. It is in the glare of the Sun, yes, for about 70 days per year, but Sirius is still still about 80 solar diameters away from the Sun at its closest approach.

The Egyptians noticed,using the Nile inundation as a gauge,that the

appearance of Sirius occurred a day later after every 4th year which

should easily translate into rotations for those who firmly believe

that one rotation and one 24 hour AM/PM cycle are the same.

Yes, this is true for synodic rotations, that is, WRT the Sun, and we all know this, no disagreement here... but our old friend, the sidereal rotation, is something different... and there is no conflict between them, none at all. It is all a simple matter of definition.

On Dec 31, 1:43*am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:52:20 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
Sirius lies along the same orbital plane as the Earth...

No, it does not, it is far south of the orbital plane of the earth...

and as a

consequence ,for a period it will become lost behind the glare of the

central Sun as the *Earth move around its orbital circuit.

Not exactly. It is in the glare of the Sun, yes, for about 70 days per year, but Sirius is still still about 80 solar diameters away from the Sun at its closest approach.

The Egyptians noticed,using the Nile inundation as a gauge,that the

appearance of Sirius occurred a day later after every 4th year which

should easily translate into rotations for those who firmly believe

that one rotation and one 24 hour AM/PM cycle are the same.

Yes, this is true for synodic rotations, that is, WRT the Sun, and we all know this, no disagreement here... but our old friend, the sidereal rotation, is something different... and there is no conflict between them, none at all. It is all a simple matter of definition.

The only proportion that counts is the number of times the Earth turns
daily for the equivalent number of times it makes a circuit of the Sun
- I wouldn't say the proof using Sirius is trivial bit neither is it
rocket science .As the sole star remaining in the brightness of the
Sun,Sirius appears bright after the first 365 days/rotations and then
slightly diminishes in brightness after the next 365 days/rotations as
the 1/4 rotation's worth of orbital motion omitted in a year causes
Sirius to drift back into the glare of the Sun,again in the 3rd year
and by the 4th year after 365 days it is not visible at all.The extra
day's worth of orbital motion brings Sirius back into view where the
whole 1461 day/rotation process begins once more.There is no reason to
diverge from the core system which connect the 24 hour AM/PM cycle to
the Lat/Long system and certainly not for an unsightly imbalance
between days and rotations derived from Ra/Dec reckoning as properly
understood ,the reference system of the central Sun and Sirius is the
only proper 'solar vs sidereal' foundation for timekeeping as long as
days and rotations are kept in step.

Once they declare that the Earth is no longer a good daily timekeeper
and congratulate themselves on their hyper accurate watches - then
what ?,all terrestrial sciences depending on the Earth's motions rely
on an accurate relationship between rotations and orbital cycles and
the arguments proposed to sever the ties between rotation and
timekeeping are fatally flawed in this respect.Instead of dealing with
a 'leap second' as something that was bogus to begin with,they take
the catastrophic action of severing the ties with rotation altogether
even though the Ra/Dec reckoning has the Earth spinning 1465 times in
1461 days !.

People are better than this.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Dec 31, 1:43 am, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:52:20 AM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
Sirius lies along the same orbital plane as the Earth...

No, it does not, it is far south of the orbital plane of the earth...

and as a

consequence ,for a period it will become lost behind the glare of the

central Sun as the Earth move around its orbital circuit.

Not exactly. It is in the glare of the Sun, yes, for about 70 days per
year, but Sirius is still still about 80 solar diameters away from the Sun
at its closest approach.

The Egyptians noticed,using the Nile inundation as a gauge,that the

appearance of Sirius occurred a day later after every 4th year which

should easily translate into rotations for those who firmly believe

that one rotation and one 24 hour AM/PM cycle are the same.

Yes, this is true for synodic rotations, that is, WRT the Sun, and we all
know this, no disagreement here... but our old friend, the sidereal
rotation, is something different... and there is no conflict between them,
none at all. It is all a simple matter of definition.

The only proportion that counts is the number of times the Earth turns
daily for the equivalent number of times it makes a circuit of the Sun
- I wouldn't say the proof using Sirius is trivial bit neither is it
rocket science .As the sole star remaining in the brightness of the
Sun,Sirius appears bright after the first 365 days/rotations and then
slightly diminishes in brightness after the next 365 days/rotations

=================================================
That must be Kelleher's rocket science...
There are 366 and a quarter appearances of Sirius in the skies of Earth in a
year, boy, and it remains the same brightness in infrared astronomy used for
day or night.

-- 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.

I insist that none of this is in anyway difficult and yet it goes a
long way to undoing damage done previously,whether the community
chooses to fix things is another matter and completely beyond the
control of any one individual.The fact that Sirius doesn't appear
after 4 consecutive years of 365 days opens up the explanation for why
an extra day's worth of rotation and as the Earth moves around its
circuit,brings Sirius back into view once more hence the observation
that an orbital cycle takes 1461 days should reduce to trivia that
there are 365 1/4 rotations per circuit and why the Ra/Dec reckoning
is really based on the 365/366 rotation format - a subtle but
importance difference.

I feel the fear of exposure to ridicule is an illusion,they are
already creating variants which try to bypass the celestial sphere
conclusion and daily rotation for a more ambiguous view using the year
1820 as a foundation for rotation once in 24 hours so why the
community doesn't just go directly to the core observations in
antiquity to learn what reference belongs where and besides, the
development of the calendar system and expressed in dynamical terms is
such a thrilling read.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

I insist
=================================================
That must be Kelleher's thuggish rocket science...
There are 366 and a quarter appearances of Sirius in the skies of Earth in a
year, THUG, and it remains the same brightness in infrared astronomy used
for
day or night.

-- 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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKWz3N80aHA