Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East

[Lynn McGuire]

Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02

Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).

Lynn

[Mark Jackson]

Or if he finds he's been written into an early edition of /Ringworld/.

--
Mark Jackson - https://mark-jackson.online/
I know I’ve put on a lot of weight lately but being told
that I look like Steve Bannon by an 80 year-old buddhist
was the last straw. - Bobby London

[John W Kennedy]

Why spend bazillions on altering Earth’s angular momentum?

--
John W. Kennedy
Algernon Burbage, Lord Roderick, Father Martin, Bishop Baldwin,
King Pellinore, Captain Bailey, Merlin -- A Kingdom for a Stage!

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-02, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East

This appears to be a matter of definition.

> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
> Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).

_Perry Rhodan_ also moved the Earth at some point, but just into
orbit around a different sun, so presumably no change to cardinal
directions, plus see above. The radiation of the other sun would
have an unexpected side effect on Earth's inhabitants, though.

Moved it where to, you ask? Turns out the writers never made that
really clear, but it was far away. Really far away. As in, it
took a ship built for casual intergalactic travel several decades
to make the trip back.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

[art...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 4:50:41 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
> https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02

I figure I am off to a good start if at least 2 of the three laws of thermodynamics are working and I will gladly take people's word that the third law of thermodynamics is working. When I was in college, there was a lab named after a famous low temperature chemist. I think he died my senior year of college and I wondered if he was preserved frozen in his own lab:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Giauque
But people shouldn't have places like that named after them while they are still alive

[Lynn McGuire]

Wow, was the new sun a red giant ? Did everyone have super powers ?
What PR episode is this ?

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/2/2023 5:13 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 5/2/23 4:50 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>>     https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
>>
>> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see
>> The Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Why spend bazillions on altering Earth’s angular momentum?

Watch the documentary. It is free on Netflix.
https://www.netflix.com/title/81067760

Cool, the documentary has gotten a sequel ! Hopefully it will appear on
Netflix soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3VreXwVpI

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <slrnu531so...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>,

Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>On 2023-05-02, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>
>This appears to be a matter of definition.
>
>> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
>> Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>
>_Perry Rhodan_ also moved the Earth at some point, but just into
>orbit around a different sun, so presumably no change to cardinal
>directions, plus see above. The radiation of the other sun would
>have an unexpected side effect on Earth's inhabitants, though.
>

Super-strength, x-ray vision, invulnerability, blue hair, & flight?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Paul S Person]

Thanks for that! I added it to my list.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/3/2023 12:21 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 2 May 2023 21:25:39 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2023 5:13 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> On 5/2/23 4:50 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>>>>     https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
>>>>
>>>> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see
>>>> The Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> Why spend bazillions on altering Earth’s angular momentum?
>>
>> Watch the documentary. It is free on Netflix.
>> https://www.netflix.com/title/81067760
>>
>> Cool, the documentary has gotten a sequel ! Hopefully it will appear on
>> Netflix soon.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3VreXwVpI
>
> Thanks for that! I added it to my list.

You are welcome. I have watched it three times because the story is good.

Lynn

[Christian Weisgerber]

On 2023-05-03, Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> _Perry Rhodan_ also moved the Earth at some point, but just into
>> orbit around a different sun, so presumably no change to cardinal
>> directions, plus see above. The radiation of the other sun would
>> have an unexpected side effect on Earth's inhabitants, though.
>

> Wow, was the new sun a red giant ?

No, Medaillon was an orange star with about three solar masses.

> Did everyone have super powers ?

Alas, the effect was deleterious.

> What PR episode is this ?

Around #700 _Aphilie_. The title gives it away: People started
suffering from a lack of love and compassion. The results were not
pretty.

[John W Kennedy]

Even from IMDB I can see how the science would be an embarrassment to
“Lost In Space”.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/3/2023 5:16 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 5/2/23 10:25 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 5/2/2023 5:13 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> On 5/2/23 4:50 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>>>>     https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
>>>>
>>>> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see
>>>> The Wandering Earth documentary,
>>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> Why spend bazillions on altering Earth’s angular momentum?
>>
>> Watch the documentary.  It is free on Netflix.
>>     https://www.netflix.com/title/81067760
>>
>> Cool, the documentary has gotten a sequel !  Hopefully it will appear
>> on Netflix soon.
>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3VreXwVpI
>>
>> Lynn
>
> Even from IMDB I can see how the science would be an embarrassment to
> “Lost In Space”.

Such as ?

Thanks,
Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Have you calculated the energy required to make a drastic[*] change
in the earths orbit around the sun?

[*] Slowing the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun will
decrease the distance from the sun, increasing the orbital velocity
will increase the distance from the sun - yet the earth will still
orbit the sun. Leaving solar orbit completely (either attempting a solar slingshot[**]
by slowing and irregularizing orbit or using unimaginably vast thrust to leave
orbit) will require vast amounts of energy and will result in devastating
seismic consequences on a dynamic planet like the earth. Simply changing
the TSI (Total Solar Insolation) will likely result in an unhabitable
planet as the planet would not be able to respond rapidly to a change
in the solar radiation balance.

[**] which likely will heat the planet beyond habitability during the flyby.

[Lynn McGuire]

Did you see how many rocket motors they put on Earth in the documentary ?

They had to leave Sol, it was expanding and getting ready to eat Earth.
But they barely missed Jupiter on the way out.

Really hot or really cold, take your pick. Really cold is tough to deal
with but really hot is bad news. So the documentary picked really cold.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 03 May 2023 23:13:40 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 5/3/2023 5:16 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> On 5/2/23 10:25 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2023 5:13 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/23 4:50 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East

>>>>>>     https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see
>>>>>> The Wandering Earth documentary,
>>>>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn
>>>>>

>>>>> Why spend bazillions on altering Earth’s angular momentum?
>>>>
>>>> Watch the documentary.  It is free on Netflix.
>>>>     https://www.netflix.com/title/81067760
>>>>
>>>> Cool, the documentary has gotten a sequel !  Hopefully it will appear
>>>> on Netflix soon.
>>>>     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf3VreXwVpI

>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> Even from IMDB I can see how the science would be an embarrassment to

>>> “Lost In Space�.

>>
>>Such as ?
>
>Have you calculated the energy required to make a drastic[*] change
>in the earths orbit around the sun?
>
>[*] Slowing the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun will
> decrease the distance from the sun, increasing the orbital velocity
> will increase the distance from the sun - yet the earth will still
> orbit the sun. Leaving solar orbit completely (either attempting a solar slingshot[**]
> by slowing and irregularizing orbit or using unimaginably vast thrust to leave
> orbit) will require vast amounts of energy and will result in devastating
> seismic consequences on a dynamic planet like the earth. Simply changing
> the TSI (Total Solar Insolation) will likely result in an unhabitable
> planet as the planet would not be able to respond rapidly to a change
> in the solar radiation balance.
>
>[**] which likely will heat the planet beyond habitability during the flyby.

Which is why it is considered "Science Fiction".

[William Hyde]

ITYM speculative fiction.

William Hyde

[John W Kennedy]

“Gravity spike”?

