Is Pluto a planet?

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The word is count, not imagine, you know 1,2,3 etc.....most of us learned how to do it at a very early age. LOL

Count the number of times daylight turns to darkness from March 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 and that represents the number of times the Earth turns in 4 years,the count is 1461 and your laughter may be one of insanity should you fail to maintain the balance.Maybe you are a child and I do not budget for this however it does not excuse everyone else for many are indoctrinated and are excused on this account but not all hence the truth in the saying of another Irishman -

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ~ Edmund Burke

I have to ask,is there any sane person who finds 1465 rotations in 1461 days strange even allowing for what Feb 29th does as the final 1461 st rotation,24 hour day and another experienced cycle of day/night within the confines of 4 orbital circuits?.

Maybe the rest wish to join in your laughter but I am not,this is an assault on human reasoning at a level that is frightening or should be to men who value their ability to work things out,the equivalent of nuking the core principles which distinguish us as reasoning humans and insofar as I allow for how they made the original mistake by linking daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion,the technical ins and outs of it never leave cause and effect as the final affirmation of what the facts are -

Rotation once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times an orbital circuit and 1461 rotations in 1461 days.

When readers hear the terms AM and PM ,is there the slightest inkling among readers that this refers to the rotation of the Earth among all the other facts and historical details ?.I do not direct this at you as your reactions are becoming truly hideous.

Cú Giobach

What is so funny here is that you are doing exactly what those who lambasted Galileo, Bruno or Copernicus did.
You are not relying on evidence and observation but merely saying "but look, it seems like this so it must be true",..... "For the love of God can't you see the Earth doesn't move, the Sun moves around the Earth, it is blindingly obvious" etc etc........

What the greats of old did was come up with theories and if observation matched these theories then they were accepted until observation showed one to be wrong.
Observation shows your theory to be wrong, but just like the church of old (or maybe not so old) you are ignoring the evidence and just continuing to spout your nonsense.
Are you posting from the 15th century. LOL.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What the greats of old did was come up with theories and if observation matched these theories then they were accepted until observation showed one to be wrong.
Observation shows your theory to be wrong, but just like the church of old (or maybe not so old) you are ignoring the evidence and just continuing to spout your nonsense.

If you count the times daylight turns to darkness in 4 years/4 circuits of the Earth you can believe that you will arrive at 1461 rotations in 1461 days or just count the days between Mar 1st 2008 and Feb 29th 2012.You might even stop to think that the last rotation of Feb 29th which binds 1461 rotation to 4 orbital circuits reduces to 365 1/4 to 1 orbital circuit but I assure you it is not a theory,go outside and try it.

What a day's work ! and it is a day due to the rotation of the Earth.Long before Joyce set aside a day in Dublin to create a commentary on daily life,he wrote almost a treatise of intent which is at turns admiring and cursing his own race but a poet always ends with hope and this is where all this leads.We are not robots nor slaves,we can reason for ourselves and need no other group or country to judge us by the reckless speculative actions of a small group of people who sent many into penury.We need to develop our own country again more than we need bailouts and this is part of that process.

"Every age must look for its sanction to its poetry and philosophy, for in these the human mind, as it looks backward or forward, attains to an eternal state. The philosophic mind inclines always to an elaborate life-- the life of Goethe or of Leonardo da Vinci; but the life of the poet is intense-- the life of Blake or of Dante-- taking into its centre the life that surrounds it and flinging it abroad again amid planetary music. With Mangan a narrow and hysterical nationality receives a last justification, for when this feeble-bodied figure departs dusk begins to veil the train of the gods, and he who listens may hear their footsteps leaving the world. But the ancient gods, who are visions of the divine names, die and come to life many times, and, though there is dusk about their feet and darkness in their indifferent eyes, the miracle of light is renewed eternally in the imaginative soul. When the sterile and treacherous order is broken up, a voice or a host of voices is heard singing, a little faintly at first, of a serene spirit which enters woods and cities and the hearts of men, and of the life of earth" James Joyce

Life goes on day in and day out,it would be nice to find people who,even if they don't consider it that often,know what is behind that day and year and they will discover much more than they expected.

Turtwig

gkell1 wrote: »

Life goes on day in and day out,it would be nice to find people who,even if they don't consider it that often,know what is behind that day and year and they will discover much more than they expected.

