NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:31:54 PM UTC+1, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Consider a spherical globe representing the Earth, with the equator

drawn on it. That equator is a [Great] circle. If its centre must lie

on the surface, then there are two candidate locations for it.



The Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12752 km therefore its geographical circumference is 40075 km when multiplied by the Pi proportion which relates diameter to circumference.

You clowns then move on to the Lat/Long system which divides the circumference into equal parts of 15 degrees corresponding to 1 hour difference.

These and these alone are astronomical facts but the real enjoyment is in determining how the system emerged from using external references such as using the brightest star out there to fix the Earth's orbital position in space and the number of times the Equator turns 360 degrees for that wonderful observational event -

http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast...liacsirius.JPG

These mathematicians have no respect whatsoever for facts and pretend they have an option to change inviolate proportions through which people make sense of their surroundings for an assault on the simplicity of Pi will inevitably result in obscuring the great Phi proportion which dominates natural forms.

Where are the great people who will speak for a stable narrative and dismiss the empirical riff-raff who have made nuisances of themselves and temporarily disrupted astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences ?.

oriel36 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:31:54 PM UTC+1, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Consider a spherical globe representing the Earth, with the equator

drawn on it. That equator is a [Great] circle. If its centre must lie

on the surface, then there are two candidate locations for it.



The Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12752 km therefore its
geographical circumference is 40075 km when multiplied by the Pi
proportion which relates diameter to circumference.

You clowns then move on to the Lat/Long system which divides the
circumference into equal parts of 15 degrees corresponding to 1 hour difference.

These and these alone are astronomical facts but the real enjoyment is in
determining how the system emerged from using external references such as
using the brightest star out there to fix the Earth's orbital position in
space and the number of times the Equator turns 360 degrees for that
wonderful observational event -

The Earth turns with respect to Sirius once every sidereal day.
This is how your external reference proves you to be completely wrong.






http://www.gautschy.ch/~rita/archast...liacsirius.JPG

These mathematicians have no respect whatsoever for facts and pretend
they have an option to change inviolate proportions through which people
make sense of their surroundings for an assault on the simplicity of Pi
will inevitably result in obscuring the great Phi proportion which dominates natural forms.

Where are the great people who will speak for a stable narrative and
dismiss the empirical riff-raff who have made nuisances of themselves and
temporarily disrupted astronomy and its links to terrestrial sciences ?.

On 23/04/2014 23:43, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 7:41:51 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:22:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You said such evidence existed, now present it.

I did.

Yes, you presented what you claimed was evidence against "natural rights". The existence of infectious diseases was one thing you cited.

It was me that pointed out that Nature provided many nasty infectious
diseases and you conveniently sidestepped this by claiming that it was
irrelevant because "Natural Rights" were not derived from Nature.

Nature stems from the second law of thermodynamics and in its minimalist
hard line form is basically "eat or be eaten".

I accept that there are some genetically programmed laws of nature that
influence how we behave. The ones involving altruism and group cohesion
being relevant to a social species like humans or primates. It is these
that are fundamental and attempts to codify them as "rights" derivative.

The fact that we have codified what we believe to be best practice in a
written form doesn't make them "natural rights" any more than claiming
that the King of England is put there by God with Divine Right to rule.

As a complex society evolves so do the rules on what is acceptable. The
Romans despite being brutal militarists were a lot better at treating
*their* slaves than American sugar plantation owners for example.

Well, I will freely admit that Nature does not respect human life.

We have made some progress then.

But that isn't actually evidence against natural rights, because that's not what natural rights are.

You are going to have to define what they are then and demonstrate
exactly how and why you think that Nature grants these "Natural" Rights.

When I say that all humans have the inherent natural right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, I am not claiming that Nature will strike any murderer or thief by lightning before he can succeed in his evil plans.

And no doubt in the same breath that water boarding enemy combatants (a
form of words devised by the USA to get around the Geneva convention)
isn't torture because it is the "good" guys that are doing it.

America so respects these "natural rights" of humans that there are
still people banged up in Guantanamo Bay with no prospect of a trial for
more than a decade. Preach one thing and practice another...

What am I claiming?

Well, I'm claiming that stuff like murder and stealing are intrinsically wrong. If a community of people, or a government, tries to say otherwise, it can manae to make it easier to do harm to some innocent people unjustly - but it doesn't change the wrongness of the acts that it has facilitated.

Killing members of your own species is the more general rule.

Stealing is more ambiguous if you need to do it just to stay alive.

Plenty of people were maimed and killed by mantraps back in the days
when poaching game was the only way the poor in the countryside could
survive the bad times. You can still technically be deported from the UK
to the Antipodes for poaching a rabbit after dark (although these days
Australia would not accept a convicted criminal).

It is hard not to recall the post Katrina photograph showing a line of
white policeman with shotguns holding back a starving crowd of black men
from "looting" a supermarket for food and water. Ironic because with no
electricity fresh and frozen produce would quickly spoil.

And then I can use Negro slavery and the Holocaust as evidence *in favor* of natural rights - because if you deny that natural rights exist, then you're saying those horrible shocking historical injustices weren't really wrong. And nobody would want to say that!

