Re: Before the nonsense breaks out

On Apr 14, 1:34 am, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 12, 10:55 pm, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

On Apr 12, 8:29 pm, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

On Apr 12, 5:06 pm, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

Nobody stopped to check that you need
the calendar system along with zodiacal geometry  to work and while
Newton tried to talk a system of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes,if axial
rotation is taken as 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds it is 100% certain
that his framework is 3 years/365 days 1 year/366 days - the old Ra/
Dec system applied to the motions of the Earth.

Why do you keep on about leapyears? That's only because the year
(orbital period) is not an exact multiple of the day (axial rotation
period).

.For a star to return to a meridian 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each
24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/
365 days and 1 year/366 days,For any intelligent person that should be
enough ,despite the belief that the 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value
is a product of 365.24 days,the observations show it to be a
derivative of the 365/366 day calendar system.It is supposed to be a
shocking oversight,error or whatever other way you put it.

Why do you keep talking about leap years?

Are you confusing the matter of leap years with the extra sidereal
rotation that the Earth makes during the year?
Yes, there are 366 sidereal days during the 365 day solar year - but
that is nothing to do with 1 in 4 years being a leap year- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

If a star returns to a location 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each 24
hours without fail,it requires the  365/366 day calendrical  system to
work and it is not possible to base the orbital motion of the Earth on
such a scheme.

Excellent. You see the problem you've been having. Stars DO return to a
location every 23.56.04  - and that is irrelvant to the number of such
cycles in the orbital period. For completeness, can I reassure you that
there is nobody who 'bases' the orbital motion 'on such a scheme' -
whatever that might mean.

Stars do return in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds but all that tells
you is how good the calendar system is or the observational
convenience of the Ra/Dec system.You cannot attach significance to the
value in terms of axial rotation and that is where the problem
exists.Your entire empirical structure is based on  determining that
axial rotation generates the effect of a star returning 3 minutes 56
seconds earlier each night with orbital motion making up the 3 minute
56 second difference to 24 hours -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9re...

If you said the world was flat I would have more respect than
believing in the fiction represented by that graphic and the reasoning
behind it.The problem is that so many believe it and it is taught
worldwide as a 'fact' when it is fictional.

You can pretend it does  but then again,the creationists
or flat Earthers have also great schemes to justify  their favored
foundational beliefs.Yours just happems to be astrological in nature.

You appear to be accusing me of something I am not attempting

Accusations !,no,that I do not do however there is a stage where
participants start to reach for stories to suit the deired end.I do
not care to know how you justify 'sidereal time' using the motions of
the Earth to do it,I do mind that the actual principles which define
the difference between variations in natural noon and the human
devised 24 hour cycle contain an enormous amount of productive
astronomical information.

The intelligent design crowd are correct in one way,there is a
poisoned atmosphere out there where people are terrified  that if
their beliefs do not conform with the 'scientific method' agenda they
will become outcast,

Hey, we're not the ones who think that something that cannot conform to
the 'scientific method' should be included in the 'body of scientific
knowledge'

while the focus is on Darwin/intelligent
design,the core belief is far deeper in the  form of the difference
between true astronomical methods and insights and the empirical
version of the same thing.In a way,the responses affirm what most
people already know,the bluff and bluster cannot conceal that the
central theme of the 'scientific method' is anti-faith rather than  do
anything productive,at least in the matter of astronomy.

Look - if you want to talk about religion, sci.astro.amateur is the
wrong place.

Astronomy is part of my faith,the problem with the anti-faith
'scientific method' is that is kills the intutive intelligence which
affirms and rejects ideas based on physical considerations.The science/
religion debate in all its forms in not really my biusiness but it
certainly inspired the 'scientific method' crowd into actively moving
against people who are more balanced in their outlook in matters of
faith and terrestrial/celestial phenomena .Intelligent design, as an
argument, was as much promoted by the same numbskulls who can't even
grasp basic astronomical principles as it was by intelligent design
proponents themselves,the idea that if you kill intelligent design you
are bolstering the 'scientific method' approach.

You ask me for answers but I do not return such a request,I already
know what you believe and how you outfitted the universe with your own
furniture of black holes,dark matter and other intangibles,it may be
fine for you in a childish sort of way but I believe humanity deserves
its true astronomical  heritage,barely touched in centuries,as least
putting the structural side in context.

How many here can easily gauige that there are no exceptions to a star
returning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each 24 hours thereby affirming
that it does not rely on the annual cycle of 365 days 5 hours 49
minutes

Up to here you are [almost} perfectly correct. Stars do return every
23.56.04 - and you are correct that it does not have any relevance to
the annual orbital cycle

Then you start rambling again.

That's the point,once you start a cycle where a star returns 3 minutes
56 seconds earlier each 24 hour day you cannot get out of it or
rather,you need the 365/366 day calendar system to make it work.

but rather on the  calendrical extension of 3 years/365 days
and 1year/366 days,a calendrical system that is convenient for civil
puposes  but useless for describing orbital motion and structural
astronomy .How many here are aware what happens if they budge from the
fictional 'sidereal time' setup thereby affirming the central theme of
the upcoming intelliegent design/darwin arguments that fear plays as
much a role in the 'scientific method' agenda as does ticking all the
right boxes.

