Before the nonsense breaks out

The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.The foundations of his experimental agenda
applied to planetary motions rests on the 'predictive' nature of the
Ra/Dec system and its revision by John Flamsteed based solely on axial
coordinates.The precepts of Flamsteed were false in assigning a
conclusion based on linking celestial sphere geometry directly to
axial rotation and subsequently obligating that orbital motion be
explained by the same framework,the observational convenience of the
Ra/Dec system in predicting the location of a celestial object against
zodiacal geometry and the calendar system obliterated the reasoning of
heliocentric astronomers who used orbital comparisons and physical
considerations in their methods,working principles and insights.

The extension of the 'scientific method' to all areas of terrestrial/
celestial phenomena,using the Newton/Flamsteed framework could only
have one very unfortunate result -


" I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't
know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus
paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the
results of measurements." Hawking

That man is not lying but he hardly knows that the founding principles
behind the mathematician's intrusion into astronomy emerged from a
very basic error that remains to be corrected,an error that belongs to
Flamsteed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first real influence of the usenet is the creation of the
Intelligent Design/Darwinism scenario,I remember the first arguments
on 'design' were actually among biologists and they were interesting
as was the usenet at the time when intelligent discussions were
possible among adults -

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....9fc9e5d525f556

The empiricists were just as quick to force the arguments into a
science/religion context (as seen in the thread above) as anyone else
so they have nobody but themselves to blame when they get rolled by
creationists as I knew almost instantly when I seen what was coming -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...758f83f565520f

Now I will make another prediction,which is the sole purpose of this
thread.Darwinism/Intelligent design is just a diversion for a much
more realistic and tougher challenge that few can engage in.As the
empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground,the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few
can handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not.

There should be no doubt that a different atmosphere prevails at
present as nothing new is emerging and the only voices heard as those
who have adopted poor standards for matters of faith and terrestrial/
celestial phenomena.Behind it all,work will go on and genuine people
are needed more than ever.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.

So what is your point?

"OG" wrote in message
...

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.

So what is your point?

You state explicitly that there is a challenge that "few can engage in. As
the empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground, the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few can
handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not".

So cut the crap and get to the point. Given the failure of your erstwhile
prolixity I suggest you stick to no more than 5 sentences to put across your
point of view.

Lesson No.1: science is indcutive, not ideological.

oriel36 wrote:

The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.The foundations of his experimental agenda
applied to planetary motions rests on the 'predictive' nature of the
Ra/Dec system and its revision by John Flamsteed based solely on axial
coordinates.The precepts of Flamsteed were false in assigning a
conclusion based on linking celestial sphere geometry directly to
axial rotation and subsequently obligating that orbital motion be
explained by the same framework,the observational convenience of the
Ra/Dec system in predicting the location of a celestial object against
zodiacal geometry and the calendar system obliterated the reasoning of
heliocentric astronomers who used orbital comparisons and physical
considerations in their methods,working principles and insights.

The extension of the 'scientific method' to all areas of terrestrial/
celestial phenomena,using the Newton/Flamsteed framework could only
have one very unfortunate result -

" I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't
know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus
paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the
results of measurements." Hawking

That man is not lying but he hardly knows that the founding principles
behind the mathematician's intrusion into astronomy emerged from a
very basic error that remains to be corrected,an error that belongs to
Flamsteed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first real influence of the usenet is the creation of the
Intelligent Design/Darwinism scenario,I remember the first arguments
on 'design' were actually among biologists and they were interesting
as was the usenet at the time when intelligent discussions were
possible among adults -

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....9fc9e5d525f556

The empiricists were just as quick to force the arguments into a
science/religion context (as seen in the thread above) as anyone else
so they have nobody but themselves to blame when they get rolled by
creationists as I knew almost instantly when I seen what was coming -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...758f83f565520f

Now I will make another prediction,which is the sole purpose of this
thread.Darwinism/Intelligent design is just a diversion for a much
more realistic and tougher challenge that few can engage in.As the
empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground,the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few
can handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not.

