No standard

All motions may be accelerated and retarded

It isn't the motions that are retarded.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:12:10 GMT, Mark Ayliffe wrote:

On or about 2005-02-23,
Pete Lawrence illuminated us with:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote:

Big topic, small people ( at least so far).

Big topics contain big nuts...

Aren't they called Snickers now? :-)

Where does Marathon fit into this then?

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

"John Carruthers" wrote in message ...
"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º 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 361º with respect to the
background stars."

Don't take our word for it, go out and time it for yourself.
jc

What you are doing is timing the motion of the Earth against an
external reference,what you are incapable of compreheding is that pace
originated from a Sun based reference which reflects constant axial
rotation moving through variable orbital motion and orbital
orientation -

http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronom...ages/04f15.jpg

Whatever drives you freaks to imagine that a clock was found under a
rock and that you can begin timing the motion of the stars back to the
same position as reflecting the rotation of the Earth must rank as
worse than creationism or geocentricity ,it shows none of the
subtleties of our astronomical heritage and the people who formatted
the principles behind a clock,the calendar system,astronomical
modelling and in short,the greatest achievements of humanity in
investigating natural phenomena.

Do you know what happens when you try to force a .986 deg axial
rotational coordinate into a change in orbital displacement,you get
your geocentric/heliocentric equivalency alright but astronomy becomes
little more than a cartoon.

http://www.nordita.dk/~steen/fysik51...s/AACHCIR0.JPG

Have your fun but you ****ing freaks time the motion of the stars
directly to the axial rotation of the Earth and that makes you the
dumdest ****ers ever to set foot on the planet.Just trying to spare
your children the same miserable existence you indoctrinated maggots
accepted without question.

"Pete Lawrence" wrote in message Aren't they
called Snickers now? :-)

Where does Marathon fit into this then?

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

I thought Mr Messier had something to do with this.
:-)


Tony

The one enjoyable thing is watching the Germans and particularly Mach
get fed up with Newton's thinking and imagines that absolute/relative
time are philosophical concepts.

Mach: on Newton's Absolute Time

"This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it
has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one
is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle
metaphysical conception."
Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed.


So where is English common sense or do you lot wish to follow Albert
into his H.G Wells world and that wonderful early 20th century notion
that man could conquer the Universe.Today responsible people are trying
to save the planet but you ****ing freaks are part of the problem.

John Carruthers wrote:
years old or american.

Easy now, no need to make rash generalisations. We're not all brainless
twits like him. ;-)

--
~Sayf

Fleetie wrote:
"DH" wrote

wrote:

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.


Poor Grammar :


Hey, ****emonger, the mote in his eye, perhaps. Why the capital "G" in
"Grammar"?


* for the theorists have left you nothing left to observe : Wow, tautology, that's cool !


IMNSHO not an example of tautology. Unnecessary repeated word != tautology.


3/10 for Grammar,


It's that capital "G" again.


+1 for the tautology, which I rather enjoyed, 0/10 for making any sense whatsoever !


So you're giving him a lowly 3 for his poor grammar, but adding 1 point back
again for his "tautology"? Whatb sirection are you going? Do you know?

I needn't say more.


Martin

You're defending this sick **** ? Or just attacking me ?

OK, my grammar ain't perfik, so I thought I'd have a bit of fun, lighten up FFS

DH

wrote:

mathematicians assume that absolute/relative time is
some metaphysical concept when it is not.Surely as an astronomer you
are bound to catch something of the outlines of a deeply buried flaw in
Newton's conceptions that were exploited for the most spurious reasons
in the early 20th century.

If all time is absolute, how do you define simultaneity for widely
spaced observers and widely space events. ("Widely" inserted only
because the difficulty is more obvious - it is there whatever the
spacing)

What anomalies do you mean wrt Jupiter's moons? The only one I know of
is the one that allows a calculation of the speed of light.

Everything hinges on that error which can be traced back to Flamsteed
and wittingly or unwittingly adopted by Newton.That's how big all this
is so excuse me while I withdraw.

We'll all drink to that, although I note you have since picked up your
poison pen again and dipped it deep in the gutter you use for ink.

Cheers

Martin

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

On or about 2005-02-25,
Pete Lawrence illuminated us with:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:12:10 GMT, Mark Ayliffe wrote:

On or about 2005-02-23,
Pete Lawrence illuminated us with:
On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote:

Big topic, small people ( at least so far).

Big topics contain big nuts...

Aren't they called Snickers now? :-)

Where does Marathon fit into this then?

Oh phoo. I always prefer the ones without nuts anyway. Mars or Milky Way.
Hey we're back on topic ;-)

--
Mark
Real email address | For my birthday I got a humidifier and a
is mark at | de-humidifier ...I put them in the same room and let
ayliffe dot org | them fight it out.