Prev: SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
Next: Scissors Experiment to prove whether lightwaves can be Doppler shifted Chapt 8 #126; ATOM TOTALITY
From: oriel36 on 3 Jun 2010 17:50
On Jun 3, 9:46 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Jun 3, 11:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I would think that you, personally, would embrace the idea of
> > educating yourself to the changes in a changing world.
>
> Um, Just in case you didn't get that little "personal" note from
> "Wormley", what he's saying is that if you intend to prosper and stay
> alive, you had better start learning which side to be on under the New
> World Order. Got it?
>
> It's advice AND a threat.

Oh come on,that is old usenet handbag stuff,it means nothing and
generally Sam avoids it, I often commend him for being open and honest
with his views at a technical level,they might be the complete
opposite of mine and goodness knows I could do without the attempt to
protect and defend the honor of the late 17th century royal society
numbskulls in order to set our own 21st century standards but old
habits die hard and I could alway live with those headache inducing
comments when I was posting,at least up to a point where it did not
turn too vindictive or personal.

The predictive/modelling agenda of empiricism has planetary dynamics
formatted to an Ra/Dec framework which means those 17th century
guys,and especially Newton, have most of you chasing conceptual
rainbows.I wouldn't recommend venturing into the elaborate scheme
Isaac wove around the equatorial coordinate system but considering the
problem many here have with extracting the orbital characteristic of
the Earth as the cause of the polar daylight/darkness cycle and
subsequently the cause of the seasons when allied with daily
rotation,it is now time to let the influence of the Royal society guys
diminish and set our own standards with all these modern tools at our
disposal.

If you are confident and comfortable with facts and technical
details,there is no need to get too upset about the political
hyperfuss over carbon dioxide,half these guys would try to explain the
seasonal temperature variations using carbon dioxide and the presence
and absence of leaves on trees and plants if they were left to their
own devices and that is why to resolve the issues and restore come
common sense to the whole matter,there is no point throwing good
information after bad and that responsibility falls to those who have
the interest and curiosity to thread a different path.

'New world order' indeed,I wish adults would conduct themselves like
adults for a change and focus on what needs to be done or what can be
done to give our generation a reasonable chance to distance themselves
from these ridiculous prediction/modelling agendas and return to some
semblance of interpretation.







From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 18:04
current Sci ... no, it's in Nude Scientist, issue-before-last cover-
article, almost like it's New Science, covering the main three
orbital variations of Milankovitch. now, it is just not true that
humans cannot (or aren't) affecting the climate;
the tiny differences of insolation form the orbitals probably
are not "forcing" anything, just tweaking them.

any real theory of glaciation has to account for "glass house gasses"
as the primary forcers, and how the biota & tectonic systems interact
with that.

> There is not a single article anywhere describing what the Earth's
> orbit is doing as it moves along its annual circumference so this is

> http://daphne.palomar.edu/jthorngren/tutorial.ht

> Commentariolis

thusNso:
yes, but special relativity assumes general relativity
in the "twin paradox," because acceleration is required
to get the home-leaving twin, relativistical (I mean, Duh .-)

> Special Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time
> dilation and length contraction are perspective effects that occur
> when an observer observes an object moving relative to himself.

thusNso:
anyway, Einstien's **** is not really dysprovable, if
it is merely a matter of odd interpretations (viz, *photon*
means "particle" ipso facto "herr Albert thought, So.")

thusNso:
always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs,
when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase
of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar
with studies of the Quaternary Period, Shackleton et al e.g.).

Dear Editor;
The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban,
before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them
by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. A rational EIR'd
show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag,
a)
they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b)
that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary,
beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas,
the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable,
but everyday observation shows, they just don't last so long.)

As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban
them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient
examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by
catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is
just too much of an environmental & economic burden.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off!
http://wlym.com
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 19:57
On 6/3/10 4:50 PM, oriel36 wrote:
> Oh come on,that is old usenet handbag stuff,it means nothing and
> generally Sam avoids it, I often commend him for being open and honest
> with his views at a technical level,they might be the complete
> opposite of mine and goodness knows I could do without the attempt to
> protect and defend the honor of the late 17th century royal society
> numbskulls in order to set our own 21st century standards but old
> habits die hard and I could alway live with those headache inducing
> comments when I was posting,at least up to a point where it did not
> turn too vindictive or personal.
>

And I thank you, Gerald! Even when we disagree or seemingly talk past
each other, it is with sincerity and respect.




