Re: Before the nonsense breaks out

On Apr 17, 9:57 am, "Paul Buglass"
<paul.notthisbit.buglass2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Oriel,

Hope you are keeping well?  Please read the following in the way it is
intended, as a kindly insight into your "situation".

Doesn't the fact that after 3 years of your postings you have not found one
single person who agrees with you tell you that perhaps you are the one who
has the problem of understanding and/or explaining concisely, your views?


It must be almost a decade since I first showed how clocks are kept
in sync with the axial cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees without requiring
an external reference.The availibity of Huygen's treatise within the
last few years only confirms what most reasonable people have known
since the emergence of the popular book by Dava Sobel based on the
efforts of a single person (John Harrison) to come up with an
accurate watch to determine longitudes against the celestial sphere
proponents (you are an ancestor of these guys).

You are correct - not a single,solitary person has affirmed the
geometric certainty behind the principles which correlate clocks with
the axial cycle and terrestrial longitude at 24 hours/360 degrees ,I
will grant that it is a bit tricky the way the average 24 hour day
was transfered to axial cycle and by association - axial rotation as a
'constant',but I always put it down to unfamiliarity as there is
nothing really intellectually difficult in how the Equation of Time
creates the 24 hour day from determination of natural noon and then
from there to the axial cycle/longitudes.

I am not in the business of proving people wrong,I can show how the
foundational heliocentric geometry and reasoning makes so much
possible and extending this further to new avenues.You simply cannot
do anything productive if you base axial rotaion on the value of 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,you are so ashamed of it yourself that you
dare not mention it in both your posts.


Do you honestly believe every single, relatively intelligent person, who has
ever responded to you on this and other news groups, is in some way so
stupid that they can't understand your point?


I never doubted that many understand the point precisely ,at least
where Flamsteed jumped the tracks in providing a false correlation
between axial rotation and celestial sphere geometry -

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

A star returning 3 minutes 56 seconds earlier denoting axial rotation
required an explanation for the difference to 24 hours and trumping
up a story based on orbital motion to fill in the gap is a remarkable
work of pure fiction.You see the equality in the natural noon cycles
but then you find yourself conjuring up another story to explain that
and on and on it goes.

It is much easier to jettison the whole 'sidereal time' scheme,look
at the 24 hour/360 degree correlation and rework it back into the
Equation of Time and then into heliocentric reasoning .


Or, is it just a small, but slightly possible situation, that you are
totally failing to convince anyone of your views because you are basically
making no sense?


Again,if you can make sense of the 'sidereal time' explanation then it
is not me who has the problem -

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

If an astronomer existed here in this forum,that person would only be
too delighted to show how the magnificent system which links clocks
with terrestrial geography and astronomy works.I do not have a
monopoly on the explanation even if it appears that way but ultimately
it is not about convincing,it is seeing who has enough astronomical
talent to move on to more complex structural and timekeeping material.

Flowery language, fuzzy reasoning, lack of clarity, inability to put simple
progressive thoughs in undertandable form.

Remember, not one person has ever claimed to understand the "point" you are
trying to get across.  Rather than blaming everyone else for their
shortcomings, shouldn't you be pondering why that is?


I think your response at this particular time represents that you can
see trouble ahead for that cozy relationship between the magnification
exercise and empiricists.There are a dozen different points,one more
important than the next,the central theme in response to Bob is that
the perception that axial and orbital motion can be expressed in terms
of the solar/sidereal framework makes it a 100% geometric certainty
that the reasoning behind it is on par with a flat Earth
notion,specifically with an astrological twist.No use being sour about
it,the technical details and observations are all that counts,as
empiricists are fond of saying and nothing supports the childish
sidereal time value assigned to axial rotation.

I watched the intelligent design arguments unfold a decade ago on
these forums,not by creationist minded people but by genuine
investigators who balked at the avenue their ultra-secular colleagues
were beginning to take,mirroring what happened with
astronomy.Flamsteed needed to justify the axial rotation of the Earth
in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and the story was invented to
explain it along with orbital motion making up the difference to 24
hours ,likewise emboldened empiricists applied the same imaginative
approach to Darwin's take on evolution when they reached an inevitable
impasse.That thread from a decade ago contains a lot of information
about a what is now an argument with a different complexion -

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/929fc9e5d525f556

Now that empiricists are backpeddling on Darwin's tenets it will not
be long before they run home to momma - the empirical take on
astronomy where the real catastrophe occured.







