What can I image in 5 minutes?

On 4 Dec, 11:08, "MichaelJP" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message

. uk...



"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.

I've tried reading some of his and "bradguths" stuff, it has all the
appearance of being a rational scientific argument but it doesn't actually
make sense.

A weird experience to try and read it - like the experience of reading a
difficult science textbook but never having the satisfaction of
comprehension. Not recommended!

I wonder if all the posts written fresh "to order" or is there a lot of
cut-and-pasting? The thought of it all being typed in by someone is
staggering!

- MP

I suggest you take up stamp collecting or some other pursuit.

I provide plenbty of graphics,not to convince you how silly you are
but for others who may eventually escape the astrological reasoning
you are chained to -

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

Since remote antiquity it is known that noon two noon cycle are
equal,in order to justify the axial and orbital motions of the Earth
using the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds you most
certainly believe that the noon cycles are 24 hours exactly.

On 4 Dec, 14:43, "Androcles" wrote:
"MichaelJP" wrote in message

. ..
:: "Androcles" wrote in message

.uk...
:
: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : ukastronomy wrote:
:
: : please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.
:
: Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
: says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
: through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.
:
: I've tried reading some of his and "bradguths" stuff, it has all the
: appearance of being a rational scientific argument but it doesn't actually
: make sense.
:
: A weird experience to try and read it - like the experience of reading a
: difficult science textbook but never having the satisfaction of
: comprehension. Not recommended!
:
: I wonder if all the posts written fresh "to order" or is there a lot of
: cut-and-pasting? The thought of it all being typed in by someone is
: staggering!
:

Oh, he creates it. Kelleher refuses to accept the sidereal day.

What Flamsteed did was create the fiction of the 'sidereal day' and
the equally mythic difference between the 'solar day' using the
motions of the Earth.It is not my refusal to accept the sidereal
day,it is the dominance of the 'sidereal time' belief and its
creationist sentiments which beggars belief.






I few years ago I suggested he shoved a couple of poles in
the ground and aligned them to a star he'd recognise again and
note the time, then check again the next night and the night
after that ... a simple experiment anyone can do and see it
align 4 minutes earlier.


You numbskull,for a star to return 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier
without fail you have to use the calendar system and add an extra day
at the end of February on the fourrth year to make it work.You believe
that you are justifying the Earth orbital motion in 365 days 5 hours
49 minutes but in fact,through the dumb reasoning of Flamsteed,you are
working with a 365/366 day system known as the 1461 day calendrical
cycle.

You want to do the experiment then do it in a leap year between the
end of Feb and the beginning of March and you will certainly get the
star returning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier than the prvious cycle.You
ar just too silly to realise the implications.






Kelleher went off on a tirade of how
Newton and Flamsteed got it all wrong and insisted the Earth
rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours.


While the value may be extremely close to the value of 24 hours,axial
rotation has never been isolated to determine exactly what the value
is, and I assure you it is way off 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds



He's simply not cooking with a full set of saucepans. I'm
sure if you met him on the street he'd appear smarter than
the average bear, but some people get these fixations in their
heads and nothing can dislodge them. It makes you want to
go in and tighten the one loose screw rattling inside their head
and they'll be rational again, but you just can't do it.
Sci. newsgroups are a magnet for them, Tom Roberts is another.
Why would an otherwise normal and reasonably intelligent man
make a statement like this:


You have established as a fact that you can justify the motions of the
Earth using the return of a star to a location and you taken on
board,as Newton did, a false principle created by Flamsteed in a very
definite statement -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical" Flamsteed hence -

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

Unfortunately you are turning on its head the entire known
astronomical principle which determines that there is no external
reference to isolate axial rotation and certainly not natural noon.The
great Huygens states it clearly -

" ..in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days,
reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to
all that are vers'd in Astronomy."

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

I am sorry,perhaps you are like Michael here who has a very small
brain and cannot handle anything more than a telescope .






"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant.

Among astrophysicists and astronomers, the existence of black holes is
indeed commonly accepted. But not universally, I believe.

The reason for this is the striking similarity of numerous measurements
on dozens of objects to the predictions of models treating them as black
holes. Plus the fact that nobody has come up with another model that
describes the data equally well." -- Tom Roberts

Beneath the veneer of well-written and punctuated English
lies the heart of a knuckle-dragging crossbreed homo neanderthalensis
and gorilla gorrilla.

Beneath the veneer of a follower of Newton beats the heart of an
astrologer and his 'predictions'.It turns out that you cannot even
predict what time it takes the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees to
the nearest minute never mind the second.

