Dwarf Moon discovered...

[The Starmaker]

http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html

[Mike Dworetsky]

The Starmaker wrote:
> http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html


Hmmm. All the other sources I have seen count this as Pluto's 5th moon.
Space.com seems to have forgotten about Charon. Ah, well.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[The Starmaker]

There is a lot of 'lemon science' out there..


How many 'lemon scientist' are teaching kids in school today?



The Starmaker

[micro...@hotmail.com]

Was it on the bright side of the Sun?

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 08:29:50 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:

> > http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html

>
>
> Hmmm. All the other sources I have seen count this as Pluto's 5th moon.
> Space.com seems to have forgotten about Charon. Ah, well.

Perhaps it considers Charon to be a separate planet.

[Mike Dworetsky]

If so, they are remarkably coy about it--Charon does not even get a mention.

[The Starmaker]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:23:39 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html



How many moons does Pluto have, or it doen't have?

If Pluto is not a planet, ...
and a moon revolves only around a planet...
then they ain't moons revolving Pluto.

If you're going to change the definition of
a planet, you have to change the definition of a moon...

while yous are at it, give Pluto it's own universe.


And you sending nine year old to college?

He'll spend 4 years in college trying to figure out this Pluto
business...

The Starmaker


That's why the ketchup is upside down...

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 11, 10:23 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html

That's exactly right, as binary planetoids go, having 3+ moons that
obviously survive their 5 body gravitational interactions is a very
impressive group.

Any significant planet or binary of planets as having been captured
outside of Pluto, could easily host a dozen or more moons, and there's
absolutely no shortages of such rogue/nomad planets for our solar
system to grab onto..

Since energy is always conserved in orbital interactions, and it’s
entirely possible to compute the given chaos of such interactions
between any two, three and more bodies as their individual gravity and
motions interact (such as galactic encounters or just involving three
individual items), and of course there’s always some magnetic,
electrostatic and otherwise physical or molecular aerobraking and even
lithobraking issues that could get involved, is exactly why a
supercomputer is necessary for accomplishing a reasonable simulation
of captures that can be fine-tuned in order to get the best
realization that’ll match to what is really taking place.

Once again those public-funded supercomputers with more than a
sufficient number of CPU nodes have what it takes, to accomplish many
3+ body kinds of orbital and/or proper motion interactions, as well as
allowing for a fully 3D interactive simulation to run everything as
sped up by a billion or even a trillion to one, as going forward or
back in time.

Whatever computational errors can later be corrected on the fly, so to
speak, in order to fine tune our understanding of orbital and proper
motion mechanics.

In spite of the bad economy and its growing debt, it seems the
mainstream status-quo keeps getting their dirty hands on our hard
earned loot, along with insuring their own job security and benefits
to boot.

“AMD Awarded $12.6 Million for Exascale Computing Research”
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/AMD-Awarded-126-Million-for-Exascale-Computing-Research-544560/
“The federal money is part of the government's effort to push the
development of exascale computing, which officials say is crucial to
scientific research and economic growth.”

Another one of our big brothers (DOE this time) is just getting a
little bigger, faster and more focused upon our future growth
potential that’ll directly benefit the upper most 0.1% a whole lot
more than the lower 99.9% that always gets to pay for everything.

“The DOE announced last fall that 19,200 Opteron 6200 chips will be
used when Cray upgrades the Jaguar supercomputer, a system that will
be named Titan. Scheduled to be fully operational next year, Titan is
expected to offer a peak performance of more than 20 petaflops. A
petaflop equals 1 quadrillion floating-point calculations per second.”

Apparently our extremely spendy NIF isn’t about to offer us any real
hope of affordable clean fusion energy, other than in the form of new
and improved WMD. Therefore our not so effective DOE that can’t seem
to give us renewable geothermal or cheap and failsafe clean thorium
fueled reactors is instead going to razzle dazzle us with lots of
nifty infomercial eyecandy hype about energy efficiency, that
apparently they need yet another supercomputer for this to happen.

It seems most of us haven't been as publicly funded as Steven Chu in
order to afford such an energy efficient and extremely modern
technology outfitted home, as well as most of us can't afford to buy
those spendy hybrid or all-electric cars, SUVs or trucks, and we're
not even being paid to commute to/from any given government office or
public grant funded research facility, as well as we don't have those
offshore banking and investment advantages nor have we been allowed to
insider trade as government insiders had been allowed up until
recently.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 14, 10:55 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:23:39 -0700, The Starmaker
>

The mainstream status-quo is only concerned with keeping outsider out,
and insiders in.

[David DeLaney]

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Since energy is always conserved in orbital interactions,

except of course what's lost to tidal forces causing friction, which can be
irrelevant or can be quite large. Go on...

>and it's
>entirely possible to compute the given chaos of such interactions
>between any two, three and more bodies as their individual gravity and
>motions interact (such as galactic encounters or just involving three
>individual items),

Numerically perhaps. The three-body classical-gravity problem still does not
have closed solutions available, as I understand it. (Nor does the two-body
relativistic-gravity one.)

>is exactly why a
>supercomputer is necessary for accomplishing a reasonable simulation
>of captures that can be fine-tuned in order to get the best

>realization that=92ll match to what is really taking place.

Okay, simulation HO!

>Whatever computational errors can later be corrected on the fly, so to
>speak, in order to fine tune our understanding of orbital and proper
>motion mechanics.

Bearing in mind that "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" thingy that's
a hallmark of chaotic behavior, of course.

Dave "I have no idea why at this point the post made a right turn into
political vitriol" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[The Starmaker]

Leave the problem to the 'scientific community', and they'll just
change the definition of "ketchup" to ketchdown.

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

Since my intelligence is limited, and my stupidity is unlimited...

I can only come to the conclusion that..

by definition, a moon only revolves around a planet..and
since Pluto is not a planet then,

The moons think they are revolving a planet but nobody has bothered to tell
them Pluto it's not a planet.

[Mike Dworetsky]

The Starmaker wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:23:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html
>
>
>
> How many moons does Pluto have, or it doen't have?

We now know about 5 moons of Pluto.

>
> If Pluto is not a planet, ...
> and a moon revolves only around a planet...
> then they ain't moons revolving Pluto.

False. The word "moon" refers to any natural satellite of a larger primary.
The latter can include the dwarf planets such as Pluto. Dactyl is a tiny
asteroid moon of the larger Ida.

>
> If you're going to change the definition of
> a planet, you have to change the definition of a moon...

False. When the IAU created the term "dwarf planet", nothing was said that
excluded calling their natural satellites "moons". So that's what they are
called.

>
> while yous are at it, give Pluto it's own universe.
>

Many here think you are a nutcase. Prove them wrong.

>
> And you sending nine year old to college?
>
> He'll spend 4 years in college trying to figure out this Pluto
> business...

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":

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

>
> The Starmaker
>
>
> That's why the ketchup is upside down...

[Howard Brazee]

The new term is that Pluto is a dwarf planet. Does the definition
of moon exclude that type of planet?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:36:26 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>> If Pluto is not a planet, ...
>> and a moon revolves only around a planet...
>> then they ain't moons revolving Pluto.
>
>False. The word "moon" refers to any natural satellite of a larger primary.
>The latter can include the dwarf planets such as Pluto. Dactyl is a tiny
>asteroid moon of the larger Ida.

Except the rings of Saturn consist of uncountable natural satellites.

[Brad Guth]

On Jul 14, 11:16 pm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE        HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>http://www.vic.com/~dbd/- net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

It seems there's unlimited resources for the provoking of other
nations and the Karma of war, but hardly 0.1% as much available for
serious R&D on behalf of accomplishing off-world matters or that of
delivering cleaner and renewable energy that shouldn't have to cost us
another arm and leg, or even for running off those complex simulations
so that we'll know better what the orbital interactions and proper
motions of other nearby stars and how those wandering/rogue planets
we'll eventually encounter might interact with our solar system.

Those mostly public funded supercomputers should be required to
benefit us, not to help destroy us.