And as one reviewer points out, enough energy to get the Earth to
Proxima Centauri in the stated time is more than enough to solve the
basic problem in several ways.

And what is meant by “Jupiter’s asteroid belt”? If it means the Trojans,
then this story has descended to the abysmal depths of “Space: Above and
Beyond”.

[John W Kennedy]

No, it’s fictional “science”, an entirely different thing.

[Gerald Kelleher]

You have to appreciate science before you get involved in science fantasy. This newsgroup is far more active than sci.astro.amateur where I operate in and occasionally it is visited by contributors from this forum who make nuisances of themselves as they lack the perceptive abilities with even basic observations.

The Sun tracks in opposite directions at the North and South poles-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCCSegL8ic

Now learn some science.

When daily rotation and all its effects are subtracted, the entire surface of the Earth turns once to the Sun and parallel to the orbital plane each year. When this surface rotation combines with daily rotation we get the seasons.

Science and especially solar system and Earth science research is far more joyous than science fantasy or science fiction ( empiricism).

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:29:50 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 9:50:41 PM UTC+1, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
> > https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
> >
> > Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
> > Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
> >
> > Lynn
> You have to appreciate science before you get involved in science fantasy. This newsgroup is far more active than sci.astro.amateur where I operate in and occasionally it is visited by contributors from this forum who make nuisances of themselves as they lack the perceptive abilities with even basic observations.
>
> The Sun tracks in opposite directions at the North and South poles-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCCSegL8ic
>
> Now learn some science.

My goodness, the condescension is strong in this one.

It depends on your frame of reference. The sun moves across the Earth
in the same direction everywhere on the planet - after all, the Earth is a solid body.

However, at the north pole, in summer, it goes around an observer
clockwise, and at the south pole in summer, anticlockwise. This is because
the observer is flipped over.

pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

The North and South poles don't rotate as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.

The North and South poles do rotate relative to the central Sun as a function of the planet's orbital motion hence one sunrise at the North/South pole on one Equinox and one sunset on the opposite Equinox with 6 months where the Sun is continuously in view.

I like science fantasy in movies and whatnot, however, I like science more and unfortunately, none of you can tell the difference.

[Gerald Kelleher]

.A necessary qualification

* The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.

[Tony Nance]

Re: "none of you"
Blanket assertion. Sloppy reasoning. One could wonder why you wish to
bait (some?) participants here. Unless you were serious, in which case,
one could reasonably wonder how much you understand science.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> .A necessary qualification
>
> * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.

The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
isn't the correct unit to use.

Pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.

[pete...@gmail.com]

So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
Appeal to Authority fallacy.

Fail.

pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

Science fantasy only works when people are under no pretence that it is anything other than fantasy, however, science fiction is an extension of the scientific method as a subculture. For the slow learner, people like to go to the movies and enjoy science fantasy but they don't want to live there, yet unfortunately, the education system supports a lot of fiction.

The rotational velocity at the North Pole is zero as velocity diminishes across latitude from a maximum velocity of 1037.5 mph at the Equator.

In any case, a few days ago you all believed the Sun tracks in one direction and now you know it tracks in opposite directions depending on what polar latitude the observer is standing on.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 9 May 2023 15:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Tony Nance
<tonyn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:30:22?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 9:46:45?PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:29:50?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

Probably quite well.

A teeny-tiny bit of science anyway.

Which this discussion impinges on.

[pete...@gmail.com]

I think we're arguing with a person who will recast terminology to suit his argument.
There's simply no reason to continue.

pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

I like science fantasy, at least up to a point, however, people who can't handle basic planetary facts are and always will be boring. Although it isn't a crime, solar system and Earth science research should be far more exciting than things like time travel which originated in a science fantasy novel in the 19th century based on the empirical misadventure with timekeeping-

"Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells (1866–1946). The Time Machine. 1898.

I believe they conjured up a formal version of the science fantasy novel as early 20th-century relativity.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 10 May 2023 14:54:00 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 11:03:20?AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:57:34?PM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 3:01:38?AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 4:44:15?AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > > > On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 5:33:04?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> > > > > .A necessary qualification
>> > > > >
>> > > > > * The North and South poles don't rotate as a function of daily rotation as the rotational velocity at either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator. We live in an era where they can't even get that value right thereby losing the main fact for a round and rotating planet.
>> > > > The north and south poles rotate at a rotational velocity of 15 degrees/hour. Linear velocity
>> > > > isn't the correct unit to use.
>> > > >
>> > > > Pt
>> > > Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur explain to you on both counts why your statement is science fiction.
>> > So, you are unable to articulate your objections, and seem to be resorting to the
>> > Appeal to Authority fallacy.
>> >
>> > Fail.
>> >
>> > pt
>> Science fantasy only works when people are under no pretence that it is anything other than fantasy, however, science fiction is an extension of the scientific method as a subculture. For the slow learner, people like to go to the movies and enjoy science fantasy but they don't want to live there, yet unfortunately, the education system supports a lot of fiction.
>>
>> The rotational velocity at the North Pole is zero as velocity diminishes across latitude from a maximum velocity of 1037.5 mph at the Equator.
>>
>> In any case, a few days ago you all believed the Sun tracks in one direction and now you know it tracks in opposite directions depending on what polar latitude the observer is standing on.
>
>I think we're arguing with a person who will recast terminology to suit his argument.
>There's simply no reason to continue.

Such as his attempt to restrict "science fiction" to /hard/ SF, while
renaming all other forms of SF as "science fantasy".

See, this is what happens when you try to merge two genres (SF,
Fantasy) into one (Speculative Fiction) -- semanitc goo.

[Gerald Kelleher]

I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.

In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.

The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30 PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.

Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
shot.

> In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>
> When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
>
> The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.

Ahhh - now we see why you're posting here. You're getting laughed at by actual scientists,
for not understanding how polar inclination works.

> Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.

Its weird. I recall another poster, I think at least 15 years ago, who had a similar obsession.
with the Earth's rotation vis-a-vis its travel around the sun. He had a blindness to the
issue of frame of reference, counting rotations as passages of the sun overhead, vs counting as
passages of a distant star overhead.

Anyone else remember that guy?

We also had, much more recently, an Eastern European "astrophysicist" who tried to sell us
demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data from the DART mission. He didn't understand
the kinetics of impacts.

pt

[Hamish Laws]

Based on that and your comment on relativity you wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you

[Gerald Kelleher]

This is why, in terms of human understanding and perception, the best I can do for you is that you are boring and mediocre as a group rather than creative individuals in literature. It has always been that way.

The blindness belongs to people who can't manage to associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth because they follow the dictates of a late 17th-century subculture.

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

The fun goes out of science fantasy as the science fiction above has no basis in scientific fact even though it is the basis of the clockwork solar system or RA/Dec modelling as it is called.

If it is any help, there would be no enjoyment of science fantasy coming from an author who believed in a flat Earth so likewise you and your colleagues in terms of a solar/sidereal contrivance. Keep up the good work complaining about my grammar, sentence structure and spelling as that is the level I would expect from contributors here.

[Hamish Laws]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 5:35:15 PM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>
> This is why, in terms of human understanding and perception, the best I can do for you is that you are boring and mediocre as a group rather than creative individuals in literature. It has always been that way.
>
> The blindness belongs to people who can't manage to associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth because they follow the dictates of a late 17th-century subculture.
>
> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard
>
> The fun goes out of science fantasy as the science fiction above has no basis in scientific fact even though it is the basis of the clockwork solar system or RA/Dec modelling as it is called.
>
> If it is any help, there would be no enjoyment of science fantasy coming from an author who believed in a flat Earth so likewise you and your colleagues in terms of a solar/sidereal contrivance. Keep up the good work complaining about my grammar, sentence structure and spelling as that is the level I would expect from contributors here.

If you don't like it here feel free to fuck off

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
>
>Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
>is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
>shot.

Both sentences, I presume.

I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It soulds
similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
/not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
ours.

So far as I can tell, what Newton did was present his theory of
gravity as the mysterious force posited by Kepler to keep the planets
on elliptical orbits.

>> In any case, the science here is that observers at the North and South polar locations watch the Sun track in opposite directions with one sunrise ( and sunset) on opposite Equinox, March at the North Pole and September at the South Pole-
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM
>>
>> When faced with that observation, the first question for reasonable readers is why when all observers at lower latitudes see the Sun come into view from one horizon and disappear from view on the opposite horizon?.
>>
>> The science fact, as opposed to the science fiction of a tilting Earth, is that the Earth has two separate rotations to the Sun with the slower surface rotation parallel to the orbital plane as a function of the Earth's orbital motion.
>
>Ahhh - now we see why you're posting here. You're getting laughed at by actual scientists,
>for not understanding how polar inclination works.
>
>> Science fantasy is more enjoyable when appreciated along with reliable science facts.
>
>Its weird. I recall another poster, I think at least 15 years ago, who had a similar obsession.
>with the Earth's rotation vis-a-vis its travel around the sun. He had a blindness to the
>issue of frame of reference, counting rotations as passages of the sun overhead, vs counting as
>passages of a distant star overhead.

IIRC, even Ptolemy could distinguish sidereal time from solar time.

>Anyone else remember that guy?

I think that was before my time here.

>We also had, much more recently, an Eastern European "astrophysicist" who tried to sell us
>demonstrably incorrect interpretations of data from the DART mission. He didn't understand
>the kinetics of impacts.

Him I remember.

[Gerald Kelleher]

It is a combination of horror and science-fantasy genres where mindless zombies come at me with the inability to associate one rotation of the Earth with one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours. Always biting because they cannot distinguish time from timekeeping and how the systems we use today were put together, the calendar system in antiquity and the 24-hour cycle more recently with the emergence of accurate clocks.

All the growling from adherents of the zombie subculture doesn't affect those who haven't lost the ability to use their reasoning and perceptive faculties so although the majority of humanity is presently lost to a mathematical misadventure with timekeeping and distortions visited on the heritage of astronomy, the zombie mindlessness is not a permanent condition and can be cured.

I wish it was fiction, I truly do, however, it is quite real as this thread affirms.

(The flat Earth people can type sentences just as the solar/sidereal people but intellectual pretence is also the common denominator with both.)

So growl away.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Friday, 12 May 2023 at 18:11:55 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2023 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 2:13:30?PM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> >> I didn't come here to humiliate anyone yet know all too well that intellectual pretence is its own genre when it comes to enjoying science fiction while also enjoying the solar system and Earth science research. Isaac Newton blurred the distinction through contrived manipulations of the antecedent works of the first Sun-centred astronomers hence the scramble to maintain the fiction that he saw further than those great astronomers.
> >
> >Don't worry, you certainly haven't come close to humiliating anyone here. However, since this
> >is a writing-oriented group, I *will* point out that the above sentence should be taken out and
> >shot.
> Both sentences, I presume.
>

> I have /no/ idea what the second one is going on about. It sounds

> similar to my occasionally-felt need to point out that Copernicus did
> /not/ invent heliocentrism, as many appear to believe, but that the
> Ancient Greeks were well aware that theory. Indeed, I once read an
> essay (I suppose that is the term) relating Ptolemy to Copernicus that
> pointed out that Plato's demiurge appears to have created a
> helicentric system whose planets had orbits whose ratios were not that
> far off from the first five (or six, if they were aware of Saturn) of
> ours.

You can see Saturn.

I'm currently having a couple of arguments with someone
on Quora in this area. One of his thoughts is that the
Earth's orbit can't be an ellipse because the tropics
don't have seasons as we understand them. Another is
that heliocentrism was really invented by Muslim astronomer
Ibn al-Shatir.

Oddly, I can't type "Ibn al-Shatir" correctly, so maybe my
computer is in the conspiracy if I'm not. What I think he
and Copernicus achieved, separately or not, is a revision
of Ptolemy's universe with epicycles on epicycles, to
something that mathematically corresponds with the
Earth and other planets moving in circles or ellipses
around the Sun. I say "mathematically" because most
commentaries, who may be quoting from each other,
insist that Ibn al-Shatir never claimed that Earth really
moves in that way. The actual work is beyond me,
but I think the position is that both Ibn al-Shatir and
Copernicus produced a "better" geocentric mathematical
model, but only Copernicus went further and substituted
a heliocentric model, although IIRC he still used circular
orbits.

I give less credit to the ancient Greeks because you can
find an ancient Greek philosopher who believed anything
at all or was alleged to, because they probably didn't do
the math, and because heliocentrists didn't win the argument
at the time. Ibn al-Shatir's system was overlooked too.
Huh, he just turned in front of my eyes into "Ibn al-Shakir".

[Gerald Kelleher]

Actual science is enjoyable.

Copernicus accounted for the slower-moving planets further from the Sun than the faster-moving Earth as they fall behind in view as the Earth overtakes them-

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Because Copernicus and his contemporaries were chained to the stationary field of background constellations of Ptolemy as a framework, they were obligated to assert a moving Earth in a Sun-centred system as a hypothesis even though it now makes so much sense with 21st-century imaging.

A decade ago I worked out that the faster-moving Venus and Mercury needed an entirely different framework to account for their back-and-forth (direct/retrograde) motions around our parent star -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uCtot1aDg

It amounts to a scaled-up version of Jupiter's satellites as they run back and forth around their parent planet-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcrBAuLBXag

The Earth's orbital motion is accounted for by the annual change in the position of the stars parallel to the orbital plane so it sets up the Sun as a central reference for the motions of Venus and Mercury-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

https://www.popastro.com/images/planetary/observations/Venus-July%202010-January%202012.jpg

Think any one of you can handle the visual narrative?.

I personally think I am wasting my time here but wish the contributors here would stay away from the sci.astro.amateur newsgroup and stop demobbing creative and productive contributions.

[Paul S Person]

Well, here's an article on him:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir]. And
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Shatir#Possible_influence_on_Nicolaus_Copernicus]
discusses similarities to Copernicus.

