Coming full circle

You simply cannot make this stuff up,the objections the Pope had at
the time of Galileo are the exact same empiricists now use to defend
themselves !. Pity the standard of intelligence is just not here to
make sense of the issues although some have come fairly close in a
historical sort of way but not the technical nuts and bolts that I
handle -

"Two close friends of Galileo, Giovanni Ciampoli and Virginio
Cesarini, were also named to important posts. Cesarini was appointed
Lord Chamberlain, and Ciampoli Secret Chamberlain and Secretary for
the Correspondence with Princes. Under these favourable auspices
Galileo thought the moment had come to renew his campaign for
Copernicanism, and in 1624 he set off for Rome where he had the rare
privilege of being received by the Pope six times in six weeks.
Although the 1616 decree of the Index against Copernicus’ De
Revolutionibus was not suspended, Galileo felt that he could now argue
for the motion of the Earth as long as he avoided declaring that it
was the only system that fitted astronomical observations.

Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini,
while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism
as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But ‘hypothesis’ meant two
very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to
deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of
the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical
theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view
that is often called ‘instrumentalism’. On the other hand, a
hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet
proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a ‘realist’
position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented
it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially
physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue
undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of
Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They
thought that Copernicus’ system was a purely instrumental device, and
Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This
ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

http://www.unav.es/cryf/english/newlightistanbul.html

I have done everything possible to prevent a descent into an external
agency acting to change matters as opposed to an internal audit but as
far as I can tell there is no actual person or persons who have an
interest in returning astronomy and terrestrial sciences to a stable
narrative.

I love the temporary silence in this forum,it always happens to
empiricists as they can't work things out themselves and when the
reaction shows up it will be the usual appeal to Galileo when the
arguments in Galileo's time by the Pope was the limitations of
mechanical/predictive astronomy !.

Who would have thought !!.

Den onsdag den 24. Oct 2913, for the 7 billionth time, Squirrel shared his nut bag:

Who would have thought !!.

Only you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20054737

Dogh!

Keeping it totally un-real.

What a quandry for empiricists - they either insist on the certainty
of the 'predictive' power of their theories as they do with climate or
defend the earthquake 'experts' by appealing to the limitations of
'predictions' !!.

It is no joke because genuine interpretative science has suffered
badly from the aggressive 'predictions' crowd and all that is needed
is genuine people who are capable of open discussion rather than
trying to protect a vicious strain of empiricism that originated in a
poor conclusion.

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
What a quandry for empiricists - they either insist on the certainty

of the 'predictive' power of their theories as they do with climate or

defend the earthquake 'experts' by appealing to the limitations of

'predictions' !!.



It is no joke because genuine interpretative science has suffered

badly from the aggressive 'predictions' crowd and all that is needed

is genuine people who are capable of open discussion rather than

trying to protect a vicious strain of empiricism that originated in a

poor conclusion.

Tell us again, actually for the first time, what your superior "genuine interpretation" tells us about a star returning to 2 sticks in 23:56:04. It means something, that's for sure, and it is very significant. What does it mean to you? Save us from further "poor conclusions"!

\Paul A

On Oct 24, 3:29*pm, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:09:18 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
What a quandry for empiricists - they either insist on the certainty

of the 'predictive' power of their theories as they do with climate or

defend the earthquake 'experts' by appealing to the limitations of

'predictions' !!.

It is no joke because genuine interpretative science has suffered

badly from the aggressive 'predictions' crowd and all that is needed

is genuine people *who are capable of open discussion rather than

trying to protect a vicious strain of empiricism that originated in a

poor conclusion.

Tell us again, actually for the first time, what your superior "genuine interpretation" tells us about a star returning to 2 sticks in 23:56:04. It means something, that's for sure, and it is very significant. What does it mean to you? Save us from further "poor conclusions"!

\Paul A

Have you not understood that when you return to the 24 hour AM/PM
system in tandem with the Lat/Long system you will have no difficulty
discovering that the watch in your hand is a product of an observation
that there are 1461 days in 4 years and each AM/PM cycle is a product
of the rotation of the Earth to noon which in turn is averaged to 24
hours by assuming that daily rotation is constant and daily rotation
is separate to the orbital motion of the Earth.

As the average 24 hour day substitutes for 'constant' rotation 1461
times in 1461 days,the rotating celestial sphere is a trivial
consequence of formatting the 24 hour day in a 365 day/366 day format
of the calendar system.

What 'sidereal time' actually represents is a failure to retain the
connection between one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth and
keep them in step through cause and effect.I really wish you
understood that much ,I really do.

On Oct 24, 4:51*pm, oriel36 wrote:
you will have no difficulty
discovering that the watch in your hand is a product of an observation
that there are 1461 days in 4 years and each AM/PM cycle is a product
of the rotation of the Earth to noon which in turn is averaged to 24
hours by assuming that daily rotation is constant and daily rotation
is separate to the orbital motion of the Earth.