There should be no doubt that a different atmosphere prevails at
present as nothing new is emerging and the only voices heard as those
who have adopted poor standards for matters of faith and terrestrial/
celestial phenomena.Behind it all,work will go on and genuine people
are needed more than ever.

jerry warner wrote:

Lesson No.1: science is indcutive, not ideological.

oriel36 wrote:

(big snip)

I kill-filed that dude long since, and had just about forgotten he
exists. Don't know why I looked at this post; that sort of subject line
normally puts me off. Since I'm here, I wonder where "oriel36" gets his
nonsense? Are people like him all insane? A physicist showed me a
collection of letters that he had received from a seriously disturbed
patient at a mental hospital. Collectively they painted a sad picture
of a sick person. New theories of gravity, FTL travel, a new quantum
theory, the imminent death of the Sun, that sort of thing. They were
very much like the stuff oriel36 writes. Pathetic.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

On Apr 12, 1:17*am, "OG" wrote:
"OG" wrote in message

...

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
The 'scientific *method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of *planets as a 'law'.

So what is your point?

You state explicitly that there is a challenge that "few can engage in. As
the empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground, the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few can
handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not".

So cut the crap and get to the point. Given the failure of your erstwhile
prolixity I suggest you stick to no more than 5 sentences to put across your
point of view.

Just for you - The 'scientific method' as it is applied to astronomy
is based on an astrological framework,the existence of which emerged
with Flamsteed and his untenable conclusion that the return of any
star to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier every 24 hours proves
that axial rotation is constant .For a star to return 3 minutes 56
seconds earlier without exception requires the calendar system of 3
years of 365 day and 1 year of 366 days therefore it is useless to
frame orbital motion withing such a geometrical scheme -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

Building concepts on such a view of the Earth's motions is no better
or worse that a geostationary or flat Earth notion,the fact that the
so-called 'Universal law of gravitation',the idea which saw the
introduction of empiricism into is built on that cockeyed framework.

On Apr 12, 6:36*am, Davoud wrote:
jerry warner wrote:
Lesson No.1: *science is indcutive, not ideological.

oriel36 wrote:
(big snip)

I kill-filed that dude long since, and had just about forgotten he
exists. Don't know why I looked at this post; that sort of subject line
normally puts me off. Since I'm here, I wonder where "oriel36" gets his
nonsense? Are people like him all insane? A physicist showed me a
collection of letters that he had received from a seriously disturbed
patient at a mental hospital. Collectively they painted a sad picture
of a sick person. New theories of gravity, FTL travel, a new quantum
theory, the imminent death of the Sun, that sort of thing. They were
very much like the stuff oriel36 writes. Pathetic.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

My turn.

How many people here can honestly say that they know what Newton
actually did,they probably heard that an apple falling from a tree
give him the idea for planetary motion and the 'theory of gravity' and
that is about it.I had a look at his reasoning ,how he arrived at his
conclusions and how he bent the works of my astronomical heritage
(Copernicus,Kepler) to his purpose but rather than the work of a
genius,I found the same snivelling deceit which still marks the
empirical approach to astronomy seen in the sci.forums day in and day
out.

People looking at the following paragraph from Newton would probably
make an attempt to understand it (as an example of many such
paragraphs) as the supposed working of the mind of a genius but after
going through the whole paragraph and ending with a sentence like
that,they would and should certainly feel cheated as the only honest
experience. -

