Tripod & Mount Needed

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:04:16 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 8:30:54 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:16:37 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:


Apply this to yourself. Why do you believe that everyone else in the world
is wrong and you are right?

Why are you still working with the Julian calendar even though you know it
is wrong?

The calendar framework represents the single greatest proportion there is
in astronomical terms, at least to a close proximity. There is no human
choice in the fact that as the Earth turns and moves through space that
these are separate motions with the passage of the Sun from horizon to
horizon due to one rotation and the slow annual motion of the stars in
sequence behind the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

You haven't answered the question. Why are you still working with the
Julian calendar even though you know it it wrong?
You need to cope with your delusions of competence.


The ancient observation that Sirius skips a first appearance by one day
after the fourth cycle of 365 days is the defining event which correlates
the number of rotations per orbital circuit -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in
the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days
and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day
after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC

This is an astronomical tradition involving a specific astronomical event
where Sirius appears just far enough to the right side of the Sun to be seen a dawn -

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

I celebrate the ancient astronomical tradition and the event behind it as
it represents the foundations of all timekeeping linking the daily and orbital dynamics.

The toxic atmosphere of a celestial sphere cult is affecting the wider
population in that the natural abilities to discern astronomy from
timekeeping or where the two come into a close proximity is destroying
both facets of astronomy. It is creating a type of autism where students
never get to use their natural faculties and extend their normal
judgments to the grand celestial arena and the long term motions and
observations that comprise that discipline.

In a regrettable process of devolution,a bunch of ill-tempered cretins
managed to do damage with a simple watch and a lot of bluffing and voodoo.


Why do you think the rest of the human race is less intelligent than you?
Does this seem reasonable? Or do you perhaps have delusions of competence?


You and the rest are arguing against the cause of the day/night cycle and that is where your solar vs sidereal time fiction gets you - the lowest point where a person can consider themselves human.

The antidote for the great tragedy of this age is to trace the origins of timekeeping back to their foundations and the relevance of the first annual appearance of a star representing the orbital position of the Earth along its orbital circumference.


Are you celebrating traditional computing by using an abacus? This is true
21st century. A discerning person can use the Internet to find out almost
any piece of knowledge. But you prefer to read centuries old books written
by by the ignorant.

Sirius will still skip an appearance by one day and rotation and this is what generates the parent value which splits in two different ways - the proportion of 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit or the calendar format of 365/366 rotations across 4 years.



It's about time you grew up and accepted that the world has moved on from
the fairy tales of Nicholas of Cusa who thought the stars were only a short
distance up. Accepting that science gets it right will free you from your
personal hell which is obvious in everything you write.

Here is your fairytale -

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

A poisoned astronomical atmosphere has enormous consequences when a society is unable to use its natural faculties or is forced into convictions that are bogus and contrived. When a time comes that society refuses to support the cause of the day/night cycle involving both the Sun and the stars and I look isolated because of that then it says more about the standards of a society and nothing about me.

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:18:32 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:09:28 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:16:37 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:


Apply this to yourself. Why do you believe that everyone else in the world
is wrong and you are right?

Why are you still working with the Julian calendar even though you know it
is wrong?

The calendar framework represents the single greatest proportion there is in astronomical terms, at least to a close proximity. There is no human choice in the fact that as the Earth turns and moves through space that these are separate motions with the passage of the Sun from horizon to horizon due to one rotation and the slow annual motion of the stars in sequence behind the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

There is no rotating celestial sphere involved, there are just the external references assigned their proper place in order to keep the progression of days fixed to the orbital points as closely as possible and that means adding an extra rotation at the end of the fourth 365 day cycle.

Freedom of choice is one of the greatest things humans possess but false choices are not choices at all but a form of mental slavery. Trying to dump two separate rotations into a rotating Earth is criminal and will be for as long as it lasts.

Note that you skipped and failed to respond to an important observation that I asked you to explain...

"... if there is no 'respect to the Sun' in the 24 hour average day, then how do you know when one day ends and the next begins? Hmmmmmm? When you say 'natural variations in the natural noon cycle', isn't that making a reference to the Sun?

How can you describe, for example, 'Monday' without referencing the Sun?


Your contrived solar vs sidereal fiction uses rotation to noon in exactly 24 hours in order to insert a separate rotation to the stars in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...al_Time_en.PNG

Your cult then keeps adding the 3 minute 56 second value to 24 hours and arrives at a conclusion that there are more rotations than day/night cycles where the appearance of the Sun and stars occupy the same cycle -


" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

This makes you extraordinarily ill by virtue that the foundation for timekeeping owes its existence to a specific astronomical event which occurs once at the end of every 4 years -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC



I know, and you know, that to answer this with an intelligent reply would dash your claim that the Sun is not included is any discussion of solar rotation; indeed, that is why the definition includes the word 'solar'!


You can't do it you unfortunate and miserable creature - you can't include the appearance of the Sun and then the appearance of the stars as a single bound rotation creating the normal spectacle that all creatures know as the day/night cycle.

You remain completely unteachable and in a rut. What's the difference between a rut and a grave? Why, only the length, Gerald, only the length.

Old men with stock phrases don't interest me ,all that matters is that with the upcoming extra rotation and day of February 29th is put in astronomical context. The Sun moves from horizon to horizon with each rotation of the Earth as will the slow change in position of the background stars to the central Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth. The first appearance of a star binds the two observations together enclosing the number of times the planet turns to make the first appearance possible.

It wouldn't interest old men with no love for anything.

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 1:34:11 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 9:18:32 PM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:09:28 PM UTC-8, oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:16:37 PM UTC, Mike Collins wrote:


Apply this to yourself. Why do you believe that everyone else in the world
is wrong and you are right?

Why are you still working with the Julian calendar even though you know it
is wrong?

The calendar framework represents the single greatest proportion there is in astronomical terms, at least to a close proximity. There is no human choice in the fact that as the Earth turns and moves through space that these are separate motions with the passage of the Sun from horizon to horizon due to one rotation and the slow annual motion of the stars in sequence behind the Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth.

There is no rotating celestial sphere involved, there are just the external references assigned their proper place in order to keep the progression of days fixed to the orbital points as closely as possible and that means adding an extra rotation at the end of the fourth 365 day cycle.

Freedom of choice is one of the greatest things humans possess but false choices are not choices at all but a form of mental slavery. Trying to dump two separate rotations into a rotating Earth is criminal and will be for as long as it lasts.

Note that you skipped and failed to respond to an important observation that I asked you to explain...

"... if there is no 'respect to the Sun' in the 24 hour average day, then how do you know when one day ends and the next begins? Hmmmmmm? When you say 'natural variations in the natural noon cycle', isn't that making a reference to the Sun?

How can you describe, for example, 'Monday' without referencing the Sun?


Your contrived solar vs sidereal fiction uses rotation to noon in exactly 24 hours in order to insert a separate rotation to the stars in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...al_Time_en.PNG

Your cult then keeps adding the 3 minute 56 second value to 24 hours and arrives at a conclusion that there are more rotations than day/night cycles where the appearance of the Sun and stars occupy the same cycle -


" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

This makes you extraordinarily ill by virtue that the foundation for timekeeping owes its existence to a specific astronomical event which occurs once at the end of every 4 years -

".. on account of the procession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC



I know, and you know, that to answer this with an intelligent reply would dash your claim that the Sun is not included is any discussion of solar rotation; indeed, that is why the definition includes the word 'solar'!


You can't do it you unfortunate and miserable creature - you can't include the appearance of the Sun and then the appearance of the stars as a single bound rotation creating the normal spectacle that all creatures know as the day/night cycle.

You remain completely unteachable and in a rut. What's the difference between a rut and a grave? Why, only the length, Gerald, only the length.

Old men with stock phrases don't interest me ,all that matters is that with the upcoming extra rotation and day of February 29th is put in astronomical context. The Sun moves from horizon to horizon with each rotation of the Earth as will the slow change in position of the background stars to the central Sun due to the orbital motion of the Earth. The first appearance of a star binds the two observations together enclosing the number of times the planet turns to make the first appearance possible.

It wouldn't interest old men with no love for anything.

You still can't answer a straightforward question, and never have. You are incapable of doing so.

On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:15:13 PM UTC, palsing wrote:


You still can't answer a straightforward question, and never have. You are incapable of doing so.

Here is the ugly,awful statement that defines you and the others when all is said and done -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

Lacking any integrity and dignity,it came about using a clock and stellar circumpolar motion and exists only in the imagination of those who have lost the sense of their surroundings and the motion which makes the day/night cycle possible.

You can't ask cretins to be remorseful even if they dominate the education system however it still requires people to get behind the entire timekeeping system and its links to the daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth.

In the morning observers will wake up to the Sun appearing as their location turns towards our central star and will be treated to the great field of stars as that rotation takes the observer on a journey in a circle away from the Sun. there is no choice even though a group emerged that believed the bounded Sun and stars cycle could be split apart.It is time to join them once more in the tradition of the great astronomers if not by common sense.

oriel36 wrote:
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:15:13 PM UTC, palsing wrote:


You still can't answer a straightforward question, and never have. You
are incapable of doing so.

Here is the ugly,awful statement that defines you and the others when all
is said and done -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between
solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often
than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

You don't have the excuse of ignorance.
Your bloated ego prevents logical thinking and your inability to visualise
cripples your thought. Another step to hell. "Blessed are meek for they
will inherit the Earth.

You certainly won't.

Lacking any integrity and dignity,it came about using a clock and stellar
circumpolar motion and exists only in the imagination of those who have
lost the sense of their surroundings and the motion which makes the
day/night cycle possible.

I can maintain my dignity but the I don't spend most waking minutes
spamming forums and newsgroups with infantile "theories".
Grow up and act your age.
Stop shaming your family with this stupid behaviour.


You can't ask cretins to be remorseful even if they dominate the
education system however it still requires people to get behind the
entire timekeeping system and its links to the daily and orbital dynamics of the Earth.

Cretins? You thing they have stunted growth due to lack of thyroid
hormones?

Grow up!

In the morning observers will wake up to the Sun appearing as their
location turns towards our central star and will be treated to the great
field of stars as that rotation takes the observer on a journey in a
circle away from the Sun. there is no choice even though a group emerged
that believed the bounded Sun and stars cycle could be split apart.It is
time to join them once more in the tradition of the great astronomers if
not by common sense.

I don't expect to see a great field of stars in the daytime.
The great astronomers of the past would laugh in your face. Galileo might
have even written a book to demonstrate the stupidity of your ideas. But if
he did you would not recognise that you were the subject.
Grow up!

In little over a week a value that appears once every 4 years will draw attention to an ancient observation that is part of the astronomical heritage. It involves the brightest star in the celestial arena ,the central Sun, the orbital motion of the Earth and the number of times the Earth turns within 4 orbital circuits of the Sun.I take great pleasure and pride in that heritage and especially the narrative which relates timekeeping to the daily and annual dynamics of our planet.

The great proportion contained in February 29th also contains something far more important - the proof that the Earth travels around the Sun by using te slow change in position of the background stars as they move from the left side to the right side of the Sun -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFrE7hWj0A

Accompanying this earth based view is a wider perspective of the same thing however that useful graphic doesn't seem to work lately -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ


Let these thugs try to draw me into a slanging match, they will fail there as they fail with everything else for the simple reason that the visual narratives are far too enjoyable to stop and consider people who have lost a sense of their surroundings.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:35:13 AM UTC, oriel36 wrote:
In little over a week a value that appears once every 4 years will draw attention to an ancient observation that is part of the astronomical heritage.

I wonder if Gerald is aware that there was no February 29th in the year 1900,
and there will be none in 2100, even though there was one in the year 2000...

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:10:32 AM UTC, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:35:13 AM UTC, oriel36 wrote:
In little over a week a value that appears once every 4 years will draw attention to an ancient observation that is part of the astronomical heritage.

I wonder if Gerald is aware that there was no February 29th in the year 1900,
and there will be none in 2100, even though there was one in the year 2000...

You wonder indeed !.

The body needs physical exercise otherwise bad things start to happen and likewise the mind needs to use its natural reasoning faculties for the same reasons. Here we have a group of people who insist ,through stupid logic, that there is one more rotation than there are day/night cycles -

" It is a fact not generally known that,owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time,the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are days in the year" NASA /Harvard

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1904PA.....12..649B

The explanation for the extra rotation of February 29th is tied in with a wonderful astronomical event that happens once every 4 years and although that event is now transplanted to its present position at the end of February, the original sighting of the star Sirius just far enough to the right side of the Sun (dawn observation) to be seen represents not only the Earth's orbital position in space but the orbital motion behind the observation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ

This is the bedrock of timekeeping and it requires no challenge to the interested observer whereas they are presently obstructed by those who adhere to a contrived ideology which can't be compared to any other as it is so dismal. The dominant group insist on 1465 rotations in the 1461 days it takes the Earth to complete 4 orbits and that reflects minds of no standard or completely ill.

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:10:32 AM UTC, wrote:
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 7:35:13 AM UTC, oriel36 wrote:
In little over a week a value that appears once every 4 years will draw attention to an ancient observation that is part of the astronomical heritage.

I wonder if Gerald is aware that there was no February 29th in the year 1900,
and there will be none in 2100, even though there was one in the year 2000...

The whole purpose of timekeeping is keeping rotations fixed to the orbital points of the Equinoxes and Solstices as closely as possible. When you can handle the original insight from antiquity which prevents rotations drifting away from the orbital position by recognizing what is effectively an extra rotation to make up the orbital distance lost by omitting the 1/4 rotation in non leap years then get back to me. Only then I may entertain a comment from you otherwise crawl back into the shadows like most have done.