We do assume that the Earth's rotation is constant, and that the
Earth's rotation is separate from the orbital motion of the Earth.

Given that the relative orientation of the Earth and the Sun, which
has a cycle that averages to 24 hours, is not uniform but is affected
by the Equation of Time... rather than searching for a way in which
the Earth can be given a uniform 24 hour rotation... *and not finding
it anywhere*... we note that the Earth *does* rotate uniformly, with a
period of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, with respect to the
distant stars.

So we take that uniform period as belonging to the Earth's rotation.
Then the rotation is separate completely from the Earth's orbital
motion.

I know you think that it's illegitimate to reference the Earth's
motion relative to the stars because the Earth is orbiting the Sun
instead of sitting fixed in the center of a celestial sphere. But the
fact is that all the stars are so far away that the parallax is too
tiny to notice. And the other fact is that inertia works that way; the
Earth's relation to space isn't relative to its orbital course - being
in orbit doesn't interfere with its normal angular momentum.

The Moon's libration in longitude illustrates the same phenomenon.

The non-uniformities in the 24 hour day found in the Equation of Time
exactly correspond to how the irregularities of the Earth's orbit
deviate from a circular orbit in the plane of the Equator, which would
have combined with 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds to make 24
hours... so the apparent motion of the Sun is a compound motion,
resulting from both the true uniform rotation of the Earth and its
orbital motion.

That orbital motion is once around the Sun in a year, so the number of
rotations in a year has to be one different from the number of days in
a year.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:51:10 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

What 'sidereal time' actually represents is a failure to retain the

connection between one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth and

keep them in step through cause and effect.I really wish you

understood that much ,I really do.

But the sidereal day does NOT fail to retain the connection between the 24-hour day and one rotation of the Earth, with respect to the sun (solar day), and no one here ever claimed otherwise. EVER.

100 pennies are equivalent to a dollar, as are 10 dimes, 4 quarters, and 20 nickels. If the government decided to make new new coin, worth, for example, 101 pennies, and called it a sidereal dollar, it would certainly cause a lot of confusion. It is not the same as a regular dollar because it has a different definition. Simple enough to understand. If you owed someone 10 sidereal dollars and tried to pay in regular dollars you would come up a little bit short.

The same is true for the *components* of one year, one complete trip of the Earth around the sun, and there are several different units that can describe this revolution. There are 365.242 solar days, 366.242 sidereal days, 8765.81 hours, 525,949 minutes, 3.156e+7 seconds, 52.1775 weeks, 0.1 decades, 0.001 centuries, and you can rest assured that there are others. There is really nothing more unusual or special about the sidereal day than there is for any of the other units, for each has its very own definition that keeps things accurate.

No matter how distasteful you find the sidereal day to be, it nevertheless has a perfectly valid definition. It is in no way equivalent to a solar 24-hour day, and no one has ever said it was... except for you. You cannot substitute a solar day for a sidereal day any more than you can substitute 101 cents for a dollar, and it is a mystery as to why you think that is what everyone else is trying to do, because it is NOT the case, and never has been. It should be obvious to you that none of the other units as mentioned above can be substituted, that is, a 24-hour day is not the same as a minute or a second or an hour, and neither is the sidereal day. NOT THE SAME THING... a different animal altogether, even if it is *almost* the same. Perhaps you don't understand why such a unit is needed, the sidereal day being so very close to the same length as the solar 24-hour day, but that is another story altogether.

Quit being so stubborn and THINK about it. I really wish you understood this simple concept, I really do.

\Paul A

On Oct 24, 6:42*pm, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2012 3:51:10 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:
What 'sidereal time' actually represents is a failure to retain the

connection between one 24 hour day and one rotation of the Earth and

keep them in step through cause and effect.I really wish you

understood that much ,I really do.

But the sidereal day does NOT fail to retain the connection between the 24-hour day and one rotation of the Earth, with respect to the sun (solar day), and no one here ever claimed otherwise. EVER.

100 pennies are equivalent to a dollar, as are 10 dimes, 4 quarters, and 20 nickels. If the government decided to make new new coin, worth, for example, 101 pennies, and called it a sidereal dollar, it would certainly cause a lot of confusion. It is not the same as a regular dollar because it has a different definition. Simple enough to understand. If you owed someone 10 sidereal dollars and tried to pay in regular dollars you would come up a little bit short.

The same is true for the *components* of one year, one complete trip of the Earth around the sun, and there are several different units that can describe this revolution. There are 365.242 solar days, 366.242 sidereal days, 8765.81 hours, 525,949 minutes, 3.156e+7 seconds, 52.1775 weeks, 0.1 decades, 0.001 centuries, and you can rest assured that there are others. There is really nothing more unusual or special about the sidereal day than there is for any of the other units, for each has its very own definition that keeps things accurate.

