Sky andTelescope magazine, how is...

On Oct 8, 7:26*am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in ...

oriel36 wrote his typical nonsense.

Bjørn Sørheim replied:

You certainly are not answering my questions as I asked it.

Don't look for a rational response from him.

You are simply bringing up some old discussion you have had running in
your head for ages. I have no interest at this time going into that.
You know Internet have searchable archieves as we all know...
So carry your discussion somewhere else or try to tie up your loose
ends on your own.
Have a good night.

Sky & Telescope is not as fat as it used to be. That said, it's still a
good magazine. If it's difficult to come by in Norway perhaps a digital
subscription would be the answer.

Now, do yourself and the group a favor and kill-file oriel. Don't
lecture him on reason, reality, readin', ritin', or rithmetic. He
doesn't get it and you'll just debase yourself if you let yourself be
taken in by him.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Don’t be cruel to Kelleher, he can’t help his autism.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Despite the apparent differences,you all move in the same circles and
ultimately is reduces down to the fact that I am free,like so many
people,to enjoy the fact that one 24 hour day keeps in step with the
rotation of our planet while you and Davoud here hold on to the
stellar circumpolar ideology that days don't align with rotations.

I also have the luxury of not having to descend into personal
animosity,too much astronomical events and things to do and see and so
what if the endeavor is a solitary one presently,it is infinitely
better than being chained together by an error made by people in the
late 17th century.

oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:26 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in ...

oriel36 wrote his typical nonsense.

Bjørn Sørheim replied:

You certainly are not answering my questions as I asked it.

Don't look for a rational response from him.

You are simply bringing up some old discussion you have had running in
your head for ages. I have no interest at this time going into that.
You know Internet have searchable archieves as we all know...
So carry your discussion somewhere else or try to tie up your loose
ends on your own.
Have a good night.

Sky & Telescope is not as fat as it used to be. That said, it's still a
good magazine. If it's difficult to come by in Norway perhaps a digital
subscription would be the answer.

Now, do yourself and the group a favor and kill-file oriel. Don't
lecture him on reason, reality, readin', ritin', or rithmetic. He
doesn't get it and you'll just debase yourself if you let yourself be
taken in by him.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Dont be cruel to Kelleher, he cant help his autism.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Despite the apparent differences,you all move in the same circles and
ultimately is reduces down to the fact that I am free,like so many
people,to enjoy the fact that one 24 hour day keeps in step with the
rotation of our planet while you and Davoud here hold on to the
stellar circumpolar ideology that days don't align with rotations.

You have the freedom to be wrong.
You are.

I also have the luxury of not having to descend into personal
animosity,too much astronomical events and things to do and see and so
what if the endeavor is a solitary one presently,it is infinitely
better than being chained together by an error made by people in the
late 17th century.

You constantly insult all astronomers and most other scientists by your
attacks on their integrity and competence.

You also, when you feel threatened, try to patronise them as you did
earlier in this thread.

Compared to most of the posters here your understanding of science is
childlike since you can't see beyond the superficial. This causes you to
reject more an more science when you feel your naive beliefs being
undermined.

Grow up!

Please don't feel this as an insult. Particularly when you have told others
to do the same in the past.

On Oct 8, 10:35*am, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 8, 7:26 am, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway"
wrote:
"Davoud" wrote in ...

oriel36 wrote his typical nonsense.

Bjørn Sørheim replied:

You certainly are not answering my questions as I asked it.

Don't look for a rational response from him.

You are simply bringing up some old discussion you have had running in
your head for ages. I have no interest at this time going into that.
You know Internet have searchable archieves as we all know...
So carry your discussion somewhere else or try to tie up your loose
ends on your own.
Have a good night.

Sky & Telescope is not as fat as it used to be. That said, it's still a
good magazine. If it's difficult to come by in Norway perhaps a digital
subscription would be the answer.