[oriel36]

On Jul 15, 12:36 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"

<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:23:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> > <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >>http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html
>
> > How many moons does Pluto have, or it doen't have?
>
> We now know about 5 moons of Pluto.
>
>
>
> > If Pluto is not a planet, ...
> > and a moon revolves only around a planet...
> > then they ain't moons revolving Pluto.
>
> False.  The word "moon" refers to any natural satellite of a larger primary.
> The latter can include the dwarf planets such as Pluto.  Dactyl is a tiny
> asteroid moon of the larger Ida.
>
>
>
> > If you're going to change the definition of
> > a planet, you have to change the definition of a moon...
>
> False.  When the IAU created the term "dwarf planet", nothing was said that
> excluded calling their natural satellites "moons".  So that's what they are
> called.
>

'Dwarf planet' indeed ! - when is a dwarf human being not a human
being thereby making a mockery of this attempt to separate the idea of
a planet based on size.I wish someone else could see just how utterly
dumb the reasoning is but there you have it.

A moon is distinguished from a planet by its orbital behavior,the
Earth's polar coordinates turn one full rotation to the central Sun
coincident with its orbital period while the moon does not turn and it
especially does not have an intrinsic rotation with variations in
latitudinal speeds as the Earth does.

Walk/orbit around an object with an outstretched arm pointing at the
object and that is an imitation of the moon's monthly lunar circuit of
the Earth.

Walk/orbit a central object with an outstretched arm pointing
constantly at some external object and you get a picture of the
Earth's orbital behavior around the Sun.

The IAU indeed !,what I wouldn't give to find an astronomer.

[David DeLaney]

oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>A moon is distinguished from a planet by its orbital behavior,the
>Earth's polar coordinates turn one full rotation to the central Sun
>coincident with its orbital period while the moon does not turn and it
>especially does not have an intrinsic rotation with variations in
>latitudinal speeds as the Earth does.

...which shows that oriel36 is still violently throwing off all attempts at
Clue or Hint and still doesn't actually know what the words he's using MEAN,
and is still using his made-up definitions as though anyone else used them
that way.

A moon is distinguished from a planet mostly by its orbital behavior. But
that doesn't include "always falls towards its primary planet rather than
towards the system's Sun", because our own Moon fails that one.

Our Moon turns once every orbit, so as to always keep the same face,
approximately, towards Earth; it's tide-locked. If it didn't turn at all
we'd see every view of it as it went around, rather than seeing the same face
all the time.

Our Moon certainly has an intrinsic rotation. "variations in latitudinal
speeds" appears to be some sort of code for "I don't know trigonometry so
I can't quite understand why Earth's equator turns at 25,000 miles per day or
so while the 45-degree latitudes north and south go closer to 18,000 miles
per day and the north and south poles don't go at all except around and
around"; anything that rotates around an axis does that.

>Walk/orbit around an object with an outstretched arm pointing at the
>object and that is an imitation of the moon's monthly lunar circuit of
>the Earth.

Aaaaaaand do it quickly and you'll get dizzy from having to turn so fast.

(But oriel36 will never actually DO this, he just talks about it with his
mental imager turned off.)

>Walk/orbit a central object with an outstretched arm pointing
>constantly at some external object and you get a picture of the
>Earth's orbital behavior around the Sun.

Nope. Earth rotates a good many times in one revolution; it does not stay
fixed with respect to the distant stars at all. (We don't know, I believe,
of anything that DOES orbit that has this behavior, other than manmade
things like the Hubble telescope for which this is their primary purpose
and they're artificially made to do so.)

>The IAU indeed !,what I wouldn't give to find an astronomer.

Perhaps you need to LIGHT your mental lantern then.

Dave

--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>

http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Brad Guth]

Yes indeed, Pluto(s) is a full fledged binary planet group or union of
two primary items mooning each-other, along with multiple captured
moons or really big asteroids that should give us some further ideas
as to what the Oort cloud of our solar system has to offer.

Imagine how absolutely vast and populated the Sirius(a/b) Oort cloud
must be (possibly a radius of 8 ly), with its planetoids and monstrous
asteroids that could easily add 0.1 solar mass to that star system,
though perhaps without its original planets as having been long gone
(100+ ly) after the somewhat recent demise of Sirius(b) that might
have taken place 65~75 million some odd years ago.

[The Starmaker]

Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:29:46 -0700, The Starmaker
> <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Since my intelligence is limited, and my stupidity is unlimited...
> >
> >I can only come to the conclusion that..
> >
> >by definition, a moon only revolves around a planet..and
> >since Pluto is not a planet then,
> >
> > The moons think they are revolving a planet but nobody has bothered to tell
> >them Pluto it's not a planet.
>
> The new term is that Pluto is a dwarf planet. Does the definition
> of moon exclude that type of planet?

"dwarf planet" is not an 'official' term for Pluto.


It is the "officials" that are the problem.

Get rid of the officials and you get rid of the problem.

[The Starmaker]

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:23:39 -0700, The Starmaker
> > <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.space.com/12356-pluto-fourth-moon-discovery-hubble-photo.html
> >
> >
> >
> > How many moons does Pluto have, or it doen't have?
>
> We now know about 5 moons of Pluto.
>
> >
> > If Pluto is not a planet, ...
> > and a moon revolves only around a planet...
> > then they ain't moons revolving Pluto.
>
> False. The word "moon" refers to any natural satellite of a larger primary.
> The latter can include the dwarf planets such as Pluto. Dactyl is a tiny
> asteroid moon of the larger Ida.
>
> >
> > If you're going to change the definition of
> > a planet, you have to change the definition of a moon...
>
> False. When the IAU created the term "dwarf planet", nothing was said that
> excluded calling their natural satellites "moons". So that's what they are
> called.

The definition is right there: A natural satellite of any planet

moon

noun /mo?on/
moons, plural

The natural satellite of the earth, visible (chiefly at night) by reflected light from the sun

A natural satellite of any planet

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=define%20moon&cp=11&gs_id=ys&xhr=t&q=define+moon&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=define+moon&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=798ff7e45f6d12e&biw=1024&bih=580

[The Starmaker]

"around the Sun"? which way? this way or that way? the other way right?
opposite the hands of a clock..or
depends how you look at it...under or top?

[The Starmaker]

From my understanding now...

Pluto is a Trans-Neptunian Object....(whatever that means).

I'm pretty sure that they are '99.9 percent' 'almost certantly' that
Pluto is a Trans-Neptunian Object.

(whatever that means)

who knows next week...

That is the reason why we had an Ice Age, an Industrial Age, but never a
...Science Age.


The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 00:29:46 -0700, The Starmaker
> > > <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Since my intelligence is limited, and my stupidity is unlimited...
> > > >
> > > >I can only come to the conclusion that..
> > > >
> > > >by definition, a moon only revolves around a planet..and
> > > >since Pluto is not a planet then,
> > > >
> > > > The moons think they are revolving a planet but nobody has bothered to tell
> > > >them Pluto it's not a planet.
> > >
> > > The new term is that Pluto is a dwarf planet. Does the definition
> > > of moon exclude that type of planet?
> >
> > "dwarf planet" is not an 'official' term for Pluto.
> >
> > It is the "officials" that are the problem.
> >
> > Get rid of the officials and you get rid of the problem.
>
> From my understanding now...
>
> Pluto is a Trans-Neptunian Object....(whatever that means).

Trans-Neptunian Object is a new...category, but they haven't come up with a name for the...category ..yet. Give them time,
they'll make.. something up.

http://www.iau.org/static/resolutions/Resolution_GA26-5-6.pdf

[oriel36]

Did you not get the memo that the Earth is in orbit around the
Sun ?,maybe the moon is in orbit around the Earth ?.

> which way? this way or that way? the other way right?
> opposite the hands of a clock..or
> depends how you look at it...under or top?

Suit yourself !.A lot of questions there and none of them worth
answering or at least I wouldn't care to descend to.

A better question which is enjoyable to ask and answer - what do the
hands sweeping across the face of a clock keep pace with ?.I don;t
think you would like that question though as it would interfere with
your comedy routine,a routine which I enjoy sometimes but as you
know,work has to be done and a few bellylaughs can only get you so
far.

[The Starmaker]

Does the earth revolve around the sun
clockwise or counterclockwise? means this way or that way...

[Howard Brazee]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 14:36:41 -0700, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Does the earth revolve around the sun
>clockwise or counterclockwise? means this way or that way...

As viewed from where?


A sidereal day is smaller than a solar day, does that help?

[oriel36]

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.

> A sidereal day is smaller than a solar day, does that help?
>

All that statement does is demonstrate the lack of appreciation of the
original formatting of the calendar system followed thousands of years
later by the development of the AM/PM system allied to the Lat/Long
system and finally the Ra/Dec extensions which grew out of the 24 hour
day/Longitude problem.It is Nazi-like the way readers shut out history
so they can engage in a 100 year old wordplay,not based on relativity
as many think,but on Newton's idiosyncratic attempt to define
time,space and motion for everyone.

