Talking to oriel36 is like ...

On Oct 16, 9:16*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 13 Okt., 10:35, badastrobuster wrote:

Making fun of the inmates of the 19th century lunatic asylums.

WHY DO YOU DO IT?

Presumably this is not a rhetorical question?

The public were protected from the, largely untreatable, inmates of
19th century lunatic asylums. Many were not even lunatics but merely
wronged by a religiously corrupted, class ridden, sociopathic, largely
uneducated society. One which claimed the moral high ground while
sending children down the mines. Performing wars for obscene profit
and land theft. Or inflicting their hideous rituals on innocents
abroad in the name of god and country.

On Abusenet the public is imprisoned in the asylum and the lunatics
are mostly outside. Looking in and protected from sanction by their
unique anonymity. Anonymity is the curse of the devils who invented
Abusenet. In the unforgivably naive expectation that those who used it
would be either sane, self-disciplined, intelligent or both. They were
wrong on both counts. Nobody sane would put up with the lack of
intelligence shown by the resident lunatics. Their infantile drivel is
so easily proven wrong that one wonders why they ever bother get out
of their institutional beds in the mornings.

Burning at the stake still has its merits. No smoke without fire. If
that fails there is always the ducking stool. Or, my personal
favourite, the sharp, pointy stick of a well aimed, response post.
Everybody should have a hobby. That said, lunacy is not officially
listed under "1001 fun things to do when you are bored!"

A.N.Inmate

Being a bit crazy helps cope with the horrific mess this world has
gotten itself into.

On Oct 13, 2:35*am, badastrobuster wrote:
Making fun of the inmates of the 19th century lunatic asylums.

And shortly after you posted that, he wrote a post which began:

The most accurate summation of a dismal situation was not written in
the last century but in the 19th century by a writer honest and
intelligent enough to call it as it is. "To explain: — The Newtonian
Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose existence as such no one out
of Bedlam questions

....hmm. If he hadn't passed the Turing Test previously, this would
almost have me wondering if he were a 'bot.

John Savard

On Oct 17, 6:55*am, oriel36 wrote:

Badastrobuster indeed !,the only person ever to design a game where he
didn't have to play and he lost !.

Ah. So you've seen War Games too.

John Savard

This is quite impressive - there are over 2000 people in the USA
taking the name of an 'astronomer' with an average salary of $102 000
per year -

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm

The numbers for Newtonian empiricists is ten times that -

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical...stronomers.htm

So,the wage bill in the USA is $21 billion dollars per year and for
that you have people who,for the last ten years, cannot reason their
way out of the calendar based celestial sphere geometry!.

For a few dollars a month in internet charges,people can come here and
draw on observations and send them in all sorts of different
directions,from evolutionary geology to climate to the historical and
technical development of astronomy,my only complaint is that in an era
with astonishing graphics I cannot find those people who can adapt the
casual style of an unmoderated Usenet posting into new approaches and
modifications of older perspectives.

On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:55:44 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

I work in astronomy for nothing...

Even at that, you are paid too much...

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...25129148_n.jpg

On 17/10/2012 22:11, oriel36 wrote:
This is quite impressive - there are over 2000 people in the USA
taking the name of an 'astronomer' with an average salary of $102 000
per year -

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm

The numbers for Newtonian empiricists is ten times that -

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical...stronomers.htm

So,the wage bill in the USA is $21 billion dollars per year and for
that you have people who,for the last ten years, cannot reason their
way out of the calendar based celestial sphere geometry!.

ITYM ignore raving lunatics and netkooks.

The Greeks and Romans had a better grasp of celestial mechanics than you
do. The Babylonians and even the guys who built Stonehenge probably did
as well although they would have had trouble writing it down!

The "astronomer" figure is incidentally both misnamed and misclassified
by the bls site. They only counted optical astronomers for some reason
and completely ignored space probe researchers and radio astronomers.
The job category is astrophysicist anyway and there should be a whole
bunch of radio astronomers in New Mexico.

The pay for astrophysicists is fairly good for an academic position but
you can expect to earn at least twice as much in a high tech industry
(and the sky is the limit if you sell your soul to Wall Street).

The best support engineers that work on the state of the art kit are
often better paid than the science researchers too.

For a few dollars a month in internet charges,people can come here and
draw on observations and send them in all sorts of different
directions,from evolutionary geology to climate to the historical and
technical development of astronomy,my only complaint is that in an era
with astonishing graphics I cannot find those people who can adapt the
casual style of an unmoderated Usenet posting into new approaches and
modifications of older perspectives.

More world salad. I agree that it *is* like poking lunatics in the
Victorian asylum to enter into any kind of discourse with you.

But I thought it made sense to point out that the bls numbers for what
the public might call "astronomers" is probably low by about 500 or so.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 18, 12:57*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 17/10/2012 22:11, oriel36 wrote:

This is quite impressive *- there are over 2000 people in the USA
taking the name of an 'astronomer' with an average salary of $102 000
per year -

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes192011.htm

The numbers for Newtonian empiricists is ten times that -

http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical.../physicists-an...

So,the wage bill in the USA is $21 billion dollars per year and for
that you have people who,for the last ten years, cannot reason their
way out of the calendar based celestial sphere geometry!.

ITYM ignore raving lunatics and netkooks.


I could equally move the topic to issues competence and what have you
but things are not always so simple,after all,the colossal annual
expenditure on a group that vehemently opposes 24 hour days falling
out of sync with daily rotations pales in significance to the damage
done to the intellectual currency of our civilization and even our
species.

On the other hand,I have noticed that empiricists themselves couldn't
stand Newton's clockwork solar system in that it limited them in areas
such as electromagnetism and even today topics such as geomagnetism
arising from internal fluid dynamics is out of bounds insofar as the
inability to work with the maximum equatorial speed of the Earth
prohibits the necessary distinction between the even rotational
gradient of the surface crust with the uneven rotation gradient
(differential rotation) of the fluid interior in contact with the
surface crust .

I noticed that those willing to remain in an unmoderated newsgroup
have the advantage over the sterile moderated newsgroups which
mirror,in some ways,the empirical hierarchical structure in affirming
or rejecting topics based on self preservation in terms of monetary
lifestyles and reputations,in short,you know enough to come to saa and
discover astronomy goes on here like nowhere else despite the usual
racket about its demise.




The Greeks and Romans had a better grasp of celestial mechanics than you
do.


It is absolutely clear now exactly how the timekeeping systems
developed and even the Ra/Dec extensions which give empirical
'celestial mechanics' so much trouble as it is a clockwork solar
system designed around the calendar system and the 365 day/366 day
format.It should take no prompting to push people in the direction of
the origins of the calendar cycle which uses a specific reference of
the return of a star in order to sync rotations to orbital points as
opposed to the mistake of using the daily return of a star to a
meridian within the framework of the calendar system.

So,'celestial mechanics',in a modern sense, have a definite beginning
with an ill-fated conclusion -

"... 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... " John Flamsteed to Moore

It takes nothing more than to row back to the 24 hour AM/PM system in
tandem with the Lat/Long system to gain a foothold in genuine
timekeeping and its origins in the Earth's daily and orbital dynamics
and only a short step to the original references which create the
proportion of full rotations to orbital circuits to the nearest
rotation.From that vantage point it becomes easy to see where the
numbskulls in the late 17th century jumped the tracks by trying to
take a shortcut using daily stellar circumpolar motion and besides,the
development of the timekeeping system is a joy to behold and certainly
within the grasp of teenagers.

This covers the technical aspects to a large extent as it applies to a
narrow historical perspective with a much greater tech ical and
historical story appearing in the background as to why the predictive
side of astronomical timekeeping is getting in the way of
interpretative astronomy and especially where planetary dynamics and
terrestrial effects mesh.I have seen some decent commentaries that
circle this area at a specific juncture in human history -

" 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

To make a long and very complicated story very short,the vicious
strain of empiricism to which you belong owes its existence to the
dangers inherent in extending the predictive convenience of celestial
sphere geometry too far and the productive strain of empiricism would
emerge from recognizing the limitations of the predictive convenience
that your predecessors for centuries never did and who lived awkwardly
with fudge that associates celestial sphere motion with planetary
dynamics.






















--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 18, 12:57*am, Martin Brown
wrote:

But I thought it made sense to point out that the bls numbers for what
the public might call "astronomers" is probably low by about 500 or so.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

The public are astronomers,that is the whole point of the exercise as
their bodies respond to the great planetary cycles by which they sleep/
rise or when they adapt to the seasons as the Earth makes a circuit of
the Sun.You come from a community with a doctrine that rotations fall
out of step with 24 hour days without knowing the timekeeping
principles and the references which keep rotations and days in step
while getting large sums of money from the same public so you can take
the name of 'astronomer' with all its noble connotations in public
stature and intelligence.

The story of how the calendar system came into existence followed by
the 24 hour AM/PM cycle in tandem with the Lat/Long system is a
genuinely lovely story that is within the grasp of any teenager
through meteorological events such as the flooding of the Nile and the
coincident appearance of Sirius or the enjoyable story of the
Longitude problem and how watches resolved the issue as a means,in a
wider context, to put days/years in sync with rotations/orbital
circuits.

In many situations like this,construction goes along with demolition
so it is not a matter of disproving something for its own sake but
rather that the productive topics become obvious with familiarity as
the correct principles and insights become obvious and make no mistake
about this,despite the billions poured in the direction of welfare
empiricism where you don't actually have to do anything
worthwhile,genuine astronomers with talent will surface and move
astronomy on to a stable narrative foundation.

If you are going to be paid a magnificent salary from being an
astronomer then act like one.

Oriel36 clearly has serious mental health issues and I would have
thought that simple human compassion might dictate to readers and
posters alike that responding to his delusions was harmful.

If he was 100% igonored then there is at least some chance that he
will accept the help he so clearly needs.

On Oct 20, 1:43*am, Martin Nicholson
wrote:
Oriel36 clearly has serious mental health issues and I would have
thought that simple human compassion might dictate to readers and
posters alike that responding to his delusions was harmful.

If he was 100% igonored then there is at least some chance that he
will accept the help he so clearly needs.

You are fine and demonstrate the great temporary success of the
empirical cult in that an amateur astronomer is supposed to contribute
to variable star observing among other things,in other words,theorists
who turn the celestial arena into a junkyard are now throwing
magnification guys a bone by calling them 'citizen scientists' and
keeping them distracted with trivial nonsense -

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ke...epler-ph1.html

It has all the substance of a North Korean memo and the beauty of it
all is the wider population get to fund it.'Citizen scientist'
indeed !.