Climate change

On 27 June, 10:01, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

I have the luxury of doing peer review retroactively and my findings
are as straightforward as they are important.Nobody checked to see if
Flamsteed's assertion for constant daily rotation using the return
of a star stands up to scrutiny based on inverting the references for
daily and orbital motions,considering Newton built empiricism and his
terrestrial ballistics/planetary motion on that framework and
conclusion,the validity of the latter depends on the former.

Peer review to your heart's content,with an error of the magnitude
existing at the core of planetary dynamics,specifically a false
conception rooted to the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds at
variance with planetary shape and rotational characteristics contained
in the reasoning behind the 24 hour/360 degree value,anything relating
to planetary dynamics and cosmological structure is in a catastrophic
state whether men choose to affirm it or not.

The lessons of Piltdown man apply here to a large degree to the
sidereal time vs solar time/analemma hoax -

"The [Piiltdown] hoax illuminates two pitfalls to be wary of in the
scientific process. The first is the danger of inadequately examining
and challenging results that confirm the currently accepted scientific
interpretation. The second is that a result, once established, tends
to be uncritically accepted and relied upon without further
reconsideration."

http://www.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

How a race ended up not knowing how long it takes the planet to turn
once is a remarkable story in itself outside the technical issues
which make it 24 hours exactly.The failure to pick up on the error or
rather,to model planetary motion using timekeeping averages has its
parallels today as the same guys go about modelling everything with
computers. Flamsteed is allowed his mistake hence if all share the
consequences of it then so do we share in expunging it or at least
those who are capable of realising the importance of the matter.

It is no mean thing,even in this information saturated era,to express
the wrong value for the rotation of the Earth in its daily cycle for
it reflects not just the value itself but the reasoning that arrives
at it.I have done my part on the usenet where the messages can be
washed away within a few days leaving no trace of my participation
thereby giving people plenty of freedom to act responsibly for a
change and do their best to raise the standard of astronomy to where
it once existed.

As for you and variable stars,I was working on these things back in
1990 in terms of volume/density ratios and luminosity variations,even
have a copyright (the only one I have) on the geometry of stellar
processes in terms of enegy efficiency and a a multi-stage stellar
evolutionary process based on two large external rings and a smaller
intersecting smaller ring.When you work on these things alone you get
the private satisfaction of seeing the images 4 years later when
Sn1897a went Supernova -

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/pic/sn1987a.gif

Natural and celestial processes are the most efficient in terms of
energy extraction and creation hence my contribution to an alternative
energy scaffolding is to point to the geometry of stellar evolutionary
processes contained in the images above,it has been a private work for
20 years and that is the way it will stay.

You collect variable stars like observational trinkets and good for
you if that is all you can manage but some others when given a piece
of information can work with it and see posibilities and connections
the way astronomers once did.The cruelty of being stuck with late 17th
century astrological conceptions you may never know but even when
proposed as an observational Ra/Dec convenience,people still want this
timekeeping average to reflect planetary dynamics and celestial
structure.

If you really wish to make a difference then post your own original
material rather than being a nuisance.

On Jun 27, 5:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

As far as Kelleher is concerned, he has no peers.

On Jun 27, 12:21*pm, wrote:
On Jun 27, 5:01 am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"

wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

As far as Kelleher is concerned, he has no peers.

What I see are guys who are firmly rooted in an error in the late 17th
century as a launchpad for Newton's attempt to bypass intuitive or
contemplative astronomy,as Kepler called it -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by what
circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted
on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

Newton goes straight from Ra/Dec conventions into modelling by
distorting the resolution for retrogrades which comprise of the bulk
of astronomical methods and insights based on direct planetary
comparisons -

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that absolute space, in which those
motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation of
our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion." Newton

Talk about loading the dice !,the truth is that a person today,with
the aid of time lapse footage can make sense of apparent motions such
as retrogrades,the seasons,the day and night cycle or any other
astronomical observation via planetary dynamics so Newton is talking
rubbish,as usual.

It is not that I have no peers,I just haven't found people who
actually like astronomy or much else for that matter,the people who
are into magnification appear to have no astronomical sense of context
and especially planetary dynamics and have an aversion for intuitive
intelligence, matters of faith,history and just good old fashioned
common sense.I truly believe that given a chance or a choice,people
would much prefer to act with the best interests of humanity in mind
but that is not happening here,this reliance on the 'scientific
method' mantra is choking off genuine avenues of discussion other
than overheated opinions of the speculative kind.

Again,if I ever find somebody who actually is excited with what
contemporary tools and imaging can achieve I will then consider an
authority in existence but nothing indicates this even with important
matters on the table.

Martin Nicholson (NMR) wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.

