The Science and Politics of Climate Change

On 4 Dec, 13:40, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 3, 11:03*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 3 Dec, 04:49, oriel36 wrote:

Resolving the issue is far removed from climate topics as the root
cause is empiricism itself,an approach which tried to use timekeeping
averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure by
doing something no astronomer would sanction - using the rotation of
the constellations about Polaris to provide a foundation for planetary
dynamics.

You still haven't explained about the "rotation" of the constellations
about Polaris.
The constellations don't rotate about Polaris. But they appear to!.

This has been explained a thousand times and were I to explain it for
another thousand you still would not get that a star returning to a
meridian and consequently the apparent rotation of the constellations
about Polaris can never correlate with constant daily rotation,

Why? You haven't explained this. The obvious explanation is that the
Earth is rotating 360 degrees with every apparent rotation of the
constellations. You haven't produced any explanation of why this is
wrong apart from the fact that you don't like the idea. You need to do
more than this or you'll never get that first convert to your views
that you crave.

On Dec 4, 8:49*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 4 Dec, 13:40, oriel36 wrote:





On Dec 3, 11:03*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 3 Dec, 04:49, oriel36 wrote:

Resolving the issue is far removed from climate topics as the root
cause is empiricism itself,an approach which tried to use timekeeping
averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure by
doing something no astronomer would sanction - using the rotation of
the constellations about Polaris to provide a foundation for planetary
dynamics.

You still haven't explained about the "rotation" of the constellations
about Polaris.
The constellations don't rotate about Polaris. But they appear to!.

This has been explained a thousand times and were I to explain it for
another thousand you still would not get that a star returning to a
meridian and consequently the apparent rotation of the constellations
about Polaris can never correlate with constant daily rotation,

Why? You haven't explained this. The obvious explanation is that the
Earth is rotating 360 degrees with every apparent rotation of the
constellations.

There is no such thing as an astronomer who assigns significance to
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris,what it does do is
expose the Ra/Dec distortions which try to do just that.It is
impossible to understand Kepler's work on orbital geometry which
includes a daily rotational component for all plotted data of
planetary motions through the constellations is strictly based on
orbital criteria,including that of our own planet -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...retrograde.jpg

The utter stupidity of creating modelling based on timekeeping
averages which assumed Kepler's data is geocentric and then assuming
that placing the Sun in the center makes the apparent retrogrades
disappear as Isaac tried to do,surely people who profess an interest
in astronomy can't be this silly -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton

Ultimately you are all trapped inside Newton's imagination which I
find too horrible to consider and people can genuinely do better given
that the root cause of this present mess which first created global
warming through analogy to carbon dioxide in a greenhouse environment
and then morphed it into climate change now that the global
temperature spike has abated.It is not even entertaining for an
astronomer because the maneuvering to make everything fit neatly looks
like an enormous joke and it would be funny if it were not criminal.

Now,I wrote that last response after travelling a long journey and I
could have done better,unlike the guys who work for money and do
nothing,I have to split my time and bear this enormous responsibility
only with the greatest effort as I do something nobody else here does
- I take the guys in the late 17th century seriously as they made an
assault on the language of astronomy ,the language being geometry.



You haven't produced any explanation of why this is
wrong apart from the fact that you don't like the idea. You need to do
more than this or you'll never get that first convert to your views
that you crave.

On 4 Dec, 22:24, oriel36 wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:49*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:





On 4 Dec, 13:40, oriel36 wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:03*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 3 Dec, 04:49, oriel36 wrote:

Resolving the issue is far removed from climate topics as the root
cause is empiricism itself,an approach which tried to use timekeeping
averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure by
doing something no astronomer would sanction - using the rotation of
the constellations about Polaris to provide a foundation for planetary
dynamics.

You still haven't explained about the "rotation" of the constellations
about Polaris.
The constellations don't rotate about Polaris. But they appear to!.

This has been explained a thousand times and were I to explain it for
another thousand you still would not get that a star returning to a
meridian and consequently the apparent rotation of the constellations
about Polaris can never correlate with constant daily rotation,

Why? You haven't explained this. The obvious explanation is that the
Earth is rotating 360 degrees with every apparent rotation of the
constellations.

There is no such thing as an astronomer who assigns significance to
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris,what it does do is
expose the Ra/Dec distortions which try to do just that.It is
impossible to understand Kepler's work on orbital geometry which
includes a daily rotational component for all plotted data of
planetary motions through the constellations is strictly based on
orbital criteria,including that of our own planet -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Mars_retrog...