Now, do yourself and the group a favor and kill-file oriel. Don't
lecture him on reason, reality, readin', ritin', or rithmetic. He
doesn't get it and you'll just debase yourself if you let yourself be
taken in by him.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Don t be cruel to Kelleher, he can t help his autism.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

Despite the apparent differences,you all move in the same circles and
ultimately is reduces down to the fact that I am free,like so many
people,to enjoy the fact that one 24 hour day keeps in step with the
rotation of our planet while you and Davoud here hold on to the
stellar circumpolar ideology that days don't align with rotations.

You have the freedom to be wrong.
You are.

I also have the luxury of not having to descend into personal
animosity,too much astronomical events and things to do and see and so
what if the endeavor is a solitary one presently,it is infinitely
better than being chained together by an error made by people in the
late 17th century.

You constantly insult all astronomers and most other scientists by your
attacks on their integrity and competence.


Let me get this straight - the Earth turns once in 24 hours or what
equates to the same thing ,the equatorial rate of rotation is 15
degrees and 1037.5 miles per hour as determined by the 24 hour AM/PM
cycle attached to the Lat/Long system and here we have these celestial
'mechanics' who found their ideology on an alternative set of values
where days fall out of step with daily rotations !.Now I have kept
terms such as competence out of it for as long as possible and even
reluctant to consider it a disorder in the same way smoking is
(insofar as men reason inappropriately to maintain a bad habit) but
there comes a time when it goes way beyond a joke and that time has
come.Whether it is fraud or a type of welfare system for empiricists I
do not know nor care,as far as I am concerned the same people who show
up in research institutions every day should just adopt to the correct
principles as soon as possible because what is practiced now is
homocentricity,a type of astronomy that is below geocentricity in
content and character.

So,despite all the encouragement that it is our problem to resolve in
a transparent way whereas previous generations just made things
worse,the community has either chosen to clam up or change willy
nilly,for instance,10 years ago you would never have seen the
principles of the Lat/Long system,rotation and clocks in a NASA
website whereas today it appears without too much fuss as the old
'sidereal time' mess fades into oblivion.

You also, when you feel threatened, try to patronise them as you did
earlier in this thread.


I am a Christian astronomer and fear is not something I know,it
doesn't make empirical groupthink any less distasteful but I always
indicate that productive astronomy is intensely satisfying in a fun
sort of way as opposed to this intellectual pretense that people are
supposed to bow down to voodoo chanting from empiricists who hardly
even understand their own system let alone genuine astronomy.




Compared to most of the posters here your understanding of science is
childlike since you can't see beyond the superficial. This causes you to
reject more an more science when you feel your naive beliefs being
undermined.


Time and space is Infinite and in its simplicity is most like the
Divine nature,the trick is to spot elements of the Eternal in the
temporal and not act like clockwork robots who are unable to grasp
even basic things such as the correspondence between one day and one
rotation,something every living creature responds to whether you care
to know it or not.

Unless you haven't noticed,astronomy and terrestrial sciences have
gone stale as the aggressive empirical modeler carries on dumping
erroneous cause and effect on the wider population for some vacuous
and misguided social policy of uniting humanity under a doctrine of
planetary concern when the same bunch can't grasp the largely
equatorial climate of the Earth and other low lying fruit that is
within anyone's grasp.

If I didn't do another thing in astronomy or terrestrial sciences I
would consider what I have done already as a personal achievement and
especially the shift away from axial precession as it was formally
understood to where it is now due to the amazing time lapse footage of
Hubble which shows the polar coordinates carried around in a circle to
the central Sun.It was initially so difficult to get a foothold into
the orbital trait and the output of intuitive energy was far greater
than for any other topic even though now it takes only an imitation
analogy and contemporary imaging to put the insight into a proper
perspective.

Have a look through the magazine,it is a fine work in Ra/Dec
homocentricity allied with theoretical junk but on any given week in
saa,new material shows up hence ,for all the billions and billions
spent on wasted empirical junk,people get a more productive astronomy
for a few dollars a month in internet fees and coming here to the
Usenet to post.

