Re: Kook warning, Oriel36

From: Carsten Troelsgaard (carsten.troelsgaard_at_mail.dk)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:43:24 +0200

"Oriel36" <geraldkelleher@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:273f8e06.0409100149.1155bd18@posting.google.com...
> "Carsten Troelsgaard" <carsten.troelsgaard@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:<41408c58$0$304$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk>...
>
> > This thread is about your standing, not why.
> >
>
> I told you before,you want a reaction and you will get a response.If
> you wish to model the tectonic plate motion from a flat and stationary
> Earth

I do take Don's proposals cerious as far as there is coverage. It's not far.
You have been asked in on the practical problems but threw the towl.

> or throw words like 'gravitational anomaly' about,

Take a google on practical applications of earth-science and geophysics in general and measurements
of gravitational anomalies in particular.

> I'm sure
> thousands would be impressed

Ah, impression is the key.

> but I am indifferent to pretensiousness
> and can effortlessly send that stuff back to oblivion,no offense.

Meeting your ignorance and inabillities is certainly no offence to me.

> > Rhetoric question: And you never doubted that it was anything but a conspiracy against you?
> >
>
> Conspiracies require a slight bit of intelligence and are political in
> nature,

Yes, like a standing or social behaviour in a group.

> not knowing what the rotation rate of the Earth is through 360
> degrees can only qualify as utter stupidity.
>
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
>
> Your whole ballistic theories are built on that figure and people
> wonder why everyone is running around with a fishbowl universe where
> 'every point is the valid center of the universe'.

Why cannot I expect you to solve this question elsewhere? In as much as you've thrown in the towl
for all practical circumstances.

> Don't think that you
> are any better than 'Jonathan'.

The fraudulent poster, the imposter, the x-poster, the non-geologist that tells us what geology is,
like you. His posts are as perfect for rec.arts.poetry as yours are for astronomy- and
physics-groups.

> > > > In another appropriat forums Oriel36 gets appropriat response. (sci.physics.relativity mm )
> > Getting
> > > > banned from 'bad astronomy bulletin board' and having other groups waiting for more
> > entertainment
> > > > may be the offered both geniouses and kooks.
> > > > Popping into a serious discussion among seniors on Maxwell and Faraday, in his agressive
way,
> > earned
> > > > Oriel36 a responce on sept 05 2004 (a few days ago) from Sergey Karavashkin that everyone
ought
> > to
> > > > read for it's wisdom and patience:
> > > >
> > > >
> >
http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/newsgroups/viewtopic.php?t=20880&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah Sergey,the old aetherist gentleman who could teach you a few things
> > > about dignity.
> >
> > You didn't pick it up.
> >
> > > I guessed you missed one of Sergey's complaints -
> > >
> > > "It is so easy to relive everyone and everything.. . This is not the
> > > way to the truth. Truth does not like mud, mean tricks, labels. Truly
> > > loving the laws of nature, you would know it, not only trade the
> > > slogans and labels. This is the monopoly of supporters of Relativity
> > > and photon theory. This is just why the truth is out of their
> > > interest. ;-) "
> > >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately Sergey equates loving the laws of physics with loving
> > > nature and he comes from an era where Newton was in his equational
> > > heaven and all was right with the world until Albert came along.The
> > > aetherist and relativist are still stuck in the same circular
> > > arguments,one baiting the other with as many experiments proving one
> > > side right or wrong as the other.
> > >
> > > Astronomy is as geology insofar as there are no experiments to prove
> > > the Milankovitch cycles and no experiments are required to gauge why
> > > there is an orbital cyclical variation.Sergey requested experiments in
> > > the empirical tradition that would prove Newton wrong but I am doing
> > > no such thing,I am pointing out that ballistic theory is helpless to
> > > explain what geologists and climatologists already know and accept.
> >
> > I was looking for a behavioral pattern, and I found what I was looking for.
> >
>
> The old expression - 'if you are explaining then you are already
> losing' does not apply to my response.Not only the Milankovitch cycle
> but Keplerian motion can be better explained by incorporating the
> motion of the solar system around the galactic axis and the variations
> due to an inner and outer orbital path.