Ultimately your solar/sidereal statement is nothing more than a
rotating celestial sphere of stellar circumpolar motion so even this
Starmaker dummy gets an answer to a non-question as all the
stars,including our central Sun, move around the individual or the
nightmare of homocentricity -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYy0EQBnqHI

That is where relativity gets you,it is not that all motion is
relative but when you choose the Ra/Dec framework Newton did to get
his agenda of tying astronomy to experimental sciences to fly,you
descend below geocentricity into homocentricity where even the Earth
beneath your feet loses its relevance.The price for having unlimited
choices of space and motion is being chained to a rotating celestial
sphere.

[The Starmaker]

oriel36 wrote:
>
> 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..

I thought it was a simple question. I'm not here to ask hard questions. I answer hard questions.

Like the question, "Is Pluto a planet?" The answer is Yes.

I'm the Starmaker...I know this stuff.

In order to make stars, you have to have a starsystem. A system for making....Stars.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

You let 'these people' fool around with Pluto....and it has a domino effect.

It's one big giant cover up.

The consequence of one event setting off a chain of similar events...from Pluto being called 'not a planet', to
a 'dwarf planet', to Trans-Neptunian Object...to..


The Starmaker

[oriel36]

On Jul 16, 6:47 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> oriel36 wrote:
>
> > 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 .


> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---

[The Starmaker]

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?

[The Starmaker]

When I buy Milk at the store...
I always check the expiration date..
cause it's no good after the date expires.

You people in the 'scientific community' have
expriation dates on your definitons..

The expiration date to the words: Trans-Neptunian Object
expired on July 8 2012 at 11:20.

according the the note at the very bottem of this user-editied website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Neptunian_object

I'll wait for the new Milk comes in..

it's already four days old..

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I don't see anything funny with simply asking which way the earth goes...

That's not what you asked. You asked

:::: Does the earth revolve around the sun clockwise or

:::: counterclockwise? means 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!

"Clockwise" is like "left". It depends which way you are facing.
So you're asking a question you know full well is nonsense.

: I tell them "I'm going this way..."
: [...]
: which way is the earth going? this way or that way?

It's going this way, obviously.
Same vague, useless answer you claim to give "girls".

[oriel36]

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.

[Nadegda]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 12:14:54 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> >

>> > The Starmaker wrote:

Wank much?

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: when you look down a hill does it define a hill or when you look up
: the hill ?.

Neither. A hill is a matter of gravitational potential variation,
and has little to do with "looking".

[oriel36]

On Jul 16, 9:26 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk
and expand it into even more junk.

The mind knows the difference between a hill and a mountain and can
loosely handle any dispute,almost with a shrug, as to whether it is
one or the other and it is the same with planets.Who wants to call a
hill a 'dwarf mountain' except those who are in desperate need of
something useful to do.

Did you go to college and take courses on how to be dull or how to say
nothing worthwhile ?.

[Wayne Throop]

::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does

::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.

:: Neither.

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk

: and expand it into even more junk.

You asked how a hill is defined. You proposed two methods.
The answer is still "neither".

: Did you go to college and take courses on how to be dull or how to say
: nothing worthwhile ?.

Where did you learn the skill you demonstrate above in the bit indented
"...", the uncanny skill to emit some of the most concentrated nonsense
in the known world? "look down a hill" vs "look up the hill". Not only
misses the point entirely, it doesn't connect to the topic you later
pretend it does.

If you don't want anybody to point out that your post is nonsense,
then make less nonsensical posts.

[oriel36]

On Jul 17, 7:25 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> ::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does
> ::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.
>
> :: Neither.
>

> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk
> : and expand it into even more junk.
>
> You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
> The answer is still "neither".
>

I proposed nothing,a hill is not a dwarf mountain hence you apply the
same principle to planets,probably someone as mindnumbingly dull as
you would make something of it but that was the whole point of the
exercise - all it needed was an airhead to come in and expand on
intellectual chewing gum.

> : Did you go to college and take courses on how to be dull or how to say
> : nothing worthwhile ?.
>
> Where did you learn the skill you demonstrate above in the bit indented
> "...", the uncanny skill to emit some of the most concentrated nonsense
> in the known world?  "look down a hill" vs "look up the hill".  Not only
> misses the point entirely, it doesn't connect to the topic you later
> pretend it does.
>

I went to an empirical conference in Dublin last week and discovered
minds that were small by virtue of conformity,they said nothing and
did nothing only appear to exist in one place as a representation of
themselves and empiricism and it was from the same 'conferences' that
this planet debacle emerged - nobody knew what was being said or done
and you all went on the road to nowhere.You can contest with error and
even evil but you simply cannot deal with conformity or mediocrity and
you have plenty of both.

There are probably a handful of people able to extract value from the
arguments presented here in a casual way and insofar as people of
talent pick and choose new approaches where the talentless can't,you
just don't happen to be one of the former - sorry about that.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <13424...@sheol.org>, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) writes:
>: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>

>: I don't see anything funny with simply asking which way the earth goes...
>
>That's not what you asked. You asked
>
>:::: Does the earth revolve around the sun clockwise or
>:::: counterclockwise? means 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!
>
>"Clockwise" is like "left". It depends which way you are facing.
>So you're asking a question you know full well is nonsense.

And you keep responding. This guy(?) could give Terry lessons!

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Jul 17, 7:25 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
|> ::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does
|> ::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.
|>
|> :: Neither.
|>
|> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
|> : Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk
|> : and expand it into even more junk.
|>
|> You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
|> The answer is still "neither".
|>
|
| I proposed nothing,a hill is not a dwarf mountain

OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?


--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro

[Michael Stemper]

It is you that has the problem, so the way to get rid of the problem
is obvious.

[oriel36]

On Jul 17, 1:19 pm, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | On Jul 17, 7:25 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> |> ::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does
> |> ::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.
> |>
> |> :: Neither.
> |>
> |> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> |> : Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk
> |> : and expand it into even more junk.
> |>
> |> You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
> |> The answer is still "neither".
> |>
> |
> | I proposed nothing,a hill is not a dwarf mountain
>
> OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?
>

You must have tumbleweeds rolling through your head as the idea of a
dwarf planet not being a planet is in the same category as attempting
to make a dwarf human being something other than a human being.Minds
which are dull generally can live off things that the imaginative and
creative find worthless or trivial - it is not an insult but simply a
statement of whether you are dull or talented -

" 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." Pascal
Pensees

So,empiricists fall in between two stools in being neither intuitive
nor mathematical and ask question like what is the difference between
a hill and a mountain or create 'dwarf planets' as distinct from
planets.

[David DeLaney]

Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

>oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>|> You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
>|> The answer is still "neither".
>|
>| I proposed nothing,a hill is not a dwarf mountain
>
>OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?

It gets its rocks off less frequently.

Dave "since you ask" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Wayne Throop]

:::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does

:::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.

:: You asked how a hill is defined. You proposed two methods.

:: The answer is still "neither".

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: I proposed nothing

Ah. So you don't know what proposed means, or you string words together
without knowing what *they* mean. Good to know.

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Sunday, 15 July 2012 12:36:26 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:

> False. The word &quot;moon&quot; refers to any natural satellite of a larger primary.

> The latter can include the dwarf planets such as Pluto. Dactyl is a tiny
> asteroid moon of the larger Ida.

Can a moon itself have a moon?

I was going to cite the semi-fact that there are moons which are as big as some planets, but then thought that if they had moons themselves, the massive gravity of the 'host' planet would probably 'steal' them.

> &gt;
> &gt; If you&#39;re going to change the definition of
> &gt; a planet, you have to change the definition of a moon...
>
> False. When the IAU created the term &quot;dwarf planet&quot;, nothing was said that
> excluded calling their natural satellites &quot;moons&quot;. So that&#39;s what they are
> called.
>
> &gt;
> &gt; while yous are at it, give Pluto it&#39;s own universe.
> &gt;
>
> Many here think you are a nutcase. Prove them wrong.

An unlikely happenstance, but I'll watch the attempt for the amusement value.

[oriel36]

On Jul 17, 4:54 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does
> :::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.
>
> :: You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
> :: The answer is still "neither".
>

> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : I proposed nothing
>
> Ah.  So you don't know what proposed means, or you string words together
> without knowing what *they* mean.  Good to know.

