Oriel - what again?

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

On 12/29/12 12:21 PM, badastrobuster wrote:
Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?


How would he know--he is not a observational astronomer like most
of us in SAA.

Sorry Sam but you are not an observational astronomer but simply an astrologer!

Just ask .... Oriel. LOL!

Anthony.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:29 -0800 (PST), Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:

Sorry Sam but you are not an observational astronomer but simply an astrologer!

Just ask .... Oriel. LOL!

And neither are you, Anthony. You're just an imager (usually qualified
with some disparaging adjective).

Oriel is the first observational astronomer in several hundred years.
Just ask... Oriel!

On Dec 29, 4:41*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Oriel is the first observational astronomer in several hundred years.

I don't think he claims to be *observational*, just interpretive and
intuitive. He leaves the magnification exercises to others.

John Savard

On Dec 29, 11:41*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:29 -0800 (PST), Anthony Ayiomamitis

wrote:
Sorry Sam but you are not an observational astronomer but simply an astrologer!

Just ask .... Oriel. * LOL!

And neither are you, Anthony. You're just an imager (usually qualified
with some disparaging adjective).


Anthony is perhaps the only Greek from his civilization to propose a
solution for a wandering analemma Sun in the same arena as the
wandering planets which can be explained solely by the Earth's own
orbital motion.I am not flinging insults at Anthony but at least he
should know is that the analemma constitutes a conceptual fudge among
many to make the older 'solar vs sidereal' proposal work and itself an
alternative attempt to explain the Earth's motions.

Rather than attack the man,I simply suggested that he use his
analemmas to set things straight but far from an exercise in
interpretative astronomy,it becomes a harmless exercise using the 24
hour day within the calendar system.He doesn't need to hear this from
me again and neither will I broach the topic again.

Oriel is the first observational astronomer in several hundred years.
Just ask... Oriel!

What set the stage for what became the current strain of empiricism
was an argument that never got resolved from the time of Galileo
regardless of how simplistic readers here might approach the topic
from a 'scientific vs religious' standpoint.From the comments of
Kepler,it is possible to see astronomy was divided into different
facets which strictly demarcated roles -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record
of their motions is especially the task of the practical and
mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path
is . . .the task of contemplative astronomy; while to say by
what circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be
depicted on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of
geometers" Kepler


Between the first and the second division is where the problem
exists,the limitations of mechanical/predictive astronomy over
interpretative astronomy or rather,the proofs arising from the
relationship of the positions of planets to the Earth and the proof
that the Earth moves was a valid point of contention at the time of
Galileo and is even more so now in trying to force the clockwork solar
system based on Ra/Dec into the Earth's planetary dynamics and from
there into the celestial arena -

"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." New Light On The Galileo
Affair

Despite appearances ,I do not intend to pursue this matter much
further for what would be the point,an even more aggressive attempt to
engineer the severance of timekeeping from the Earth's rotation and
orbital motion is bearing down on readers and it really doesn't have
any astronomical content but some vague reference to the year 1820 and
rotation in a 24 hour period.

Second Attempt

Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.


As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Dec 29, 11:41 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:29 -0800 (PST), Anthony Ayiomamitis

wrote:
Sorry Sam but you are not an observational astronomer but simply an
astrologer!

Just ask .... Oriel. LOL!

And neither are you, Anthony. You're just an imager (usually qualified
with some disparaging adjective).


Anthony is perhaps

================================================== ==
Never mind Anthony, why won't you answer Martin Nicholson's question,
Kelleher?

If you look due south at midnight tonight and again at midnight on July 1st
will you see the same stars in the same places?
Yes or no?
Look out tonight or any other night in the next week (or all of them) at any
time between 10 pm and 2 am, note which stars you see and we'll check back
with you in six months. We'll all see the same at our respective midnights,
cloud permitting. I know which stars I'll see. Do you?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

On Dec 29, 6:21*pm, badastrobuster wrote:
Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

You invented a game for me once,lost it and there is little reason for
a second chance.