The utter stupidity of creating modelling based on timekeeping
averages which assumed Kepler's data is geocentric and then assuming
that placing the Sun in the center makes the apparent retrogrades
disappear as Isaac tried to do,surely people who profess an interest
in astronomy can't be this silly -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton

Ultimately you are all trapped inside Newton's imagination which I
find too horrible to consider and people can genuinely do better given
that the root cause of this present mess which first created *global
warming through analogy to carbon dioxide in a greenhouse environment
and then morphed it into climate change now that the global
temperature spike has abated.It is not even entertaining for an
astronomer because the maneuvering to make everything fit neatly looks
like an enormous joke and it would be funny if it were not criminal.

Now,I wrote that last response after travelling a long journey and I
could have done better,unlike the guys who work for money and do
nothing,I have to split my time and bear this enormous responsibility
only with the greatest effort as I do something nobody else here does
- I take the guys in the late 17th century seriously as *they made an
assault on the language of astronomy ,the language being geometry.

You haven't produced any explanation of why this is



wrong apart from the fact that you don't like the idea. You need to do
more than this or you'll never get that first convert to your views
that you crave.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have just regurgitated the same pastes. Now explain why the
apparent rotion of the northern constellations around Polaris is so
regular.

On Dec 4, 3:24*pm, oriel36 wrote:

The utter stupidity of creating modelling based on timekeeping
averages

It is true that a timekeeping average, in itself, is not significant.
But this is why we prefer to say the Earth rotates in 23 hours and 56
minutes, because that is *not* a timekeeping average - it is something
we can directly observe by looking at the constellations.

A 24 hour rotation, though, _is_ a timekeeping average of the Sun's
apparent motion, because it averages out the Equation of Time.

This is why we have such problems accepting your posts as having
merit. It appears to us you are asking us to do exactly what you are
saying is stupid. I presume that isn't what you really mean, but the
pieces just don't fit.

John Savard

On Dec 4, 11:28*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:
On 4 Dec, 22:24, oriel36 wrote:





On Dec 4, 8:49*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 4 Dec, 13:40, oriel36 wrote:

On Dec 3, 11:03*pm, Mike Collins
wrote:

On 3 Dec, 04:49, oriel36 wrote:

Resolving the issue is far removed from climate topics as the root
cause is empiricism itself,an approach which tried to use timekeeping
averages to model planetary dynamics and solar system structure by
doing something no astronomer would sanction - using the rotation of
the constellations about Polaris to provide a foundation for planetary
dynamics.

You still haven't explained about the "rotation" of the constellations
about Polaris.
The constellations don't rotate about Polaris. But they appear to!.

This has been explained a thousand times and were I to explain it for
another thousand you still would not get that a star returning to a
meridian and consequently the apparent rotation of the constellations
about Polaris can never correlate with constant daily rotation,

Why? You haven't explained this. The obvious explanation is that the
Earth is rotating 360 degrees with every apparent rotation of the
constellations.

There is no such thing as an astronomer who assigns significance to
the rotation of the constellations around Polaris,what it does do is
expose the Ra/Dec distortions which try to do just that.It is
impossible to understand Kepler's work on orbital geometry which
includes a daily rotational component for all plotted data of
planetary motions through the constellations is strictly based on
orbital criteria,including that of our own planet -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Mars_retrog...

The utter stupidity of creating modelling based on timekeeping
averages which assumed Kepler's data is geocentric and then assuming
that placing the Sun in the center makes the apparent retrogrades
disappear as Isaac tried to do,surely people who profess an interest
in astronomy can't be this silly -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct, " Newton

Ultimately you are all trapped inside Newton's imagination which I
find too horrible to consider and people can genuinely do better given
that the root cause of this present mess which first created *global
warming through analogy to carbon dioxide in a greenhouse environment
and then morphed it into climate change now that the global
temperature spike has abated.It is not even entertaining for an
astronomer because the maneuvering to make everything fit neatly looks
like an enormous joke and it would be funny if it were not criminal.

Now,I wrote that last response after travelling a long journey and I
could have done better,unlike the guys who work for money and do
nothing,I have to split my time and bear this enormous responsibility
only with the greatest effort as I do something nobody else here does
- I take the guys in the late 17th century seriously as *they made an
assault on the language of astronomy ,the language being geometry.

