A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No standard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 23rd 05, 04:57 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default No standard

Astronomers you ain't,that much is certain.Even if you hijack the title
and others do not notice you are little more than cataloguers.

An astronomer has the final say on what works and what does'nt,the very
fact is that my astronomical heritage is in the hands of a bunch of
mathematical freaks who could'nt make an observation to save their
lives let alone distinguish between perceived motions from Earth and
actual motions.

Powerful telescopes supply more data but they are worthless in the
hands of theorists and it has been that way for centuries.Passing on
Newton's empirical illness to future generations assures that astronomy
will eventually die in all but name for the theorists have left you
nothing left to observe.

Good enough for people who have no standards , no sense of the scale
and majesty of the cosmos and no way to pass that on to future
generations.

  #3  
Old February 23rd 05, 05:48 PM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:36:24 GMT, DH wrote:

Poor Grammar :

* ain't,that : no space between comma and next word,
* certain.Even : see above,
* centuries.Passing : see above,

* could'nt : apostrophe in wrong position,
* does'nt : see above,

* does'nt,the : double fault,

* standards , no : unrequired space between standards and comma,


Let's hope, for goodness sake, that he has never taught children!
Perhaps he once got a job as a teacher and was kicked out for being
carp. This would explain his pointless ranting against those who
could command far more respect than this moron with the nail on their
little finger.

* for the theorists have left you nothing left to observe : Wow, tautology, that's
cool !


Back to teaching again ;-)

3/10 for Grammar, +1 for the tautology, which I rather enjoyed, 0/10 for making any
sense whatsoever !


Try to keep a constant angular score of 1 point per mistake and you
will find that at a greater distance from the meaningful point your
intention will cover a greater distance around the circumference of
the bowl.

Now you are probably too courteous to figure out that this is contrary
to Kipper lotion as the Earth travels slower when it's relatively
faster on two orbits than it's inclination and Thuban was the true
pole star of degrees of circumpolar distance. You dumbass! ;-)

Ta dah... I can talk his language too - aka bollox.

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
  #4  
Old February 23rd 05, 06:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I wonder if you would force your child to make sense of the NMM
explanation for axial rotation and the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.


"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360=BA with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361=BA with respect to the
background stars."

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

No doubt there has to be at least one responsible parent out there who
can recognise that something went badly wrong without trying to make
excuses, insofar as that error is the thin end of a very big wedge
that ends in relativity and the exotic trash of that cartoon concept.

Again,would you force your child to make sense of that explanation from
the NMM ?. I suspect you lot are cruel enough to make excuses and
wangle your way out but then you become subhuman.

At least I can say I tried.

  #5  
Old February 23rd 05, 06:34 PM
DH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
I wonder if you would force your child to make sense of the NMM
explanation for axial rotation and the value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

No doubt there has to be at least one responsible parent out there who
can recognise that something went badly wrong without trying to make
excuses, insofar as that error is the thin end of a very big wedge
that ends in relativity and the exotic trash of that cartoon concept.

Again,would you force your child to make sense of that explanation from
the NMM ?. I suspect you lot are cruel enough to make excuses and
wangle your way out but then you become subhuman.

At least I can say I tried.


I for one, see no anomaly in that statement.

Maybe you didn't (note spelling / grammar for apostrophe use) notice that the 361
degrees is comparing a SOLAR day to a SIDEREAL day. The Earth AFAIK, does rotate at
a different rate with respect to the sun vs the rest of the stars....

The stars do rotate their places in the sky over a period of about one year don't they ?

DH
  #6  
Old February 23rd 05, 06:47 PM
Craig Oldfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
burbled happily...

does'nt
could'nt


Anyone fancy a "would'nt"?
--
Craig Oldfield
  #7  
Old February 23rd 05, 07:09 PM
John Carruthers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Read and absorb a few books (not pop)
Try to understand what they are saying.
Stop listening to the chavs in the pub.
Read some of DJ Min's posts and you'll see how poor a troll you really
are.
jc

--
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/jc_atm/


  #8  
Old February 23rd 05, 07:11 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A location along longitude does NOT rotate to face the Sun every 24
hours.

Our ancestors ASSUMED constant axial rotation and corrected it by the
Equation of Time hence there is no external reference for axial
rotation through 360 degrees ,neither against the Sun nor the stars.

It may eventually dawn on somebody that the Equation of Time format
based on axial rotation/terrestial longitudes precedes the
calendrically based sidereal system or rather the sidereal format is
based on the 24 hour/360 degrees equivalency.

Big topic,small people ( at least so far).

  #9  
Old February 23rd 05, 07:52 PM
Steve Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Pete Lawrence wrote:


Let's hope, for goodness sake, that he has never taught children!
Perhaps he once got a job as a teacher and was kicked out for being
carp.


You Fish-ist *******......

Steve
  #10  
Old February 23rd 05, 08:14 PM
Pete Lawrence
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Feb 2005 10:11:47 -0800, wrote:

Big topic, small people ( at least so far).


Big topics contain big nuts...

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposal for an APO "standard:" TMBs 100mm f8 RichA Amateur Astronomy 24 November 30th 04 05:50 AM
Fractal Wavicles and the Incomplete Standard Model Mad Scientist Misc 0 August 26th 04 07:13 AM
The Standard of BBC reporting nowadays James Cook UK Astronomy 2 February 27th 04 01:32 PM
Anyone had success with afocal photography using standard digital cameras? Tim Powers Amateur Astronomy 2 December 13th 03 03:28 AM
How are 'standard' Celestron eyepieces? Timothy O'Connor Amateur Astronomy 5 November 30th 03 03:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.