Jefferson who drafted the US constitution was a slave owner (to be fair
he tried to put something in criticising the slave trade but it was
excised before the final draft). They even decided that a slave was
worth 3/5ths of a free man for the purposes of "democracy". The slave
*owners* wanted them counted as a whole person whose vote they could
control whereas the people who saw slavery as wrong thought slaves
should have no vote. The 3/5th rule was an ugly compromise.

It is pretty strange to see a country where racial prejudice against
black people is still rampant claiming that there are innate natural
rights. Heck US schools are now at their most segregated since 1968 and
you call this progress? "American Apartheid" is alive and well.

So much for "natural rights" if it depends on the colour of your skin.

I might concede on balance that there is something along the lines of
"fairness" and "justice" for everyone that *is* a natural right.

You're welcome to try to explain why this is fallacious and merely argument by intimidation...

John Savard

Mention of the Holocaust is almost always argument by intimidation *and*
you know it. The Nazis were an extremely nasty piece of work and did
unimaginable horrible things to those that opposed them.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:31:54 PM UTC+1, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

Consider a spherical globe representing the Earth, with the equator

drawn on it. That equator is a [Great] circle. If its centre must lie

on the surface, then there are two candidate locations for it.



The Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12752 km therefore its geographical
circumference is 40075 km when multiplied by the Pi proportion which relates
diameter to circumference.
================================================== =======
The Earth's diameter at the Poles is 12714 km therefore its geographical
circumference is 39941 km when multiplied by the Pi proportion which relates
diameter to circumference.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:52:40 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:31:54 PM UTC+1, Dr J R Stockton wrote:



Consider a spherical globe representing the Earth, with the equator



drawn on it. That equator is a [Great] circle. If its centre must lie



on the surface, then there are two candidate locations for it.







The Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12752 km therefore its

geographical circumference is 40075 km when multiplied by the Pi

proportion which relates diameter to circumference.



You clowns then move on to the Lat/Long system which divides the

circumference into equal parts of 15 degrees corresponding to 1 hour difference.



These and these alone are astronomical facts but the real enjoyment is in

determining how the system emerged from using external references such as

using the brightest star out there to fix the Earth's orbital position in

space and the number of times the Equator turns 360 degrees for that

wonderful observational event -



The Earth turns with respect to Sirius once every sidereal day.

This is how your external reference proves you to be completely wrong.


The fictional 'solar vs sidereal' script is finished Collins,the parent reference using the bright star Sirius allows that when the Earth returns to the same position along its orbital circumference that Sirius will be seen appearing from behind the glare of the Sun due to the orbital motion of the planet. The observer discovers that for the time it takes the Earth's circumference to turn 360 degrees,the planet moves back to the same orbital position 1461 times after 4 orbital circuits hence the fact reduces to 365 1/4 rotations for one orbital circuit.

Of course when you try to tamper with the length proportion which correlates diameter to circumference then you will fail to appreciate all the other proportions and especially the major astronomical proportion where the 365/366 calendar framework is an offshoot of the actual proportion of 365 1/4 rotations to one orbital circuit contained in the apparent motion of Sirius or the actual orbital motion of the Earth.

Lovely,isn't it !. The reign of mathematicians in astronomical affairs is over until they learn discipline and especially geometrical discipline involved in observational and judgmental perspectives and that includes you Collins.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:42:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

You can still technically be deported from the UK
to the Antipodes for poaching a rabbit after dark (although these days
Australia would not accept a convicted criminal).

The irony here is that Australia has PLENTY of rabbits that need killing. Sounds like a win-win.

It is hard not to recall the post Katrina photograph showing a line of
white policeman with shotguns holding back a starving crowd of black men
from "looting" a supermarket for food and water. Ironic because with no
electricity fresh and frozen produce would quickly spoil.

As Ben Franklin was rumored to have said, "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see."

You weren't in NOLA during Katrina, were you?

Then there's this:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9131493/ns.../#.U1j3tJw3ues

"In some cases, looting on Tuesday took place in full view of police and National Guard troops."

I might concede on balance that there is something along the lines of
"fairness" and "justice" for everyone that *is* a natural right.

Natural rights are equal rights... among those whose mental functions are advanced enough to recognize the existence of natural rights. You are, at best, less than halfway advanced enough. Peterson and the dork are hopeless cases.

Quadibloc had written:

You're welcome to try to explain why this is fallacious and merely argument by intimidation...

Mention of the Holocaust is almost always argument by intimidation *and*
you know it. The Nazis were an extremely nasty piece of work and did
unimaginable horrible things to those that opposed them.

And the Nazis came to power through technically legal means. It would be unwise in the extreme to make that episode a taboo subject, which is what you seem to be attempting to do.

On Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:42:23 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:


It was me that pointed out that Nature provided many nasty infectious
diseases and you conveniently sidestepped this by claiming that it was
irrelevant because "Natural Rights" were not derived from Nature.

Nature stems from the second law of thermodynamics and in its minimalist
hard line form is basically "eat or be eaten".