>Oddly, I can't type "Ibn al-Shatir" correctly, so maybe my
>computer is in the conspiracy if I'm not. What I think he
>and Copernicus achieved, separately or not, is a revision
>of Ptolemy's universe with epicycles on epicycles, to
>something that mathematically corresponds with the
>Earth and other planets moving in circles or ellipses
>around the Sun. I say "mathematically" because most
>commentaries, who may be quoting from each other,
>insist that Ibn al-Shatir never claimed that Earth really
>moves in that way. The actual work is beyond me,
>but I think the position is that both Ibn al-Shatir and
>Copernicus produced a "better" geocentric mathematical
>model, but only Copernicus went further and substituted
>a heliocentric model, although IIRC he still used circular
>orbits.

This is very confused and, frankly, it has been quite some time since
I read Copernicus, and still longer since Ptolemy. There are a lot of
works in the set /Great Books of the Western World/ chronologically
between the two.

Ptolemy was attempting to reconcile Aristotle's insistence that the
planets moved in circles (because only linear and circular motion
could go on forever) with reality. The purpose off all those circles
was to show how the planets, while moving eternally on circles,
nonetheless appeared to be doing no such thing.

Kind of like phlogiston. Or, for that matter, dark matter/dark energy.
You /know/ a theory is in trouble when it is necessary to invent new
and unobservable phenomena to "save the appearances".

As to Copernicus, there was no "or ellipses", except, of course, in
the sense that a circle is a degenerate ellipse. (Note that this use
of "degenerate" is mathematical and not a comment on the morality of
circles.) By putting the Sun at the center, he eliminated /its/
circles, gifted the Earth with circles, and replaced one circle in
each of the other planets with the main circle of the Earth. The moon,
since it actually /does/ go around the Earth, stayed much the same,
although a moving Earth may have required a few adjustments.

>I give less credit to the ancient Greeks because you can
>find an ancient Greek philosopher who believed anything
>at all or was alleged to, because they probably didn't do
>the math, and because heliocentrists didn't win the argument
>at the time. Ibn al-Shatir's system was overlooked too.
>Huh, he just turned in front of my eyes into "Ibn al-Shakir".

The only "Ancient Greek" that mattered for a long long time to
many/most people was Aristotle. And /he/ insisted that the Earth was
the center of the World. And that no other Worlds could exist, as the
elements that moved (by nature) to the center of the Earth would move
to the center of /our/ Earth, preventing the formation of any other
World.

Nonetheless, Plato's Demiurge can be portrayed as building a
heliocentric system of planets with orbits having ratios similar to
ours. Like atomism, heliocentrism was a part of Greek philosophy, but
not of Aristotle. Copernicus could have been familiar with these
alternates to Aristotle.

Bing is smart enough to match "ibn al-shakir" to "ibn al-shatir", BTW.

[Paul S Person]

Also, Muslim culture preserved a great many Greek texts [1], so Ibn
Al-Shatir may well have been familiar with heliocentric philosophy as
well.

[1] Indeed the very /name/ used for Ptolemy's work ("Almagest") is an
amalgam of the Arablic article "Al" and a transliteration of the Greek
"magiste", "greatest") [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almagest#Names].

[Gerald Kelleher]

Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8

On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.

Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

[Hamish Laws]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8
>
> On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-
>
> https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/
>
> The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.

WTF is denying that the earth orbits the sun?

[Titus G]

On 16/05/23 15:56, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> Goodness me, so much for creative and productive people here !.

Hah! A treasure trove of SF book recommendations must be coming from
Gerald Kelleher who has previously described everyone in this group as
brainless but now wishes to share his expertise on what creative and
productive subscribers to sf.WRITTEN would like.
(Where is Jibini? He is needed.)

>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_QKCpjNvh8
>>
>> On cue, the Pleiades enter the range of the camera as the Earth continues its journey around the Sun-
>>
>> https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
because I am too busy being creative and productive.

>>
>> The demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun is dependent on the annual change in the position of the stars from an evening to morning appearance is so truly remarkable that all these visual narratives are ignored.
>
> WTF is denying that the earth orbits the sun?

Certainly not the renown astrologer, Gee Kelleher, (who was born
Kellehim but had his private parts surgically removed after a fall on
his head causing him to see stars (and planets).)

>>
>> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

Will there be a test on this later? (Where is Jibini?)

[Titus G]

>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 3:56:30 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

>>> Mercury and Venus transition from both an evening to morning appearance as they move between the slower-moving Earth and the central Sun and from a morning appearance to an evening appearance as they pass behind the Sun. Jupiter and Saturn only transition from an evening to dawn appearance.

Later on I have to go to the WGM (Weekly General Meeting) which is also
a RTN (Required Training Night) of the APTCPARW (Association of
Professional Traffic Cone Positioners at Accidents and Road Works) and
ask your permission to read that out under GB (General Business) or if
it is copyright or forbidden under your AC (Astrologer's Code) to be
spoken in semi public by someone without a PhD (Probable head Damage).

[Default User]

Titus G wrote:

>I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
>because I am too busy being creative and productive.

Arguing on RASFW with an idiot is a pretty strong counter-argument to
that.


Brian (who doesn't even need to pretend to be productive these days)

[Gerald Kelleher]

The solar/sidereal people (look in the mirror) are the same as the flat Earth people as they are the joke themselves. Intelligent people can be funny, lighthearted, creative or have any other positive trait but people who can't associate one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with one rotation of the Earth have nothing going for them. It isn't an insult but as certain as the Sun tracks in one direction at the North Pole and the opposite direction at the South, something which can't be appreciated among the daft who have a locked-in mentality-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time#/media/File:Sidereal_time.svg

People can believe whatever they want, however, the entire basis of RA/Dec modelling beginning with Isaac Newton is based on that clockwork solar system framework so science fiction becomes a horror narrative for humanity.

[pete...@gmail.com]

[pete...@gmail.com]

Gerald Kelleher Is the latest of a long series of crackpots we've seen in this newsgroup. He probably
won't be the last.

They suffer under the illusion that SF fans aren't aware of the difference between fiction and reality.

Pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Wait, the Earth is not flat ???

And doesn't the Sun revolve around the Earth ???

Lynn

[Titus G]

On 16/05/23 17:31, Default User wrote:
> Titus G wrote:
>
>> I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
>> because I am too busy being creative and productive.
>
> Arguing on RASFW with an idiot is a pretty strong counter-argument to
> that.

I deny arguing. I claim that I was creatively ridiculing.

[Gerald Kelleher]

Ah, if it isn't Miss Pearls to Swine.

The axiom for daily rotation was that the Sun appeared to move around the Earth by moving from horizon to horizon every 24 hours while the axiom for orbital motion is that the Sun took 365 days to move across the constellations-

" The 10th argument, taken from the periodic times, is as follows; the
the apparent movement of the Sun has 365 days which is the mean measure
between Venus' period of 225 days and Mars' period of 687
days. Therefore does not the nature of things shout out loud that the
circuits in which those 365 days are taken up have a mean position
between the circuits of Mars and Venus around the Sun and thus this is
not the circuit of the Sun around the Earth -for none of the primary
planets have their orbit arranged around the Earth, as Brahe admits, but the
circuit of the Earth around the resting Sun, just as the other
planets, namely Mars and Venus, complete their own periods by running
around the Sun." Kepler

You unfortunate people, not that it matters to me, insist that one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle is not one rotation every 24 hours for historical reasons that are beyond your understanding. Who would get satisfaction from speaking with the solar/sidereal people no more than I would flat Earth proponents? This is why I have kept the contributor to this forum who visits sci.astro.amateur at arm's length for many years so it is a subculture where the boundaries that divide science fact, science fiction and science fantasy that defines the group.

In a word, mediocre.

[Default User]

Titus G wrote:

>On 16/05/23 17:31, Default User wrote:
>> Titus G wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't bother going to those websites to passively watch videos
>>> because I am too busy being creative and productive.
>>
>> Arguing on RASFW with an idiot is a pretty strong counter-argument
>>to that.
>
>I deny arguing. I claim that I was creatively ridiculing.

Point taken.


Brian

[Robert Carnegie]

I'm not sure which unfortunate people you're addressing.
It seems to me uncontroversial that the Earth turns
completely on its axis 366 times, and partway more,
between one apogee (being farthest from the Sun) and
the next, which is the count of sidereal days of around
23 hours 56 minutes. Milankovitch and Einstein and
everyday tidal force make complications, but not such
as to affect what occurs in one year.

I meant to call out already, to Titus I think, that rudeness
to other participants here is liable to offend most of
everyone else, and that misgendering someone hasn't
been funny since the 1970s ended.

I am quite annoyed that a description of a Foucault pendulum
at Earth's south pole in 2001 states more than once "the Earth
rotates once on its axis every 24 hours", +/- 50 minutes by
their measurement.
<https://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/00s/southpolefoucault.html>

"We then realized that from our frame of reference the earth
should be spinning clockwise so we had to modify the pendulum.
At an altitude of 11,000+ feet we think a bit more slowly."

Apparently, measuring this accurately by a means other than
"looking up" is tricky.

[Gerald Kelleher]

The average 24-hour day is derived by taking samples for each individual noon cycle and discovering, through a sand or water clock, that varying amounts of material would result for each cycle. If 40 samples of different amounts are taken, combined and then divided equally, an amount equal to not only the 24-hour day will result but also equal hours, minutes and seconds as subdivisions of that 24-hour day.

As 'average' and 'constant' represent roughly the same terms, the 24-hour clock noon can be anchored to the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle so one rotation every 24 hours expands linearly to a thousand rotations in a thousand 24-hour days. The Earth, therefore, rotates at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and once every 24 hours as per the Latitude/Longitude framework linked to the average 24-hour day.

Intellectual pretence or basically eccentricity is really not acceptable and science fiction/science fantasy will do quite well so long as contributors don't diminish basic facts in astronomy and timekeeping and partition flights of the imagination from enjoyable science facts.

[David Johnston]

On 2023-05-02 2:50 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Pearls Before Swine: The Sun Always Rises in the East
>    https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2023/05/02
>
> Pigs going to have tough day if we ever have to move the Earth (see The
> Wandering Earth documentary, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7605074/ ).
>
> Lynn

It would be less effort to ship him to the Arctic Circle

[Lynn McGuire]

My pronouns are he, him, and Mr.

Lynn

[Hamish Laws]

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 12:56:38 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> As 'average' and 'constant' represent roughly the same terms

They really don't

The average income in the USA in 2019 was $33,133, that's very different from everybody in the USA earning $33,133.

[Robert Woodward]

In article <dbcab460-d948-46b1...@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 12:56:38?AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>
> > As 'average' and 'constant' represent roughly the same terms
>
> They really don't
>
> The average income in the USA in 2019 was $33,133, that's very different from
> everybody in the USA earning $33,133.

And that is different from the median income (e.g., the income of the
50001 person if you sort 100001 people by income).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

[Gerald Kelleher]

The average flow of water through a pipe can be rendered into the constant flow of water through a pipe.

The average 24-hour day derived from variations in each natural noon cycle with clock noon anchored to natural noon allows for the emergence of the Latitude/Longitude system and is exquisite before it is practical. The average/constant rate is 15 degrees per hour or an equatorial rotation velocity of 1037.5 mph so the Earth turns its 24,901-mile circumference in 24 hours -

https://i0.wp.com/datalab.marine.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Longitude-Ben-R-Jordan.png?ssl=1

You are excused because nobody has explained the creation of the 24-hour day and equal hours, minutes and seconds properly nor how the latitude/longitude system emerged as an extension of timekeeping.

In any case, the variations in the natural noon cycles would be the next up for consideration and that involves the combination of surface rotations - daily rotation and the separate rotation which causes the Sun to track in opposite directions at the Poles.

[Robert Carnegie]

I don't know to whom you're replying. If it's to me,
most of this is irrelevant nonsense. If your claim
is that the Earth rotates, on average, exactly once
between one sunset and the next, I do not agree.
If the basis of your statement is that the Earth is
stationary in space except for its rotation, I do not
agree. If you want to continue to debate that, I do
not agree. Are those points on which we disagree?

[Gerald Kelleher]

I couldn't care less whether you agree or not, the natural noon cycles vary in length from one complete cycle to the next-

https://adcs.home.xs4all.nl/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

The description I gave above predates the Equation of Time as the necessity of creating the average or equal 24-hour day also creates the equal or average hour, minute and second derived from the average 24-hour day. The EoT does not work without the timekeeping divisions hence is a secondary practical innovation.

As the average 24-hour cycle is anchored to noon, hence AM and PM, the average 24-hour day can be converted into a constant rotation rate of 15 degrees per hour and into the Latitude/Longitude framework overlaid on the planet's geography, geometry and timekeeping. The Equation of Time is a flexible extension once equal hours, minutes and seconds are determined.

If people are so utterly stupid, and that may very well be the case in this newsgroup, to believe that timekeeping emerged in an alternative way so these solar/sidereal clowns tried to bypass the central Sun and natural noon by appealing to the daily change in the position of the stars instead, then they display the same contrived intellectual pretence as the flat Earth people. I would have no time to waste on such people who lack self-respect and integrity.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 21:41:37 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robe...@drizzle.com> wrote:

>> The average income in the USA in 2019 was $33,133, that's very different from
>> everybody in the USA earning $33,133.
>
>And that is different from the median income (e.g., the income of the
>50001 person if you sort 100001 people by income).

L'il Abner did that one years ago very effectively. I miss that strip
- it wasn't as wicked as Scott Adams but definitely challenging!

[Gerald Kelleher]

I salute the contributors here who have made a celestial sphere world out of a misadventure with timekeeping and who cannot be reached, even with visual affirmations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okw6Mu3mxdM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCCSegL8ic

None of you are swine, just victims of a timekeeping misadventure that belongs to another era.

I don't mind being an individual who appreciates the observation that the Sun tracks in opposite directions at the North and South Poles, not even that the stars change position annually relative to the central Sun and the orbital plane-

https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/

There are the Pleiades passing behind the Sun due to the Earth's orbital motion and a gateway into an ancient heritage which has been lost to voodoo merchants-

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?" Book of Job

How I love those people as much as I ignore the vapid mentalities which dominate our era.

[Alan]

On 2023-05-11 04:13, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> I like science fantasy, at least up to a point, however, people who can't handle basic planetary facts are and always will be boring. Although it isn't a crime, solar system and Earth science research should be far more exciting than things like time travel which originated in a science fantasy novel in the 19th century based on the empirical misadventure with timekeeping-
>
> "Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space " H.G. Wells (1866–1946). The Time Machine. 1898.
>
> I believe they conjured up a formal version of the science fantasy novel as early 20th-century relativity.
>
>
>
>

<yawn>

Next you'll be telling us that airplanes don't displace air downward
when they're flying.

[Gerald Kelleher]

There is this wonderful science fiction novel called Alice in Wonderland that addresses a society that can no longer distinguish science fact from science fantasy-

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427391-600-alices-adventures-in-algebra-wonderland-solved/

There is always room for a group of people who live out their own subculture, however, when it is taught as science fact within the education system then that is an altogether different matter.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 3:30:22 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> The North and South poles don't rotate as the rotational velocity at
> either pole is zero whereas it is 1037.5 mph at the Equator.

My goodness! I will agree that the North and South poles of the Earth
are not _displaced_ by the Earth's rotation, unlike points on the Equator.

But that isn't the same as there being no rotation there. Rotation is a
change in orientation - and the change of 360 degrees per day (approximately,
I won't argue that point here) is still true even at the pole.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:01:38 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> Let the nuisance who constantly interrupts genuine discussions in sci.astro.amateur

This is a reference to me, for the information of those
people in rec.arts.sf.written.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 1:35:15 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between
> solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often
> than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

You may think this statement is the height of nonsense.

I have some issues with it myself, in the way it is worded.

It _is_ generally known that the length of the day is 24 hours.
It is *also* generally known that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year.

Just about everyone knows these facts.

So, if I asked someone how many times a year would some star on
or near the Celestial Equator - let's take Sirius, for example - is
directly overhead at a given place on the Earth...

after thinking about it a little, the man in the street would answer that
it would have to be 364 or 366 times a year - either one more, or one
less, than the number of days in a year, since Sirius is always in the same
direction while the Earth's orbit means the Sun is in a different direction
from us over the course of a year.

Of course, that's not really taking it out of the "not generally known"
category. The man in the street wouldn't be sure it was 366 1/4 isntead
of 364 1/4, for one thing. And since he had to _think_ about it, he didn't
know about it until after he finished thinking.

But "not generally known" to me tends to imply that people actually
believe the contrary. And I don't think that's true, so it would be more
accurate, perhaps, to say that it's a fact not generally *cared about*.

Your view of the cosmos, though, in which the Earth is strictly
subordinate to the Sun, and so the Earth's rotation can only be
concieved of in relation to the line between the Earth and the
Sun, instead of being viewed in absolute terms relative to the fixed
stars... that is bizarre, and it is *not* what the man in the street
believes.

Even if he does seem to nod in that direction, by thinking of the
Moon as not rotating, since one side of it always faces the Earth.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2023 at 8:56:38 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> The average 24-hour day is derived by taking samples for each individual
> noon cycle and discovering, through a sand or water clock, that varying
> amounts of material would result for each cycle. If 40 samples of different
> amounts are taken, combined and then divided equally, an amount equal to
> not only the 24-hour day will result but also equal hours, minutes and
> seconds as subdivisions of that 24-hour day.

That's certainly _one_ way to do it.

But the "pretentious" way to do it avoids the need to make measurements
that span a whole year. Instead, one can use a meridian circle to measure
the return of a star to its position - in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds -
which does not need to be averaged out, because it is the same the year
around.

Then, one can just subtract one to see how many days there are in a year.

And the variations in the daily cycle can then be explained on the solid
ground of a uniform rotation, and the known elliptical orbital motion of the
Earth, in the fashion I explain here:

http://www.quadibloc.com/science/eot.htm

John Savard

[Gerald Kelleher]

Once again, I salute people here and carry on with your endeavours even if nobody enjoys the human astronomical and timekeeping heritage and thereby cannot distinguish science fact from science fantasy. That heritage is ancient and I so adore just how careful these unknown people were and perhaps, how careless our present society is with the inheritance we have from ancient societies.

The creation and emergence of the average 24-hour day also serve the subdivision of average hours, minutes and seconds with clock noon anchored to the variations in natural noon. Daily rotation creates the sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours with the time between sunrise to noon symmetrical with noon to sunset.

No need to explain further in this area as once the average 24-hour day and accurate clocks emerged, people can make the antecedent predictive 365/366-day system more accurate.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Watching Gerald and Quaddie play dueling keyboards is like watching. PARRY vs ELIZA, or two modern
LLM chatbots having a debate.

Pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

To remind people, you can only be lighthearted and funny if you are intelligent and perceptive, otherwise, it is all crude.

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

You have all something to judge yourselves with, but then again, you have your own thing going where the world doesn't make sense for you.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 2:28:10 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> You have all something to judge yourselves with, but then again,
> you have your own thing going where the world doesn't make
> sense for you.

Yeah, right.

We believe in the truth of that mumbo-jumbo called "calculus",
and we're also indoctrinated into believing that Isaac Newton
gave the true explanation of the motions of the Solar System
through mechanics and Universal Gravitation, thus completing
the work of Kepler, to whom he was a worthy succesor.

You believe this makes us hopelessly deluded, and there seems
to be no way I can convince you otherwise. Of course, this means
you can't explain how it was possible to predict the orbit of
Neptune before it was discovered, but you can just ignore that.

If the people who claim that the Apollo moon landings were faked
were hopelessly stupid, because of all the thousands of people
who worked on the Apollo project, and the hundreds of the world's
most able geologists who examined the Moon rocks from Apollo...

what can I say about someone like you, who claims that Calculus
is just mumbo-jumbo... when millions of scientists and engineers
learned it and understood it in their first year of college, and then
go on to apply it routinely in their work? If Calculus were just
nonsense, voodoo that a dishonest priesthood only claims to
be meaningful, how could it be that those who have studied it
use it and get results?

Results that lead to airplanes flying, bridges standing up, results
that others can reproduce - not the "results", say, obtained by the
people who have studied and apply astrology, which is nonsense.

Calculus being voodoo is a notion that's in even more stark
conflict with reality than the notion of the Moon landings being
faked. It's beyond laughable. Clearly, the only basis you have for
that claim is that *you* don't understand it. How you can manage
to delude yourself into thinking that anyone would find that
rationale valid... it's beyond me.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:03:12 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> Watching Gerald and Quaddie play dueling keyboards is like watching. PARRY vs ELIZA, or two modern
> LLM chatbots having a debate.

What makes you think that I am like ELIZA?

John Savard

[Chris Buckley]

Very nice! Your posts often don't show true intelligence, but this one does.

Chris

[Paul S Person]

On 21 May 2023 11:39:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2023-05-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:03:12?AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Watching Gerald and Quaddie play dueling keyboards is like watching. PARRY vs ELIZA, or two modern
>>> LLM chatbots having a debate.
>>
>> What makes you think that I am like ELIZA?
>>
>> John Savard
>
>Very nice! Your posts often don't show true intelligence, but this one does.

Actually, several of his responses have shown a higher level of
intelligence than the other fellow has managed, so far.