On 10/20/2012 10:54 AM, wrote:
On Oct 8, 6:08 pm, Steve wrote:

I think it's pretty obvious that the economy has a serious slog ahead of
it as the baby boom generation retires, puts a demand on socialized
programs for the elderly, and then dies off.

So, the economy would be better off without those socialized programs.

We live in a consumer society. When you use the word economy, you have
to be able to replace that word with consumer in order for your idea to
make sense.

Or do you believe the consumer would be better off without those
socialized programs?

I don't.

If children had to pay for the needs and health expenses of their elder
parents and/or disabled children/siblings, the entire economy would be
consumed by doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals. There
would nothing left.

Our entire society has been sustained for generations by socialized
programs that assist middle income and poorer families so they can go
buy the goods that corporations sell in order to keep their shares
active in the bonds and equities market, where the rich get richer.

It's the circle of economic life. Like it or not, that's what we have.

We need to stop focusing on what's wrong with government and start
focusing on the real reason we are failing as an economy; unfettered
capitalism.

Too much wealth has propagated upward into the hands of a few to support
a consumer economy. Too much of the wealth is being under-taxed by
changing hands in equity markets (capital gains) rather than through
consumer hands (state and federal income tax, sales tax, property tax,
gasoline tax, etc.). As a result, not only are the social programs that
sustain the consumer economy increasingly underfunded, but the costs
relieved by those programs are being charged back to the consumer
through lower and lower wages, for the sake of shareholder dividends.

Capitalism has fully unfurled its dark side, and is in a downward
spiral. It is up to the government to reign it in, because the keepers
of the wealth are too drunk on their own Kool-aid to see that they are
the problem. And it's not them personally, but collectively. In evidence
is the entire first decade of the 21st century, where the median
household income did not rise at anything even close to the rate if
increase in the wealth of the top 1%.

To say it is beneficial to allow the super-rich to continue to amass
wealth at the current rates, is to not understand the downside of
capitalism.


When they are ready to retire in 50 years, hopefully social security and
medicare will have gotten beyond the current difficulties of dealing
with my generation.

They should try not to be dependent on such government programs.


And for all your anti-socialist, anti-hypocrite blustering, you
definitely should voluntarily not collect a SS check and Medicare
benefits when you reach age 65-70.

On Oct 20, 1:19*pm, Steve wrote:
On 10/20/2012 10:54 AM, wrote:

On Oct 8, 6:08 pm, Steve wrote:
I think it's pretty obvious that the economy has a serious slog ahead of
it as the baby boom generation retires, puts a demand on socialized
programs for the elderly, and then dies off.

So, the economy would be better off without those socialized programs.

We live in a consumer society. When you use the word economy, you have
to be able to replace that word with consumer in order for your idea to
make sense.

Or do you believe the consumer would be better off without those
socialized programs?

I don't.

Absent Social Security "contributions" each net-taxpaying worker would
have several thousands of dollars each year to spend, save or invest
as they see fit. That's quite a bit of moolah.

If children had to pay for the needs and health expenses of their elder
parents and/or disabled children/siblings, the entire economy would be
consumed by doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and hospitals. There
would nothing left.

The money to pay for all of that has to come from somewhere, idiot.
In fact, younger workers' FICA and Medicare pay for today's SS and
Medicare recipients. So one is paying to support someone _else's_
elders even if one has no elders of one's own to support.

Our entire society has been sustained for generations by socialized
programs that assist middle income and poorer families so they can go
buy the goods that corporations sell in order to keep their shares
active in the bonds and equities market, where the rich get richer.

With a few extra thousand to invest the poor and middle class would
get richer too.

Most people don't need to buy as many things as they do. They are
"Free to Choose" as Milton Friedman had said.

If you don't want the oil companies to get rich, stop using oil to
heat your over-sized house. Keep warm the same way as the Chukchi
do. (And your motorcycle uses gasoline, correct?)

It's the circle of economic life. Like it or not, that's what we have.

We need to stop focusing on what's wrong with government and start
focusing on the real reason we are failing as an economy; unfettered
capitalism.