Sirius lies along the same orbital plane as the Earth and as a
consequence ,for a period it will become lost behind the glare of the
central Sun as the Earth move around its orbital circuit.The
Egyptians noticed,using the Nile inundation as a gauge,that the
appearance of Sirius occurred a day later after every 4th year which
should easily translate into rotations for those who firmly believe
that one rotation and one 24 hour AM/PM cycle are the same.

The variations in the total length of each natural noon cycle against
the daily cycle of 24 hours is a bit more tricky,each separate daily
cycle is composed of the daily rotational component and a separate
orbital component,the former is a constant turning to the central Sun
while the latter turns unevenly by virtue that the Earth varies its
speed.Because the system is linked to the physical event of AM/PM when
a meridian crosses the center of the Sun's disc,the weighed average of
each cycle comes out to 24 hours which in turn elapses constantly one
to the next and serve the creation of the Lat/Long system in tandem
with the 24 hour AM/PM cycle.I am extremely proud of making the
interpretation of the polar day/night cycle as a beacon for the
orbital behavior of the Earth.

Putting the pieces of a jigsaw together,even if it will always be an
incomplete picture,is almost a lost joy yet it has the same beginnings
in the slowness of putting the first pieces in place and then the
other pieces come quicker.Each person comes to the puzzle in their own
way and uses different pieces and that is how I would consider these
intricate technical topics which cannot be hammered together and
produce problems.You have your answer but you want some sort of daily
stellar circumpolar component in your response but then again,if the
great system we inherited from antiquity,in this case the annual
appearance of Sirius for the equivalent number of rotations is not
good enough then nothing ever will.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Dec 29, 6:21 pm, badastrobuster wrote:
Notice how carefully Oriel, over a period of some years, has avoided
explaining exactly where his views and the views of other members of
this group differ. He writes whole paragraphs - sometimes nultiple
paragraphs - hundreds of times a year but refuses to explain something
as basic as this.

He also refuses to answer any questions designed to identify what the
difference might be.

As an example - Oriel, if you look due south at midnight on July 1st
and again at midnight on January 1st of the next year will you see the
same stars in the same places.

Yes or no?

You invented a game for me once,lost it and there is little reason for
a second chance.

Sirius lies along the same orbital plane as the Earth and as a
consequence ,for a period it will become lost behind the glare of the
central Sun as the Earth move around its orbital circuit.The
Egyptians noticed,using the Nile inundation as a gauge,that the
appearance of Sirius occurred a day later after every 4th year which
should easily translate into rotations for those who firmly believe
that one rotation and one 24 hour AM/PM cycle are the same.

The variations in the total length of each natural noon cycle against
the daily cycle of 24 hours is a bit more tricky,each separate daily
cycle is composed of the daily rotational component and a separate
orbital component,the former is a constant turning to the central Sun
while the latter turns unevenly by virtue that the Earth varies its
speed.Because the system is linked to the physical event of AM/PM when
a meridian crosses the center of the Sun's disc,the weighed average of
each cycle comes out to 24 hours which in turn elapses constantly one
to the next and serve the creation of the Lat/Long system in tandem
with the 24 hour AM/PM cycle.I am extremely proud of making the
interpretation of the polar day/night cycle as a beacon for the
orbital behavior of the Earth.

Putting the pieces of a jigsaw together,even if it will always be an
incomplete picture,is almost a lost joy yet it has the same beginnings
in the slowness of putting the first pieces in place and then the
other pieces come quicker.Each person comes to the puzzle in their own
way and uses different pieces and that is how I would consider these
intricate technical topics which cannot be hammered together and
produce problems.You have your answer but you want some sort of daily
stellar circumpolar component in your response but then again,if the
great system we inherited from antiquity,in this case the annual
appearance of Sirius for the equivalent number of rotations is not
good enough then nothing ever will.

==============================================
How many nightly appearances of Sirius are there in its annual appearance,
Kelleher?

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.