The core question

The nub of this situation is whether it is possible to use the system
that predicts eclipses and planetary positions within a clock work
system to describe a separate system which links dynamical cause with
terrestrial effects.It is not a new question and it was central to the
discussion between Galileo and the Pope which unfortunately created an
artificial split of science/religion by mutual consent.

The answer is no,the typical use of a rotating celestial sphere
framework to extract daily and orbital dynamics is false and destroys
the ability to connect cause and effect where astronomy and
terrestrial sciences mesh,it is specific to this point and disallows
the usual complaints which point in the direction of technological
advances as something to do with astronomy and planetary dynamics.

Without knowing whether the summation is accurate or not as I have not
read the original documents,the outlines of this have already been
noted however there is an enormous difference between noting the issue
and actually dealing with the technical ins and outs of it head on.I
cannot say I have given up on the academics but they insist in
retaining their ideological view which effectively is worthless.

So,the stage is set by actual 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

It is doubtful that the empirical community or denominational
Christianity,so long accustomed to each other's company,would feel it
necessary to ask such a question as it serves them both to ignore the
issue however that does not exclude anyone within either community
from considering the actual objections rather than the awful and
facile one presented to the public.It is one thing to comment on
history,it is something else to reawaken the issues and deal with them
properly this time - it just needs the right people at the right time.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

[snip thuggish crap]
The nub, ignorant thug, is that science is the study of natural phenomena
and religion is the adoration of the supernaturally miraculous. Religion
says the rainbow is a miraculous sign from God, science says it is internal
reflection and refraction of light which can be reproduced in the spray
from a garden sprinkler. The "split" as you call it is as natural as chalk
still isn't cheese. There is no question, core or otherwise.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

Unlike any other human endeavor that is regulated in order to maintain
integrity of purpose,the area where astronomy and terrestrial sciences
mesh has no authoritative structure in place to handle the depth and
volume of material needed to restore a stable narrative to all
sections,including the use of experimental sciences as they apply to
large scale observations.The people presently maintaining view of
large scale astronomical structure are not astronomer but
mathematicians who have followed Newton's lead by vaguely pointing in
the direction of 'predictions' as a means to push their agenda,these
predictions are at the core of the problem and have been since the
time the Earth's planetary dynamics emerged on the scene.

The extinction of sci.astro.amateur as a forum can be likened to a
form of mass intellectual suicide,the inability to adjust to new
information which clears up old problems while simultaneously opening
up many new possibilities between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects has no attraction for those who would rather die with
ideological fiction than fight for what is true and productive. What
is left is worthless mobbing but that has always been present where
frontier discoveries emerge .

The greater blame may lie with denominational Christianity which has
more or less abandoned its astronomical heritage even though many of
the founders leading up to the Earth' planetary dynamics were
Christian and especially Archbishop Cusa who nailed the core issue of
trying to extract information on the Earth's motion through stellar
circumpolar motion -

"Thereupon you will see-- through the intellect..that the world and
its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For the universe will
appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere-- having its
center and circumference nowhere. . . " Nicolas of Cusa 16th century

It may take a societal change where so much damage is being done by
speculative mathematical models that the wider community can no longer
support this unrestricted assault on the great human endeavors without
challenge.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

Unlike any other
==========================================
Your last report was
"This is my final comment on the matter."
Not only are you a thug, you are a LYING thug.
**** off, your words will not be read.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Feb 21, 8:59*am, oriel36 wrote:
Unlike any other human endeavor that is regulated in order to maintain
integrity of purpose, the area where astronomy and terrestrial sciences
mesh has no authoritative structure in place to handle the depth and
volume of material needed to restore a stable narrative to all
sections, including the use of experimental sciences as they apply to
large scale observations.

Science _is_ regulated to the extent necessary to ensure competency.
Colleges must meet quality standards to receive accreditation. Tenured
professors can still be turfed for gross incompetence.

What you're looking for is to have science controlled so that it is
bound to the service of an agenda - a viewpoint - selected ahead of
time, instead of being free to respond to experiment and observation.
That is not the way to let science work, and find the right answers
about the real world, and valuable new insights that we didn't know
before.

new
information which clears up old problems while simultaneously opening
up many new possibilities between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects has no attraction for those who would rather die with
ideological fiction than fight for what is true and productive.

You want to set a structure in place that would give ideological
fiction that kind of power. Empiricism is exactly what clears out
those cobwebs, giving them no chance to block progress.

The greater blame may lie with denominational Christianity which has
more or less abandoned its astronomical heritage

I'm not surprised that you also would like to do away with the
Protestant Reformation.

John Savard

Your core got dumped a long time ago. And there's no question about
that.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
....

On Feb 21, 8:59 am, oriel36 wrote:
Unlike any other human endeavor that is regulated in order to maintain
integrity of purpose, the area where astronomy and terrestrial sciences
mesh has no authoritative structure in place to handle the depth and
volume of material needed to restore a stable narrative to all
sections, including the use of experimental sciences as they apply to
large scale observations.

Science _is_ regulated to the extent necessary to ensure competency.
Colleges must meet quality standards to receive accreditation. Tenured
professors can still be turfed for gross incompetence.

What you're looking for is to have science controlled so that it is
bound to the service of an agenda - a viewpoint - selected ahead of
time, instead of being free to respond to experiment and observation.
That is not the way to let science work, and find the right answers
about the real world, and valuable new insights that we didn't know
before.

================================================== ====
What you are attempting to describe is directed research, how to make the
plane fly higher, faster, cheaper, more profitable, vs why does the humble
ant bite its itchy wings off. Pity the pigeon, it made it to the top of the
(Gherkin/Shard/Cheesegrater/tallest building in the capital), then its
financial portfolio collapsed and all it could do is jump out of a window.



-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.



new
information which clears up old problems while simultaneously opening
up many new possibilities between planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects has no attraction for those who would rather die with
ideological fiction than fight for what is true and productive.

You want to set a structure in place that would give ideological
fiction that kind of power. Empiricism is exactly what clears out
those cobwebs, giving them no chance to block progress.

The greater blame may lie with denominational Christianity which has
more or less abandoned its astronomical heritage

I'm not surprised that you also would like to do away with the
Protestant Reformation.

John Savard

The question is one of historical astronomical grandeur - can the
system that predicts planetary and lunar positions or eclipse events
be used to determine cause and effect between the Earth's dynamics and
terrestrial effects ?.Although this was the primary question at the
juncture between Galileo and the papacy,it really only took on its
complete and significant relevance with John Flamsteed's unfortunate
conclusion which signaled the advent of mechanical modeling and a
clockwork solar system -

"... 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... " Flamsteed to Moore


Working historically backwards from the standpoint that the 24 hour AM/
PM, system in tandem with the Lat/Long system is the only acceptable
perspective as to why the Earth turns one a day and remains in
step,this is the point of departure for the massive realignment of
astronomical principles,methods and insights from behind a number of
centuries of distortions and downright falsehoods.

The rewards are enormous as the predictive system is isolated from
interpretative endeavors of cause and effect.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...
[snip]
**** off, you lying thug.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When the fools chicken farmer Wilson and Van de faggot present an argument I
cannot laugh at I'll retire from usenet.

On Feb 21, 7:19*pm, oriel36 wrote:

The rewards are enormous as the predictive system is isolated from
interpretative endeavors of cause and effect.

That will not bring rewards, as it will deny interpretive endeavours
feedback from reality, so they will become flights of fancy rather
than stepping-stones to further progress.

John Savard