Climate change

On Jun 28, 12:55*pm, wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once and I will let you
know whether you have those distinct commie sentiments or whether you
are a good American,even a non response is good enough for me to make
the judgement.It is not the fact itself but the silly fiction creating
way that you can arrive at the alternative 'sidereal time'
conclusion,that being said, you have a chance to state the proper
value before you ever squeek outa sentence again.

It is not the well meaning enviro guys who created the 'climate
change' mess nor the opportunistic politicians,it was astrologers
like yourself and the rest here who turned astronomy into a weakminded
affair.

On Jun 27, 3:01*am, "Martin Nicholson (NMR)"
wrote:

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

He knows perfectly well that the scientific community is dominated by
empiricists who have fallen for Flamsteed's mistake, hook, line, and
sinker!

In any case, he doesn't even _claim_ to be a scientist - merely an
ordinary lay person who is seeing what should be as obvious as the
nose on one's face to any other ordinary person, particularly with
the benefits of modern imaging.

So his failure to submit a paper to an astronomical journal is not
because he knows, deep down in his heart of hearts that he's wrong.
(Even if we might wonder for other reasons that this just might be the
case.) It's because he doesn't have a big technical argument to
present. His message is very simple - the Emperor Newton has no
clothes! So, he figures that if he explains the very obvious in a
forum read by ordinary people - who haven't had their minds
irretrievably warped by a scientific education - _somebody_ might get
it, and be able to explain it more clearly than he can, in language
the scientific community will have no choice but to accept!

This is a mistaken dream on his part, because he really is just plain
wrong, in a simple manner that's obvious even to people who haven't
mastered the intricacies of calculus. But however false his world view
may be, attempting peer-reviewed publication really isn't an act
consistent with that view, so he can hardly be faulted for that
omission.

Someday, if he ever gets his wish that there'll be an *authority* to
keep science from straying into misguided paths, we'll celebrate St.
Severinus Boethius' Day on October 23rd, and relax with a nice game of
Rithmomachy...

http://www.quadibloc.com/other/bo0107.htm

John Savard

On Jun 27, 5:06*am, oriel36 wrote:

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

Unfortunately, few of us here can be quite as original as you.

John Savard

On Jun 28, 7:07*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....

* *Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
* *trump poor reasoning every time.

* *Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
* *of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
* *know if you need airfare.

For that would work, he would have to agree to your *definition* of
"turn once" wherein the return of a star (which he acknowledges takes
place in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds) corresponds to the Earth
turning through 360 degrees.

So what is needed is not a new observation, but rather a way to
convince him that there is no reasonable and meaningful way to view
the Earth's rotation with respect to the "mean sun" as its real
rotation. We have the natural noon cycle, as he calls it, that
incorporates the Equation of Time, and we have the uniform rotation
with respect to the stars, and that is it.

Of course, since he writes of the "analemma hoax", it could be that he
does not seek to claim that the Earth has a motion which corresponds
to 24 hours of uniform mechanical clock time, but instead that he sees
the natural noon cycle as the Earth's true rotation.

John Savard

On Jun 28, 2:07*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....

* *Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
* *trump poor reasoning every time.

* *Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
* *of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
* *know if you need airfare.

That value created an overheated system from the late 17th century to
1904 as they tried to escape or find away around the elaborate scheme
which Newton created by using a modelling system (absolute space)
based on observed motions (relative motions) while retaining a common
astrological framework otherwise known as the Equatorial coordinate
system.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=B0tGSsqWAo_wyASWr_VR&id=wa3CskhHaIgC&dq=E instein's+Space-Time&q=mach

The inverted reference system for daily and orbital motions based on
timekeeping averages is under discussion by Mach in the pages above
is actually the fictional system yet the purpose is not to get lost in
the forest of different associations or the crosscurrents of
manipulation that Isaac used to diminish astronomy and promote his
experimental agenda but to demonstrate how modern images changes
things.

http://ealdent.files.wordpress.com/2...rmalhaut_b.jpg

Whereas Newton created 'absolute space',a byword for modelling, by
trying to obliterate planetary comparisons and replace it by directly
appealing to Ra/Dec conventions,today dynamicists can see a solar
system in motion such as the Formalhaut system thereby disproving this
false absolute/relative space which does not anticipate what modern
imaging can actually do -

"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." Newton

Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to
explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and
space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it
relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and
ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work.

You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a
24 hour average and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be
explained that way no more than you can look out your window and
conclude that the Earth is flat by looking at a local piece of
ground.

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

Why are you so against peer reviewed publication?

Are these two papers by Martin in an amateur hobbyist electronic
periodical what Martin means by "peer review"?

http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej87.shtml

http://www.aavso.org/publications/ejaavso/ej92.shtml

These two papers contain fine examples of quack science. The author
shows that he has no idea what O-C is. He says the published
ephemerises are wrong but does not give a new ephemeris. This is
because you can not give a sensible new ephemeris from two consecutive
eclipses. For the same reason you can not use two solitary
consecutive eclipses to show another ephemeris to be wrong. Only the
publishing of the measurements has any meaning, if they can be
believed to have been done properly by some one who then talks
gibberish in the rest of the articles.

O-C just does not work that way.

He also makes a sign mistake in one of the formulas in at least one of
the papers. This then makes the result in that paper wrong. He can
not even do arithmetic.

If this is what Martin means by peer review then Gerard should
condense his theories into a small article and send them to this
electronic periodical and not be afraid of being rejected. If the two
papers above are examples of this peer review then quack science is
quite welcome.

Best regards

George

On Jun 28, 12:15*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Instead of this unrelenting hostility,it should be an easier task to
explain exactly where Newton is getting his absolute/relative time and
space from,how it relates to the early 20th century concepts,how it
relates back to the antecedent astronomical methods and insights and
ultimately how to open up the avenues again for productive work.

It is true that the stars have proper motion. These motions are slow,
however, so it is valid to use the stars as an approximation to a
static frame of reference. We still see constellations in the sky that
were given names by the ancient Greeks.

You ain't going to do anything by timing the return of a star using a
24 hour average *and then concluding that planetary dynamics can be
explained that way no more than you can look out your window and
conclude that the Earth is flat *by looking at a local piece of
ground.

Our mechanical clocks split time up into uniform periods, forcing us
to average the length of a solar day, which varies according to the
Equation of Time, so that we can use a mechanical clock for daily
timekeeping - because that's the way mechanical systems behave. A
clock minute is the same to a clock whether it is day or night, summer
or winter. Since the mechanical laws work according to this uniform
time scale, if one seeks to explain the motions of the planets
mechanically, we would use this time scale as well. And this
explanation is successful; the return of a star is uniform according
to mechanical clock time, Kepler's equation can be used to predict the
motion of a body in an elliptical orbit, and further elaborations let
us see the small effects due to the gravitational influences of the
planets on each other (perturbations).

Perturbations in the orbit of Uranus are what let astronomers know in
which part of the sky to look for Neptune, if you want proof we are on
the right track, and not derailed as you claim.

So we have indeed done something; we have done a great deal using
mechanical time as our basis for studying the motions of the planets.
You may hold a grudge against Laplace because he was an avowed
atheist, but that is your problem.

John Savard

Sam Wormley wrote:

oriel36 wrote:


Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....


Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
trump poor reasoning every time.

Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
know if you need airfare.

At this point I would be elated if he would explain with a few words,
(one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains
fixed in space towards Polaris. That would be a ground breaking
achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the
orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the
rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective
directions to the stars as they orbit the sun. Perhaps his intuition
tells him that it's a non issue and doesn't need to be explored.
I remember when I was a kid learning about the solar system and the
causes of the seasons on the earth, thinking it was odd that the earth's
axis was tilted but it didn't keep one pole tilted towards the sun
throughout it's yearly orbit. It seemed more intuitive to me that the
axis remain fixed to the sun rather than the distant stars. Of course if
this were true, there wouldn't be any seasons as we know them now, just
a range of climate zones. It would be a more extreme case than the earth
having no tilt at all. Gerald likes to use the very extreme case of
Uranus with it's almost parallel axis to it's orbital plane but he
apparently doesn't wonder why it remains that way.
I learned later that the earth's axis would have to precess over the
period of a year to keep it aligned with the sun. Most of us know this
would be a violation of a particular property of rotating bodies but
Gerald doesn't seem to care. A 'real' astronomer would have done some
research on the subject. As for Gerald, nada.