From: spudnik on 8 Jun 2010 00:01
there is a common presumption that glaciation requires cooling,
which was efficiently disposed of by George Simpson
with a table-top expeiment.

thusNso:
actually, I can't get audio on these pubterms.

thusNso:
there is no actual theory about the production of oil, such that
that production could definitively be associated with dinosuars and/or
any particular *permeable* strata in which it is found. as far as I
know,
the presupposition is that the sediments pile-up in the oecan, and
the mere weight of them produces enough pressure
to create the "fossilized fuels TM" -- it's just a tradename.

> Wanna guess how long we continue to deplete historical reserves a million times faster than they were deposited ?

thusNso:
what is the ecology of an icecap?

there are no penguins, no polar bears; there is just a white-out ...
til there were explorers & scientists, and that changed every thing.

's why, they call it, the Anthropocene.

thusNso:
the proper term for these entities is "supranational," not
multinational,
transnational, or "big USA companies." British Petro/Iran Oil's the
#1 operator
in both the Gulf and Alaska, and the biggest supporter of Waxman's
cap-
and-trade and Kyoto, which are not different from his '91 bill on NOx
SO2.
but, so, What?, if they give money to activist groups?
S. Fred Singer is trashed for that alleged reason,
while his persecutors (like Popular Science, re the "Holes
in the Ozonosphere" cover article) never bother to give his awesome
CV.
the predecessor to Kyoto, Montreal, was supported, bigtime
by DuPont, after its patents on the Freons ran out. anyway,
all that we need is a tiny carbon tax, which is what the WSUrinal
mischaracterizes capNtrade, as, in its editorials, and
that is just a big, white lie.

thus quoth:
Major U.S. corporations like Proctor & Gamble, Siemens, Wells Fargo,
AT&T, UPS, Philips and Ford all had a major presence
at the so-called Earth Day....

thusNso:
I get that seizure-thing from watching Screwtoob;
it was my babysitter in the '70s!... so,
what is the gist?... did you further reply to the item
about the relation between CO2 and H20 vapor?
did you see the November 2001 report on the USGS study,
"More Than a Hundred New Glaciers Found on Continental Divide,"
in the LATimes?... well, that was before tribco.!

thusNso:
it is going to be a while, before the Cliff's Notes version
of Wiles' allaged proof comes out; but, when it does,
you will have quite en entree into a few kinds of math -- iff
you've gotten an elementary (fermatian) proof in hand,
by then.

--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrage rip-off!
http://wlym.com
From: oriel36 on 8 Jun 2010 04:29
On Jun 8, 6:46 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote:

These are the points that come closest to the technical issues which
comprise of your system,the reliance on the people in the late 17th
century who formatted everything to the equatorial coordinate
system,effectively referencing all planetary dynamics off stellar
circumpolar motion and specifically daily and orbital motions.The two
people most responsible for this are John Flamsteed and Isaac Newton
but it is the former individual who first arrived at a crude
conclusion regarding daily rotation and stellar circumpolar motion
that comes under the most scrutiny.

> 2. All the late 17th century members of the Royal Society (whose
> research comprise the majority of today's freshman science textbooks)
> were "numbsskulls" compared to YOU of course who have single-handedly
> produced nearly all of breakthroughs in modern physics.
>

These men,as far as I am aware of,took their work seriously and even
if today we inherit the consequences of their inability to spot the
all-important antecedent error in John Flamsteed's assumption
regarding circumpolar motion/daily rotation and how it infected Isaac
Newton's later empirical agenda,or rather,how Newton exploited the
predictive nature of the calendar based Ra/Dec system,they conducted
themselves as adults.This is why I commend Sam ,apart from a few who
genuinely are open and honest about what they believe at a technical
level,most here seemed concerned with barking at each other at a
person level and so it seems you fall into that category.In
short,those who do teach students the agenda arising from late 17th
century England are unlikely to understand their own system and the
great bulk of my effort over the last number of years has been to
engender some respect for the very empirical system that most here are
extremely vague about apart from the chanting of the 'observations-
experiment-predictions' agenda otherwise known as the 'scientific
method'.