Other than dental treatment without an anesthetic I can't imagine
anything more painful than dealing with a dullard - sorry about
that,it is my choice.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:46:34 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On Jul 17, 7:25 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> |> ::: oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> when you look down a hill does
> |> ::: it define a hill or when you look up the hill ?.
> |>
> |> :: Neither.
> |>
> |> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
> |> : Of course you take a rhetorical question meant to express mental junk
> |> : and expand it into even more junk.
> |>
> |> You asked how a hill is defined.  You proposed two methods.
> |> The answer is still "neither".
> |>
> |
> | I proposed nothing,a hill is not a dwarf mountain
>
>
> OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?

A mountain has a distinctive feature called a "tree line".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Other than dental treatment without an anesthetic I can't imagine

: anything more painful than dealing with a dullard

Avoid interacting with mirrors. One down.

[Howard Brazee]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:22:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>> OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?
>
>A mountain has a distinctive feature called a "tree line".

Some do. Some don't.

[David DeLaney]

This probably means he's not married, too.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?
>>
>>A mountain has a distinctive feature called a "tree line".
>
>Some do. Some don't.

And some have it inverted, e.g., around Los Alamos or Santa Fe.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> writes:

> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 13:22:04 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> OK, apart from size, how does a hill differ from a mountain?
>>
>>A mountain has a distinctive feature called a "tree line".
>
> Some do. Some don't.

Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast of the
US.

I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw much
of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any actual
mountains back east.

[Kip Williams]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast of the
> US.
>
> I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw much
> of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any actual
> mountains back east.

Technically, they get to call them mountains. Perhaps they were
grandfathered in before they got so worn down.

They have a pleasant resemblance to the foothills from back home,
though, even if I do sometimes find myself thinking somebody has a mole
problem.


Kip W
rasfw

[Paul Colquhoun]

So I take it that you don't know the difference, and are attempting to
hide that fact under a pile of bullshit.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast of the
>> US.
>>
>> I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw much
>> of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any actual
>> mountains back east.
>
> Technically, they get to call them mountains. Perhaps they were
> grandfathered in before they got so worn down.

I suppose somebody could use a geology-based definition by which they
qualified. But I've never actually heard one put forward; people just
say "those are mountains" without making any explanation of why they
think so.

> They have a pleasant resemblance to the foothills from back home,
> though, even if I do sometimes find myself thinking somebody has a
> mole problem.

Yeah, that's about it.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-07-17 22:36:02 -0400, David Dyer-Bennet said:

> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast of the
>>> US.
>>>
>>> I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw much
>>> of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any actual
>>> mountains back east.
>>
>> Technically, they get to call them mountains. Perhaps they were
>> grandfathered in before they got so worn down.
>
> I suppose somebody could use a geology-based definition by which they
> qualified. But I've never actually heard one put forward; people just
> say "those are mountains" without making any explanation of why they
> think so.

The definition I got back in fifth-grade science class was that over
3,000 feet, it's a mountain. By which standard several Appalachian
peaks qualify.

I believe a height standard (probably not in feet) is also in place in
Britain, vide "The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A
Mountain."

See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112966/





--
Now available on Amazon or B&N: One-Eyed Jack.
Greg Kraft could see ghosts. That didn't mean he could stop them...

[David DeLaney]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> writes:
>> Technically, they get to call them mountains. Perhaps they were
>> grandfathered in before they got so worn down.
>
>I suppose somebody could use a geology-based definition by which they
>qualified. But I've never actually heard one put forward; people just
>say "those are mountains" without making any explanation of why they
>think so.

Try driving from Knoxville to Raleigh. You'll go up and down over some things
that, if they're only hills, are PRETTY DAMN SCARY HILLS. Especially if it's
raining at the time.

They may not be ten thousand feet high, but they're -efficient-.

[oriel36]

On Jul 18, 1:49 am, Paul Colquhoun <newspos...@andor.dropbear.id.au>
wrote:

Who could be bothered explaining to a person what a planet is,what a
hill is,what time,space and motion are yet empirical drones live off
that stuff hence the complete loss of individuality -

"Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less
known, and explained the sense in which I would have them to be
understood in the following discourse. I do not define time, space,
place and motion, as being well known to all. Only I must observe,
that the vulgar conceive those quantities under no other notions but
from the relation they bear to sensible objects. And thence arise
certain prejudices, for the removing of which, it will be convenient
to distinguish them into absolute and relative, true and apparent,
mathematical and common." Newton

My God,what have you done to yourselves !,if you could be any duller I
would not know how - why not call a hill a dwarf mountain in an
attempt to sound original and the same thing with planets,to invite
something as mindnumbing as this is to descend into the same
mediocrity you find yourselves.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Who could be bothered explaining to a person what a planet is,what a

: hill is,what time,space and motion are yet empirical drones live off
: that stuff hence the complete loss of individuality -

So your brilliant plan is for everybody to each use their own definitions
without bothering with what anybody else thinks, and these definitions
should be based entirely in each person's imagination instead of having
anything to do with the real world. Brilliant, just brilliant.

( You *do* know what empirical *means*, right?
I probably shouldn't assume so.)

[Kip Williams]

David DeLaney wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Technically, they get to call them mountains. Perhaps they were
>>> grandfathered in before they got so worn down.
>>
>> I suppose somebody could use a geology-based definition by which they
>> qualified. But I've never actually heard one put forward; people just
>> say "those are mountains" without making any explanation of why they
>> think so.
>
> Try driving from Knoxville to Raleigh. You'll go up and down over some things
> that, if they're only hills, are PRETTY DAMN SCARY HILLS. Especially if it's
> raining at the time.
>
> They may not be ten thousand feet high, but they're -efficient-.

Driving a moving van (a smallish rented Jartran or Ryder) from Fort
Collins to Statesboro was an illuminating experience. Rises in the road
that were imperceptible to the eye were all too apparent to the vehicle,
which would slow down more and more, with people honking as they passed.
Eventually, the road would flatten out or slope downward, and we'd be
able to start getting some speed back.

At that point, somebody would always zip in front of us and slow down.
Every bleeding time.

I can't imagine what it's like to drive a real truck, if they do
anything like that. I've tried to be extra considerate of them ever since.


Kip W
rasfw

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:13:02 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
wrote:

>
>The definition I got back in fifth-grade science class was that over
>3,000 feet, it's a mountain. By which standard several Appalachian
>peaks qualify.
>
>I believe a height standard (probably not in feet) is also in place in
>Britain, vide "The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A
>Mountain."

I will add a criterion on how difficult it is to climb. When the
Appalachians were a real barrier to travel, they certainly were
mountains. But now, mountains here in Colorado aren't that much of
a barrier, and are hikeable. Someone in Tibet might call them
"hills".

And if it has steep ski slopes.

[oriel36]

On Jul 18, 8:17 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : Who could be bothered explaining to a person what a planet is,what a
> : hill is,what time,space and motion are yet empirical drones live off
> : that stuff hence the complete loss of individuality -
>
> So your brilliant plan is for everybody to each use their own definitions
> without bothering with what anybody else thinks, and these definitions
> should be based entirely in each person's imagination instead of having
> anything to do with the real world.  Brilliant, just brilliant.
>

You are dull,not because you reason poorly or you are unreasonable,you
are dull for the same reason cult members are dull.A person who can't
connect one rotation of the Earth with one 24 hour day,sees the moon
spinning,needs time,space and motion defined for them is weak through
no fault of their own.

I told you before,dullness of mind is an excruciating thing for the
creative and the productive as it is a conformity borne from
mediocrity - always is and always will be - sorry.

No sense in explaining to you why a hill is not a dwarf mountain and
then moving on to planets and why a dwarf planet is repulsive accept
for empirical drones who imagine something good comes out of these
things.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2012-07-18 10:12:13 -0400, Howard Brazee said:

> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:13:02 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The definition I got back in fifth-grade science class was that over
>> 3,000 feet, it's a mountain. By which standard several Appalachian
>> peaks qualify.
>>
>> I believe a height standard (probably not in feet) is also in place in
>> Britain, vide "The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill But Came Down A
>> Mountain."
>
> I will add a criterion on how difficult it is to climb. When the
> Appalachians were a real barrier to travel, they certainly were
> mountains. But now, mountains here in Colorado aren't that much of
> a barrier, and are hikeable. Someone in Tibet might call them
> "hills".
>
> And if it has steep ski slopes.

