Re: very newbie question re: declination

On Mar 1, 7:58 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:32 am, mommycal...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 28, 8:11 pm, Tunderbar <tdcom...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Interesting that in alt.global-warming you can keep posting that
scientists are all liars and don't understand the simplest concepts
and you know so much more. Now in a group dominated by scientists and
people who love science you're going to ask us questions? If that is
ironic I don't what is. I guess you're Rush-o-scope wasn't showing
enough detail

Interesting that you would come to this group to harass me. That shows
that I've been effective in the agw group. I take that as a personal
compliment.

Guess what. I've never posted that scientists are all liars nor have I
said that they don't understand the simplest concepts. And I don't
appreciate you mis-representing what I said or did not say. If you
want to discuss what I said regarding agw I will gladly do so in the
gw group. I believe in science, which is why I go after the pseudo-
science presented in the field of agw.

I believe in science, which is why I'm pursuing amateur astronomy as a
hobby. If I see some pseudo-science in the field of astronomy, I
expect that I will point it out as well. But I suspect that I won't
see any. This is a real science that doesn't involve computer models
predicting extremely complicated poorly understood chaotic climate
systems behavior 100 years in advance. It's kinda hard to fudge what
the rest of the world can confirm by simply looking in a telescope and
making the prescribed  calculations. You can't argue with astronomical
measurements and mathematics as you can with piss-poor incomplete
temperature data sets and statistical agw fudge factors, not to
mention sweeping grandiose declarations of impending global doom based
on poor or even anecdotal evidence.

The skies are ordered and predictable, demonstrably so. To the point
where astronomy is an almost completely objective pursuit. I like
that.

Also I'm told that the astronomy community is very helpful and
inclusive. I've seen this in this group, with only you as the
exception.

You may want to keep this civil and stay on topic. I will.


The system you are beginning to use originates in the late 17th
century through Flamsteed's efforts -

"With the invention of the telescope, it became possible for
astronomers to observe celestial objects in greater detail, provided
that the telescope could be kept pointed at the object for a period of
time. The easiest way to do that is to use an equatorial mount for the
telescope, which allows the telescope to rotate at the same rate as
the earth. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension

That last sentence is horrendous because it is now considered true
along with the accompanying 'sidereal' explanation.What it does is
refer the entire celestial arena off axial coordinates making no
attempt to define structure but simply to paste planets and galaxies
and whatever else against the equidistant celestial sphere
framework.It is great as an observing convenience and who could fault
that however the fact that the motion of the telescope is tied to the
axial rotation of the Earth in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds makes
this a genuine human catastrophie.

You will see the fudge as they try to mesh terrestrial coordinates
based on 24 hours/360 degrees with their sidereal justification of 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

Rather than acknowledge that you cannot use timekeeping astronomy to
dictate structural astronomy (axial and orbital motions of the
Earth),the people here that you think are genuine are close to being
out and out astrologers.The most immediate impact of their fudging
is,believe it or not, climate studies usinmg the motions of the
Earth.The more you delve the worst it becomes,that may the only thing
you will come away with.

Good luck and ebjoy your magnification exercise



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BOY SCOUT STORY
    ... doing scholarship, not science. ... of astronomy, you simply sneered "You don't know ... scientists often disagree as to what methods are valid. ... "1.7 Myths about the Scientific Method" ...
    (rec.scouting.issues)
  • Re: NASA Rushing To Mars As Per Bushs Policy
    ... Bush doesn't have any scientific vision. ... scientists worry about the impact of the huge enterprise on ... > other endeavors, such as astronomy, physics and climate change. ... > Some space science missions have been delayed indefinitely, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: very newbie question re: declination
    ... that I've been effective in the agw group. ... I believe in science, which is why I go after the pseudo- ... If I see some pseudo-science in the field of astronomy, ... "With the invention of the telescope, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Kentucky: Job candidate sues UK, claiming religion cost him the
    ... candidate for the position until the issue of his religion or his ... Astronomy, the Bible and Creation." ... and pastes his Bible to fit the science of day. ... scientists are welcome to believe in as many gods as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Twin paradox invalidated
    ... The science of astronomy didn't advance without Kepler, ... This is the story of a scientific crime. ... a scientist against fellow scientists and scholars, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)