> > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 11:42 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:36:41 -0700, The Starmaker
> > > > > > > > > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >Does the earth revolve around the sun
> > > > > > > > > >clockwise or counterclockwise? means this way or that way...
> > > > > > > > > As viewed from where?
> > > > > > > > He is not having fun at my expense,after all,it is just an exercise in
> > > > > > > > worthless question begging and I wouldn't waste a second on puny minds
> > > > > > > > who think themselves clever by doing it.It is like trying to define a
> > > > > > > > hill or a mountain by asking whether it is defined by standing at the
> > > > > > > > bottom looking up or defined by standing at the top looking down and
> > > > > > > > the human mind is not designed to dwell on things like that which are
> > > > > > > > obvious and don't need defining - the same with time,space and motion.
> > > > > > > clockwise means
> > > > > > > from the top to the right, then down and then to the left, and back to the top...
> > > > > > > no matter how you view it, it's still clockwise, from the top to the right, then down and then to the left, and back to the top.
> > > > > > > clockwise is not from the top to the left...
> > > > > > > so, you're the expert on the earth revolving around the sun...is it going this way or that way? Maybe, it's neither. I thoght
> > > > > > > you would know that stuff..
> > > > > > You know,it is just one of those things where you can't be
> > > > > > bothered,when you are a true expert you look at the matter differently
> > > > > > and expect those who have some intelligence to arrive at roughly the
> > > > > > same point of view or perhaps even better.If you really wanted to know
> > > > > > about the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun and get your
> > > > > > answer,you would look at the North/South poles which act like a beacon
> > > > > > for the orbital motion of the Earth as they turn in a circle/cycle to
> > > > > > the central Sun.
> > > > > > > I thought it was a simple question. I'm not here to ask hard questions. I answer hard questions.
> > > > > > You have a great comedic intelligence and for the most part I enjoy it
> > > > > > but like going to the movies,it is nice to visit occasionally but you
> > > > > > wouldn't want to live there.The idea of how to define a mountain as
> > > > > > looking from the bottom or the top is sufficient to demonstrate that
> > > > > > you are not asking or answering 'hard' questions but more or less
> > > > > > doing what the rest are doing,living off mental junk while imagining
> > > > > > it means something and relativists are quite good at it,maybe even you
> > > > > > are too if it can be considered worthwhile.
> > > > > > > Like the question, "Is Pluto a planet?" The answer is Yes.
> > > > > > > I'm the Starmaker...I know this stuff.
> > > > > > Good for you.
> > > > > > > In order to make stars, you have to have a starsystem. A system for making....Stars.
> > > > > > > The Starmaker
> > > > > > Keep up the comedy stating the obvious but you will invite people who
> > > > > > are better at it than you so mind yourself,do you hear .
> > > > > I don't see anything funny with simply asking which way the earth goes...
> > > > > this way or that way?
> > > > > People ask me all the time, "Which way are you going, this way or that way?"
> > > > > I mean, come on already...be real, I don't tell girls I'm going Left because they have no idea
> > > > > which way is Left!
> > > > > I tell them "I'm going this way..."
> > > > > So, ...you're the expert on earth and sun dance...which way is the earth going? this way or that way?
> > > > I am also an expert on human weakness and don't need anyone else to
> > > > testify to it when I see it.If you want to call them in Australia and
> > > > mention they are upside down,they might call you back and tell you
> > > > that you are the one with most of the world over your feet.Tell
> > > > me,when you look down a hill does it define a hill or when you look up
> > > > the hill ?.
> > > > Ah,you are tempting a fate nobody really deserves as the mind rebels
> > > > against having to deal with nonsense so on a serious note,what you are
> > > > doing will eventually catch up with you and you become the usual burnt
> > > > flesh,I've seen it many times and it ain't pretty .Many guys here have
> > > > lifestyles and reputations talking nonsense so they don't care what
> > > > you have to say so dealing in mental junk for its own sake has a price
> > > > to it.
> > > Okay, since you won't tell me if it is going this way or that way..
> > > they why is it going this way instead of that way, or that way instead of this way?
> > Maybe I'm asking the wrong question...
> > or don't know the question..
> > something
> > some force is either
> > making the earth go around the sun or
> > making it spin...
> > i don't know how to ask the question.
> > something is pushing it one way or the other..
> > maybe i need to buy a top and some string...
> Buy 6 bottles of whiskey and have a ball.
I heard the Moon turns blue, once...in a blue moon. When exactly does that occur?
The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I heard the Moon turns blue, once...in a blue moon. When exactly does that occur?
The definition changes over time. There was a major forest fire in
Canada that made it blue from most of the country sometime in the
fifties.
At the moment, the term is used to designate the second full moon in a
calendar month.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
> >I heard the Moon turns blue, once...in a blue moon. When exactly does that occur?
> The definition changes over time. There was a major forest fire in
> Canada that made it blue from most of the country sometime in the
> fifties.
> At the moment, the term is used to designate the second full moon in a
> calendar month.