Couldn't agree more.

A day.

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

A year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82p-DYgGFjI

gkell1

Malty_T wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

A day.

Try Feb 29th as both 24 hours of rotation and the final rotation which closes out the proportion of 1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which transfers directly to 1461 days in 4 years.It allows you to perceive that daily and orbital motions are separate and that the 1/4 rotation omitted each non leap year corresponds to 6 hours of orbital motion and is picked up by the Feb 29th rotation so that the orbital motion does not drift against the number of rotations needed to keep the orbital events of the solstices and equinoxes fixed to known days and dates of the year.

There is no such thing as 361 degrees,even the spoof documentary where the guy convinces himself that he has some edge is probably an apt description of the pretense surrounding this matter except that your affliction is real -

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

The Earth has an independent rotation and like all other objects it can only turn 360 degrees ,the mindnumbing reasoning of Ra/Dec addicts is like encountering the guy in the spoof doc except you lot are dead serious and believe that rotation from noon to noon is 361 degrees !.If it wasn't so destructive it would be hilarious.

Is there any sane person who can believe that the Earth rotates 1461 times in 1461 days through normal experience of day turning to night and not cartoons which imagine a nonsensical turning of 361 degrees in 24 hours and then goes on to fudge the issue even further by noting noon lengths are not equal.The reader is not asked to look at the insanity of cartoons but go outside and imagine Feb 29th as just another day/night cycle and 24 hours of rotation yet reflecting 4 complete orbital circuits with a definite amount of rotations balanced to an orbital circuit.

Enough is enough,the last thing I wanted was to see my own people support something so bad that a flat Earth ideology looks complicated compared to meaningless 1465 rotations in 1461 days and late 17th century reasoning built around right ascension.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

There is no such thing as 361 degrees,

Try answering these questions for the craic.
According to your theory through how many degrees does the Earth rotate in 24 hrs 4 min?
Through how many degrees does the Earth rotate in 2 days?

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Try answering these questions for the craic.
According to your theory through how many degrees does the Earth rotate in 24 hrs 4 min?
Through how many degrees does the Earth rotate in 2 days?

Is there a sane person who can reason out that noon to noon lengths are unequal in time and that the 24 hour day is derived as an average from that determination and make the connection between AM and PM in terms of longitude meridians and daily rotation ?-

"..hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table." Huygens

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

What happens is that the 24 hours of Monday turn into the 24 hours of Tuesday and so on and accordingly this happens 1461 times from Mar 1st 2008 until Feb 29th 2012 .These steady progression of 24 hour days substitute for steady rotation knowing that regardless of variations in natural noon,the count will still be 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits and 1461 days for 4 years.

There is no room for dithering once Feb 29th is introduced as the feature which allows for a steady progression of days to turn into a steady progression of years while keeping days and rotations in sync with the orbital cycle and orbital events fixed as dates within the calendar system,in short,human timekeeping allows planetary cycles to be expressed as a linear progression and it is this jewel of human reasoning that is being mangled presently.

You are not disgracing yourself as much as those who remain silent are and if you can't believe that one 24 hour rotation of the Earth meshes with one day/night cycle then you are only exposing a pretty dismal conception that arose in a specific time and place in history.I set aside today to deal with this matter and need not call attention to it further,at least not here among my own country people.It is dismaying enough that in the 24 hours since last night I haven't found an individual to affirm that one rotation matches one day/night and that will continue indefinitely with special attention given to Feb 29th next year but there is always room for hope.

Make no mistake about,I do not hold anything against you nor should anyone else,you firmly believe that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days and if you can live with it then so be it.It is those who should know better that are in contempt of our national astronomical heritage for the dumbest conclusion ever to surface in any science and in any era.

Rubecula

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Pluto is exactly the same thing that it was when Clyde Tombaugh discovered it in 1930. In fact, it probably hasn't changed a lot in the past four billion years or so.

What has changed is the way it is categorised.

Back in 1930, no one had heard of the Kuiper Belt, so it was natural to call Pluto a planet and imagine another one or two might be discovered further out from the Sun, but no more than that.

Now, however, several objects with masses greater than Pluto's have been found and there could well be many more, not to mention what the Oort Cloud could be found to contain.

That's why the category of "dwarf planet" was created. It's arbitrary, but so are most categories.

Here's an interesting link to an article about a recent observation of a dwarf planet three times as far from the Sun as Pluto:

http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1142/

With grateful thanks to you for bringing the thread back onto topic.:)

Lets hope it is not sidetracked again with silly argumentative posts.

Cú Giobach

gkell1
Do you know that the minute hand of your average 12 hour clock turns through 450° in 75mins

Sorry Rubecula, I couldn't resist it.
By the way Pluto is nice, I like Pluto.

gkell1

The Irish have always shown that streak of individuality when most capitulate to force of numbers or consensus and somewhere people do understand that despite the small population, it makes us what we are and that often people marvel at it while others put it down to luck or thickness.We choose our heroes for what they have achieved at great sacrifice and not take the word of those who goad us into accepting the obscure work of people for no other reason than it seems to set them apart.Newton's work is a scam,even the prescient English knew it inherently even though they knew nothing of the details of the scam -

"I turn my eyes to the Schools & Universities of Europe
And there behold the Loom of Locke whose Woof rages dire
Washd by the Water-wheels of Newton. black the cloth
In heavy wreathes folds over every Nation; cruel Works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other: not as those in Eden: which
Wheel within Wheel in freedom revolve in harmony & peace."
William Blake ,Jerusalem

The clockwork solar system of Newton has no soul and in pragmatic terms it shows how dangerous it is to model natural phenomena with mechanical devices be it clocks or computers.There is no substitute for human reasoning and those who are expected to pay homage to a man who built his agenda on the calendar based clockwork premise of Ra/Dec are doing themselves and everyone else no favors.

Good to see a genuine Englishman like Blake do what a living guy from West Cork cannot do even with the benefit of modern imaging in knowing that something is intrinsically wrong with the toxic strain of empiricism inherited from late 17th century England and specifically Newton.In the space of a day/night cycle and one 24 hour rotation of the Earth,this forum which attracts many Irish people now knows the exact nature of the problem and its resolution.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

We choose our heroes for what they have achieved at great sacrifice and not take the word of those who goad us into accepting the obscure work of people for no other reason than it seems to set them apart..

This is actually a bit of sense, and partly why nobody will accept your obscure theories.


The deeply religious Blake criticises Newton because his theories don't fit with Blake's idea and conception of God, not because they are scientifically flawed.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is actually a bit of sense, and partly why nobody will accept your obscure theories.


The deeply religious Blake criticises Newton because his theories don't fit with Blake's idea and conception of God, not because they are scientifically flawed.

No doubt you find the idea that the temperature rises and fall 1461 times in 1461 days directly due to daily rotation an 'obscure theory' as opposed to your nonsensical imbalance of 1465 rotations in 1461 days.I will point out that this dumb calendar based 1465/1461 Ra/Dec value is at the core of Newton's toxic strain of empiricism as it represents the first time humans tried to model natural phenomena and specifically the motions of the Earth using a mechanical device,in this case a watch -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " John Flamsteed

The same people are now modeling everything using computers so while empiricists run amok screaming that humans need to control the temperature of the planet by using carbon dioxide levels as a temperature dial,they can't figure out what makes the temperature go up and down daily because it is not going to be done if you cannot accept the balance between 1461 days and 1461 rotations.

So,many billions are being spent on people who have absolutely convinced themselves and the rest off the world that humans can control global temperatures for that is what it boils down to.Readers now know that these people can't change their minds no matter what is brought in front of them including interpretation of natural temperature fluctuations arising from unknown reasons from minor temperature deviations to ice ages.The legacy handed to our children is a type of slavery that no person should accept and yet readers do accept it for the dominant ideology defies experience for what could be more immediate than to wake up in the morning ,see the Sun rise and know that it is the rotating Earth causing this magnificent spectacle and the number of times this happens follows the days and dates of the calendar system which reflects 4 orbital circuits of the Earth.

Before people feel the desperate need to 'define' a planet let them get the facts of our own planet straight and that means defying Newton and his late 17th century contemporaries who literally tried to create a clockwork solar system out of newly invented watches by introducing an unnecessary linkage between stellar circumpolar motion and daily rotation ,remember this-

"Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles." Copernicus

Any person here can take the AM and PM designations as a signature of the Earth's daily rotation to the central Sun and count the days between Mar 1st 2008 and Feb 29th 2012 to arrive at the only conclusion possible as the empiricists conveniently tried to move the whole issue to the equinoxes where they can try to obscure the clear reasoning with the nonsensical 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days.The reason they do this is that in the Ra/Dec system,everything moves in stellar circumpolar motion like a celestial sphere carousel and while the issue is fairly intricate between Ra/Dec as a calendar based predictive convenience,the empiricists couldn't help themselves and decided that you can squeeze daily and orbital motions into the equal 365/366 day calendar system -

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

It is extraordinarily unhealthy for a person to become entangled in this celestial sphere carousel that so enamors empiricists as they get mangled in this clockwork driven ideology when they can simply experience the normal day and know that all its effects are due to the rotation of the Earth,that I have to repeat this fact of a balance between days and rotations so often is painful and I don't believe for a second that people are thick.

Cú Giobach

gkell1 wrote: »

Before people feel the desperate need to 'define' a planet let them get the facts of our own planet straight and that means defying the utterly stupid Newton and his late 17t century contemporaries who literally tried to create a clockwork solar system out of newly invented watches by introducing an unnecessary linkage between stellar circumpolar motion and daily rotation ,remember this-

"Thus in the process of their demonstrations, which they call their system, they are found either to have missed out something essential, or to have brought in something inappropriate and wholly irrelevant, which would not have happened to them if they had followed proper principles." Copernicus

Two things;
1. You don't need a watch to prove the period of rotation of the Earth and the day/night cycle are different lengths, an hour glass would do just fine.
2. Quoting Copernicus to give credence to your ideas is silly when his quote above is practically aimed at people like you. I say practically because at least people who subscribed to the Ptolmec system of epicycles TRIED to explain the observed movements in the heavens, something you refuse to even attempt.

I have to repeat this fact of a balance between days and rotations so often is painful and I don't believe for a second that people are thick.

You are correct they are not, which is why you will spend the rest of your life trying to get people to subscribe to your fanciful ideas, and fail.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You are correct they are not, which is why you will spend the rest of your life trying to get people to subscribe to your fanciful ideas, and fail.

A sane person knows there are 1461 rotations in 1461 days as they can count the number of times the Sun rises and sets due to the rotation of the Earth and unless they have severe difficulties in equating 4 years with 4 orbital circuits of the Earth,they have no reason to disregard the balance which you cannot accept.

The wider issue is what happens when you do try to model the Earth's motions using a watch as the empiricists tried to do and arrive at a false conclusion of 1465 rotations in 1461 days.The Ra/Dec system is normally a convenience as it allows people to predict when lunar and solar eclipses occur as days and dates within the calendar format however there is no way to squeeze the Earth's daily and orbital motions into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.

The entire empirical agenda of Newton or the 'scientific method' as it is known is centered on a wide sweeping attempt to link planetary dynamics to experimental sciences using the predictive convenience of the Ra/Dec system and that literal clockwork solar system is not just wrong,it is really destructive and unhealthy in the extreme as it turns the celestial arena into a stellar circumpolar carousel.The language of astronomy is geometry and although Newton's followers today do a good propaganda job,his followers once were more practical and freely admitted that they didn't know how he arrived at his results but I assure you that I do -

"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

That guy is partly right, although he would have no way of knowing that to arrive at a clockwork solar system would require a systematic distortion of astronomical methods and insights to such an extent that a person has to suspend their reasoning capabilities and escape into a fictional world to get the agenda to fly,this is not an opinion but an unfortunate fact.If any reader here can come to the conclusion that a normal day and its effects are due to one 24 hour rotation of the Earth they are on safe and sane ground,in the empirical world the correspondence doesn't exist and that is clearly unhealthy,it is not that you argue for 1465 rotations in 1461 days but what you are arguing against and that makes all the difference.

I did come here to tidy up a few loose ends even though there are multiple technical and historical issues to deal with when things really get going however it would be pointless when even the founding principles which define our own planet are rejected for a really dumb conclusion made in the late 17th century.

Cú Giobach

The quote you gave states nothing more than The Principia is hard to read, and it is.

Until the day you can explain away why the Sun passes the meridian every 24hrs and a star passes every 23hrs 56mins, your ramblings have no substance whatsoever.
The reason you evade this "elephant in the room" is because up until the day before yesterday you didn't even know it existed, such is your lack of astronomical knowledge (over in the weather forum, you stated that a star passes the meridian every 24hrs).

Although even if you do explain this, it can then be proven mathematically using simple geometry why the Earth must rotate 361° from noon to noon.

You haven't got a hope in hell with your amusing little idea.

Well gkell1, my job here is done and I don't think a single person reading this could be in any doubt as to the fanciful, illogical and utterly bizzare nature of your ideas, so it's goodbye from me, West Cork over and out.

gkell1

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The quote you gave states nothing more than The Principia is hard to read, and it is.

Until the day you can explain away why the Sun passes the meridian every 24hrs and a star passes every 23hrs 56mins, your ramblings have no substance whatsoever.
The reason you evade this "elephant in the room" is because up until the day before yesterday you didn't even know it existed, such is your lack of astronomical knowledge (over in the weather forum, you stated that a star passes the meridian every 24hrs).

Although even if you do explain this, it can then be proven mathematically using simple geometry why the Earth must rotate 361° from noon to noon.

You haven't got a hope in hell with your amusing little idea.

Well gkell1, my job here is done and I don't think a single person reading this could be in any doubt as to the fanciful, illogical and utterly bizzare nature of your ideas, so it's goodbye from me, West Cork over and out.

The formal version is that the equatorial coordinate system they introduced in the late 17th century tried to replace the normal rotational signatures of AM and PM with RA and it is only when the system is expanded out into the familiar calendar cycle can the whole issue be dealt with properly with the normal effects of any day (daylight/darkness,temperature rise/fall,wake and sleep and so on) as the deciding factor.A person who values their intelligence as well as their sanity will arrive at 1461 rotations in 1461 days and take it from there as far as they wish and I do not ask that people go further than affirm that one day and its effects are due to one 24 hour rotation of the Earth.

I have already given the main reason why empiricists basically nuked the core principles as their system relies on the tool of predictions or the 'scientific method' mantra many hear so often and this originated with Newton.The University system of peer review allied with the 'scientific method' did not always exist and while it is useful at a level of engineering,medicine and things like that,it over-extended itself into investigations of astronomical and terrestrial phenomena where concepts cannot be reduced to experimental sciences nor experimental sciences projected into the celestial and terrestrial arenas as anything other than indirect analogies.

A meteorologist who cannot state that the primary weather fact of daily temperature rises and falls are due to the 24 hour rotation of the Earth is hardly a meteorologist so they get a second chance to revisit the issue and work through the details without fear of reproach.Again,it is only a matter of expanding the days out to the calendar cycle and reworking everything else from there.

Despite appearances,the reaction here is as it should be and I find no fault with readers even if a few lessons have been learned in respect to intransigence and why the issue must be kept front and center.It is not just our national astronomical heritage at stake but the more important education of students and their ability to reason through things rather than living on hearsay and taking people's word for what effectively is meaningless empirical junk.

Again,we may not be saints and scholars but we have enough fight in us to regain a level of intellectual stability and freedom that few nations could offer.Our friends across the water will have their hands tied for a very long time as too much baggage is attached to Royal Society empiricism yet I have done all I could to demonstrate that the original direction of empiricism was not only fine but productive until they over-extended its reach through the error of Flamsteed and the distortions of Newton.It takes a reasonable person to know where the meeting points are and if we have to start at the most basic planetary fact off all then so be it.

People can do better may be the ultimate message and there I leave it.

Zubeneschamali

gkell1 wrote: »

there I leave it.

Thanks be to jaysus.

gkell1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thanks be to jaysus.

Ah son,you will never know what true subjugation of a people is until you comprehend what Royal Society empiricism stands for.If these empiricists can get you to believe that you woke up this morning in your bog because the Earth didn't turn and this they will do,then that is real power over the individual.

You are fine,you celebrate your ignorance just as they like it.

shizz

sooo... mmmm yeah so Pluto? It's not a planet.

Discuss.

Su Campu

Guys, I see gkell1 has been ramling here too. Luckily he's seen sense and closed his account. Insane in the membrane!

Rubecula

Su Campu wrote: »

Guys, I see gkell1 has been ramling here too. Luckily he's seen sense and closed his account. Insane in the membrane!

I have this feeling that we have not seen the last of him though. New name, new account.