So we agree that stars return in 23.56.04, and this is independent of
the solar year of 365 and a bit days.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever way you put it,you end up with the same conclusion,the value
of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is worthless  junk for structural
astronomy and has nothing whatsover to do with the motions of the
Earth.All it does is show how good the calendar and Ra/Dec system is
as an observational and civil convenience.and that is that.

I think it will be easier to find people who actually enjoy the
principles which keep clocks in sync with the axial cycle than contend
with people who delight in dithering around with 'sidereal time'
junk,even if the entire empirical agenda is built on it.If you can't
follow the reasoning then go ahead and believe that the Earth rotates
through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes but that places you in the
same category as flat Earthers and if you will excuse me,I can only go
so far with that.

I'm very disappointed by your failure to seroiusly engage with the
argument. Merely repeating yourself without addressing the issues is an
  abdication of the intellect.  You may be satisfied with being a
clanging bell, but you are a disgrace to your education and are wasting
your God given gifts.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There is a foundational error not unlike building notions on the idea
of flat or geostationary Earth and when such a situation arises,there
can be no arguments.There is nothing to gain by been seen to argue
with a foundational error,a bell with a very large crack in it,in this
case the assigning of the value of 23 hours 56 minutes to axial
rotation through 360 degrees.


So,just follow the idea that a star returning 3 minutes 56 seconds
earlier each 24 hours is based on the 365/366 day calendar system and
then it all breaks down when orbital motion enters the same picture
insofar as attaching axial rotation directly to a constellational
framework obligates orbital motion explanation the same way,in this
case the 3 minute 56 second difference to 24 hours is used -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png

The noon cycles are not 24 hours exactly nor does the Earth move the
same distance along its orbit every 24 hours,the only thing missing
from that childish sidereal/solar perspective is that it requires the
365/366 day calendar system to work and you wish me to argue with such
nonsense,I have more self-respect than that.

This is not one of these things where you do not knock on the door of
CERN or NASA and announce a foundational flaw,one based on an idea
peculiar to John Flamsteed's and his reasoning leading to the false
'proof'' for constant axial rotation.This has been a journey for me to
find the lowest common intellectual and intuitive denominator and I
have news for you,I still have'nt found it.Far away from the wide and
sweeoing gestures about science and religion I still have to meet a
person who can enjoy the basic principles which keep clocks in sync
with the axial cycle,enjoy the reasoning Copernicus employed in
extracting axial and orbital motion from observations and working on
up to modifying reasoning based on modern powerful imaging..


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sudden rise in interest in finding life somewhere other than
Earth is an amazing. reaction to intelligent design,it is so obvious
and so blatant that I have to shake my head when organisations like
NASA get in on the act but it all comes back to the original flaw on
which the empirical agenda is based.The conceptual monsters arose,not
from reasoning from ''facts' but reasoning from ideas and
specifically the one which occupies center stage here - the fiction
which ties axial rotation and orbital motion to a zodiacal framework.

There is nothing surprising about the ultra-secular empiricists now
beginning to look ridiculous,I remember when they started to show up
in the theology forums with very agressive anti-faith agendas,rising
on the tide of the popularity of star trek series ,Hawkings and
Dawkins popular book and other influences at the time.I give a quote
from Hawking at the beginning of this thread,one that was rammed home
again and again at the turn of the millenium but nobody would dare say
it today -

" I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't
know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus
paper. All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the
results of measurements." Hawking

Somewhere inside that brain of your,it might occur to you that people
have indeed decided that many scientists do not know what reality is
and what worked ten years ago or a 100 years ago,no longer flies.

Being observational friendly,I recognise that the magnification
exercise is an important facet of astronomy however the Ra/Dec system
on which magnification is based has its limitations and must be
restricted to an observational convenience only and not applied to
structural astronomy in terms od using the motions of the Earth to
justify the system ,this fact alone,may spare many here from being
dragged down with empiricists.

The astronomical arena is magnificent,too magnificent to dump
conceptual junk into and ultimately getting rid of the junk is the
end to which I have aimed for all the years spent here,not just the
exotic junk from the last century but going all the way back to the
late 17th century.If anything, the intelligent design crowd are
forcing the issue and who can blame them,even the people here who like
the solitude of night-time observing will be forced into choosing
sides when it is not required.

Astronomy is not just part of my faith,my body responds to the axial
and orbital cycles of the Earth and somehow to pervert appreciation of
those cycles goes against all human instinct and it is the same for
everyone else.What is happening now is not an end but a fresh point of
departure,a second chance to approach astronomy in a dignified
way,that is my wish and that is all.
.


















.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... 24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/ ... work and it is not possible to base the orbital motion of the Earth on ... their beliefs do not conform with the 'scientific method' agenda they ... anything productive,at least in the matter of astronomy. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... 24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/ ... work and it is not possible to base the orbital motion of the Earth on ... their beliefs do not conform with the 'scientific method' agenda they ... Astronomy is part of my faith,the problem with the anti-faith ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... 24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/ ... their beliefs do not conform with the 'scientific method' agenda they ... Astronomy is part of my faith,the problem with the anti-faith ... grasp basic astronomical principles as it was by intelligent design ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... 24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/ ... their beliefs do not conform with the 'scientific method' agenda they ... anything productive,at least in the matter of astronomy. ... grasp basic astronomical principles as it was by intelligent design ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: A source of haze
    ... it was put together if you link the daily cycle directly to the the ...    conflict with the underlying physics and astronomy. ... The calendar system and the equable day developed together as a single ... behind astronomy that encompasses us in terms of human ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading