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

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

On 2023-05-21, Quadibloc <jsavard@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.

Chris

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

>On 2023-05-21, Quadibloc <jsavard@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."

In article <fjek6ih3nqc6glvehn6qtdmf1voeruspm0@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On 21 May 2023 11:39:13 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-05-21, Quadibloc <jsavard@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 robertaw@drizzle.com

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.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:21:24 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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:
> > 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.
> 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.

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.

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.

On 2023-05-21 19:53, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:21:24 AM UTC+10, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> you're a stupid kook who churns out word salad.

Preach.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM UTC-4, 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
> 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.

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

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

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 4:32:21 AM UTC+1, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 1:53:18 PM UTC-4, 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
> > 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.
> 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

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.

On Sun, 21 May 2023 10:21:21 -0700 (PDT), Gerald Kelleher
<kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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

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.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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

>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.

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 --
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

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

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

Actually, that's debatable.

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.

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

On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 4:00:31 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.

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