So why on earth don't you do that? That's right, you threw in the towl on practical circumstances.

> > > > Some month ago Oriel36 appeared in this group, obviously with some profound discrepancy in
> > > > physics/astronomy that suddently turned members of this group from average geologists into
> > stupid,
> > > > unknowing bastards. Oriel is still here, correcting the lot of us and telling us what
geology
> > is.
> > >
> > > There are no such thing as average geologists,there is such a thing as
> > > an extraordinary geologist who fills in part of the picture of the
> > > planet's evolution and its surroundings which make us what we are.I
> > > had made no pretense to the contrary that I am a geologist however as
> > > I come from an astronomical tradition,it is easy to move between
> > > disciplines that are essentially connected into one.
> >
> > You havn't shown anyone that you grasp the connection.
> >
> > > It does not matter
> > > where I look,be it the stones on the ground or the planets and
> > > stars,all have a story to tell and I have a horror of remaining in the
> > > fiddly bits as Don calls them even though they are required for
> > > astronomy.
> >
> > And the fiddly bits here is called geology.
> >
>
> You have proven yourself inept I am sorry to say in matters requiring
> the motions of the Earth

I found no physicist or astronomer that could come to the rescue.

> ,again your ideas are based on a flat and
> stationary Earth and not even the creationists descend to that level.

That you seem to be stuck there too is no abstraction.

> When you preface the material with 'gravitational',a geologist should
> have a clear understanding what is involved and none of it is in
> anyway good.

Say 'gravitational' and you are off into the galaxy. Follow my advice above.

> Deri9ved from Newtonian ballistics,only one man in the
> last twenty years had an inkling of the problem that I have brought
> into full view.
>
> "I challenge anyone to quote a single, solitary place where Newton in
> the Principia or elsewhere said F=ma. He was much too careful a man to
> assume the constancy of mass and never, but never, went beyond F =
> d(mv)/dt and never took the m out of the parenthesis as constant. That
> was done
> by the guesswork-loving intuitive physicists who lived after him. Of
> course, the Principia are not written in the language of algebra, but
> of
> geometry.."
>
> Petr Beckmann
>
> Basically physicists shook the astronomical geometry out of the
> algebra and to be fair to Newton,even though he formatted his
> astronomical template incorrectly by assuming mean Earth/Sun distances
> and orbital equivalencies,it is easy to correct his procedure for
> deriving Keplerian motion as he originally framed it.These are fiddly
> bits that you are entirely oblivious to
>
> and it shows.

Since you fail to apply your knowledge, then please tell me what shows?

> > > Between astronomy as I know it and geology exists the ballistic
> > > theories where all things are reduced to mathematical formula,an
> > > artificial ground that takes too much to itself and has a habit of
> > > destroying all ahead of it.
> >
> > You've passed your one line eternal truth a couple of times. Rhetoric question: why don't you
settle
> > your disagreement in the proper groups?
> >
> > > > Since I have been the preferred target for his personal attacks i have chosen to go the
extra
> > mile
> > > > to sort this out. I checked 'gerald kelleher' on the net.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is Oriel36 a kook? .. naa, he just behaves like one.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Carsten
> > >
> > > The intuitive principles which form the disciplines of astronomy and
> > > geology and the connection between both remain unattended,as you
> > > yourself move towards the ballistic theories you are moving away from
> > > geology and the principles that have got you this far or rather the
> > > hard work of others in formatting these principles.
> >
> > Don has started a framework, but you've confirmed that it's impossible to pull it through.
Rhetoric
> > question: So why do you keep stepping in it?
> >
> > > Sometimes you have to hear it from another before things become more
> > > open and less prejudicial
> >
> > I'm all ears if anyone has something sensible to say.
> >
>
> The only sensible thing that occured in astronomy in the last 300
> years was the association between ice ages and variations in orbital
> motion,

That must be adressed to your ignorance.

