Re: Before the nonsense breaks out

On Apr 14, 7:59 pm, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
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.

If you are incapable of sustaining your argument it is sheer delusion to
blame it on anyone but yourself. Having no arguments, you squirm and
turn to avoid giving an honest answer to a simple question. Worst of
all, you do the gravest dishonour to the name of the religion you claim
to follow.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No offence but insisting that the Earth rotates through 360 degrees in
23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is comparable to the insistance of flat
Earthers or 7 day evolutionary creationists,I am not joking,it really
is that catastrophic and there are so many of you.

I would have said that the value was a great observational
convenience just as the 24 hour day,a human devised principle is but
the intransigence in insisting that it is a valid way to represent
axial and orbital motion is astonishing to the nth degree.I am indeed
a Christian and while it is fine to be unfamiliar with material and
make any number of mistakes,it is not fine to spot an error and pass
over it as though it does not exist.If you can justify your sidereal/
solar fiction then good for you but it is not and never was an
astronomical tenet,observation,working method or insight and more to
the point,it is pure astrology.

I absolutely mean that building concepts on a foundational value for
axial rotation and orbital motion which is astrological (23 hours 56
minutes ) is no better or worse than a flat Earth foundation ,it is
not an offhand remark but as precise as I can make it,You think you
will have problems with intelligent design,wait until this stuff
breaks and I assure you as Darwinism becomes weaker your colleagues
will try to hide behind Newton and astronomy and what happens when it
is discovered what really exists behind the 'predictive' agenda of the
'scientific method' - a very astrological framework.









.

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 ... anything productive,at least in the matter of astronomy. ... 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/ ... 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: Before the nonsense breaks out
    ... 24 hours and without exception requires the calendar system of 3 years/ ... can I reassure you that there is nobody who 'bases' the orbital motion 'on such a scheme' - whatever that might mean. ... 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' ... returning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier each 24 hours thereby affirming ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading