A game for oriel36 et al to play

On Nov 27, 12:15*pm, oriel36 wrote:

NOW FAILED SEVEN TIMES - I WILL TRY AGAIN


So lets see how and for how long he can evade answering a simple
question. A question that is central to where he parts company from
mainstream astronomical thought.


**** Do you accept that the sidereal day is less than 24 hours long
( about 23 h 56 m 4.1 s) Please answer either YES or NO ****


Any answer orial36 gives apart from the one word answer yes or no
will result in a fail grade. The question will then be asked again
until he does answer the question with a simple YES or NO.

On Nov 27, 3:38*pm, badastrobuster wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:15*pm, oriel36 wrote:

NOW FAILED SEVEN TIMES - I WILL TRY AGAIN



If you failed 7 times there is no need to keep trying.

Maybe somebody should fill you in on duelin' banjos as all you are
doing now is shouting that you failed and need to try again and if you
blink - game over.You got one shot at being clever,made a mess of it
by including 'et al' into the game but checkmate is checkmate,can't
say it means anything accept disposing of a nuisance but I can't
imagine making everyone the same as you can be pleasant.

You won't fail the 8th time,you will succeed once again.

On Nov 26, 12:54*am, badastrobuster wrote:

Any answer orial36 gives apart from the one word answer yes or no will
result in a fail grade. The question will then be asked again until he
does answer the question with a simple YES or NO.

Feckwit (Oriel36) is incapable of answering simple questions,
especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so
would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous
theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.

Feckwit is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single
professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he
must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of
both the past and the present.

Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories,
Feckwit will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers,
which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as
evidence for them.

Feckwit is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no
anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not
stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.

Many have tried to explain basic celestial mechanics to Feckwit in
simple, easy-to-understand terms, but he either doesn't read these
posts or doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Instead, he
responds to such posts by essentially starting all over again, from
the top, with the same old worn-out arguments that my 14-year-old
granddaughter can blow out of the water with one swat. I have to give
him credit, he carries on undeterred, and unconvinced that there is
ever any possibility that that he is even slightly in error.

Unlike the majority of us, Feckwit has never learned anything here,
and only in rare cases does he agree with anyone at all. It seems to
me that whenever an interesting thread is started, it is soon
disrupted by you-know-who's venomous desultory philippic, and the
whole thing is hijacked for good.

Arguing with Feckwit is like hitting your head against the wall in
that it feels pretty good when you finally stop doing it. Disagreeing
with Feckwit is quite fruitless, he is not at all receptive to
friendly instruction, and often counters by calling you names, and
that is too bad, because there are (and were) a lot of really smart
people here who have a lot to offer the rest of us, and jerks like
Feckwit drive them away. Maybe he requires everyone's attention all of
the time.

Feckwit wouldn't last 2 minutes on any moderated forum, and in that I
find immense satisfaction.

Here is a really simple question for Feckwit; How many forums have
banned you from participating?

I'm pretty sure this was written specifically for Feckwit;

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

On Nov 27, 5:25*pm, palsing wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:54*am, badastrobuster wrote:

Any answer orial36 gives apart from the one word answer yes or no will
result in a fail grade. The question will then be asked again until he
does answer the question with a simple YES or NO.

Feckwit (Oriel36) is incapable of answering simple questions,
especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer.

He keeps writing that he failed and needs to try again,

NOW FAILED SEVEN TIMES - I WILL TRY AGAIN

Did he write this himself only requires a yes or no answer.

Then he gets his answer.

"palsing" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 12:54 am, badastrobuster wrote:

Any answer orial36 gives apart from the one word answer yes or no will
result in a fail grade. The question will then be asked again until he
does answer the question with a simple YES or NO.

Feckwit (Oriel36) is incapable of answering simple questions,
especially those that only require a YES or a NO answer. To do so
would eventually lead to the unraveling of his wispy and tenuous
theories, which the rest of us already know are 100% inaccurate.

Feckwit is all alone with his theories, he has not found a single
professional who agrees with him. Because of this, he reasons that he
must be superior to literally all of the great scientific minds of
both the past and the present.

Even in the face of STRONG CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE to his theories,
Feckwit will only regurgitate endless quotes of dead astronomers,
which he doesn't actually understand or interpret correctly, as
evidence for them.

Feckwit is no astronomer, just as he is no climatologist, no
anthropologist, no mathematician, or no geologist, but this does not
stop him from spouting non-stop drivel, day after day.

Many have tried to explain basic celestial mechanics to Feckwit in
simple, easy-to-understand terms, but he either doesn't read these
posts or doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Instead, he
responds to such posts by essentially starting all over again, from
the top, with the same old worn-out arguments that my 14-year-old
granddaughter can blow out of the water with one swat. I have to give
him credit, he carries on undeterred, and unconvinced that there is
ever any possibility that that he is even slightly in error.

Unlike the majority of us, Feckwit has never learned anything here,
and only in rare cases does he agree with anyone at all. It seems to
me that whenever an interesting thread is started, it is soon
disrupted by you-know-who's venomous desultory philippic, and the
whole thing is hijacked for good.

Arguing with Feckwit is like hitting your head against the wall in
that it feels pretty good when you finally stop doing it. Disagreeing
with Feckwit is quite fruitless, he is not at all receptive to
friendly instruction, and often counters by calling you names, and
that is too bad, because there are (and were) a lot of really smart
people here who have a lot to offer the rest of us, and jerks like
Feckwit drive them away. Maybe he requires everyone's attention all of
the time.