> the concept is correct hence the mechanism for that change that
> I give you.

And you give me specificly what? A reference to the principia, an opinion about 'Albert'?

> > > and it seems Blaise Pascal expresses clearly
> > > the difference between the mathematical and intuitive mind which ails
> > > the contemporary mind.The balance between them has gone so far out of
> > > kilter that now everything is mathematical and this is the most common
> > > complaint among those who are at least sensible in approaching
> > > astronomy,unfortunately they can't take that additional step back past
> > > Newton.
> > >
> > > A intuitive geologist would enjoy Pascal's description,a mathematical
> > > geologist would not.Your call.
> >
> > You've chosen to answer this post though it was ment informative for the rest of the group. In
your
> > usual style you've omitted to respond to the key question: Are you anything but an obknoxious
> > dishonest kook, or do you have the format to apologize when nessecary. That's my question, and
it
> > neither involve geology, physics, astronomy, poetry or any more answers than you've already
given.
> >
>
> For once you are correct,your postings involve neither
> geology,astronomy or anything else.In this respect your behavior has
> always existed and always will,a few decades ago you would have argued
> with conventional wisdom and against Wegener on crustal motion
> likewise you would have argued against the ice ages or Steno because
> that is what people like you do.

Luckily there is only a few of your kind in between a Steno and a Wegener. The rest of us is fairly
average.

> You argue against heliocentricity and
> support the quasigeocentricity of Newton or the homocentricity of
> Albert

I do? That must be our educational system you are after. Do you have time to hang around here? If
you cannot make it work in reality, the least you could do would be to alter the theoretical
foundation/education. Naa, that would involve other practical circumstances - and that's not your
side of the table, right?

> and his cronies which makes you no better or worse than
> 'Jonathan' and his multiple universes,wormholes,dark
> matter,quintessence ect.
>
> Stay inside your Newtonian gravitational cage if you wish,presently
>
> many would be impressed

Ah, right, impress the lot is what it's about.

> but I assure you

Do you have any place where your assurance counts for anything?

> that it is nothing more than
> a badly constructed ballistic theory that wrought considerable
> astronomical damage,

I'm in. Let's blame it on the astronomers.

> not just in his era but later when they squeezed
> the geometry out of the equations and turned algebra from a tool into
> a weapon.

Not applying any practical circumstances to your words certainly prevents you from getting dirty.

> > Rhetoric question: What's the symbol of poetry worth as culture, if it only exists between the
the
> > quotes.
> >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Blaise Pascal.
> > >
> > >
> > > "1. The difference between the mathematical and the intuitive
> > > mind.--In the one, the principles are obvious, but removed from
> > > ordinary use; so that for want of habit it is difficult to turn one's
> > > mind in that direction: but if one turns it there ever so little,
> > > one sees the principles fully, and one must have a quite inaccurate
> > > mind who reasons wrongly from principles so plain that it is almost
> > > impossible they should escape notice.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > All mathematicians would then be intuitive if they had clear sight,
> > > for they do not reason incorrectly from principles known to them; and
> > > intuitive minds would be mathematical if they could turn their eyes to
> > > the principles of mathematics to which they are unused.
> > >
> > > The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
> > > is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
> > > mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
> > > that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
> > > exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
> > > have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
> > > matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
> > > arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
> > > there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
> > > not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
> > > numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
> > > perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
> > > perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
> > > order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
> > > the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
> > > it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
> > > process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. 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.
> > >
> > > Intuitive minds, on the contrary, being thus accustomed to judge at a
> > > single glance, are so astonished when they are presented with
> > > propositions of which they understand nothing, and the way to which is
> > > through definitions and axioms so sterile, and which they are not
> > > accustomed to see thus in detail, that they are repelled and
> > > disheartened.
> > >
> > > But dull minds are never either intuitive or mathematical"
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quantcast