"The causes by which true, and relative motions are distinguished, one
from the other, are the forces impressed upon bodies to generate
motion. True motion is neither generated nor altered, but by some
force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be
generated or altered without any force impressed upon the body. For it
is sufficient only to impress some force on other bodies with which
the former is compared, that by their giving way, that relation may be
changed, in which the relative rest or motion of this other body did
consist. Again, true motion suffers always some change from any force
impressed upon, the moving body; but relative motion does not
necessarily undergo any change by such forces. For if the same forces
are likewise impressed on those other bodies, with which the
comparison is made, that the relative position may be preserved, then
that condition will be preserved in which the relative motion
consists. And therefore any relative motion may be changed when the
true motion remains unaltered, and the relative may be preserved when
the true suffers some change. Upon which accounts, true motion does by
no means consist in such relations."
Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

The delightful astronomical insights were lost to junk like that,basic
astronomical insights like how Copernicus figured out orbital motion
and axial rotation,how Kepler and Roemer improved on the
geometries,how clocks were kept in sync with the axial cycle but it
all stops dead in the late 17th century as heliocentric reasoning
enters a dismal condition wrapped up in jargon spouting nonsense like
that passage from Newton above.The reasoning of Copernicus and Kepler
can be intricate but it is never impossible and never exploits the
reader's honesty and willingness to understand a point but in the
hands of that 17th century numbskull,the reader is bludgeoned into
submission,the price of accepting Newton's politics imposed on
astronomy is that the reader must become insane and this has continued
more or less unabated to the present era.There is no central theme to
relativity and qm or any other empirically bred notion as applied to
the astronomical arena,they thrive on making the reader feel
uncomfortable,like the reader should understand something when the
very theme is to have people run around in circles like a hamster l in
an empirical cage or in your case,a celestial sphere cage,feeling like
you are going somewhere but in fact you are never leaving the same
spot.


All the nonsense cannot disguise that the geometry behind the
empirical jargon is astrological,the predictive nature of the Ra/Dec
system imposed on the motions of the Earth is a barren approach and
that is that.There is much work for dynamicists to do in matters of
stellar evolution and dynamics and geodynamics but essentialy
structural astronomy is out of bounds and has been since day one.So
Davoud,a basic error wrapped up in jargon,all those nonsensical
theories has a common father - Flamsteed and his muddleheaded approach
to axial rotation.The problem is not that the reasoning behind the
error is difficult,it is just oh-so unfamiliar but that will change
soon enough.

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:17 am, "OG" wrote:

"OG" wrote in message

...


"oriel36" wrote in message
...

The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.

So what is your point?

You state explicitly that there is a challenge that "few can engage in. As
the empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground, the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few can
handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not".

So cut the crap and get to the point. Given the failure of your erstwhile
prolixity I suggest you stick to no more than 5 sentences to put across your
point of view.


Just for you - The 'scientific method' as it is applied to astronomy
is based on an astrological framework,the existence of which emerged
with Flamsteed and his untenable conclusion that the return of any
star to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier every 24 hours proves
that axial rotation is constant

You have a remarkable ability to obscure your message. Let's break down
your first sentence
"The 'scientific method' as it is applied to astronomy is based on an
astrological framework" - *Opinion*, as yet unsupported by argument

"the existence of which emerged with Flamsteed and his untenable
conclusion... " - *why "untenable"?* again an unsupported opinion

"...that the return of any star to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds
earlier every 24 hours" - we can accept this as true

"proves that axial rotation is constant" - Again, your lack of clarity
doesn't help. There are two possible interpretations of your last 2
clauses.
Either
A - Axial rotation IS constant, but the sidereal 'day'(24hours minus
3'56") is not proof of constant axial rotation.
or
B - Axial rotation is not constant and the laws of conservation of
angular momentum does not apply to the Earth.

Please try to clarify and support the claims made in your first sentence.

On Apr 12, 5:37*am, jerry warner wrote:
Lesson No.1: *science is indcutive, not ideological.


To be fair,that inductive/deductive reasoning stuff was fine in the
mid19th century when they did not have powerful imaging.,time lapse
footage ,the internet and all the benefits we now have.If I wish to
show how Copernicus reasoned that the Earth has an orbital motion via
apparent retrograde motion ,I simply present the time lapse footage
appropriate to his method and insight .I can then compare it with
where Newton jumped the tracks with his reasoning as no images are
availible to support his method or conclusion.for retrograde motion.