After I posted I went and checked Wikipedia, which gives about half a
dozen mutually-contradictory definitions. Most of them include a
minimum height; some give a minimum slope, as well, and one or two have
other requirements. My teacher's 3,000-foot limit isn't there, though
I think I saw two with an even lower minimum.

Short version: There's nothing even close to a universally-accepted
definition.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: You are dull

Dull? You want dull? Dull is denying that the orbit and spin of planets
and moons are physical processes, just like those that apply to smaller
objects. Now *that*'s dull. Also daft.

[oriel36]

On Jul 18, 6:56 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : You are dull
>
> Dull?  You want dull?  Dull is denying that the orbit and spin of planets
> and moons are physical processes, just like those that apply to smaller
> objects.  Now *that*'s dull.  Also daft.

I was not insulting you or expressing an opinion,an empirical drone
has no means to distinguish himself from another hence address one and
address all - that is the nature of a cult and the dullards who
comprise it.

You don't have anything to say - tell you there are nine planets and
you tick the box of 'dwarf planets',mention global warming and the
cult mentality shifts to a predictable packaged view and that is why
Galileo termed the dullness as being unpleasant and dangerous,it goes
nowhere,does nothing and barely exists -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

He is not talking of a person but a cult,people who can't be anything
but dull and unreasonable for they are told how to think and that is
why their company is dangerous for they say and think nothing beyond
what is programmed into them.

Good luck to you now,I thank God for the people with genuine faults
and flaws.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: I was not insulting you or expressing an opinion

Oh sure you weren't. Claiming that I don't think for myself,
that I'm blinded by a cult, that my motives are all essentially
political and social, why that's all just friendly observation.

Riiiiiiight.

: an empirical drone

Seriously, do you even know what empirical means?

: You don't have anything to say - tell you there are nine planets and

: you tick the box of 'dwarf planets'

No. Apparently you haven't actually been paying attention.
Tell me there are nine planets, I ask "what do you mean by "planet"?".
Tell me the earth rotates in 24 hours, I ask "wrt what?".

The fact that you continually try to dodge and obfuscate such
clarification says much about your so-called thought processes.
You prefer muddyness and ambiguity over precision, you prefer
intuition over logic, you prefer just-so stories over data.

In short, "dull".

[oriel36]

On Jul 18, 7:51 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : I was not insulting you or expressing an opinion
>
> Oh sure you weren't.  Claiming that I don't think for myself,
> that I'm blinded by a cult, that my motives are all essentially
> political and social, why that's all just friendly observation.
>
> Riiiiiiight.
>
> : an empirical drone
>
> Seriously, do you even know what empirical means?
>
> : You don't have anything to say - tell you there are nine planets and
> : you tick the box of 'dwarf planets'
>
> No.  Apparently you haven't actually been paying attention.
> Tell me there are nine planets, I ask "what do you mean by "planet"?".
> Tell me the earth rotates in 24 hours, I ask "wrt what?".
>

Beautiful day today and within that 24 hour day the temperature rose
and fell,the Sun came up and is just going down and all in response to
the rotation of the Earth,it will happen tomorrow and the day after
that and the day after that.The freedom of an individual mind to enjoy
it but not so the empirical drone who imagines days fall out of sync
with each rotation.

I told you before,dealing with absolute dullness of intelligence is
exceptionally painful as it is a condition of being neither alive nor
dead and Galileo was correct,it is dangerous.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Beautiful day today and within that 24 hour day the temperature rose

: and fell,the Sun came up and is just going down and all in response to
: the rotation of the Earth

And there's a different period wrt the stars, or wrt gyrocompases.
Or the moon. Or any number of others. That's just a fact, easily
observable by anybody who will open their eyes.

: The freedom of an individual mind to enjoy it but not so the empirical

: drone who imagines days fall out of sync with each rotation.

Why you halucinate that knowledge that rotation wrt things other than
the sun has different periods than rotation wrt the sun impairs the
enjoyment of a nice day, or impairs realizing that the earth does
indeed rotation in (on average) 24 hours wrt the sun, is obscure.
But then, the reasons for most of your halucinations are obscure.

Just to be clear, you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying
"wrt what". Let's put back in what you always leave out. It's not
imagination that rotation wrt the sun is out of sync with rotation
wrt the background stars. That's just an observable fact. And indeed,
since the sun and background stars aren't fixed wrt each other,
it couldn't possibly be any other way. The only way the two could
remain in sync is if the "wrt" references didn't move wrt each other.

: I told you before

Yeah, yeah, you want to pretend your imaginings and halucinations somehow
make you non-dull. Couldn't be further from the truth. Seen one
cracked ceramic container, seen them all. Ring the changes on the
exact halucinations, but the overall pattern is the same. "Oh I'm so
brilliant, establishment drones are blinkered, hep hep I'm being repressed
by drones who refuse to think for themselves, they said Galileo was mad",
etc, etc, et ad nauseam cetera.

[Kip Williams]

Wayne Throop wrote:
> Just to be clear, you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying
> "wrt what". Let's put back in what you always leave out. It's not
> imagination that rotation wrt the sun is out of sync with rotation
> wrt the background stars. That's just an observable fact.

And it's a fact available to grade-school kids. I was looking through
_Science Puzzlers_, by Martin Gardner, published through the book club
they had when I was in sixth grade. (In Colorado, 6th is still part of
grade school, or was back when I used to play on the lawns of old
people.) One of the experiments shows how the face of Lincoln on a penny
rotating around another penny (with the edges in constant contact) makes
one somersault from the point of view of the other penny, but makes two
to an outside observer.

(Good grief, it takes as long to trim the newsgroups as it did to write
the post.)


Kip W
rasfw

[Paul Colquhoun]

Well, since all the geological and geographical definitions I can find
all say "if a feature is less than X feet (or meters) in height it is a
hill, if it is greater than X then it is a mountain", then I will have
to say that, despite your denial, a hill actually is a dwarf mountain.

Note that the value of X differs in various countries, and there are
many exceptions grandfathered in for historical reasons, i.e. a given
feature has always been called a hill or mountain, and thus still is
even though it doesn't fit the more recent legal definition.

[Howard Brazee]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:04:19 -0400, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And it's a fact available to grade-school kids. I was looking through
>_Science Puzzlers_, by Martin Gardner, published through the book club
>they had when I was in sixth grade. (In Colorado, 6th is still part of
>grade school, or was back when I used to play on the lawns of old
>people.) One of the experiments shows how the face of Lincoln on a penny
>rotating around another penny (with the edges in constant contact) makes
>one somersault from the point of view of the other penny, but makes two
>to an outside observer.

Two of my Colorado grandchildren are commencing from grade school this
year. One from 6th grade, and one from 5th grade. It depends upon
the school.

[oriel36]

On Jul 18, 9:23 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : Beautiful day today and within that 24 hour day the temperature rose
> : and fell,the Sun came up and is just going down and all in response to
> : the rotation of the Earth
>
> And there's a different period wrt the stars, or wrt gyrocompases.
> Or the moon.  Or any number of others.  That's just a fact, easily
> observable by anybody who will open their eyes.
>

In conformity you tick all the boxes hence the repulsion of seeing
another human being imagine that an object can have two 360 degree
rotations using a single motion.The eyes of the imagination are wide
open but common sense and experience where one 24 hour AM/PM cycle
always remains in step with one rotation as both common sense and
normal experience doesn't sink in and that is nothing less than a cult
mentality - no response to external experience.

> : The freedom of an individual mind to enjoy it but not so the empirical
> : drone who imagines days fall out of sync with each rotation.
>
> Why you halucinate that knowledge that rotation wrt things other than
> the sun has different periods than rotation wrt the sun impairs the
> enjoyment of a nice day, or impairs realizing that the earth does
> indeed rotation in (on average) 24 hours wrt the sun, is obscure.
> But then, the reasons for most of your halucinations are obscure.
>

A mind dulled with choices has a chaos to it and that is why Galileo
found your kind dangerous and that is not being unkind,insulting
you,expressing an opinion about you or anything like that,for you,as
an empirical drone, have lost the ability to apply constraints and
arrange things according to their historical development - anyone who
appreciates the introduction of the additional day after every 4 years
will go on to enjoy the later developments which create the 24 hour AM/
PM system with the Lat/long system.

> Just to be clear, you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying
> "wrt what".

You just don't hear it,a cult mind only hears what they want to hear
and I discovered that the lengths mathematicians will go to retain a
perspective can reach ridiculous proportions.

