The perpetual calendar
in [Math]
|
Prev: THE MIND OF MATHEMATICIANS PART 7 " SPATIAL MATHEMATICS , VALUE OF 1 and 3
Next: Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense- the basic mistake exposed!
From: Peter T. Daniels on 26 Feb 2010 19:00 On Feb 26, 6:45 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 26, 3:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 2:30 pm, "sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com" <sjdevn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 12:52 pm, mstem...(a)walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) > > > wrote: > > > > > In article <7uomssFvk...(a)mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> writes: > > > > >tony cooper wrote: > > > > >> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:14:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > >>> Ant nio Marques wrote: > > > > > >>>> It's not what you think. Either the Church's message is universal and > > > > >>>> Christ did found one Church, or it isn't. > > > > >>> Now there's a new one: the first I've heard that Jesus founded or even > > > > >>> wanted a church. > > > > > >> I thought he delegated the job to Peter. > > > > > >I don't think so. I believe he did ask Peter and the others to keep on > > > > >spreading the word, but I have seen no mention of churches, priests, > > > > >buildings, vestments or choir boys in the New Testament. > > > > > Try Mt 16:17-18. > > > > The closest I see there is the word "build": > > >  17And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, > > > because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to thee, but my Father who > > > is in the heavens. > > >  18`And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I > > > will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against > > > it; > > > (Young's Literal Translation) > > > > Note that "ecclesia" is sometimes mistranslated as "church"; in > > > reality it meant "assembly"--the most well-known "ecclesia" prior to > > > the writing of Matthew would have been the democratic gatherings of > > > Athens, which went under that name.  There's no reason to think that > > > it meant anything like the organized hierarchy of the modern Church.- > > > What the hell is "Young's Literal Translation"? Is that one of those > > misguided efforts to render every word of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek the > > same way in English every time it appears? When was it done? > > It's a literal translation of the Bible, done in 1862.  The particular > credentials of Young's aren't important in this case, because plenty > of other scholarly translations (e.g the 1997 version of the American > Standard Version, Darby's) render the passage the same way, but more > importantly because the word in question is easily verified as > "εκκληÏιαν" or "ecclesia" and you can easily research the history of > that word yourself without having to rely on someone else's > translation abilities; at the time of writing, it meant "assembly", > and it wasn't until later that it acquired the second meaning of > "church".- But rather than answer Robert's question, you chose to obfuscate by quoting an incompetent and outmoded "literal" translation.
From: Peter Moylan on 26 Feb 2010 19:08 jmfbahciv wrote: > I used to solve my really pesky problems by dreaming the solution, > or workaround. Sleeping is useful. There once was a time when I was struggling with difficult theoretical problems, and I would wake up in the middle of the night with solutions, or at least with important insights. Once the morning arrived, I would recall getting the insights, but couldn't remember what they were. To fix the problem I put a notepad and pen beside my bed, and went to bed with the firm resolve to write down any ideas I got in the night. It worked: I woke up with yet another brilliant idea, and spent some time writing down all the details. In the morning, I found the sort of scrawl a two-year-old might have written. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Robert Bannister on 26 Feb 2010 19:14 Evan Kirshenbaum wrote: > Mike Barnes <mikebarnes(a)bluebottle.com> writes: > >> Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net>: > >>> Here's the original purpose of DST. In certain higher >>> latitudes (including most of the UK), the length of the >>> daylight at the summer solstice was around 16 hours. With >>> the period of daylight centered at noon GMT, this would make >>> the sun rise at around 4AM, before most people awake. And >>> so we set the clock forward in the spring. The reason we set >>> it back in autumn is because if we didn't, the sun wouldn't >>> rise at the winter solstice until around 9AM, after most >>> people need to be at work or school. >>> >>> In other words, the only way to avoid _both_ objectionable >>> sunrise times (4AM and 9AM) is to have a biannual clock shift. >> Here those extreme sunrise times would be 3:40 and 9:20. I can see >> the objection to 9:20, but what's the objection to 3:40? > > You don't have to get up with the chickens, do you? But I believe > that the main objection was that people had to spend money on light in > the evening when there were hours of daylight just going to waste > before they got up. > That was, I am sure, the reason daylight saving was introduced in many countries mainly at the time of the 1914-18 war. However, since then, air-conditioners have become more common, and so there is no net saving of electricity at all. In fact, our power people say we use more electricity in summer than in winter and slightly more during our most recent experiment with daylight saving time. -- Rob Bannister
From: Peter Moylan on 26 Feb 2010 19:24 Yusuf B Gursey wrote: > On Feb 26, 11:13 am, R H Draney <dadoc...(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >> Peter T. Daniels filted: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 25, 1:29=A0pm, Adam Funk <a24...(a)ducksburg.com> wrote: >>>> "archaeoastronomy" >>> No, that's speculation about the alignments of Stonehenge or the Nasca >>> figures or whatever. >>> Which is different from the sort of _recorded_ observations made from >>> at least the early first millennium BCE in Mesopotamia (and from some >>> point in China) down to the time of Tycho Brahe, on the basis of >>> nothing but whose naked-eye observations, Kepler worked out the theory >>> of elliptical planetary orbits. >> Impressive, true, but I once got my hands on a book on celestial mechanics that >> derived the fact of elliptical orbits (and the "equal areas in equal times" >> principle) starting with nothing but the fact that gravity is in inverse-square >> proportion to distance....r > > but Kepler didn't know that. it took Newton to figure it out. In fact Newton did it the other way around. He started with Kepler's results about the shape of the orbits, and deduced from that that the force acting on the planets must obey an inverse-square law. Once I tried to follow the same line of reasoning, and got nowhere. Showing that an inverse-square law leads to elliptical orbits is a simple undergraduate exercise these days, although it would have been harder in Newton's day. Showing that elliptical orbits leads to an inverse-square law is a problem of fiendish difficulty. I imagine that Newton started with a variety of guesses (constant force; force varying inversely with distance; etc.) and tried each one until he found one that gave a match with Kepler's results. In some other problem domains, e.g. radiant energy, conservation-of-energy arguments lead directly to an inverse-square law. In the case of gravity, anything other than an inverse-square law would lead to planets that either fell into the sun or flew off into the outer void. It's not clear to me, though, that Newton had enough information to be able to guess that inverse-square was the most obvious candidate. These days it's standard practice to publish only the final tidied-up version of theoretical results, omitting any insight into the reasoning that led to the results. I think that's also what Newton did. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Hatunen on 26 Feb 2010 19:40
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:44:04 +0800, Robert Bannister <robban1(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >I don't see what you are getting at. The only churches I notice that >actually stipulate their denomination on their own signs are the ones >that are neither Anglican nor Catholic. The latter appear to assume that >anyone interested will know, and usually, they are right. As I said >above, I won't try to claim that no "Roman Catholic" or "Church of >England" signs exist - just that I haven't noticed them in the same way >I notice Lutheran or whatever. Around tehse parts some churches do declare that they are Episcopalian. -- ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |