Re: opinion
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Jan 2007 09:59:33 -0800
Greg Crinklaw wrote:
Joe Bergeron wrote:
We don't need it. It is not important. We should all devote our lives
to subsistence agriculture, and as we sit in our huts at night we
should all wear bags over our heads to avoid the possibility of
learning anything.
How about we all sit around and talk about deep truly important
subjects, like, say... fashion.
You may as well tak about fashion because you sure can't have a decent
conversation about celestial phenomena or matters of faith and intutive
intelligence.How 'deep' do you have to be to believe in celestial
sphere geometry and the motions of the Earth based on the 1461 day
calendar cycle of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.
Most people enjoy faith because they have enough intellectual andf
intutive intelligence to recognise a greater existence encompasses
their own existence without the neccessity of qualifying what that is
or at least recognising that Love is the one affirmation which
qualifies it,hence the words of Jesus -
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I
have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will
know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."
The stupid 17th/18th century empirical agenda of trying to replace
uncertainties with 'factual' certainties misses the whole point of
astronomy and natural phenomena completely and was always going to
create this mess ,at least by using natural phenomena as a
background.The dumbest people on the planet think they are the
cleverest,at least in astronomical matters,for they have a habit of
creating conceptual monsters -
" . although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with
numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone
including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from
different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same
body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would
be produced from them rather than a man. Thus in the process of their
demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to
have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something
inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to
them if they had followed proper principles. For if the hypotheses
which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows
from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543
This empirical forum is based on the introduction of celestial sphere
geometry into heliocentric working principles based on orbital
comparisons alone.You may as well talk about fashion of you believe in
the following nonsensical Newtonian celestial sphere statement -
PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."
Newton
Your kids will have to deal with climate issues while their dad sticks
resolutely to 17th century concepts which are counter-productive for
climatological purposes.The majority here believe the Sun around the
Earth is a valid working principle or that the seasons can be
expressed in terms of variable axial tilt to the Sun,in short,the price
of your feeblemindedness will be paid by your kids.
,
--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
To reply take out your eye
.
- References:
- opinion
- From: Sitav
- Re: opinion
- From: Joe Bergeron
- Re: opinion
- From: Greg Crinklaw
- opinion
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Good Doonesbury for Sunday
- Next by Date: DS Maksutov 150/1900mm
- Previous by thread: Re: opinion
- Next by thread: Spectrum of McNaught
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