I can go even further and demonstrate the first visual confirmation of
Keplerian orbital geometry via the change in orientation of the rings
of Uranus with respect to the central Sun insofar as the rings do not
turn with an even motion but will turn in accordance with Kepler's
orbital perspective of faster and slower orbital speeds.The point is
that modern imaging is so magnificent that sometimes it is easier to
go straight to images and enjoy them rather than going through a
lengthy process of reasoning or supply enough graphics to make the
appreciation easier to grasp -

http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/...13/FG13_06.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YV9WkQkUHZ4

http://space.newscientist.com/data/i...2529-1_800.jpg


I fully appreciate where this 'inductive' ideology came from and where
a transition of sorts occured in the mid 19th century which slanted
things towads mathematicians and proto-theorists/physicists as we know
them today.Again,as somebody who is very comfortable with what the
21st century provides in terms of imaging and how to affirm and reject
ideas based on physical considerations ,I know where the pitfalls
exist and the major one existed even before Newton cobbled together
his ballistic agenda applied to planetary motion -


http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...9 0.553.x.593

The mid 19th century is interesting insofar as it set the stage for
the exotic situation which occured in the early 20th century and which
is now coming to a head as concepts and the reasoning behind them are
becoming rapidly unstable.No wonder the Intelligent Design crowd are
reacting to the junk passing itself off as astronomy !.





oriel36 wrote:
The 'scientific *method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of *planets as a 'law'.The foundations of his experimental agenda
applied to planetary motions rests on the 'predictive' nature of the
Ra/Dec system and its revision by John Flamsteed based solely on axial
coordinates.The precepts of Flamsteed were false in assigning a
conclusion based on linking celestial sphere geometry directly *to
axial rotation and subsequently obligating that orbital motion be
explained by the same framework,the observational convenience of the
Ra/Dec system in predicting the location of a celestial object against
zodiacal geometry and the calendar system obliterated the reasoning of
heliocentric astronomers who used orbital comparisons and physical
considerations in their methods,working principles and insights.

The extension of the 'scientific method' to all areas of terrestrial/
celestial phenomena,using the *Newton/Flamsteed framework *could only
have one very unfortunate result -

*" *I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't
know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus
paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the
results of measurements." Hawking

That man is not lying but he hardly knows that the founding principles
behind the mathematician's intrusion into astronomy emerged from a
very basic error that remains to be corrected,an error that belongs to
Flamsteed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------*------------------------------------------------------------------

The first real influence of the usenet is the creation of the
Intelligent Design/Darwinism scenario,I remember the first arguments
on 'design' were actually among biologists and they were interesting
as was the usenet at the time when intelligent *discussions were
possible among adults *-

http://groups.google.com/group/talk....9fc9e5d525f556

The empiricists were just as quick to force the arguments into a
science/religion context (as seen in the thread above) as anyone else
so they have nobody but themselves to blame when they get rolled by
creationists *as I knew almost instantly when I seen what was coming -

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...758f83f565520f

Now I will make another prediction,which is the sole purpose of this
thread.Darwinism/Intelligent design is just a diversion for a much
more realistic and tougher challenge that few can engage in.As the
empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground,the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few
can handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not.

There should be no doubt that a different atmosphere prevails at
present *as nothing new is emerging and the only voices heard as those
who have adopted poor standards for matters of faith and terrestrial/
celestial phenomena.Behind it all,work will go on and genuine people
are needed more than ever.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:36 am, Davoud wrote:

jerry warner wrote:

Lesson No.1: science is indcutive, not ideological.

oriel36 wrote:
(big snip)

I kill-filed that dude long since, and had just about forgotten he
exists. Don't know why I looked at this post; that sort of subject line
normally puts me off. Since I'm here, I wonder where "oriel36" gets his
nonsense? Are people like him all insane? A physicist showed me a
collection of letters that he had received from a seriously disturbed
patient at a mental hospital. Collectively they painted a sad picture
of a sick person. New theories of gravity, FTL travel, a new quantum
theory, the imminent death of the Sun, that sort of thing. They were
very much like the stuff oriel36 writes. Pathetic.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com


My turn.