There was indeed a time at a critical juncture in history that many
were honest enough to admit they were lost in the method Newton used
to arrive at his conclusions of linking experimental science directly
with celestial observations but with the emergence of
relativity,representing a complete capitulation to Newton,the
following type of viewpoint is lost to history -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form
appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown,
and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in
themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the
controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by
a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them.
He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape which,
if somewhat longer, can at any rate be made intelligible to all
mathematical students. So closely did he follow the lines of Greek
geometry that he constantly used graphical methods, and represented
forces, velocities, and other magnitudes in the Euclidean way by
straight lines (ex. gr. book I, lemma 10), and not by a certain number
of units. The latter and modern method had been introduced by Wallis,
and must have been familiar to Newton. The effect of his confining
himself rigorously to classical geometry is that the Principia is
written in a lnaguage which is archaic, even if not unfamiliar."
W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

So it is when we meet on the geometrical stage that all the arguments
are won and lost but mostly it is really an exercise in moving things
forward,hoping the attraction and curiosity of a new perspective can
hold the attention of some readers long enough to journey back in
history to discover the waypoints of not only humanity's greatest
achievements but also its errors.


> 3. Based upon (2.) all current members of the Royal Society are ALSO
> "numbskulls" (compared to you, natch) and anything they say can be
> safely ignored as "insane" just like the "imaginary" CFR, Trilats,
> Bilderbergers etc. or the "Club of Rome which as I understand it, like
> Algore, actually were the ones who invented AGW.
>

Here we part company,the politics which forced the original
experimental agenda into the wider consciousness is far more
elaborate,interesting and ,in some ways,more shocking than a symptom
of it such as the idea of human control over global temperatures,I
have little interest in discussing the issues which are a consequence
of that ridiculous assumption than I am in finding people who can
actually work at a level that tempers the approach of the 'scientific
method' itself to climate or indeed any other terrestrial science
where planetary dynamics mesh with the effects we experience as we go
about our daily lives or look at the meshing of
geological ,climatological,biological components in the wider history
of the planet.So it is that the major astronomical element comprising
of planetary dynamics is almost completely absent from current
perspectives except for lip service and that is the way it has been
since the introduction of the system which attached itself,like a
virus,to the great astronomical insights and ultimately has
temporarily created this conceptual gridlock where these reckless
assumptions are proposed such as the Earth as a greenhouse without any
other physical considerations.



> 4. Anyone with a climate question should be directed to you or "Sam"
> who will quote the IPCC papers (or a summary of them in the popular
> "science press") that have settled all anthropogenic climate issues
> beyond any question.
>

It is not rocket science,if you cannot ascertain what the actual cause
of the seasons are,where temperatures fluctuate hugely from solstice
to solstice at different latitudes,there is not a chance that a person
can grasp the wider issues emanating from the correct perspective.The
single daylight/darkness cycle at the polar coordinates offer a window
or a beacon into what the orbital motion of the Earth is doing and
people who are involved in planetary dynamics should be intensely
curious about the fascinating way our Earth orbits the Sun even
without having to consider how the Ra/Dec framework blots it out or
makes it impossible to gauge insofar as the equatorial coordinate
system tries to homogenize daily and orbital motion by trying to
provide an explanation for apparent stellar circumpolar motion,the new
approach splits daily and orbital motions apart by concentrating on
explaining the two distinct daylight/darkness cycles by their
appropriate dynamical causes.


> Have I pretty much got where you stand?
>
> Oh yes. I forgot: 5: I'm an idiot.

No,you are not an idiot,you were curious enough to reply and although
I could do without the usual obligatory 'insults',there is enough in
your response to work with.Sometimes it takes utter simplicity to put
observations into perspective and that basic experiment imitating the
daily and orbital motions of the Earth happens to be one of those rare
ones where it is easy enough to use the polar coordinates to extract
the orbital characteristic of the Earth needed to explain the seasons
and effectively distinguish global climate from the inclusive
hemispherical weather patterns of Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter.

We are on our own in other words,we leave the agenda of the late 17th
century behind and start with a blank sheet and new modern tools,if we
are adventurous enough but this means restoring some discipline where
none but opinions exist at the moment.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
Next: Scissors Experiment to prove whether lightwaves can be Doppler shifted Chapt 8 #126; ATOM TOTALITY