"Martin Nicholson (NMR)" 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.

The more I look into this the funnier it gets. Funny hilarious and
funny sick.

http://groups.google.com/group/aavso...8ee3c10ef70f73

Even in variable star work Martin is ignored. He offers his expert
knowledge probably from his many famous projects that he keeps
mentioning and no one has ever heard of even out of peer review.
There are links to them on usenet spammed by him over many groups and
all with very few replies. Less replies than Gerard gets and Gerard
does not only receive abuse but some real replies and advise.

When Martin offers his help in that thread there is no answer but an
answer for a later message from another arrives.

Go Gerard! He is simply just jealous that you get all this attention
and he gets ignored.

usenet looks to be just a home for cyber bullies who can not get any
attention elsewhere and mad theories.

Pity.

Disappointed.

George

On Jun 29, 11:18*am, skyguy wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

Tell me how long it takes the Earth to turn once....

* Why tell when we can make a direct measurement? Direct observation
* trump poor reasoning every time.

* Bring your stop watch and together we will time the 360° rotation
* of the earth -- and verify it to be 86,164.09+ seconds. Let me
* know if you need airfare.

At this point I would be elated if he would explain with a few words,
(one particular word will do) why the earth's rotational axis remains
fixed in space towards Polaris.

You want to be elated then grow up,realise that the 24 hour
timekeeping average is a product of natural noon and the daily cycle
where the natural cyclical variations are evened out against the
orbital cycle -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick 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. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a
day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the
same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And
this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches
are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute
shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must
needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun,
or are reckon'd according to its Motion." Christian Huygens

If you want to be really elated,then you find out that the same
Equation of Time facility which keeps the averages 24 hour days
ticking over - Monday into Tuesday into Wednesday ect ,also keeps the
daily cycle constant at 24 hours.As the 24 hour averages is weighed
against the orbital cycle,it also means daily rotation is considered
constant with the inequalities in natural noon due to orbital dynamics
and characteristics.

A person who cannot grasp the basic references for the daily cycle and
how the variations in the natural noon cycle correlate with 24 hour/
360 degrees and the information which contains planetary shape and
rotational characteristics is no teacher and no astronomer - period !.






That would be a ground breaking
achievement for him. I can't imagination anyone learning about the
orbital mechanics of the solar system not asking themselves why the
rotational axis of the planets remain fixed in their respective
directions to the stars as they orbit the sun.

I feel you are all behaving like spoilt children which is why it is
becoming unbearable here.

The return of a star does not proved daily rotation is constant,it
shows that a star returns in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds based on a
24 hour timekeeping average within the framework of the 365/366 day
calendar system.Until you come to terms with the original references
for daily and orbital motions you will not know why inverting them as
Flamsteed did,does so much damage.









Perhaps his intuition
tells him that it's a non issue and doesn't need to be explored.
I remember when I was a kid learning about the solar system and the
causes of the seasons on the earth, thinking it was odd that the earth's
axis was tilted but it didn't keep one pole tilted towards the sun
throughout it's yearly orbit. It seemed more intuitive to me that the
axis remain fixed to the sun rather than the distant stars. Of course if
this were true, there wouldn't be any seasons as we know them now, just
a range of climate zones. It would be a more extreme case than the earth
having no tilt at all. Gerald likes to use the very extreme case of
Uranus with it's almost parallel axis to it's orbital plane but he
apparently doesn't wonder why it remains that way.
I learned later that the earth's axis would have to precess over the
period of a year to keep it aligned with the sun. Most of us know this
would be a violation of a particular property of rotating bodies but
Gerald doesn't seem to care. A 'real' astronomer would have done some
research on the subject. As for Gerald, nada.