How many people here can honestly say that they know what Newton
actually did,they probably heard that an apple falling from a tree
give him the idea for planetary motion and the 'theory of gravity' and
that is about it.I had a look at his reasoning ,how he arrived at his
conclusions and how he bent the works of my astronomical heritage
(Copernicus,Kepler) to his purpose but rather than the work of a
genius,I found the same snivelling deceit which still marks the
empirical approach to astronomy seen in the sci.forums day in and day
out.

People looking at the following paragraph from Newton would probably
make an attempt to understand it (as an example of many such
paragraphs) as the supposed working of the mind of a genius but after
going through the whole paragraph and ending with a sentence like
that,they would and should certainly feel cheated as the only honest
experience. -

"The causes by which true, and relative motions are distinguished, one
from the other, are the forces impressed upon bodies to generate
motion. True motion is neither generated nor altered, but by some
force impressed upon the body moved; but relative motion may be
generated or altered without any force impressed upon the body. For it
is sufficient only to impress some force on other bodies with which
the former is compared, that by their giving way, that relation may be
changed, in which the relative rest or motion of this other body did
consist. Again, true motion suffers always some change from any force
impressed upon, the moving body; but relative motion does not
necessarily undergo any change by such forces. For if the same forces
are likewise impressed on those other bodies, with which the
comparison is made, that the relative position may be preserved, then
that condition will be preserved in which the relative motion
consists. And therefore any relative motion may be changed when the
true motion remains unaltered, and the relative may be preserved when
the true suffers some change. Upon which accounts, true motion does by
no means consist in such relations."
Newton

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/definitions.htm

The delightful astronomical insights were lost to junk like that,basic
astronomical insights like how Copernicus figured out orbital motion
and axial rotation,how Kepler and Roemer improved on the
geometries,how clocks were kept in sync with the axial cycle but it
all stops dead in the late 17th century as heliocentric reasoning
enters a dismal condition wrapped up in jargon spouting nonsense like
that passage from Newton above.The reasoning of Copernicus and Kepler
can be intricate but it is never impossible and never exploits the
reader's honesty and willingness to understand a point but in the
hands of that 17th century numbskull,the reader is bludgeoned into
submission,the price of accepting Newton's politics imposed on
astronomy is that the reader must become insane and this has continued
more or less unabated to the present era.There is no central theme to
relativity and qm or any other empirically bred notion as applied to
the astronomical arena,they thrive on making the reader feel
uncomfortable,like the reader should understand something when the
very theme is to have people run around in circles like a hamster l in
an empirical cage or in your case,a celestial sphere cage,feeling like
you are going somewhere but in fact you are never leaving the same
spot.


All the nonsense cannot disguise that the geometry behind the
empirical jargon is astrological,the predictive nature of the Ra/Dec
system imposed on the motions of the Earth is a barren approach and
that is that.There is much work for dynamicists to do in matters of
stellar evolution and dynamics and geodynamics but essentialy
structural astronomy is out of bounds and has been since day one.So
Davoud,a basic error wrapped up in jargon,all those nonsensical
theories has a common father - Flamsteed and his muddleheaded approach
to axial rotation.The problem is not that the reasoning behind the
error is difficult,it is just oh-so unfamiliar but that will change
soon enough.


All of which tells us that you disdain clarity.
Newton's quote is concerned with identifying 'true' motion, i.e.
acceleration under a force. He clarifies the distinction between
relative motion and absolute motion and that 'true motion' cannot be
confidently detected from changes in relative motions.

Does thie mean you prefer mysticism and the intuitive approach to
'natural philosophy'?