50% failing to understand your point, or even 90%, and you could still claim
you might have a point, but 100% . . . . doesn't that lead you to an obvious
conclusion?  Maybe, just maybe,  you are talking rubbish and can't see it
due to your ego/delusion?  Think about it, please.


Maybe,just maybe,at the back of some person's mind here there would
be this uncomfortable feeling that something went badly wrong
somewhere judging from all the junk that has been dumped into the
celestial arena such as when they look out and try to imagine 'warped
space' or 'time travel' it does not leave room for the magnificence or
solitude that many observers here speak of.


As for the degree of support being zero,what does it matter,astronomy
proper is such a vibrant exercise that there are so many good things
to point out, things that need to be modified,things to be done and
undone that it is highly inconvenient to remain explaining why a
celestial sphere Universe and the motions of the Earth tied to it are
basically flat Earth foundations.





Your attitude reminds me of the old story about the proud mother watching
her son march past in his army passing out parade.  "Oh look", she said,
"Everyone is out of step except for my Fred" :-).

Very best wishes, and clear, dark skies.


The newspapers are full of this kind of diatribe at the moment it it
is all coming from that middle ground where all the damage was
done,people who can't tell the difference between Darwin's take
evolution and evolution itself. or more precisely,the empirical
attempt to reduce life to a branch of chemistry.The next ground all
this moves on to is astronomy where it all gets really interesting.



Paul B, York, UK.

P.S.  Are you sure you're not the Gerald Kelleher who used to work for
BT/Esat in Ireland?


No



______________________________________________________________________

"oriel36" <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:521672d0-9d5a-45a1-b84f-3985b8fbe6f8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 16, 11:43 pm, "Paul Buglass"

<paul.notthisbit.buglass2...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Bob,

Greetings from York, UK.

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated your debate with
Oriel on the sci.astro.amateur newsgroup. I take my hat off to you..
Others
have challenged him before, but have given up in the face of his
unshakable
delusions. I am delighted and very impressed to see you push him to the
point where even his over inflated ego has faltered and stuttered to
retain
his flawed arguments.

Not at all - I enjoy coming across people who believe in a flat Earth
notion or that geological and biological evolution takes place in 7
days,yours just happens to be a foundational outlook that the Earth
rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds and
orbital motion makes up the difference to 24 hours .As you can see,you
have found yourselves at the level of creationists and there is little
point being sour about it,I tried to raise the standard by providing
the required historical texts to show where the 24 hour/360 degree
correlation comes from as an extension of heliocentric reasoning.

All the years he has been pushing his "ideas" have lead me to the obvious
conclusion that he is totally fixated on a non-issue and obsessed with
criticising Newton.

It is easier to show where empiricism hijacked the methods and
insights of astronomy and bent them towards the  empirical
agenda,Newton was the first to do it with catastrophic
consequences.The foundational error belongs to Flamsteed but
everything else is an expansion of the empirical ideology which
amounts to a loss of perceptual  balance.

The lowest common intellectual and intutive denominator is between the
ultra -secular empiricist  and his astrological framework (you are
among this category)  and those who expand on foundations such as a
flat or geostationary Earth or 7 day creationists as a physical
fact.The step above that is where reasoning people generally reside
and this is where the problem exists,for instance,not knowing the
difference between evolution and Darwinism (the empirical stamp on
evolution).

Empiricism represents a loss of balance,an attempt to build a picture
from scratch without have a feel for the background and somebody like
Blaise Pascal who had a healthy appreciation of this balance which is
lost to those who begin with definitions and axioms as Newton did in
his approach to astronomy .