You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.

I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.

Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.

Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.

I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.

Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.

If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him.

Tell him to rotate.

Best Regards

George

Martin Nicholson (NMR) wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.

You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.

I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.

Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.

Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.

I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.

Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.

If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him. I can believe he has nothing better to
do with his time.

Tell him to rotate.

Best Regards

George

Martin Nicholson (NMR) wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.

You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.

I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.

Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.

Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.

I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.

Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.

If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him.

Tell him to rotate.

Best Regards

George

Martin Nicholson (NMR) wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.

You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.

I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.

Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.

Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.

I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.

Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.

If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him.

Tell him to rotate.

Best Regards

George

Martin Nicholson (NMR) wrote:
On 27 June, 08:08, oriel36 wrote:

Endlessly repeated material deleted

You keep slipping back into your comfort zone by posting minor
variations of the same material again and again and again.

I simply don't believe that there are not more constructive uses you
could make of your time. If you **really** believed what you keep
posting you would arranged for it to be published in a far more
appropriate place.

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Is abuse all you can do? You do not seem to tell him why he is wrong
and only abuse him.

You repeat the same thing to him again and again and again and tell
people to ignore him because all he does is repeat. I think you are
jealous. People completely ignore your posts but they talk to him.

I have seen you say all he does is cut and paste the same old
material.

Well I looked at some of your "peer review" papers. Most of them are
just in hobbyist amateur web journals and not in peer reviewed
scientific journals at all. They are difficult to read sometimes with
the text being very randomly jumbled up. Then I followed some of your
paper references to earlier papers which are also in the hobbyist
magazines and found out why. You mostly cut and paste from the text
and references of other articles by other people and do nothing new
yourself to explain the theories or explain what you are doing.
Sometimes whole sentences can be seen to be cut and paste.

Gerald at least uses cut and paste to mix up his own original idea.
Even if that idea is unscientific and a bit strange at least it is
his. All you do is attack him and abuse him and not his ideas. Your
own peer review work is just in little amateur journals on the web and
cut and paste of earlier work done by others.

I think you are just jealous of him. You repeat time and again that
people should ignore him but they already do ignore you. Lots of
people talk to him but very few talk to you. If you abuse Gerald some
one might talk to you so you repeat the abuse time and again with the
same message.

Well, Gerald, you keep doing it if you want at least it is your own.
Not like Mad Man Martin The Troll King who uses cut and paste of web
material and other hobbyist work and when that is ignored runs to
insult you and the Einstein hating dude and the Mars fossil dude
hoping someone will talk to him by joining in on the insults.

If Martin does not want to listen to you there are filters and mail
blockers. He has to be hateful to you and reply every time you start
a thread only because he is jealous of people talking to you instead
of to him. Ignore him. If you did not reply to him he would have
nearly no one talking to him.

Tell him to rotate.

Best Regards

George

skyguy wrote:

Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital
mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather
and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on
deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word
'tilt' is different from our universe.

He lives in a world where several things are different.

He believes his intuition is far more enlightening than basic math and
science. He cannot imagine how his intuition could be wrong,
primarily due to his inabilities to do math and imagine more than one
discrete motion at a time.

As such, he really does live in Hell, a world in which God and all the
monsters under his bed have the same factual basis as the rising of
the Sun. Medieval Europe, pretty much.

How a guy from the Middle Ages wrangled access to the internet escapes
me. Maybe he's really an alchemist who unwittingly conjured up a
temporal displacement field and a usenet account.

Or perhaps he's the first alchemist to accidentally make LSD, the rest
of us being, rather disturbingly, nothing more than a hallucination.
--
Dave

On Jun 27, 12:22 pm, Dave Typinski m wrote:
skyguy wrote:

Well that clinches it. Gerald doesn't have a clue about orbital
mechanics and the related effects such as seasonal changes in weather
and climate zones. I'm afraid your detailed explanation (below) fell on
deaf ears. He must live in a world where the definition of the word
'tilt' is different from our universe.

He lives in a world where several things are different.

He believes his intuition is far more enlightening than basic math and
science. He cannot imagine how his intuition could be wrong,
primarily due to his inabilities to do math and imagine more than one
discrete motion at a time.

As such, he really does live in Hell, a world in which God and all the
monsters under his bed have the same factual basis as the rising of
the Sun. Medieval Europe, pretty much.

How a guy from the Middle Ages wrangled access to the internet escapes
me. Maybe he's really an alchemist who unwittingly conjured up a
temporal displacement field and a usenet account.

Or perhaps he's the first alchemist to accidentally make LSD, the rest
of us being, rather disturbingly, nothing more than a hallucination.

Kelleher's mind "blue-screened" long ago.