Re: harvard
- From: "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Feb 2007 10:42:50 -0800
On Feb 3, 12:45 am, W. H. Greer <sendnom...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:50:49 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyour...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is exactly why I disagree with Rod about why Usenet sucks. It's
not the nuts, it's the trolls who destroy a community like this.
Because with people hiding behind aliases, saying things just to get a
reaction, pretending to be something they are not, where does that leave
us? Not trusting anything or anyone?
It's neither the nuts nor the trolls who diminish saa. Instead it's
the departure, regardless of the reason(s), of serious, on-topic
contributors. Trolls and nuts can be easily ignored; but absent,
serious contributors are irreplaceable.
As you may have discovered,it is fine to venture into topics such as
magnification equipment and so on but venture into topic such as
structural or timekeeeping astronomy which require the ability to
reason and that has dried up and with good reason.
The alias/pseudonym issue is a non-issue. Aliases and pseudonyms are
available and used by trolls, nuts, and serious contributors. It's
better, fairer, and more responsible to treat postings at their face
values regardless of the names used by their creators.
I agree with Brian. Even if this is a lame male 40-something jerk with
too much time on his hands, we have no way of of knowing one way or the
other. So if these questions aren't worthy, then which questions are
then? Hmm?
In the absence of *convincing*, contrary evidence it's best to assume
a posting is exactly what it claims or appears to be. If a
posting/question would deserve an answer if posed by Stephen Hawking,
then it would also deserve an answer if posed by Oriel36.
--
Bill
Celestial Journeyshttp://cejour.blogspot.com
On the table is the single value that represents the correlation with
axial rotation through 360 degrees,the most basic and immediate piece
of astronomical information common to all inhabitants of this planet.
Now,in the 17th century they jumped the tracks insofar as John
Flamsteed proposed that he had determined that axial rotation is
isochronal by using celestial sphere geometry or what amounts to the
same thing,he tried to tie axial rotation directly to the value of 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.It is a catastrophic error insofar as it
involves forcing the axial and orbital motion of the Earth into a
calendrical system of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.In
short,it is sub-geocentric in content and character.
I never had to budge from Flamsteed's original error and it is with
courtesy that I explained where Newtonian conceptions follow and build
on the error of Flamsted.
How bad is it.Considering that the relationship between axial and
orbital motions can now be viewed from space and these motions are
important for climatological studies that I have to argue with people
who still vehemently adhere to celestial sphere geometry and a
variable tilting Earth as an observational convenience is in ittself
incredible.
Having no interest in speaking to celestial sphere theorists
(originating through Newton) but rather to show the magnification guys
that their work is extremely important to restore the original and
stable astronomical working principles for all humanity.
The easy to understand two step procedure which correlates clocks with
axial rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation is a great
place to start.
.
- References:
- harvard
- From: Sitav
- Re: harvard
- From: Shawn Coren
- Re: harvard
- From: AustinMN
- Re: harvard
- From: starburst
- Re: harvard
- From: Brian Tung
- Re: harvard
- From: Jan Owen
- Re: harvard
- From: Greg Crinklaw
- Re: harvard
- From: W . H . Greer
- harvard
- Prev by Date: Re: Omega's New Offering Of "Galaxy Filters"...Anyone used them?
- Next by Date: Re: NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2007
- Previous by thread: Re: harvard
- Next by thread: Re: harvard
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