Example of unfettered capitalism causing the economy to fail?

Too much wealth has propagated upward into the hands of a few to support
a consumer economy. Too much of the wealth is being under-taxed by
changing hands in equity markets (capital gains) rather than through
consumer hands (state and federal income tax, sales tax, property tax,
gasoline tax, etc.). As a result, not only are the social programs that
sustain the consumer economy increasingly underfunded, but the costs
relieved by those programs are being charged back to the consumer
through lower and lower wages, for the sake of shareholder dividends.

If the govt confiscated all of the wealth belonging to the rich it
would run the govt for only a short period. Then what?

Capitalism has fully unfurled its dark side, and is in a downward
spiral. It is up to the government to reign it in, because the keepers
of the wealth are too drunk on their own Kool-aid to see that they are
the problem. And it's not them personally, but collectively. In evidence
is the entire first decade of the 21st century, where the median
household income did not rise at anything even close to the rate if
increase in the wealth of the top 1%.

If there was any doubt that you are a socialist (or even a communist)
all of said doubt has now been erased.

To say it is beneficial to allow the super-rich to continue to amass
wealth at the current rates, is to not understand the downside of
capitalism.

If I have two million dollars and a bakery, while you have nothing,
and the government steps in, takes half my cash and gives it to you,
how much do you think I would want to charge you for a loaf of bread?

When they are ready to retire in 50 years, hopefully social security and
medicare will have gotten beyond the current difficulties of dealing
with my generation.

They should try not to be dependent on such government programs.

And for all your anti-socialist, anti-hypocrite blustering, you
definitely should voluntarily not collect a SS check and Medicare
benefits when you reach age 65-70.

That's absurd. The govt takes a sizeable chunk of my income to give
to others and then when it's my turn to collect that entitlement, I am
NOT supposed to accept simply because I was against the idea all
along?

That's analogous to having someone steal something from me and then
not accepting the item back later, simply because I thought it should
not have been stolen in the first place.

You are truly an idiot.

On 10/20/2012 3:58 PM, wrote:

The govt takes a sizeable chunk of my income to give
to others and then when it's my turn to collect that entitlement, I am
NOT supposed to accept

Promoting the reduction of government spending and yet collecting that
which is being spent is no different than going around promoting the
reduction of greenhouse gases and yet generating greenhouse gas.

You are a socialista.

On Oct 20, 4:26*pm, Steve wrote:
On 10/20/2012 3:58 PM, wrote:

The govt takes a sizeable chunk of my income to give
to others and then when it's my turn to collect that entitlement, I am
NOT supposed to accept

Promoting the reduction of government spending and yet collecting that
which is being spent is no different

If one pays in to some government scheme, voluntarily or not, one is
still entitled to the payout. This is a different situation than for
example, what happened with that solar panel company, where a half-
billion dollars of taxpayer money (much of it borrowed) essentially
disappeared. The company was NOT entitled to it, and I would not have
been in favor of giving them that govt money. For the vast majority
of taxpayers there would have been NO payout in any case.

If workers could keep their social security contributions each year,
then (all else being equal) they might be able to more quickly save up
enough for sizeable down payments on houses, or even pay cash up
front, and avoid making paying high interest on a mortgage. Once rent/
mortgage-free they would have a large portion of income to save or to
invest. Should they die at an early age, they would have something of
value to leave for their relatives.

than going around promoting the
reduction of greenhouse gases and yet generating greenhouse gas.

That does not describe me. No, that would be Owl Bore, 0bama and other
warmingistas. Since you support 0bama we can assume that you fall into
that category as well.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of warmingstas does not make one a
hypocrite.

You are a socialista.

I am against the redistribution of wealth, against the nanny state,
and against other socialist ideas. Therefore I am not a "socialista."

On 10/20/2012 3:58 PM, wrote:


You are truly an idiot.


I'm weary of our mutual rehashing of old and well established public
dialogs, so I'm just going to quote someone from another newsgroup that
I frequent. I think his summation says all that needs be said about our
frustrations with each other, with government, and with "the classes".