On the plus side he certainly generated some replies, even I replied on something I wasn't interested in.

Just wish he hadn't hijacked the thread and started a new one... Would have been nice if I had understood what he was on about too :pac:

Turtwig

Just for curiosity's sake did anyone actually understand what gkell1 was on about?

Su Campu

Malty_T wrote: »

Just for curiosity's sake did anyone actually understand what gkell1 was on about?

Haven't the foggiest, he was over on Weather posting the same thing and nobody knew what he was on about.

Knew how to write stuff though. I think if he does reregister he won't be hard to pick out!

slade_x

Su Campu wrote: »

Luckily he's seen sense and closed his account. Insane in the membrane!

Thats a little unnecessary, copernicus and later galileo were thought folly with their idea that the earth was not the center of everything, even inadvertedly challenging scripture and exposing an innacurate view and understanding of earth and its place below the heavens at the time as it's referenced biblically. It was not only controversial but deemed religious herecy to even believe that the good creater of everything wrote it down wrong or just plain got it wrong, luckily they succeeded and reason eventually prevailed.

As we all know its not a foolish errand to challenge the current thinking of any time. As an effective or uneffective defense really does prove whether our best and brightest really know if they're wrong or right. And more to the point its never more important to argue it logically and with reason in an appropriate manner. Its a shame certain ideologies cant be reasoned with.

With the true scientific method adhered to, reason always prevails.

Its an unfortunate series of events when a user feels they have to resort to unsubscribing.

Cú Giobach

slade_x wrote: »

Thats a little unnecessary, copernicus and later galileo were thought folly with their idea that the earth was not the center of everything, even inadvertedly challenging scripture and exposing an innacurate view and understanding of earth and its place below the heavens at the time as it's referenced biblically. It was not only controversial but deemed religious herecy to even believe that the good creater of everything wrote it down wrong or just plain got it wrong, luckily they succeeded and reason eventually prevailed.

At least those who believed in a biblical view had an actual argument (irrespective of the reasoning behind it), there is a big difference between that and just saying "you are all wrong" without offering an alternative mechanism.

As we all know its not a foolish errand to challenge the current thinking of any time. As an effective or uneffective defense really does prove whether our best and brightest really know if they're wrong or right. And more to the point its never more important to argue it logically and with reason in an appropriate manner. Its a shame certain ideologies cant be reasoned with.

With the true scientific method adhered to, reason always prevails.

The very reason I carried on with the discussion, we can't have a meme like this catching on, like the "moon conspiracies" did.

After thinking about this for a few days, what I find interesting (and not a little ironic) is that if one subscribes to the Newtonian view of gravity as opposed to the Einsteinian one, you could almost see some logicality in it.
Say regarding the Moon (G claimed before that the Moon doesn't rotate) if the Moon is "connected" to the Earth by gravity, like a ball on a piece of string being swung around in circles, then it could be argued the moon doesn't actually rotate around a central axis, just like the ball doesn't, the central axis of the whole "ball/string" system being where you are holding the string.

Rubecula

The only real problem I had with gkell was due to the factI could not make nor tail of what he was on about when he mentioned that the temperature could tell us that the Earth rotated 1461 times in 1465 days (or maybe that is wrong? I just can not understand it)

Other than that he/she developed a thread to initiate a lot of responses, and I can not really complain about that.

I suppose what was done wrongly was hijacking this thread.:(

So I have a question to ask.

Is Pluto a Planet?:cool:

Cú Giobach

Rubecula wrote: »

The only real problem I had with gkell was due to the factI could not make nor tail of what he was on about when he mentioned that the temperature could tell us that the Earth rotated 1461 times in 1465 days (or maybe that is wrong? I just can not understand it)

The reasoning was that the temperature fluctuates 365 times a year between night and day, therefore the Earth only rotates 365 times per year. A rather "but it looks flat, therefore it must be flat" argument.

Is Pluto a Planet?:cool:

Yea, a dwarf one.

WalterMitty

How relavent was he point today though. With advanced technology and peer review and constant experimental enquiry seems little chance of reasonless dogma prevailing in scientific sphere anyway.

shizz

I really haven't a clue what he was on about. His posts were so long winded and cryptic it was hard to concentrate on and understand.

Was he saying that the scientific understanding of The earth's orbit around the sun was wrong? or am I terribly off the mark here?