The Earth turns 1461 times separately for the 4 times it makes a
circuit of the Sun or ,what normal people know as the days of the
calendar system in 4 years including the leap day and it is rare for
the wider population to make the connection between days/years and
rotations orbital circuits.You have your answer but you can't see
it,can't break the hard shell of indoctrination which insists that you
accept 1465 rotations in 4 years/orbital cycles.

 Let's put back in what you always leave out.  It's not
> imagination that rotation wrt the sun is out of sync with rotation
> wrt the background stars.  That's just an observable fact.  And indeed,
> since the sun and background stars aren't fixed wrt each other,
> it couldn't possibly be any other way.  The only way the two could
> remain in sync is if the "wrt" references didn't move wrt each other.
>

You can't snap out - the Ra/Dec extensions of stellar circumpolar
motion is an observation made using the average 24 hour day in a
sequence of 1461 days.When you should be making sense of why one 24
hour AM/PM cycle reflects one rotation in context of all the other
days in sequence and especially as a derivative of the natural noon AM/
PM cycle,you try to make sense of the 3 minute 56 difference to 24
hours by creating the idea that an object can turn 360 degrees twice
as a single motion and a mind that can do that is no longer
constrained by anything.

> : I told you before
>
> Yeah, yeah, you want to pretend your imaginings and halucinations somehow
> make you non-dull.  Couldn't be further from the truth.  Seen one
> cracked ceramic container, seen them all.  Ring the changes on the
> exact halucinations, but the overall pattern is the same.  "Oh I'm so
> brilliant, establishment drones are blinkered, hep hep I'm being repressed
> by drones who refuse to think for themselves, they said Galileo was mad",
> etc, etc, et ad nauseam cetera.

I told you before,a mind unable to make sense of a 24 hour day and the
dynamic behind it lives in a world of their own and just like Galileo
commented - unpleasant and dangerous rather than stupid and
unreasonable.

[Wayne Throop]

:: you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying "wrt what".

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: You just don't hear it

Of course I don't hear it. You don't *say* it, so there's nothing to hear.
It's fairly clear you mean "wrt the sun", but you never *say* so, because
that would make clear to anybody that there are other things rotation can
be wrt to. And those other things can have different periods. And do.

So, you say the hidebound cultists think a "rotation" takes other
than (average) 24 hours, and sneer since a "rotation" wrt the sun
certainly does not. You are (by now intentionally, since it has
been pointed out to you many times) misprepresenting what was said;
nobody has *ever* said that a rotation *wrt* *the* *sun* takes anything
but (average) 24 hours. But you keep pretending that they have,
and sneering. Very dishonest of you, actually.

: The Earth turns

approximately

: 1461 times

wrt the sun. It also turns about 1465 times wrt the background stars.
It's a measurable, objective, fact. Get used to it. It's not some
theory, and it in no way changes the fact that wrt the sun, it's
about 1461. When you pretend it's not a fact, or that it *does*
imply something about the number wrt the sun, you are being dishonest.

: the Ra/Dec extensions of stellar circumpolar motion

Are completely irrelevant, since they are one way of *describing*
things; they don't change in the least what is actually going on.

: I told you before,a mind unable to make sense of a 24 hour day

Of course, you are lying about people being unable to make sense
of a 24 hour day. Nobody ever said days take anything other than
(average) 24 hours.

( I say "lying", since you know very well that nobody ever said that
the earth's rotation takes anything other than (average) 24 hours
wrt the sun, ie, a "day". So your misrepresentation has to be
intentional on your part. )

[William December Starr]

In article <ylfk4np6...@dd-b.net>,

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

> Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast
> of the US.
>
> I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw
> much of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any
> actual mountains back east.

I had a similar life-experience growing up right on the shore of
the Hudson River a bit north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, where it's
about three miles across. Then later on, I saw streams that you
could practically pole-vault over called "rivers"...

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <11c8f779-8206-42d9...@googlegroups.com>,
Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk said:

> On Sunday, 15 July 2012 12:36:26 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky wrote:

[...]

>> &gt;
>> &gt; while yous are at it, give Pluto it&#39's own universe.
>> &gt;
>>
>> 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".

-- wds

[Tim.B...@redbridge.gov.uk]

On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 19:28:40 UTC+1, oriel36 wrote:
> On Jul 18, 6:56 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> &gt; : oriel36 &lt;kelleher.ger...@gmail.com&gt;
> &gt; : You are dull
> &gt;
> &gt; Dull?  You want dull?  Dull is denying that the orbit and spin of planets
> &gt; and moons are physical processes, just like those that apply to smaller
> &gt; objects.  Now *that*&#39;s dull.  Also daft.

>
> I was not insulting you or expressing an opinion,an empirical drone
> has no means to distinguish himself from another hence address one and
> address all - that is the nature of a cult and the dullards who
> comprise it.
>

> You don&#39;t have anything to say - tell you there are nine planets

Please name them. To save time, you may wish to define the term 'planet' while you are at it.

[Kip Williams]

The East is where they don't know what a real mountain is, and the West
is where they don't know what a real river is.


Kip W [simplifying]
rasfw

[oriel36]

On Jul 19, 6:42 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying "wrt what".
>

> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : You just don't hear it
>
> Of course I don't hear it.  You don't *say* it, so there's nothing to hear.
> It's fairly clear you mean "wrt the sun", but you never *say* so, because
> that would make clear to anybody that there are other things rotation can
> be wrt to.  And those other things can have different periods.  And do.

The number of times the Earth turns daily for 4 orbital circuits is
1461 times

1461 rotations/days = 4 orbital circuits/4 years.

You are not hearing it - two separate motions which can be compared
proportionally

Number of rotations = number of orbital circuits

1461 rotations = 4 orbital circuits

365 1/4 rotations = 1 orbital circuit.


I am sorry,it is not about trying to convince the dull that the Earth
turns once in a 24 hour day,it is finding people who actually use it
as a point of departure for discussing everything else.If you followed
Newton and his agenda based on 1465 rotations in 4 orbital circuits
then sorry,it makes you somewhere between a flat Earther and
intellectual oblivion.

At least you can type words.

[oriel36]

On Jul 19, 6:42 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying "wrt what".
>

> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : You just don't hear it
>
> Of course I don't hear it.  You don't *say* it, so there's nothing to hear.
> It's fairly clear you mean "wrt the sun", but you never *say* so, because
> that would make clear to anybody that there are other things rotation can
> be wrt to.  And those other things can have different periods.  And do.
>
> So, you say the hidebound cultists think a "rotation" takes other
> than (average) 24 hours, and sneer since a "rotation" wrt the sun
> certainly does not.  You are (by now intentionally, since it has
> been pointed out to you many times) misprepresenting what was said;
> nobody has *ever* said that a rotation *wrt* *the* *sun* takes anything
> but (average) 24 hours.  But you keep pretending that they have,
> and sneering.  Very dishonest of you, actually.
>
> : The Earth turns
>
> approximately
>
> : 1461 times
>
> wrt the sun.  It also turns about 1465 times wrt the background stars.
> It's a measurable, objective, fact.

You insist the Earth turns 1465 times as it moves along its orbital
circuit whereas it turns 4 times less hence it is a straightforward
proportional difference.

Most use the term 'flat Earther' as the lowest possible intellectual
standard but unfortunately you inhabit a rung lower - a person unable
to keep one rotation in sync with one 24 hour day is pretty much the
most miserable creature of all -again,sorry.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yeah, the Cannon River where I grew up wasn't more than 50 feet across
mostly. Still capable of flooding the soccer field and the tennis
courts, though.

More recently, we're closest to the Mississippi -- but far enough north
that it's not a monster. Nowhere near a mile.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <ylfkliie...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> writes:
>wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:
>> In article <ylfk4np6...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> said:

>>> Yeah, and some people claim there are mountains on the east coast
>>> of the US.
>>>
>>> I'd seen the Alps, the Rockies, and the Sierra Nevada before I saw
>>> much of the east coast, and I'm here to tell you there aren't any
>>> actual mountains back east.
>>
>> I had a similar life-experience growing up right on the shore of
>> the Hudson River a bit north of the Tappan Zee Bridge, where it's
>> about three miles across. Then later on, I saw streams that you
>> could practically pole-vault over called "rivers"...
>
>Yeah, the Cannon River where I grew up wasn't more than 50 feet across
>mostly. Still capable of flooding the soccer field and the tennis
>courts, though.

It did some pretty significant damage in downtown Cannon Falls in
2003 or so.