"But in the intuitive mind the principles are found in common use and
are before the eyes of everybody. One has only to look, and no effort
is necessary; it is only a question of good eyesight, but it must be
good, for the principles are so subtle and so numerous that it is
almost impossible but that some escape notice. Now the omission of one
principle leads to error; thus one must have very clear sight to see
all the principles and, in the next place, an accurate mind not to
draw false deductions from known principles......And thus it is rare
that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees-SECTION.html

I find he is incapable of explaing his point, and when cornered frequently
resorts to claiming "we" are unable to understand him, or "we" are not
worth
reasoning with.

In the thread, you and others got him to state he believes the earth
rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours ! Somehow he just doesn't see the plain
facts of axial rotation period, and daily rotation relative to local noon.
At the end of the day (no pun intended), it's all relative to the
measurment
reference points selected.

The fact remains,axial rotation as an independent motion has never
been isolated in order to determine how long it takes to rotate
through 360 degrees.The Equation of Time principles where the average
24 hour day was transfered to the axial cycle as a 'constant'
represent an astronomical timekeeping jewel insofar as the human
devised facility which allows one 24 hour day into the next 24 hour
day using natural noon as a benchmark serves the purpose of allowing
axial rotation,as the cause of the daily cycle,to appear constant,not
as an observation but as a convenience.

It is one of those things where you start with an inviolate 24 hour/
360 degree correlation and then work things out from there ,preferably
with the links between clocks,the daily cycle and terrstrial
longitudes before you.

I laugh to myself when I see him claiming we, as astronomers, don't
understand the rotation of the Earth, it's eliptical orbit around the sun,
it's axial tilt, and the relation between sidereal and local noon time.
The
gall of the man! And frequently he insults us for taking images and using
our "magnifying" telescopes :-).

You have to drop the notion of  'axial tilt'  insofar as it is a
pseudo-dynamic,the proper term is rotational orientation .If you
understand the solar /sidereal fiction well then you are the
problem,it amounts to pure astrological thinking.





Anyway, well done once again, and very best wishes. If you are ever
passing
Yotk, in the UK, do seek out the York AS, and drop in to see us.

Clear, dark skies.

Paul Buglass, York, UK.

www.yorkastro.co.uk

"Bob Remeaux" <b...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:66i87nF2jnslfU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

oriel36 wrote:
On Apr 14, 10:27 pm, Bob Remeaux <b...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

oriel36 wrote:

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

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.

But since you have not explained *why* you believe this, we need give
no
credence to what you write.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No group of people have ever behaved like this,although it is a 100%
geometric certainty that axial rotation through 360 degrees is Not
anywhere close to 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds,

Your second problem is that you are wishing to use a moving hypothetical
reference (the 'mean' sun) for your fiducial marker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

I enjoyed watching the  reactions of empricists in the matter of
intelligent design,it is nothing more or less a carbon copy of what
you write,a worthless personal attack with no central theme.In most
ways,you actually prove the point of the intelligent design crowd but
the problem is not at your level of thinking,the problem is on the
next level where few can handle the distinction between evolution
proper and the ultra-secular  empirical twist on it known as
Darwinism.Some fine articles are appearing to demonstrate that it was
the empiricists who picked the fight in the first place therefore they
have no reason to complain -
...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... You mean to say, evolution. ... It is taught that the Earth orbits the Sun as a fact without any ... was arrived at through another means by the empiricists who never ... bothered to take the original reasoning into account. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... You mean to say, evolution. ... was arrived at through another means by the empiricists who never ... bothered to take the original reasoning into account. ... the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Climate and compound motions
    ... The sidereal day is basically the empirical version of creationism ... here today will use the core principle of axial rotation through 360 ... enjoyable to understand,again,the principles are really easy and ... hours/360 degrees in total.It is difficult to believe that empiricists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Letter of Copernicus to Pope Paul
    ... anti-intuitive 17th century empiricists got careless and these are the ... astronomical matters justify axial rotation as a different value than ... the faith of good Christians while denominational Christianity remains ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: Letter of Copernicus to Pope Paul
    ... anti-intuitive 17th century empiricists got careless and these are the ... astronomical matters justify axial rotation as a different value than ... the faith of good Christians while denominational Christianity remains ...
    (soc.culture.irish)