> --
> I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
> Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
> wouldn't have rusted like this.
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> It would be good for more people to actually study astronomy rather than
> pretend to have expertise that they do not have. But you don't need a
> degree to check out the definition of a "moon":
The definition given there is: "A natural satellite or moon is a celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body, which is called its primary."
The problem with that definition though, is that it will not always give a clear answer about the "moonness" of a body.
Consider case A and B as follows:
A. A celestial body that orbits a planet - Yes, always a "moon",
as per the definition given. No problem there.
B. A celestial body that orbits anoter body which is not a planet
- Now it depends, Consider:
B1. Yes - it is a "moon" provided the orbited body is "smaller".
But: Smaller than what?
Than the body in question?
Or smaller than a planet? If so, what planet?
B2. No - it is not a "moon" if the orbited body is larger or equal
(Note that "not smaller" can be expressed as "larger or equal")
Again: Larger or equal to what?
For instance, the definition given would seem to say that the moon of a moon is not a moon if its primary is larger or equal in size to a planet (and we are left in the dark about which planet should be used for comparison).
: Bookworm <rainclou...@gmail.com>
: The definition given there is: "A natural satellite or moon is a
: celestial body that orbits a planet or smaller body, which is called
: its primary."
: The problem with that definition though, is that it will not always
: give a clear answer about the "moonness" of a body. : Consider case A and B as follows:
There aren't two cases. There's only one case. A celestial body
orbiting a primary. This primary is "a planet or smaller body".
That's not two cases, that's pointing out that the size of the
primary doesn't matter.
>You need flow rates to compare rivers. Otherwise I could claim that
>Shuswap Lake is just a wide part on the South Thompson River and beat
>your five miles.
>According to Wikipedia:
>James River: 6,835 cu ft/s >Columbia River: 265,000 cu ft/s, probably a lot more before
>development.
>Are you really trying to tell me that the former is more of a river
>than the latter? The comparison is laughable. That's what, 40 to 1?
>Colorado: 384,000 cu ft/s [where measured is a problem here]
>Fraser: 122,718 cu ft/s
>Peace: 74,514 cu ft/s
>Stikine: 56,000 cu ft/s
>Do you really want to put the James up against these as "rivers"? How
>far they are to swim across is how you measure lakes.
>>You need flow rates to compare rivers. Otherwise I could claim that
>>Shuswap Lake is just a wide part on the South Thompson River and beat
>>your five miles.
>>Colorado: 384,000 cu ft/s
>[where measured is a problem here]
I feel it's legitimate to pick a "point of maximum flow" anywhere
along the river. For most rivers, that would be at the mouth. For
each of those rivers, Wikipedia specified where the measurement was
taken.
I think that I read somewhere that for about half of geologic history,
the Colorado never reached the ocean, dumping instead into the Salton
Sea and drying out there, even before civilization started pumping all
the water out.
-- I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
>>> On Sunday, 15 July 2012 12:36:26 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>[...]
>>>> >
>>>> > while yous are at it, give Pluto it''s own universe. >
>>>> Many here think you are a nutcase. Prove them wrong.
>>> An unlikely happenstance, but I'll watch the attempt for the amusement
>>> value.
>>What software are you using to edit and post your articles? Something in
>>there is doing obnoxious things to quoted material from earlier
>>articles, like converting right-angle-brackets into an ampersand
>>followed by the letters 'gt' followed by a semicolon, apostrophes into
>>"ampersand octothorpe 39 semicolon", and quote marks into 'ampersand
>>quot semicolon".
> Google have now utterly broken Google Groups as a posting interface to
> Usenet.
> Cheers - Jaimie
What is happening is that Google Groups is translating certain symbols into the HTML sequence that would display that character, while ignoring the fact that USENET is not supposed to be HTML-encoded.
-- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly
is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
>>>You need flow rates to compare rivers. Otherwise I could claim that
>>>Shuswap Lake is just a wide part on the South Thompson River and beat
>>>your five miles.
>>>Colorado: 384,000 cu ft/s
>>[where measured is a problem here]
>I feel it's legitimate to pick a "point of maximum flow" anywhere
>along the river. For most rivers, that would be at the mouth. For
>each of those rivers, Wikipedia specified where the measurement was
>taken.
>I think that I read somewhere that for about half of geologic history,
>the Colorado never reached the ocean, dumping instead into the Salton
>Sea and drying out there, even before civilization started pumping all
>the water out.
I was at Hoover Dam within the last year (Lasnerian) and learned what
happened to have the Colorado end in the Salton Sea and when it changed
and that it was engineered to move elsewhere, but don't remember details.
The point was that the Colorado has lots of people slurping water from it
so by the time it gets to Mexico it's a shadow of its former self.
We used to go tubing on the Lower Kern River, near Bakersfield, CA during
the summer. One time, I misjudged the date and when we got to the river it
was just a trickle. The Bureau of Whomever is In Charge reduces the flow
at some point in the year to use the water for other purposes.