You haven't produced any explanation of why this is

wrong apart from the fact that you don't like the idea. You need to do
more than this or you'll never get that first convert to your views
that you crave.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have just regurgitated the same pastes. Now explain why the
apparent rotion of the northern constellations around Polaris is so
regular.

The great advantage of planetary sciences is that it makes us all
interpreters and for those with the widest possible view ,what we
survey is magnificent and truly humbling while those who project the
narrowest view tend to see catastrophe in everything and this more
than anything sums up the difference between people of this era and
those which existed before the rise of empiricism.A genuine astronomer
does not judge astronomers from other eras back to remote antiquity
from the perspective of being primitive but admires them for the work
they accomplished with the tools ,data and more importantly,the care
and intelligence they exercised in forming their views but the
exception to this will always be when the tools of the telescope and
clocks (timekeeping averages) were used to distort and vandalise the
great astronomical achievements for the most spurious of correlations
- that planetary dynamics and structural astronomy can be reduced to
terrestrial ballistics and the behavior of objects at a human and
experimental level.

The best thing that ever happened to science ,at least from a
contemporary viewpoint,is 'global warming' for it exposes the
limitations of the empirical tendencies and it wells up in people as a
feeling that they are being cheated and condescended to yet in a way
they deserve it,pure laziness and the lack of effort to understand
basic planetary facts such as the 24 hour/360 degree correlation where
the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour where the imaginary lines of
longitude organised around the rotational characteristics of the Earth
contain this information are cast aside for an alternative 'sidereal
time' and people accept the nonsensical value without objection.


The facile trajectory of reasoning which trumps up a carbon dioxide/
global warming correlation,morphs global warming into climate change
and then presents it to the world as carbon dioxide/climate change is
an indictment on everyone whether it is the laziness of the wider
population,the complicity of those engaged in a social agenda
including news reporting or scientists who must surely understand that
not promoting climate change as a natural terrestrial and astronomical
fact is intellectual suicide.Again,it has a ground zero and even if it
may seem unfair,originates with a truly shocking conclusion from any
astronomical standpoint -

"... 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 wrote in a letter in 1677

All investigations begin and end here for that statement was the
beginning of the equatorial coordinate system on which Newton built
his agenda of using timekeeping averages to dictate planetary dynamics
so while politicians thrash around looking for answers as to why data
was distorted to reach a damaging conclusion,at least participants
here now know where the roots of it all began.As you can see from the
behavior of the news reporting on the fraud (or lack of it) and the
circling of the institutional wagons around empiricism and its peer
review mechanism I have known for years that the newsgroups were
perhaps the only real mechanism for opening up the windows and
allowing conceptual fresh air in.

On Dec 4, 11:57*pm, oriel36 wrote:
but the
exception to this will always be when the tools of the telescope and
clocks (timekeeping averages) were used to distort and vandalise the
great astronomical achievements for the most spurious of correlations
- that planetary dynamics and structural astronomy can be reduced to
terrestrial ballistics and the behavior of objects at a human and
experimental level.

I realize I seem a nuisance to you, nitpicking at your comments like
this, but here you illustrate what appears to be your fundamental
misconception.

Clock time isn't a "timekeeping average". The 24 hour period of time
which our clocks use as their basic unit of time is a timekeeping
average, developed so that the obvious and basic night and day cycle
by which we live our lives could be approximated by a mechanical
clock, despite the Equation of Time.

But while the size of the scale we use to measure time is a
"timekeeping average", clock time itself isn't one. Just as we can
measure distances in either inches or centimeters, we can measure time
in average 24-hour solar days... or we can use the "sidereal day", and
then we don't have to take an average.

This fact - that the apparent movement of the constellations around
Polaris doesn't need to be averaged to be in step with our mechanical
clocks - tells us that looking at the Earth's rotation in relation to
the constellations is following the right path to greater
understanding.

But you want us to throw all that away. To refuse to ask "why" the
planets move the way they do, to reject the achievement of
demonstrating that the same laws of motion apply to the planets as to
objects on a human scale on Earth. We should, instead, according to
you, be happy to be ignorant, to just speculate and guess with our
intuition - under the supervision of the religious hierarchy.

Some people who are panicked by global warming think the only solution
is to go back to a way of life that involves a massive reduction in
energy use, an abandoning of reliance on technology. The only
palatable solution, instead, is to use technology to shift to clean
and abundant energy sources, including nuclear power.

People won't abandon the modern world even to avert global
catastrophe, so they're not likely to be interested in doing so
because you tell them this will help them appreciate Copernicus
better!

John Savard