Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- From: OG <owen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:06:00 +0100
oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 12, 1:17 am, "OG" <o...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"OG" <o...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:66a9imF2jngv5U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ceda0d33-e3e3-4043-9037-a1b3f668161d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The 'scientific method' as it applies to astronomy originates with
Newton and his application of terrestrial ballistics to planetary
motion,basically the trajectory of an apple also applies to the motion
of planets as a 'law'.
So what is your point?
You state explicitly that there is a challenge that "few can engage in. As
the empirical stamp on evolution (Darwinism) starts to lose ground, the
arguments will retreat towards astronomy and physics where very few can
handle the material insofar as what is correct and what is not".
So cut the crap and get to the point. Given the failure of your erstwhile
prolixity I suggest you stick to no more than 5 sentences to put across your
point of view.
Just for you - The 'scientific method' as it is applied to astronomy
is based on an astrological framework,the existence of which emerged
with Flamsteed and his untenable conclusion that the return of any
star to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier every 24 hours proves
that axial rotation is constant
You have a remarkable ability to obscure your message. Let's break down your first sentence
"The 'scientific method' as it is applied to astronomy is based on an astrological framework" - *Opinion*, as yet unsupported by argument
"the existence of which emerged with Flamsteed and his untenable conclusion... " - *why "untenable"?* again an unsupported opinion
"...that the return of any star to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier every 24 hours" - we can accept this as true
"proves that axial rotation is constant" - Again, your lack of clarity doesn't help. There are two possible interpretations of your last 2 clauses.
Either
A - Axial rotation IS constant, but the sidereal 'day'(24hours minus 3'56") is not proof of constant axial rotation.
or
B - Axial rotation is not constant and the laws of conservation of angular momentum does not apply to the Earth.
Please try to clarify and support the claims made in your first sentence.
.
- References:
- Before the nonsense breaks out
- From: oriel36
- Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- From: OG
- Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- From: OG
- Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- From: oriel36
- Before the nonsense breaks out
- Prev by Date: Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- Next by Date: Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- Previous by thread: Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- Next by thread: Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