/begin quote

Take a look at social capitalism.

Even Milton Friedman advocated a level playing field, but that can
certainly allow basic regulation to become acute to the point of
corruption and damage.

What needs to be addressed is the notion that when times are good, the
private sector keeps the profits and when the private sector crashes
public treasure is expected to recapture all loss.

Add to that the number of government employees, bureaucrats, where
efficiency/performance and accountability are severely lacking. A year
old WSJ article places their total number somewhere around 22-25
million. While many are entirely necessary, the drain to the economy is
too high. Their retirement funds are invested in the private sector,
overseen by bureaucrats who may well have no real financial experience.
No matter, the funds are guaranteed by the taxpayer, loss or no loss.

So, as I am running out of wind, feel free to cheer, the real thing that
bugs middle class folks on down is their susceptibility to the effects
of loss not being shared by the wealthy. No big news, in days of yore
the princes and nobles taxed peasants and artisans to finance their
quests for power and prestige, nice tapestry, silver plate and jewel
embroidered cloth. They also showed the less fortunate how to rape,
plunder and pillage... yea, I know, too much second wind.

end quote/

"Steve" wrote in message ...
On 10/20/2012 3:58 PM, wrote:


You are truly an idiot.


I'm weary of our mutual rehashing of old and well established public
dialogs, so I'm just going to quote someone from another newsgroup that
I frequent. I think his summation says all that needs be said about our
frustrations with each other, with government, and with "the classes".

/begin quote

Take a look at social capitalism.

================================================== ======
What the **** does social capitalism have to do with amateur astronomy?
Take a look at the newsgroup’s name, then take your political
crap to the appropriate newsgroup, or to private email, or to
tweeter or face**** where it belongs.
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Oct 21, 11:06*am, Steve wrote:
On 10/20/2012 3:58 PM, wrote:



You are truly an idiot.

I'm weary of our mutual rehashing of old and well established public
dialogs, so I'm just going to quote someone from another newsgroup that
I frequent. I think his summation says all that needs be said

I disagree. Get over it.

about our
frustrations with each other, with government, and with "the classes".

/begin quote

Take a look at social capitalism.

Even Milton Friedman advocated a level playing field,

By which Friedman meant absence of protectionism and absence of
subsidies for competitors.

but that can
certainly allow basic regulation to become acute to the point of
corruption and damage.

???

What needs to be addressed is the notion that when times are good, the
private sector keeps the profits and when the private sector crashes
public treasure is expected to recapture all loss.

In general that is not what happens. Most businesses fail and with
them whatever was invested. If the banks had failed in 2008, even
more businesses would have failed as well. If the govt had stayed out
of the banks' business WRT lending to homebuyers the problem would
have been less severe or even non-existent. If homebuyers had been
less greedy and stayed within their means, again the problem would
likely not have occurred.

Add to that the number of government employees, bureaucrats, where
efficiency/performance and accountability are severely lacking. *A year
old WSJ article places their total number somewhere around 22-25
million. *While many are entirely necessary, the drain to the economy is
too high. *Their retirement funds are invested in the private sector,
overseen by bureaucrats who may well have no real financial experience.
* No matter, the funds are guaranteed by the taxpayer, loss or no loss.

So the answer is less government spending and interference as so many
conservatives have been saying for decades.

So, as I am running out of wind, feel free to cheer, the real thing that
bugs middle class folks on down is their susceptibility to the effects
of loss not being shared by the wealthy.

No, the real thing that bugs the middle class is high taxes on anyone,
but most especially federal and even state INCOME taxes.

No big news, in days of yore
the princes and nobles taxed peasants and artisans to finance their
quests for power and prestige, nice tapestry, silver plate and jewel
embroidered cloth. *They also showed the less fortunate how to rape,
plunder and pillage... yea, I know, too much second wind.

Comparing the US system with corrupt kings and robber barons is
ludicrous.

end quote/

There, took care of that for you.

Care to try again, idiot?