I know, I know, it is hard to believe.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

[Robert Woodward]

In article <fjek6ih3nqc6glveh...@4ax.com>,

Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On 21 May 2023 11:39:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-05-21, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:03:12?AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Watching Gerald and Quaddie play dueling keyboards is like watching.
> >>> PARRY vs ELIZA, or two modern
> >>> LLM chatbots having a debate.
> >>
> >> What makes you think that I am like ELIZA?
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >
> >Very nice! Your posts often don't show true intelligence, but this one
> >does.
>
> Actually, several of his responses have shown a higher level of
> intelligence than the other fellow has managed, so far.
>
> I know, I know, it is hard to believe.

I have noticed that, on occasion, when Quadi actually posts on topic
(i.e., about written science fiction/fantasy), he does make sense. But,
most of the time, he is riding his hobby horses.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.

-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robe...@drizzle.com

[Gerald Kelleher]

I like science fantasy when it is separate from solar system and Earth science research, however, science fantasy indistinguishable from science fiction more or less represents the experimental or scientific method.

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

That is science fantasy and equivalent to a flat Earth notion or even surpasses it through contrived logic.

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

That is science fiction as it borrows from an actual timekeeping ( not 'time') facility which anchors the average 24-hour day to noon and the variations in that cycle.

It takes no effort to appreciate terrestrial and solar system surroundings along with the motions of the planet in a Sun-centred system while leaving room for creative literature and movies.

I come from the Christ and Christianity of the Johannine tradition and community so " pearls before swine" of a different tradition is contrary to the spirit/inspiration which does not isolate anyone but invites them to experience what they are born into.

[Hamish Laws]

you're a stupid kook who churns out word salad.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between
> solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often
> than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

> That is science fantasy and equivalent to a flat Earth notion or even surpasses it through contrived logic.

You, yourself, should know better than to say that.

You do know that stellar circumpolar motion has a period of approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

You are aware that this is the period of clock drives on telescopes.

Of course, you regard this as being of no great significance, being nothing more than an "observational
convenience". But you do know that it's there.

And so if the people at NASA and the Harvard Observatory happen to use a definition of the Earth's
rotation that isn't the same as yours - one that measures the period of the Earth's rotation by its
relationship to the fixed stars, and *not* to the parent Sun which it orbits...

even if you think it's an unreasonable and silly choice, it's still just choosing a different convention
from the one you favor. They're not going out on a limb with an elaborate structure of contrived logic
the way someone would have to in order to try justifying a flat Earth.

Of course, you don't acknowledge or accept their _reasons_ for choosing the convention that they
do. As you are knowledgeable about timekeeping, you're probably aware that pendulum clocks
run a bit slower when taken towards the equator - because the apparent force of gravity is
smaller there, due to the Earth's rotation.

And to *calculate* the amount of centrifugal force that the Earth's rotation applies (of course,
the Earth's equatorial bulge is also to be taken into account) one has to take the period of the
Earth's rotation relative to the fixed stars, _not_ to the parent Sun. But that stuff is all Newtonian
mechanics, and you dismiss Newton.

To dismiss Newton is risible. There are no two ways about that.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 11:21:24 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

> That is science fiction as it borrows from an actual timekeeping ( not 'time') facility
> which anchors the average 24-hour day to noon and the variations in that cycle.

In your view, *time* comes from the Sun rising and setting, the stars visible in the
night sky changing, and so on. What clocks do is merely timekeeping.

This is no longer the view that most people hold. In their view, *time* doesn't depend
on external celestial phenomena. Instead, *time* is what answers questions like...

How long will it take for some food to spoil when I take it out of the refrigerator?

That's a very simple and prosaic example. But surely you can see, for example, that
food won't spoil faster or slower at different times of year because of the Equation
of Time! And so the kind of time that pendulum clocks indicate is what is applicable
to questions like that.

Or questions of how long it will take a capacitor, charged to a certain voltage, to
discharge through a certain resistance. So it's "timekeeping" time that gets to be
the variable "t" in the equations used to design... a radio reciever.

Cultivating a poetic spirit so as to appreciate the beauty of the Universe is not a bad
thing, but to place it in opposition to actually doing the math needed to build stuff
that works... accomplishes nothing but to get you laughed at. I'm sorry I have to be
so "dour" as to point this out, but you need to know it, to leave the destructive and
foolish path you are following.

John Savard

[pete...@gmail.com]

I looked back in his post history. Gerald's had this peculiar obsession for a very
long time, and is unlikely to be persuaded that its trivial and unimportant any time
soon.

pt

[Gerald Kelleher]

People here are welcome to say anything about me they like and indeed anyone who can't manage to affirm one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours equates to one rotation of the planet and a thousand rotations in a thousand 24-hour days.

Scientific facts are gorgeous as a daily, annual and life experience with always room for science fantasy until science fantasy in the 19th century ( The Time Machine) became science fiction in the early 20th century (relativity).

" Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space" HG Wells, The Time Machine, 1898

https://www.bartleby.com/lit-hub/the-time-machine-an-invention/chapter-i-42/

Intellectual pretence is boring and is basically a sign of underdeveloped adults living out fantasies created in another era. So, thanks to nuisances visiting sci.astro.amateur from this newsgroup, there isn't anyone worth listening to.

So now everyone knows the Sun tracks in opposite directions at the North/South poles and there is a reason behind it due to daily rotation and the specific way the Earth orbits the Sun. You folk curse yourselves but that is not my issue and why this flying visit lets me know how dull it is to live in a world completely dominated by science fiction/fantasy.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 9:24:31 AM UTC-4, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> You folk curse yourselves but that is not my issue and why this flying visit lets me know how dull it is to live in a world completely dominated by science fiction/fantasy.

On your way out, don't let the door hit you where the Lord split you.

Pt

[Robert Carnegie]

What if we take the Sun away for a while? Maybe he will
figure it out then?

I'm not saying that that wouldn't be inconvenient.
Probably not worth the doing.

I have that feeling of being in that zone where a
person that I'm arguing with is articulate, verbally
abusive not to an extraordinary extent, and I come
to suspect that we're using terms differently and
it may even be that I and others are on the wrong
side. Which I believe isn't the case, but, like
Terry Austin, it's somebody, who I still presume to
!be a human being, whose behaviour offends my
sense of what that means.

[Gerald Kelleher]

One day, a person wakes up and sees the Sun come into view as the planet turns once every 24 hours and realises they have been missing out on the connection between their bodies and their lives to the daily, annual and other motions of the planet.

Then there are those who cannot as they are attached to the clockwork solar system and the timekeeping misadventure captured by a single statement-

" It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

The more society marvels at the body and all its working components, the more they appreciate the wider surroundings and all the motions they participate in. Science fantasy is harmless and a welcome distraction sometimes, however, when it is allied with science fiction like the solar/sidereal fiction above, it becomes unproductive, dull and all the negative influences on society.

Have a ball having a go at me, those who love creation and the Universe are loved in return.

[Alan]

Preach.

[pete...@gmail.com]

If you have such a distaste for SF, why don't you leave this group? No one finds your beliefs
concerning sidereal vs solar time interesting, inciteful, or useful. No one here cares.

