Re: Before the nonsense breaks out

On Apr 18, 7:59 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:11 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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). "

It should be noted that since "sidereal time" is expressed in hours
and minutes, one can refer to an hour of sidereal time that is shorter
than an hour in the same ratio that 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4
seconds is shorter than 24 hours.

John Savard

Most here already know the 'sidereal time' explanation for axial and
orbital motion is a crock and the basis for so much mischief that
has brought terrestrial/celestial investigations into disrepute and
especially the dumping of so much junk into the astronomical arena
under the guise of 'astronomy'. You actually have arrived at the
destination your empirical agenda seeks and used a perverted version
of Copernican reasoning via Newton to achieve it,you even celebrate
it in all its forms by giving it a name -

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

That is why you are beyond criticism,you are only acting out your
storytelling whereas others like silence as an option,or sourness,or
dullness but none of it any good.The price of wrapping the Universe up
in celestial sphere geometry is that it becomes a cistern and so it
remains.



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

I had abandoned any public presentation of my work on quasicrystals
and their antecednts on the plane - Penrose tiles because the
background for promoting the work was just not there for reasons that
are only now becoming apparent.


One thing which makes our planet special is the sheer abundance of
animate and inanimate objects that are encompassed in a background
geometry which generates form after form in accordance with a
proportion.It did not evolve with life,it simply exists in all its
spectacular forms and for a person of intutive faith,a love of
astronomy and geometry,the presentations of cosmological and
biological evolution without taking into account the geometry is a
sterile and barren way to approach things.To be fair,Penrose (who
first created the tiles),did say that quasicrystal growth cannot occur
as a step by step process,the background influences which create the
so-called 'forbidden symmetriy' have to be present in order for the
proicess to occur.

It is the same with biological evolution.We are creatures of the
astronomical cycles of the Earth,our bodies respond to its motions
over and above geographical and climatological influences which
condition individual traits such as skin color,endurance to heat/
cold,altitude ect .The exclusion of the astronomical element in the
matter of the evolution of our race has meant that the sole focus has
been to reduce evolution of life to the backwater of chemistry and if
physicists had their way they would reduce it further into a sub-
atomic imaginary world just as exotic as their astronomical
counterpart.That was the argument of those who fought against the
attempted leap into explaining the evolution of life via imaginary
principles ,the reaction of the empiricist was the shotgun clause of
'intelligent designer' as a reaction to a valid critique -

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

In short,the people who promoted 'intelligent design' were more often
than not the people who opposed it,it sounds like a contradiction but
sometimes that is the way things happen,anyone who opposed the linear
projection of evolution back to its constituent chemical and elemental
components would have 'intelligent design' thrown at them like an
accustation. To illustrate the point ,after only a few responses in
that original thread where valid objections were raised, the shotgun
clause was brought out -

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/63d9060fe46932c3

In an effort to wind cosmological evolution back to the 'Big Bang',
the same arguments are employed and genuine material such as the
background which creates so many objects in terms of the 'Divine
Proportion' are cast aside.That is why tmy work on quasicrystals and
the underlying geometry now remains a private work,empricists managed
to turn an exciting geometry into the same mediocre mess they have
turned everything else into.











.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Crystals
    ... tangible existence of that geometry. ... two step or multi-step process in stellar evolution. ... convection cell mechanism.I work on geodynamics playing a role in the ... You can't have Plate Tectonics without ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Crystals
    ... tangible existence of that geometry. ... of the underlying geometry which binds all animate and inanimate forms ... two external rings and one smaller internal ring which co-incides with ... two step or multi-step process in stellar evolution. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... benefit" to teaching astronomy, and yet we do. ... that is _not_ why scientists believe in astronomy. ... Teaching Ancient History does not have tangible benefits; ... So is Evolution on the same par with Ancient History? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... benefit" to teaching astronomy, and yet we do. ... Evolution does that as well. ... Teaching Ancient History does not have tangible benefits; ... searched online for scientists, and yes leading evolutionists, who ...
    (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)