Re: Before the nonsense breaks out

On Apr 18, 4:00 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


So over 23 hours and 56 minutes and 4 seconds of time, the same angle
with the stars recurs, but not that with the Sun yet, because the
Earth moved around the Sun.

But in any one instantaneous moment of time, the Earth makes no
orbital motion around the Sun, so the relationship between the angle
of the Sun and the angle of the stars is the same all over the Earth.
So 15 degrees of longitude equals both an hour of sidereal time and an
hour of solar time even though they are not equal to each other.


I like the Wikipedia nonsense better than your nonsense where 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds 'wraps around' at 24 hours,No
kidding ,they actually wrote this !! -

"When one moves eastward 15° in longitude, sidereal time is larger by
one hour (note that it wraps around at 24 hours). "

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

All in all,an astrological version of a flat Earth foundation and
supported by all you good folks here without the slightest sign of
embarrasement.I do not criticise you at all,you are no better or worse
than the next empiricist,one look at your profile is enough but on the
same token,you are a great spokesman for the empiricists here and
their astrological outlook.You probably prove my point but that is not
what I am after, again, I am looking for people who can discuss the
matter in all its aspects like adults.







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

I am having a ball reading the reviews of the 'intelligent design'
movie insofar as critics normally have a good feel for a movie which
has a central action theme to it but with this type movie it exposes
their depth of knowledge of evolutionary existence in all its
facets,some understand the components of the arguments better than
others just the same as in the forums.The broad swathe understand it
as religion vs science,the smaller circle understand it as creationism
vs evolution,smaller still the difference between evolution and
Darwin's twist on it,the rarified group of people know it as two
diverging worldviews which expose empiricism or the 'scientific
method' as the end in itself rather than a tool.As far as I
know,nobody is confident enough to move the argument from the attempt
of empiricism to evolutionary life to a branch of chemistry to
empiricism's attempt to explain planetary motion via terrestrial
ballistics.

As most here are waiting to see which way the wind blows,let me spare
them the suspense.The broad range of arguments in the matter of
Intelligent design vs Darwin's twist on evolution is actually a dumbed
down version of the arguments which existed a decade or so
ago,emboldened by such things as Conway's 'game of life',the
popularity of Hawking's book,the explosion of the internet,the turn of
the millenuium and countless other intersecting influences ,the
empiricists became more aggressive in an anti-faith agenda,even though
the more balanced views of colleagues tried to prevent the argument
sliding into contention about 'design' intelligent or otherwise.The
'scientific method' became an end in itself,not the tool for doing
anything productive and that will always remain as long as the
empirical twist on astronomy remains unattended to and unresolved.

One thing is for certain,and it is a good thing,a decade ago there
would have been empirical guys running around talking about 'free
creations of the mind' or 'not knowing what reality is' as though
these were the most profound of statements but I doubt very much if
that would happen today.











.

Relevant Pages
Loading