Pt

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 11:53:18 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> One day, a person wakes up and sees the Sun come into view as the planet
> turns once every 24 hours and realises they have been missing out on the
> connection between their bodies and their lives to the daily, annual and
> other motions of the planet.

> Then there are those who cannot as they are attached to the clockwork
> solar system and the timekeeping misadventure captured by a single
> statement-

> " It is a fact not generally known that, owing to the difference between
> solar and sidereal time, the Earth rotates upon its axis once more often
> than there are 24-hour days in the year" NASA /Harvard

A connection to the wider Universe is indeed something that people seek;
it is sought in religious faith, it is sought in the nonsense of astrology, and
Carl Sagan, by noting that the heavier elements in our bodies were formed
in distant stars long ago, in the statement "we are stardust", sought to
show that science could offer such a connection.

Our daily personal lives are certainly affected by the cycle of day and night.

And that cycle is indeed caused by the rotation of the Earth.

How a matter of definition - whether if the Earth _didn't_ rotate, one
side of the Earth would always face the Sun, as Mercury was once
believed to behave, or the Sun would rise and set once a year - would
make or break that connection, however, is not readily apparent to me.

And that the second definition, the one you reject, happens to be
useful for calculations - which use the physical laws set forth
by Newton - which *work*, and let us do useful things, so they're
confirmed in scientific and engineering practice. So they're not
going anywhere, and it's not because we're insensitive to higher
reality. It's because you don't know math and science, and you don't
care to change that.

John Savard

[Gerald Kelleher]

I don't have any distaste for people, however, students today have a chance to escape your zombie-like fate where you can't accept that one rotation creates one sunrise/noon/sunset cycle every 24 hours hence you live in a science fantasy world with no connection to your surroundings.

It is more a human horror newsgroup here insofar as normally imaginative science fantasy has a role in society yet without an appreciation of basic planetary facts, it becomes one long boring attempt to figuratively bite someone demonstrating the joys of the Universe as it really exists.

The solar/sidereal fantasy is a signature of a lost soul otherwise it a stupid conclusion drawn from a timekeeping misadventure. If it is any consolation, in future, your subculture will represent a lesson of sorts for generations to come.

[Paul S Person]

IOW, you are promoting religion rather than science. That explains a
lot.

Nothing wrong with that -- as long as you don't pretend to be
promoting science.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 22 May 2023 at 13:51:45 UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 11:34:50?PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Did you miss his reference to "the Christ and Christianity of the
Johannine tradition"? I did, until I noticed it quoted by someone
else.

This is an argument from religion, not science.

And, to the extent that it masquerades as science, is deceptive.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 22 May 2023 20:55:18 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

He has revealed himself as being a religious writer, not a scientific
one. By confusing the two he is led to reject any part of science that
he believes to be incompatible with his religion.
n

[Scott Lurndal]

Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Sun, 21 May 2023 10:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher
><kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>IOW, you are promoting religion rather than science. That explains a
>lot.
>
>Nothing wrong with that

Actually, that's debatable.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 23 May 2023 at 16:44:10 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2023 09:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> >[Gerald Kelleher]

> >I have that feeling of being in that zone where a
> >person that I'm arguing with is articulate, verbally
> >abusive not to an extraordinary extent, and I come
> >to suspect that we're using terms differently and
> >it may even be that I and others are on the wrong
> >side. Which I believe isn't the case, but, like
> >Terry Austin, it's somebody, who I still presume to
> >!be a human being, whose behaviour offends my
> >sense of what that means.
> Did you miss his reference to "the Christ and Christianity of the
> Johannine tradition"? I did, until I noticed it quoted by someone
> else.
>
> This is an argument from religion, not science.
>
> And, to the extent that it masquerades as science, is deceptive.

Oh - in that case, apparent remarks of St Augustine apply.
Gerald may not like St Augustine, however.

As from
<https://harvardichthus.org/2010/09/augustine-on-faith-and-science/>

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the
earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world,
about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size
and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the
sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons,
about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth,
and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason
and experience.

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of
Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we
should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much
that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside
the household of faith think our sacred writers held such
opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation
we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected
as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field
which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining
his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to
believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of
the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven,
when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts
which they themselves have learnt from experience and the
light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of
Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser
brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false
opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by
the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly
foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon
Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many
passages which they think support their position, although
'they understand neither what they say nor the things about
which they make assertion' [1 Timothy 1.7]."
(The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1 Chapter 19 Paragraph 39)

Gerald: Augustine thinks you're embarrassing.

And St Thomas Aquinas is quoted as follows.
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among
the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary
scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific
scrutiny shows to be false."

Here I say that I don't worship gods. I don't take it very
badly when a Christian or anyone else says casually that
the Earth turns around in 86,400 SI seconds - 24 hours.
That statement is accurate to the nearest hour, and
I expect someone to understand and accept an explanation
of its deviation from the actual fact. The mischief that
Augustine mentions arises when a Christian speaker
declares it and a follower decides that they, the follower,
are obliged to insist on its absolute truth, and to defend it
from evidence and reason. Their leader may have done
this accidentally, or deliberately, because if you can compel
your follower to believe an untruth, then you control their
will absolutely. Or it may be an accident. The leader is not
necessarily wise in astrophysics. In that case, they should
be humble.

However, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
doesn't go away." The movement of the Earth proceeds
without depending on your belief about it.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 7:52:29 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> However, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it,
> doesn't go away." The movement of the Earth proceeds
> without depending on your belief about it.

That is true.

But for the most part, he does not claim that the Earth moves in
any way that is different from the way it actually does move.

All he does is claim that the way scientists today think about these
motions is wrong. For example, astronomers say the Earth rotates
once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds.

Why not just once every 24 hours?

Well, because counting rotation relative to the fixed stars lets one
calculate centrifugal force correctly. And if one used rotation relative
to the actual Sun instead of the mean sun, one would have to keep
adding and then subtracting the correction for the Equation of Time.

He doesn't know the math, and he doesn't do the math, so he
has no sympathy for how compound motions need to be decomposed
into their individual components to allow calculations to be manageable.

Instead of calculating, we should just look up and be inspired by the
awe and wonder of the Universe! Sorry, we only get to do that on our
days off.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

For an on-topic observation... this passage from Tolkien's _The Lord
of the Rings_ had been disturbing to me.

"Radagast the Brown! " laughed Saruman, and he no longer concealed his
scorn. "Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! Yet
he had just the wit to play the part that I set him. For you have come, and
that was all the purpose of my message. And here you will stay, Gandalf the
Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman Ring-maker,
Saruman of Many Colours! "
'I looked then and saw that his robes, which had seemed white, were not
so, but were woven of all colours. and if he moved they shimmered and changed
hue so that the eye was bewildered.
"I liked white better," I said.
"White! " he sneered. "It serves as a beginning. White cloth may be
dyed. The white page can be overwritten; and the white light can be broken."
"In which case it is no longer white," said I. "And he that breaks a
thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

It seemed as though Tolkien were... taking a dig at Isaac Newton and
his experiments with light and prisms. And while Saruman is undoubtedly
evil, what Newton did was right and proper, and added greatly to our
understanding of light.

John Savard