>More recently, we're closest to the Mississippi -- but far enough north
>that it's not a monster. Nowhere near a mile.

Come out my way. I've waded across it. (Actually, it was closer to
Monticello than Otsego.) Even so, I've seen it get several hundred
yards wider in the spring.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: The number of times the Earth turns daily for 4 orbital circuits is

approximately

: 1461 times

Since you say "daily", you obviously mean "wrt the sun".
Can you find ANYBODY who has EVER disagreed with that?
Certainly I never disagreed with it.

Of course, the earth also turns 1465 wrt the background stars
during that same period of time. You seem to think that's
an inaccurate statement (though you actually refuse to say whether
you th ink it's accurate or not; why you refuse to answer a simple
yes-or-no question which would clarify your position is beyond all
rational comprehension, but there it is). If you *do* think it's
inaccurate... well, you're mistaken. It's an observable fact.

: You are not hearing it - two separate motions which can be compared
: proportionally

I heard it fine, and never disagreed. For some reason, you seem to have
wax in your ears when I point out that the number is 1465 wrt the
background stars. You always treat that as if it were disagreeing
with the 1461 wrt the sun. WHY you always treat it that way is unknown,
perhaps unknowable; certainly you refuse to say why.

: I am sorry,it is not about trying to convince the dull that the Earth
: turns once in a

(average)

: 24 hour day

wrt the sun (since this is "day", it refers to the sun)

Who are you trying to convince? I never heard anybody deny it.
Certainly I never did. Why do you act as if anybody disagrees?

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: You insist the Earth turns

approximately

: 1465 times

wrt the background stars

: as it moves

4 times

: along its orbital circuit whereas it turns

exactly

: 4 times less

wrt the sun

: hence it is a straightforward proportional difference.

Usually the "hence" is used when the left-hand portion of the sentence
logically implies the right-hand portion. You seem to be using it in
some other fashion entirely, since in fact it is not a "straightforward
proportional distance". Unless you mean something by "proportional"
that nobody else seems to.

: Most use the term 'flat Earther' as the lowest possible intellectual

: standard but unfortunately you inhabit a rung lower - a person unable
: to keep one rotation in sync with one 24 hour day is pretty much the
: most miserable creature of all -again,sorry.

Can you name ANYBODY who doesn't keep one rotation wrt the sun
in sync with a 24 hour day? No, you can't. Because nobody disagrees.

The fact that you seem to deny the observed facts of earth's rotation
rate wrt the background stars is your problem, and your problem alone.
It doesn't imply incomprehension in anybody but you.

[oriel36]

On Jul 20, 6:59 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : The number of times the Earth turns daily for 4 orbital circuits is
>
> approximately
>
> : 1461 times
>
> Since you say "daily", you obviously mean "wrt the sun".
> Can you find ANYBODY who has EVER disagreed with that?
> Certainly I never disagreed with it.
>

Since I mean daily rotation wrt the orbital motion of the Earth and
its circuit around the Sun,the proportion is 1461 rotations for 4
orbital circuits which breaks down into the raw astronomical
correlation of 365 1/4 rotations to 1 circuit or the calendar format
of 3 years of 365 rotations and 1 year of 366 rotations.

If you can't bounce the daily rotation of the Earth off its orbital
circuit then don't waste my time - millions of kids go to school and
are not taught how the calendar system developed and the later 24 hour
AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system.

If you insist on 1465 daily rotation as the Earth moves through 4
complete orbital circuits then forget science or much else.

[oriel36]

On Jul 20, 7:05 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : You insist the Earth turns
>
> approximately
>
> : 1465 times
>
> wrt the background stars
>
> : as it moves
>
> 4 times
>
> : along its orbital circuit whereas it turns
>
> exactly
>
> : 4 times less
>
> wrt the sun
>
> : hence it is a straightforward proportional difference.
>

Naughty,naughty !,that is a big no-no and makes any discussion
impossible and over the years few people have ever modified a sentence
I wrote and although I can easily return the favor it is much better
to withdraw .The original sentence is -

"You insist the Earth turns 1465 times as it moves along its orbital
circuit whereas it turns 4 times less hence it is a straightforward
proportional difference."



Over and out !

> Usually the "hence" is used when the left-hand portion of the sentence
> logically implies the right-hand portion.  You seem to be using it in
> some other fashion entirely, since in fact it is not a "straightforward
> proportional distance".  Unless you mean something by "proportional"
> that nobody else seems to.
>



> : Most use the term 'flat Earther' as the lowest possible intellectual
> : standard but unfortunately you inhabit a rung lower - a person unable
> : to keep one rotation in sync with one 24 hour day is pretty much the
> : most miserable creature of all -again,sorry.
>
> Can you name ANYBODY who doesn't keep one rotation wrt the sun
> in sync with a 24 hour day?  No, you can't.  Because nobody disagrees.
>

The Earth turns 1461 times in proportion to 4 orbital circuits around
the Sun and not 1465 times in proportion to 4 orbital circuits.

> The fact that you seem to deny the observed facts of earth's rotation
> rate wrt the background stars is your problem, and your problem alone.
> It doesn't imply incomprehension in anybody but you.

How sweet - guys stuck with a late 17th century mistake and lack the
confidence to deal with the issue while today's technology makes you
look ridiculous.All this dithering around with wrt to this and that -
I wish somebody could just reference the number of rotations against
the orbital motion as the Earth moves around its orbital circumference
and when it has finished moving around the circuit 4 times,it will
also have completed 1461 rotations to the nearest rotation.

Maybe you are better off with Newton,Einstein and all those poor cases
who didn't have what we do now so I leave you with a musty late 17th
century ideology ,although Newton's attempt was interesting up to a
point,it becomes a clockwork solar system for clockwork minds and too
dull for me.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 20 Jul 2012 02:20:14 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

Unsurprisingly,

Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0

Google have now utterly broken Google Groups as a posting interface to
Usenet.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Since I mean daily rotation wrt the orbital motion of the Earth

Gibberish. Makes no sense at all; "rotation wrt orbital motion"
is a completely meaningless word salad.

: If you insist on

approximately

: 1465 daily rotation as the Earth moves through 4

: complete orbital circuits then forget science or much else.

I never said any such thing. I "insist" (in the sense that I am aware
that that's what's observed) that there are approximately 1465 rotations
wrt the background stars. Which is obviously not the same as "daily".

Why do you persist in intentionally distorting what I've said?
You have no argument against what I actually say, so you have to make
stuff up and pretend I said it, to have something to disagree with?

[David DeLaney]

Wayne Throop <thr...@sheol.org> wrote:
>oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
>: The number of times the Earth turns daily for 4 orbital circuits is
>
>approximately
>
>: 1461 times
>
>Since you say "daily", you obviously mean "wrt the sun".
>Can you find ANYBODY who has EVER disagreed with that?
>Certainly I never disagreed with it.
>
>Of course, the earth also turns 1465 wrt the background stars
>during that same period of time. You seem to think that's
>an inaccurate statement (though you actually refuse to say whether
>you th ink it's accurate or not; why you refuse to answer a simple
>yes-or-no question which would clarify your position is beyond all
>rational comprehension, but there it is). If you *do* think it's
>inaccurate... well, you're mistaken. It's an observable fact.
>
>: You are not hearing it - two separate motions which can be compared
>: proportionally
>
>I heard it fine, and never disagreed. For some reason, you seem to have
>wax in your ears when I point out that the number is 1465 wrt the
>background stars. You always treat that as if it were disagreeing
>with the 1461 wrt the sun. WHY you always treat it that way is unknown,
>perhaps unknowable; certainly you refuse to say why.

... perhaps ... maybe he's got the entirely mistaken notion that the Sun
_is_ one of the "background stars"? It isn't, of course, but if he knows
the Sun is a star (which, given his previous record, admittedly is something
of a stretch), then maybe he's stuffing it into the first category that comes
by, "background stars", and is wondering why everyone else is saying that
turning 1461 wrt the Sun is different from turning 1465 wrt the background
stars?

(Hint, oriel36: the Sun is a star, yes. The Sun is NOT a 'background star';
those are the stars that are OUTSIDE our Solar System, that form a backdrop
against which we can see the movements of the Sun and planets and moons IN
the Solar System. Hope this helps.)

>Who are you trying to convince? I never heard anybody deny it.
>Certainly I never did. Why do you act as if anybody disagrees?

If we're fighting against the voices in his head, echoing echoing loudly and
persistently, it may be a losing battle...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: Naughty,naughty !,that is a big no-no and makes any discussion

: impossible and over the years few people have ever modified a sentence
: I wrote and although I can easily return the favor it is much better
: to withdraw .The original sentence is -
:
: "You insist the Earth turns 1465 times as it moves along its orbital
: circuit whereas it turns 4 times less hence it is a straightforward
: proportional difference."

So you insist on being both incorrect and imprecise at the same time.
Well, good luck with that.

: The Earth turns 1461 times in proportion to 4 orbital circuits around

: the Sun and not 1465 times in proportion to 4 orbital circuits.

Actually, it does both. Of course, you always strip the imortant
fact of what you are measuring the rotation wrt to; the two numbers
come from two completely different standards of rotation. But you
always leave that out. Are you being intentionally misleading,
or are you really that foggy-minded that you don't even notice
how misleading you are being?

: How sweet - guys stuck with a late 17th century mistake

In what sense is accurate accounting for actual orbital motions
a "mistake"? Just because you don't understand it?

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:05:09 -0400, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>The East is where they don't know what a real mountain is, and the West
>is where they don't know what a real river is.

Seeing that the Mississippi is in the middle - which Eastern rivers
make the Columbia seem like a creek?

[Kip Williams]

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:05:09 -0400, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The East is where they don't know what a real mountain is, and the West
>> is where they don't know what a real river is.
>
> Seeing that the Mississippi is in the middle - which Eastern rivers
> make the Columbia seem like a creek?

"Middle" makes it sound like something symmetric. It's east of the exact
middle, but it's certainly between the coasts, so maybe that's what you
meant.

It's been years since I saw the Columbia, but I'll put the James River
up against it, by Newport News. I could ride my bike over, walk it down
a worn flight of asphalt steps, and barely see the other side.

Checking...

The Columbia river's 2640 feet wide. The James is up to five miles wide
near our old house, or ten times as wide.


Kip W
rasfw

[Robert A. Woodward]

In article <ezpOr.1314$Mv7....@newsfe12.iad>,

That isn't a river; that's an estuary. The proper measure of a
river is volume of water/second. By that measure, the Columbia is
the 30th largest river in the world; just ahead of the Danube and
just behind the Ohio (the Mississippi is 12th). The water flow of
the James is about 2.6% of that of the Columbia.

--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>

[Robert A. Woodward]

In article <mr4k08p7706prhlc0...@4ax.com>,

Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:05:09 -0400, Kip Williams <mrk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The East is where they don't know what a real mountain is, and the West
> >is where they don't know what a real river is.
>
> Seeing that the Mississippi is in the middle - which Eastern rivers
> make the Columbia seem like a creek?

None. Unless you mean China as Eastern (in which case, the Yangtze
at 4.7 times the flow of the Columbia might do it). Of course, the
Amazon makes the Columbia (and just about every other river in the
world) look like a creek.

[oriel36]

On Jul 20, 10:47 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>

> : Since I mean daily rotation wrt the orbital motion of the Earth
>
> Gibberish.  Makes no sense at all; "rotation wrt orbital motion"
> is a completely meaningless word salad.
>
> : If you insist on
>
> approximately
>
> : 1465 daily rotation as the Earth moves through 4
> : complete orbital circuits then forget science or much else.
>
> I never said any such thing.  I "insist" (in the sense that I am aware
> that that's what's observed) that there are approximately 1465 rotations
> wrt the background stars.  Which is obviously not the same as "daily".
>

Don't make me laugh,once you use the 24 hour AM/PM cycle in the format
of 365/366 days,you are going to get the return of a star within that
timekeeping average as a matter of trivia - had any of you known how
the AM/PM system ties in with the Lat/Long system,this conversation
wouldn't be happening and all those trillions of dollars/euro worth of
technological equipment would be going to good use.Incredible sight to
see such a lack of confidence in a simple proportion based on two
separate motions - the daily rotation and the orbital motion of the
Earth.

> Why do you persist in intentionally distorting what I've said?
> You have no argument against what I actually say, so you have to make
> stuff up and pretend I said it, to have something to disagree with?

You cannot distort mediocrity so congratulate yourself if you want,it
has nothing to do with me.The Earth turns 1461 times as one side of an
equation where the other side is balanced with 4 orbital circuits,it
is so elementary that I am not trying to convince you but can find
someone who actually likes time,space and motion.So what if you have
to be treated like kids,that is your choice and behavior -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDWHM00sZJc

That is just a simple overview with only hints of the complicated and
intricate systems behind it where the origins of these systems stretch
back to remote antiquity.There is no imperative to learn
something,people either find these things satisfying or they don't.

[Paul Colquhoun]

Sorry to disillusion you, but NASA thinks the Earth rotates in 23 hours,
56 minutes and 2.4 seconds, when they aren't simplifying things for
young children.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Earth&Display=Facts
and look towards the bottom of the page

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 06:57:23 -0700 (PDT), oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
| On Jul 19, 6:42 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
|> :: you always obfuscate and say "rotation" without saying "wrt what".
|>
|> : oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com>
|> : You just don't hear it
|>
|> Of course I don't hear it.  You don't *say* it, so there's nothing to hear.
|> It's fairly clear you mean "wrt the sun", but you never *say* so, because
|> that would make clear to anybody that there are other things rotation can
|> be wrt to.  And those other things can have different periods.  And do.
|
|
| The number of times the Earth turns daily for 4 orbital circuits is
| 1461 times
|
| 1461 rotations/days = 4 orbital circuits/4 years.
|
| You are not hearing it - two separate motions which can be compared
| proportionally
|
| Number of rotations = number of orbital circuits

This appears to be a unique use of the '=' symbol here.

| 1461 rotations = 4 orbital circuits

implying that 1461 = 4

| 365 1/4 rotations = 1 orbital circuit.
|
|
| I am sorry,it is not about trying to convince the dull that the Earth
| turns once in a 24 hour day,it is finding people who actually use it
| as a point of departure for discussing everything else.If you followed
| Newton and his agenda based on 1465 rotations in 4 orbital circuits
| then sorry,it makes you somewhere between a flat Earther and
| intellectual oblivion.
|
| At least you can type words.

[Wayne Throop]

: oriel36 <kellehe...@gmail.com>
: once you use the 24 hour AM/PM cycle in the format of 365/366 days,you

: are going to get the return of a star within that timekeeping average
: as a matter of trivia

Which of course has nothing to do with the period of a rotation wrt
the stars. If all you can manage to comprehend is using stars to reckon
*orbital* periods, and are too obsessed to notice that using them to
reckon a rotation period, then you'll just have to remain ignorant.

: Incredible sight to see such a lack of confidence in a simple

: proportion based on two separate motions - the daily rotation and the
: orbital motion of the Earth.

Even more incredible is anybody who can't understand that the ratio
for the orbital period to the siderial rotation period is different
than that for the daily rotation.

: You cannot distort mediocrity so congratulate yourself

You are the one who routinely distorts what is said by systematically
omitting all mention of the references wrt which rotsations are measured.
You are the one who pretends that anybody has ever disagreed that there are
about 1461 rotations wrt the sun in 4 years. Nobody has ever disputed it,
yet you pretend over and over that it's been disputed.

: The Earth turns 1461 times as one side of an equation where the other

: side is balanced with 4 orbital circuits,it is so elementary that I
: am not trying to convince you

1461 times wrt the sun. 1465 times wrt the background stars.
The rate wrt the background stars is equally elementary.
Odd that you seem incapable of understanding it.

[oriel36]

On Jul 21, 7:57 am, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

> 1461 times wrt the sun.  1465 times wrt the background stars.
> The rate wrt the background stars is equally elementary.
> Odd that you seem incapable of understanding it.

You are neither reasonable or unreasonable but beyond the reach of
reason - had you looked at the Earth's orbital motion through space
and around the Sun you will discover that it completes 1461 separate
rotations for the same times it covers 4 orbital circuits or
circumferences.

All the Cisco Systems of the world with all their IT resources and it
employs people who can't make sense of the AM/PM system and the Lat/
Long system.Whether it a lack of confidence or competence I cannot say
but a person who insists on assigning the Earth two separate rotations
through 360 degrees for the same motion has big problems,my business
has been to get the technologically saavy on my side rather than deal
with people who are stuck with a late 17th century error that is
trivial to dismiss.

'Welcome to the human network' Cisco Inc

I must write to them and let them know it must be a human dreamscape
they are networking in because their employees have severe
difficulties with the most basic facts of all.