You still seem to have a mental block WRT natural rights. These rights do not guarantee results, but these rights are self-evident to those who recognize the existence of them.

You also need to understand that governments do not grant them, but must respect them. What governments grant can be called privileges, not rights, and even these must be granted fairly and equitably because of the existence of natural rights, which everyone has by default.

It might help if you understand that a natural right is (or can be) a right whose exercise does not interfere with the natural rights of others.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:43:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

When I say that all humans have the inherent natural right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, I am not claiming that Nature will strike any murderer or thief by lightning before he can succeed in his evil plans.

Then I wouldn't call these natural rights.

What am I claiming?

Well, I'm claiming that stuff like murder and stealing are intrinsically wrong. If a community of people, or a government, tries to say otherwise, it can manae to make it easier to do harm to some innocent people unjustly - but it doesn't change the wrongness of the acts that it has facilitated.

That's fine. But this is just your opinion. It is a reasoned choice to
select a set of rights that seem to lead to your vision of the best
possible society.

And then I can use Negro slavery and the Holocaust as evidence *in favor* of natural rights - because if you deny that natural rights exist, then you're saying those horrible shocking historical injustices weren't really wrong. And nobody would want to say that!

I think your logic fails here. Because it is, once again, a subjective
opinion that these things were "horrible". From the standpoint of
nature, genocide or slavery may well be desirable in some cases,
things that boost the strength of our species.

oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, April 24, 2014 7:52:40 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 6:31:54 PM UTC+1, Dr J R Stockton wrote:



Consider a spherical globe representing the Earth, with the equator



drawn on it. That equator is a [Great] circle. If its centre must lie



on the surface, then there are two candidate locations for it.







The Earth's diameter at the Equator is 12752 km therefore its

geographical circumference is 40075 km when multiplied by the Pi

proportion which relates diameter to circumference.



You clowns then move on to the Lat/Long system which divides the

circumference into equal parts of 15 degrees corresponding to 1 hour difference.



These and these alone are astronomical facts but the real enjoyment is in

determining how the system emerged from using external references such as

using the brightest star out there to fix the Earth's orbital position in

space and the number of times the Equator turns 360 degrees for that

wonderful observational event -



The Earth turns with respect to Sirius once every sidereal day.

This is how your external reference proves you to be completely wrong.


The fictional 'solar vs sidereal' script is finished Collins,the parent
reference using the bright star Sirius allows that when the Earth returns
to the same position along its orbital circumference that Sirius will be
seen appearing from behind the glare of the Sun due to the orbital motion
of the planet. The observer discovers that for the time it takes the
Earth's circumference to turn 360 degrees,the planet moves back to the
same orbital position 1461 times after 4 orbital circuits hence the fact
reduces to 365 1/4 rotations for one orbital circuit.


Why is this fictional? You can determine the truth in just less than 24
hours by observing any star, Sirius is just the brightest.
You don't have to wait four years to determine the Earth's rotation with
respect to an external reference - Sirius as described by yourself.


Of course when you try to tamper with the length proportion which
correlates diameter to circumference then you will fail to appreciate all
the other proportions and especially the major astronomical proportion
where the 365/366 calendar framework is an offshoot of the actual
proportion of 365 1/4 rotations to one orbital circuit contained in the
apparent motion of Sirius or the actual orbital motion of the Earth.

Lovely,isn't it !. The reign of mathematicians in astronomical affairs is
over until they learn discipline and especially geometrical discipline
involved in observational and judgmental perspectives

Another of your self serving lies. The "reign of mathematicians" as you
call it is secure. You can find no evidence to the contrary so you prefer
to lie.
and that includes you Collins.
I'm not a mathematician I'm a biochemist/chemist.

On 4/24/2014 7:25 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:43:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

When I say that all humans have the inherent natural right
not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, I am not claiming that Nature will
strike any murderer or thief by lightning before he can
succeed in his evil plans.

Then I wouldn't call these natural rights.

What am I claiming?

Well, I'm claiming that stuff like murder and stealing are
intrinsically wrong. If a community of people, or a government,
tries to say otherwise, it can manae to make it easier to do
harm to some innocent people unjustly - but it doesn't change
the wrongness of the acts that it has facilitated.

That's fine. But this is just your opinion. It is a reasoned
choice to select a set of rights that seem to lead to your
vision of the best possible society.

And then I can use Negro slavery and the Holocaust as evidence
*in favor* of natural rights - because if you deny that natural
rights exist, then you're saying those horrible shocking
historical injustices weren't really wrong. And nobody would
want to say that!

I think your logic fails here. Because it is, once again, a
subjective opinion that these things were "horrible". From the
standpoint of nature, genocide or slavery may well be desirable
in some cases, things that boost the strength of our species.

Something you both may find interesting is the article entitled:

The Genesis of Justice
Before all learning, an infant's mind has a sense
of right and wrong
by Michael Shermer ( publisher of SKEPTIC magazine at
http://www.skeptic.com )

on page 78 of the May 2014 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN and also available
here retitled "Naughty or Nice? When Does It Begin?":

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...does-it-begin/

Thad