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
. ..
:
: "Androcles" wrote in message
: . uk...
:
: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : ukastronomy wrote:
:
: : please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.
:
: Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
: says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
: through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.
:
: I've tried reading some of his and "bradguths" stuff, it has all the
: appearance of being a rational scientific argument but it doesn't
actually
: make sense.
:
: A weird experience to try and read it - like the experience of reading a
: difficult science textbook but never having the satisfaction of
: comprehension. Not recommended!
:
: I wonder if all the posts written fresh "to order" or is there a lot of
: cut-and-pasting? The thought of it all being typed in by someone is
: staggering!
:

Oh, he creates it.

You surprise me. It would be amusing to spend a day writing a bot to respond
to any "oriel36" newsgroup text in a posting. I reckon it could quite
handily produce posts at about the same level of discourse


Kelleher refuses to accept the sidereal day.
I few years ago I suggested he shoved a couple of poles in
the ground and aligned them to a star he'd recognise again and
note the time, then check again the next night and the night
after that ... a simple experiment anyone can do and see it
align 4 minutes earlier. Kelleher went off on a tirade of how
Newton and Flamsteed got it all wrong and insisted the Earth
rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours.
He's simply not cooking with a full set of saucepans. I'm
sure if you met him on the street he'd appear smarter than
the average bear, but some people get these fixations in their
heads and nothing can dislodge them. It makes you want to
go in and tighten the one loose screw rattling inside their head
and they'll be rational again, but you just can't do it.
Sci. newsgroups are a magnet for them, Tom Roberts is another.
Why would an otherwise normal and reasonably intelligent man
make a statement like this:

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely irrelevant.

Among astrophysicists and astronomers, the existence of black holes is
indeed commonly accepted. But not universally, I believe.

The reason for this is the striking similarity of numerous measurements
on dozens of objects to the predictions of models treating them as black
holes. Plus the fact that nobody has come up with another model that
describes the data equally well." -- Tom Roberts

Beneath the veneer of well-written and punctuated English
lies the heart of a knuckle-dragging crossbreed homo neanderthalensis
and gorilla gorrilla.

On 4 Dec, 11:08, "MichaelJP" wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message

. uk...



"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.

I've tried reading some of his and "bradguths" stuff, it has all the
appearance of being a rational scientific argument but it doesn't actually
make sense.

A weird experience to try and read it - like the experience of reading a
difficult science textbook but never having the satisfaction of
comprehension. Not recommended!

I wonder if all the posts written fresh "to order" or is there a lot of
cut-and-pasting? The thought of it all being typed in by someone is
staggering!

- MP

One more thing,I can pick up the newspaper and read about the new
insight of expanding tropics -

http://news.google.ie/news?tab=gn&hl...ncl=1124410815

The fact is that I was trying to have the matter discussed for years
based on a much needed modification for the seasons based on the
motions of the Earth -

http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.en...6d67b3412dfad1

I am only too delighted to see that you cannot grasp the concepts I
put forward,not just the old and distinguished astronomical
principles but also the new material such as the modification based on
replacing variable inclination with a new orbital component.,.You are
that dull kind which Galileo spoke of * ,unable to change and unable
to intepret what is before you -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

"I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Dialogue Concerning the
Two Chief World Systems, 1632

Your company is unpleasent but it is not dangerous,it is just plain
dull.

Androcles wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:
:
: (replying to oriel36)
:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged.

The distinction is blurred nowadays. Its still best not to respond
however. It only encourages him.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
: ...
: : ukastronomy wrote:
: :
: : (replying to oriel36)
: :
: : please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.
:
: Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
: says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged.
:
: The distinction is blurred nowadays. Its still best not to respond
: however. It only encourages him.

True enough. Trolls or deranged, the solution doesn't change.
The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".

Androcles wrote:

The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".

No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
term for these sets of bodies.

On Dec 6, 6:09 am, Mark McIntyre wrote:
Androcles wrote:
The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".

No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
term for these sets of bodies.

....but optical doubles are not always clearly indentified as such in
some list(s) of double stars, apparently.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
:
: The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".
:
: No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: term for these sets of bodies.

So the Seven Sisters is an optical septuplet?
What's the big deal with New York and London being less
that 30 arc minutes apart when flying from Luxembourg on
the same great circle, that I should call them double cities?
They both have stock exchanges and Bum****, Alabama
doesn't, perhaps?

wrote in message
...
: On Dec 6, 6:09 am, Mark McIntyre wrote:
: Androcles wrote:
: The difficulty is deciding if there is any difference between
: Kelleher and a guy that finds something special about two
: stars on approximately the same line of sight that he calls "doubles".
:
: No idea why you put doubles in quotes - optical doubles is an accepted
: term for these sets of bodies.
:
: ...but optical doubles are not always clearly indentified as such in
: some list(s) of double stars, apparently.
:
Just what IS a double star?
Sirius A and B that orbit a common barycentre?
Can't be that, too difficult to resolve.
Any old pair will do if they are both in the field of
view of the telescope?
I just want to know what the big deal is.
Some clown makes a list of stars 30 arc seconds apart
and another clown comes along and says you missed one?
How exciting!