Feckwit wouldn't last 2 minutes on any moderated forum, and in that I
find immense satisfaction.

Here is a really simple question for Feckwit; How many forums have
banned you from participating?

I'm pretty sure this was written specifically for Feckwit;

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

"I have proven that special relativity/quantum mechanics/... is wrong."
You mean you did an experiment whose results disagree with the predictions
of that theory? I didn't think so. You mean you proved it is
self-contradictory? Not possible: Mathematically it's an elementary system,
whose consistency is easy to check. You might as well claim that you can
prove 2+2=5. (If you think you can do that, I'm willing to give you $2+$2
change for a $5 bill.) If you think you have found an inconsistency, you
have probably made an assumption...

Assumptions I do NOT make:

1) But it is not possible without further ASSUMPTION to compare, in respect
of time, an event at A with an event at B.
2) We ASSUME that this definition of synchronism is free from
contradictions, and possible for any number of points;
3) In agreement with experience we further ASSUME the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA)
= c
4) Current kinematics tacitly ASSUMES that the lengths determined by these
two operations are precisely equal
5) and where for brevity it is ASSUMED that at the origin of k, tau = 0,
when t=0.
6) If no ASSUMPTION whatever be made as to the initial position of the
moving system and as to the zero point of tau
7) We now have to prove that any ray of light, measured in the moving
system, is propagated with the velocity c, if, as we have ASSUMED, this is
the case in the stationary system
8) If we ASSUME that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid
for a continuously curved line,
9) and our equations ASSUME the form
10) When phi = 0 the equation ASSUMES the perspicuous form
11) the equation for phi' ASSUMES the form
12) for the law of motion of which we ASSUME as follows
13) we may and will ASSUME that the electron, at the moment when we give it
our attention
14) From the above ASSUMPTION, in combination with the principle of
relativity

Special relativity is nothing but assumptions.

GPS would not work if the velocity of light in our theory didn't play the
part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity, no matter how many quacks
think it should.


"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" --§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations
Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
-- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein

You've found an ignorant bigot page, palsing.

On Nov 27, 9:17*am, oriel36 wrote:

Maybe somebody should fill you in on duelin' banjos

I had to view headers on this one; I was worried that someone was
forging a post in your name.

Anyways, here's a link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmMk9tsCjsc

John Savard

On Nov 27, 9:59*am, "Androcles"

You've found an ignorant bigot page, *palsing.

Perhaps the only people who find this page bigoted are the people who
fit the descriptions offered there... you know like "Their theory
could never be wrong; therefore everyone else's must be."

Sound familiar?

On 11/27/10 6:15 AM, oriel36 wrote:
...organization like NASA... argues for 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

That's because there ARE 366.24+ rotation of the earth every
astronomical year!

During its orbit around the Sun, the earth rotates one whole extra
rotation, so of course there are 366.24+ rotation. Try not to be
so stooopid, Gerald.

On Nov 27, 11:00*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/27/10 6:15 AM, oriel36 wrote:

...organization like NASA... argues for 366 1/4 rotations in a year.

* *That's because there ARE 366.24+ rotation of the earth every
* *astronomical year!


I always thought the origins of the calendar system was lost to
history until I came across the stone of Canopus where these people
lay out the structure of the leap day correction which includes the
observation that there are never more than 365 day/night cycles in a
year and the annual cycle was not determined within a stellar
circumpolar framework but the annual reappearance of Sirius or Sothis
as it was known -

"....on account of the procession of the rising of the Divine Sothis
by one day in the course of 4 years, and other festivals celebrated in
the summer, in this country, shall not be celebrated in winter, as has
occasionally occurred 22 in past times, therefore it shall be, that
the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day as
feast of Benevolent Gods [ Pharoah and family] be from this day after
every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year, whereby
all men shall learn, that what was a little defective in the order as
regards the seasons and the year, as also the opinions which are
contained in the rules of the learned on the heavenly orbits, are now
corrected and improved by the Benevolent Gods."

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/...pus_decree.htm

Here is an astronomical document in stone that is nearly on par with
the Commentariolis of Copernicus as there is no part of the system
that we do not use,the equal 24 hour day,the steady progression of
these days,the additional leap day correction to keep the daily cycles
in line with the orbital cycles and here you are with your 366 1/4
rotations in a year in trying to mock this great astronomical history
that you have right in front of you.

The decree is an invitation that " all men shall learn" just how old
and refined the discipline of astronomy is and it relies on the
goodness of men and their ability to adapt and use their observations
to good ends for all men.Somebody is bound to feel the loss,it does
not matter how deeply involved in the career system,here is history
staring them in the face in that men with literally basic tools could
design a system that is so stable and so efficient that it lasted
until the Gregorian correction in an era close to ours.





* *During its orbit around the Sun, the earth rotates one whole extra
* *rotation, so of course there are 366.24+ rotation. Try not to be
* *so stooopid, Gerald.

On Nov 28, 7:56*am, oriel36 wrote:

ORIEL36 HAS NOW FAILED EIGHT TIMES - I WILL TRY AGAIN

So lets see how and for how long he can evade answering a simple
question. A question that is central to where he parts company from
mainstream astronomical thought.


**** Do you accept that the sidereal day is less than 24 hours long
( about 23 h 56 m 4.1 s) Please answer either YES or NO ****


Any answer orial36 gives apart from the one word answer yes or no
will result in a fail grade. The question will then be asked again
until he does answer the question with a simple YES or NO.