How do you explain to someone that there is a proportion of 100 cents
to one dollar and there are a proportion of 1461 rotations to 4
orbital circuits as though we have descended below a point where human
reasoning no longer exists much less explain the brilliant human
maneuver thousands of years ago which formatted the proportion into 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days to keep rotations fixed to
the orbital points if the solstices and equinoxes,the formatting alone
explains how days/years equate directly with rotations/orbital
circuits with all components interchangeable hence 1461 rotations in
1461 days.461 rotations in 4 years.Is it not enough that 1461
rotations in 4 years reduces to 365 1/4 rotations to one orbital
circuit as almost trivia but the original reference is the foundation
for all timekeeping - the brightest star in the sky doesn't return
consistently after 365 days but takes an extra day after 4 annual
cycles hence stellar circumpolar motion was never involved in what is
essentially the proportion between rotations and orbital circuits.

This phenomena of 1465 rotations in 1461 days is inexplicable even
though it is the centerpiece of empirical reasoning and although I
have explained fully that it is a step too far beyond the AM/PM and
Lat/Long systems,the insistence that this clockwork derived value is
the definitive value for the rotation of the Earth and this is the
basis of the clockwork solar system in action.




No matter how distasteful you find the sidereal day to be, it nevertheless has a perfectly valid definition. *It is in no way equivalent to a solar 24-hour day, and no one has ever said it was... except for you. You cannot substitute a solar day for a sidereal day any more than you can substitute 101 cents for a dollar, and it is a mystery as to why you think that is what everyone else is trying to do, because it is NOT the case, and never has been. It should be obvious to you that none of the other units as mentioned above can be substituted, that is, a 24-hour day is not the same as a minute or a second or an hour, and neither is the sidereal day. NOT THE SAME THING... a different animal altogether, even if it is *almost* the same. Perhaps you don't understand why such a unit is needed, the sidereal day being so very close to the same length as the solar 24-hour day, but that is another story altogether.

Quit being so stubborn and THINK about it. I really wish you understood this simple concept, I really do.

\Paul A

Astronomy could never support something as cruel as a rotating
celestial sphere as a means of extracting the motions of the
Earth.Despite appearances,this issue was always meant for a decisive
and definitive conclusion and not the groveling and sneaky attempt to
restore the correct fact and bury the late 17th century mistake -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWHM00sZJc

The intellectual elegance in development of the calendar system and
then the separate development of the AM/PM system in tandem with the
Lat/Long system is a mirror of man's intelligence and if men look back
at themselves and find a distorted image of 1465 rotations in 4 years
then say goodbye to beauty and truth as they really exist.

On Oct 24, 7:42*pm, palsing wrote:

I really wish you understood this simple concept, I really do.

The problem isn't that the sidereal day is a different length.

The sidereal day relates to a connection between the Earth and the
fixed stars. But the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year, and so
how can it possibly maintain a connection to the fixed stars? That's
his problem, that's why he denounces "celestial sphere" reasoning as
un-Copernican.

If you claim the Earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds, then you are implicitly claiming that the Sun orbits the
Earth once a year, according to him.

Similarly, the claim that the Moon rotates once every 27 1/3 days
implies a Lunacentric cosmology, I guess.

The idea that rotation is rotation, no matter how you move, and a
round orbit isn't an inertial frame... to him, that's all Newtonian
empiricist garbage - not the poetic interpretive way of really
understanding the heavens.

John Savard

On 25/10/2012 10:07, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 24, 7:42 pm, palsing wrote:

I really wish you understood this simple concept, I really do.

The problem isn't that the sidereal day is a different length.

It would be an even bigger problem if it were. We would free fall into
the sun in under three months if we were not in orbit around it!

The sidereal day relates to a connection between the Earth and the
fixed stars. But the Earth revolves around the Sun once a year, and so
how can it possibly maintain a connection to the fixed stars? That's
his problem, that's why he denounces "celestial sphere" reasoning as
un-Copernican.

If you claim the Earth rotates once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds, then you are implicitly claiming that the Sun orbits the
Earth once a year, according to him.

Similarly, the claim that the Moon rotates once every 27 1/3 days
implies a Lunacentric cosmology, I guess.

The idea that rotation is rotation, no matter how you move, and a
round orbit isn't an inertial frame... to him, that's all Newtonian
empiricist garbage - not the poetic interpretive way of really
understanding the heavens.

John Savard

There is no point in arguing with a raving lunatic netkook!
You are wasting your time. His posts are invariant under the application
of the Shannonizer (a markov chain based author).

Try this waffle one instead - it has a different vocabulary because of
the input texts but the writing style is otherwise identical or Oriel36.
Press F5 to refresh with new rewritten Markov chain word salad waffle.

URL http://mml.co.uk/waffle.php

Here is a small sample of its output:

"The Ideal Heuristic Quality.
In the light of any inherent dangers of the independent cohesive
self-forgetfulness, it is clear that any subsequent interpolation
weakens the matrix of supporting elements and effects a significant
implementation of the work being done at the 'coal-face'. "

I think it might be this one that managed to get a pure gibberish paper
published in a not particularly well checked peer reviewed journal.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown