Is Pluto a planet?

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 8:33pm

Malty_T wrote: »

I might be thick, but I sincerely doubt that some of the regulars who post here are.

Defining a planet is like defining an Irish person,it can't be done as each planet has its own attributes but the common feature is historically fixed by their apparent wandering motion as opposed to the central Sun or the moon which don't display that 'wandering' behavior.No genuine astronomers needs planets,time,space or motion defined for them as they know what these things are within normal experience including the difference between the planetary cycles and the human devised timekeeping cycles devised around these things.Only empiricists make a fuss over definitions and it shows in how they handle observations of the celestial arena.

No wonder we have temporarily lost our national sovereignty,people who can reason are excluded while those with the worst convictions and indoctrination are in a position where they shouldn't.It is not that you are lost,astronomy is far more than a magnification or photographic exercise done at night and genuine astronomy at an interpretative level does not suffer fools and cheats at a level at which empiricists operate at regardless of how successful they temporarily are to the wider world.

Now good luck to you, a place where people believe they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly or 'big bang' as that unfortunate ideology is called is no place for me.

WalterMitty · 26-10-2011 8:39pm

gkell1 wrote: »

Defining a planet is like defining an Irish person,it can't be done as each planet has its own attributes but the common feature is historically fixed by their apparent wandering motion as opposed to the central Sun or the moon which don't display that 'wandering' behavior.No genuine astronomers needs planets,time,space or motion defined for them as they know what these things are within normal experience including the difference between the planetary cycles and the human devised timekeeping cycles devised around these things.Only empiricists make a fuss over definitions and it shows in how they handle observations of the celestial arena.

No wonder we have temporarily lost our national sovereignty,people who can reason are excluded while those with the worst convictions and indoctrination are in a position where they shouldn't.It is not that you are lost,astronomy is far more than a magnification or photographic exercise done at night and genuine astronomy at an interpretative level does not suffer fools and cheats at a level at which empiricists operate at regardless of how successful they temporarily are to the wider world.

Now good luck to you, a place where people believe they can see the evolutionary timeline of the Universe directly or 'big bang' as that unfortunate ideology is called is no place for me.

Is reason not the basis of the"scientific method " and "empiracism " you rail against?

gkell1 · 26-10-2011 8:49pm

WalterMitty wrote: »

Is reason not the basis of the"scientific method " and "empiracism " you rail against?

Ah son,you have only to appreciate what retrogrades are from the time lapse footage or a sequence of images made from the orbital motion of the Earth to know what makes a planet different from the moon Sun or other stars -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

There are people who can't feel their way through the arguments to a solution and they are followers of Newton who just can't seem to find fault with his utterly stupid take on the main argument for the 'wandering' motions -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

I have the freedom to obliterate that conceptual non sequitur of Newton insofar as retrogrades are seen from the Earth and resolved as an illusion seen from the orbital motion of the Earth,as slaves of Newton people do not have the freedom to express this fact and it is that simple.There is only one fact to the resolution of retrogrades and a hypothetical observer on the Sun is not it.

Rubecula · 26-10-2011 9:43pm

It is not often I can say, that I have read a masterful post.

And that post is masterful. It is explicitly argumentative and at the same time phrased so picturesquely.

Although I admire you post I have to take issue with it. Basically because I do not and never have, thought Newton was stupid. He may have been wrong at times, but in his day he was not privy to some of the things we now know today.

Things we would not even guess at today if it was not for his leading the way.

Without wishing to be both argumentative myself, and putting forward controversial ideas, I have to say I think that last post of yours was, not to put to fine a point on it, a little bit ridiculous to read, in the way you wrote it. Frankly much of it comes across as quite insulting. Both to Newton and people like myself who read what is written by him and not the in between the lines things he never wrote to begin with.

Please excuse my grammar as I do not usually try to post in such a complex way as your good self.

Cú Giobach · 26-10-2011 11:44pm

Putting lots of words put into complicated patterns but making no sense and trying to dress up illogicality to look like logic but failing.
This is all gkell1 is doing.
When you meet someone to whom logic has no meaning, there is no point in trying to discuss matters that require the use of basic logic.
As was mentioned in a recently closed thread, this poster has no interest (or knowledge) in astronomy but another rather obscure agenda.

slade_x · 27-10-2011 12:15am

gkell1 wrote: »

If you want to believe the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days then be my guest,it spares me having to remind you that it lacks any reference to the orbital motion of the Earth and to the central Sun.

Believe what you will. one full rotation of the earth on its axis takes 23 hours 56 minutes and approximately 4 seconds and is verifiable with simple observations. if the earth were stationary and did not orbit around the sun, the sun would appear at the same point after one full revolution of earth on its axis at 23 hours 56 minutes etc. But it does not. It requires 24 hours on average for the sun to travel from high noon to high noon. The same point on earth is not oriented the exact same way after the travel because the earth position has moved along in its orbit. Below although very exaggerated illustrates that point

Sidereal_day_%28prograde%29.png

As you see above sphere 2 is a representation of sphere 1 after a full 360 revolution on its own axis(or 20 revolutions, since its revolving on its own axis the orientation will still be the same no matter how many revolutions) just further in its orbit, so sphere 2 is orientated the same way as sphere 1 (we'll say 1 full 360 degree revolution). But Sphere 3 requires additional time to orient it back pointing at the yellow sphere. No matter where the end location however small or however large in its orbit (easier to notice the larger it is exaggerated) of the sphere a 360 degree revolution will always orient the same way with respect to sphere 1 as that is the measurment you are taking. The earth requires an additional (just less than 1 degree) to orient back toward the sun because it has changed position relative to its original position at the time of beginning the revolution.

If sphere 1 kept revolving for a quarter of a year without that correction the below would be true:

At a quarter of a year earths orientation with regards to the sun would be off by below 45 degrees (40.5 approx) if it didnt infact rotate approximately 361 degrees every day. After just 1/4 of a year our calender would be off by almost the same degree a leap year is supposed to fix for a year in the first place. by the time earth completes 1 revolution around the sun it would have lost 1 360 degree revolution, Not a 1/4 of a revolution per year. In fact if the earth completed a revolution on its axis in 24 hours 365 times a year, a year would not be 365.25 days but 365. Completely removing the need for a leap year in the first place. Our calender system is not 100% accurate even with the inclusion of a leap year.

And here it is illustrated if the travel is in a straight line

Sphere 1a after completing a 360 degree revolution on its axis is still oriented the same as sphere 1. If Sphere 1a after moving was to point towards the red dot as sphere 1 is, it would have to rotate an additional 45 degrees (diagrams are roughly drawn to illustrate a simple point)

Sphere 1b after completing a 360 degree revolution on its axis is oriented the same way as 1 and also pointing at the red dot only it had just moved away from the dot.

I think in all the confusion in this thread multiple people are not arguing the same point but misconstruing the intention

And please lay off the insults they are about as uneccessary as this discussion.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 6:13am

Rubecula wrote: »

Although I admire you post I have to take issue with it. Basically because I do not and never have, thought Newton was stupid. He may have been wrong at times, but in his day he was not privy to some of the things we now know today.

To support Newton means defying the astronomers who actually came up with the arguments for the daily and orbital motions of the Earth and the refinements,there is no two ways about this and rather than convince you that Isaac was an idiot,the actual way the genuine astronomers worked through the details will do it for you.I have already stated what Isaac tried to do in attempting to reduce planetary dynamics to experimental sciences at a human level but the way he did it is systematic which means you can actually sort through the details as long as you know what is right and where he jumped the tracks.

Here is the Earth overtaking Mars (and Uranus) in our common orbital circuit around the central Sun so that you can see the term 'planet' is almost self-defining -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

The difference between the geocentric astronomers and the Western dynamical astronomers is that the Earth replaced the Sun between the motion of Venus in 225 days and Mars in 687 days as astronomers had observed how long it took each planet to return to the same stellar background and the Earth's 365 day orbit falls in-between our neighoring planets,In the APOD image above,as the Earth overtakes Mars the planet gets brighter and larger as we pull closer to the planet and diminishing as we leave the slower Mars behind.This is why observers stick closely to retrogrades as an illusion rather than jump to the Sun to resolve the apparent motion as Isaac did and his followers still do.

The next image meshes with the contemporary sequence of images of Mars in the APOD website,it is the refinement that Kepler introduced by looking at the combined orbital motions of Mars and the Earth -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth, entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils, leading the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars traverses one and the same orbit as many
times as the 'garlands' you see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

If you run your cursor across another APOD image of the same thing you are literally imitating what Kepler is doing and saying so at least this part is clear and beyond doubt.You see the background field of stars Kepler represents as constellations and if you compare the different retrogrades of Mars you will come to understand why the geocentric astronomers believed in epicycles and equants which Kepler transformed into variations in orbital speed and geometry -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080511.html

The Wiki caption of Kepler's representation states it is 'geocentric' when it is clearly not through the commentary of Kepler himself and that indicates a great deal of the problem which empiricists have with resolving retrogrades the proper way.I only ask that you follow the line of reasoning pictorially up to this point and then real work of sorting this out can begin.This is not a wasted effort to prove that Newton got it wrong but rather a way to present how the astronomers worked with observations and put them in context of the Earth's motions and their effects or solar system structure,Newton simply did what he needed to do to get his agenda to fly and cared nothing for the labor of the great astronomers so I assure you that the guy was ruthless,it may be an attribute among his followers but looks crude to a genuine investigator and astronomer who can obliterate his distortions with tools of modern imaging.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 7:00am

slade_x wrote: »

As you see above sphere 2 is a representation of sphere 1 after a full 360 revolution on its own axis(or 20 revolutions, since its revolving on its own axis the orientation will still be the same no matter how many revolutions) just further in its orbit, so sphere 2 is orientated the same way as sphere 1 (we'll say 1 full 360 degree revolution). But Sphere 3 requires additional time to orient it back pointing at the yellow sphere.

The primary observation in all timekeeping astronomy is that the length of no two noon cycles are the same so that the Sun does not return to noon or what amounts to the same thing,the Earth does not rotate to noon in 24 hours -

" Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Huygens

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

You can dither around trying to force the belief that the Earth rotates to a star and then rotates to the noon Sun in 24 hours as you are doing or you can leave the attempt to force the daily and orbital motion into right ascension and work out why natural noon cycles vary with all the resources of modern imaging.It is very complicated and requires readers who are not looking for loopholes to retain the ideology which links daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and a ridiculous imbalance between rotations and days.

A planet has two types of daylight/darkness cycles,count them,two cycles which are a 100% observational certainty.It is a combination of two different types of rotation to the Sun which generate variations in natural noon that Huygens comments on and there is nothing more obvious than this from the time lapse footage of Uranus which shows the South/North daily rotation to the central Sun and the East/West turning to the central Sun which represents the orbital behavior of the planet -

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/

To appreciate the orbital daylight/darkness cycle,walk around a central object using a broom to represent the North/South poles of the Earth and keep the broom handle fixed in orientation to an external object as you walk/orbit the central object/Sun.You will notice that you begin walking forwards,then sideways, then backwards,sideways and then forwards again to complete an 'orbital' cycle so this imitation analogy is more or less what you see Uranus turn to the central Sun about a travelling axis that is not,I repeat,not located at the rotational poles -

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg

In the analogy,the broom handle represents the rotational axis which stretches through the center of the Earth from North to South poles while the line of your body represents the travelling orbital axis which stretches through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles and around which the polar coordinates turn to the central Sun,one full circuit of the polar coordinates in their 10366 mike journey and gauged to an external star takes 356 days 5 hours 49 minutes,it takes a while to get used to all the references yet becomes easier with familiarity and it is really worth it.

By attempting to force the daily and orbital motions into the rotational characteristics of the Earth and stellar circumpolar motion (right ascension) as you attempt to justify it means ignoring what the Earth is doing in its orbital motion and how the polar coordinates turn in a circle/cycle to the central Sun.The North/South poles in their 10366 mile annual journey act like a beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth where 6 months off darkness followed by 6 months of daylight is not caused by the rotation of the Earth but by the orbital motion.It is only unfamiliarity which prevents readers from considering the polar day/night cycle as we just take it for granted today with human habitation at the poles.

I don't wish people to consider why day turns to night and temperatures go up and down due to the rotation of the Earth as these things are obvious,they may wish to consider all those things which modern technology and imaging explains with so much ease and to do that means untangling ideas which crept in that obscure clear explanations required for people who live in the 21st century rather than those stuck in the late 17th.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 7:28am

gkell1 wrote: »

The North/South poles in their 10366 mile annual journey act like a beacon for the orbital behavior of the Earth where 6 months off darkness followed by 6 months of daylight is not caused by the rotation of the Earth but by the orbital motion.It is only unfamiliarity which prevents readers from considering the polar day/night cycle as we just take it for granted today with human habitation at the poles.

More utter rubbish :rolleyes:

Nobody thinks that the polar 6 month day/night cycle is caused by the rotation of the Earth. Though it may have come as a major surprise to you how the axial tilt of the Earth causes the change in day length throughout the year, for most of us it is something we learned in primary school.

Why even bother writing out the post above?
Would it possibly be just to have something to write here and give yourself something to do?

I note you made no mention of what was written in the post you quoted, which shows your belief that the Earth does not rotate 361° in 24hrs to be quite wrong.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 7:51am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nobody thinks that the polar 6 month day/night cycle is caused by the rotation of the Earth. Though it may have come as a major surprise to you how the axial tilt of the Earth causes the change in day length throughout the year, for most of us it is something we learned in primary school.

Before anyone considers the orbital behavior of our home planet,it is the behavior of men which presently requires the most attention.

Variations in natural noon cycle have nothing whatsoever to do with seasonal changes in daylight/darkness,the variations in the length of natural noon cycles as opposed to the steady length of 24 hour clock cycles based from noon to noon originate from both the daily and orbital turning to the central Sun.

A man that is proud of 21st century imaging just looks at what Hubble can do in showing how a planet behaves as Uranus turns South to North in its daily rotation and East to West as it orbits the central star so that the old 'tilt' toward and away from the Sun explanation is replaced by the introduction of a new rotational cycle arising solely from the orbital motion of the Earth.It is not a question of whether I am right or not but rather who can adjust their sight to the new approach which provides a better explanation for the seasons and why natural noon cycles vary.

Myself and the other participant were working through technical details which he may or may not have appreciated,lunging into a discussion with wide sweeping statements is crude and especially when you are mixing up two separate issues when I hope the other person is aware that such a difference exists.Even the genuine form of empiricism that existed before Newton screwed things up could work with the differences including one Irishman with a fairly high standing,Robert Boyle in this case -

http://books.google.com/books?id=RyBOsLIi2SMC&pg=PA219&dq=aequation+dayes#v=onepage&q&f=false

All this looks like I am trying to swamp the reader with too much information but when astronomy moves to a different level of cause and effect between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects there is no room for fudging.It is not that magnification or astronomy as a nighttime photographic hobby is less than astronomy,just that there are people who operate at a different interpretative level and who are comfortable with the arguments,insights and methods.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 8:27am

gkell1 wrote: »

All this looks like I am trying to swamp the reader with too much information

You are doing quite the opposite and providing no information whatsoever, all you are doing is waffling on incoherently jumping from irrelevant point to irrelevant point, while ignoring any actual questions put to you.
Your posts actually read like you are having a conversation with someone inside your own head.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 8:38am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You are doing quite the opposite and providing no information whatsoever, all you are doing is waffling on incoherently jumping from irrelevant point to irrelevant point, while ignoring any actual questions put to you.
Your posts actually read like you are having a conversation with someone inside your own head.

I was giving readers here plenty of credit for bringing up details they either didn't consider before or were casual about things while you are just a nuisance.If you want to believe that there is an imbalance between 1461 rotations and 1461 days/4 years then be my guest,I am not going to put a gun to your head and convince you why day turns to night because the Earth turns to the Sun 1461 times across the calendar cycle ,however I do budget for people who actually can find an opening into a type of astronomical discussion that doesn't suffer fools so easily .

Don't read my responses if it offends you,pretend that Newton is the master of the Universe if you like but readers who can reason will mark well just what they are getting into should they choose to follow the 'scientific method' blindly.

Now,I posted to two other readers on technical points and should they choose to respond then I will take it from there.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 9:00am

gkell1 wrote: »

I was giving readers here plenty of credit for bringing up details they either didn't consider before or were casual about things while you are just a nuisance.If you want to believe that there is an imbalance between 1461 rotations and 1461 days/4 years then be my guest,I am not going to put a gun to your head and convince you why day turns to night because the Earth turns to the Sun 1461 times across the calendar cycle ,however I do budget for people who actually can find an opening into a type of astronomical discussion that doesn't suffer fools so easily .

If you can't understand the basics of, or accept the evidence of observation regarding the rotation of the Earth how can you possibly expect people to take you seriously, you have directly shown the inability to follow, or use a logical train of thought.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 9:06am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If you can't understand the basics of, or accept the evidence of observation regarding the rotation of the Earth how can you possibly expect people to take you seriously, you have directly shown the inability to follow, or use a logical train of thought.

The train of facts is the Earth turns once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times for each year/ orbital circuit with 1461 rotations matching 1461 days/4 years,this is not negotiable and that it is challenged reflects the worst possible position humans have found themselves in.

Now,readers either get to grips with what Feb 29th does as both a day/night cycle and closing out 1461 rotations of the Earth across 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth or they pretend that no such correlation between 24 hours of rotation and daily experiences exist but I am prepared to discuss things with individuals who will adjust to views which are stable and sane,not contend with nuisances who can safely be left to their own devices and especially fools who imagine 1465 rotations in 1461 days.

There is no such thing as the underdog here and I never bought into it when any Irish person or team made any statement of achievement and I will suffer nobody to run for cover behind late 17th century English empiricism when every person can work things out for themselves by dwelling for a minute as to why they will experience day turning to night today and why the temperature goes up and down,if they can't work out that cause and effect are linked through the rotation of the Earth then they have bigger problems than I can handle.Now,again,be a nuisance if you wish as they are ten a penny,it is the person willing to expand the issues that I am looking for and a few here have done so.

Now good luck to you.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 9:12am

gkell1 wrote: »

The train of facts is the Earth turns once in 24 hours,365 1/4 times for each orbital circuit with 1461 rotations matching 1461 days/4 years,this is not negotiable and that it is challenged reflects the worst possible position humans have found themselves in.

Now,readers either get to grips with what Feb 29th does as both a day/night cycle and closing out 1461 rotations of the Earth across 4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth or they pretend that no such correlation between 24 hours of rotation and daily experiences exist but I am prepared to discuss things with individuals who will adjust to views which are stable and sane,not contend with nuisances who can safely be left to their own devices and especially fools who imagine 1465 rotations in 1461 days.

Since a star passes the meridian every 23hrs 56mins which add up over the course of 4 years to 1465 rotations, how can there be only 1461.
Until you can explain this, your logical abilities are in question.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 9:37am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Since a star passes the meridian every 23hrs 56mins which add up over the course of 4 years to 1465 rotations, how can there be only 1461.
Until you can explain this, your logical abilities are in question.

Look,Newton tried to use the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec to bridge the divide between planetary dynamics and experimental sciences,I do not pretend that you understand what this means as there is generally no reasoning with empiricists but the issue surfaces dramatically when readers observe that there are people with severe difficulties matching rotations with cause and effect at a human level and especially when the issue is the cause of day turning to night and days keeping in tandem with daily rotations.

I am not dumbing things down nor do I wish readers to reciprocate,only allow that the problems and solutions will make themselves known with time and familiarity.You have no business with me if you state something as foolish as you just did, I can go some distance to demonstrate where such an odd conclusion was reached in the late 17th century but the effort is more towards exposing the actual methods which link the daily and rotational dynamics of the Earth to the human timekeeping systems as a convenience as well as its limitations and especially its limitations.

I know the empirical cult all too well,the indoctrinated are physically unable to alter their views no matter what is brought before them and if the balance between rotations and days in terms of effects won't expose the enormous problems existing today then nothing will .I know from the commentary of Galileo that normally wayward views were kept under control but unfortunately as the intricacies of astronomical concepts emerged,it was only a matter of time before someone was going to lunge at a conclusion at odds with observation -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or
establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said
discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which
for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of
dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company
may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

Most likely you would aim that commentary at me but no offence,empiricists are the ones who conclude that 1461 rotations does not match 1461 days/4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth and create a 1465/1461 mismatch.

I will see how this develops,empiricists who genuinely want to get to the bottom of things have nothing to fear as it is removing gross distortions and manipulations that will give them a proper agenda to follow as they once did,the letter of Wallis to Boyle was meant to act as a rough testament to this.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 9:45am

You have proven my point.
Because of your lack of understanding of the most basic principles regarding the rotation and orbits of bodies, any points you try and make about others being incorrect are invalidated.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 10:00am

gkell1 wrote: »

Most likely you would aim that commentary at me but no offence,empiricists are the ones who conclude that 1461 rotations does not match 1461 days/4 years and 4 orbital circuits of the Earth and create a 1465/1461 mismatch.I

There is no reason why an orbiting body's number of rotations in its year should match the number of day/night cycles, in fact no planet in the solar system has such a match.

If a planet rotated counter to its direction of orbit then such a match could be possible, eg a planet that rotates exactly once counter-clockwise for one clockwise orbit would have one day/night cycle and one rotation per year.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 10:54am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is no reason why an orbiting body's number of rotations in its year should match the number of day/night cycles, in fact no planet in the solar system has such a match.

The Irish are both blessed and cursed with a long memory and many of things outsiders would find puzzling,such as why presently there are no riots on our streets, can be answered by a nature that is unique to this Island despite the disappearance of our traditions and the emergence of English common law.When readers see the 'laws of physics' they are simply imitating a group of people who looked on nature the same way they looked at social order -

"Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night./God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light" Alex Pope

Light indeed !,a monkey could tell you that light turns to darkness 1461 times in 4 years/4 orbital circuits due to the rotation of the Earth.

My tradition is from the Brehons and the old Gaelic order,my heritage holds people responsible for their actions,you should read this before you or any other person makes a wild swinging guess or statement without fear of reproach.

"Nor does the fact of having become hereditary appear to have led to the degradation and abuse which might be expected from it in our time, nor to have rendered the office of brehon more easily accessible than before. The essential standard of knowledge was in no degree lowered. The preparatory course of study continued to extend to twenty years. And of course the moral and other requirements were in no degree relaxed. Success as a brehon waited upon ability alone, and failure was attended by so many risks that the profession offered no attraction for unqualified persons. The brehons, like the old Saxon judges, but unlike modern judges, were always liable to damages, disgrace, and other grave punishments if their judgments were illegal or unjust." Brehon laws

http://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Brehons.php

The level of responsibility which is presently acceptable for the office of politicians,scientists,judges or anyone in authority is far too loose and especially in this area of science which affects people more than they can possibly know for when you can cheat and manipulate things at this level and receive recognition for it,anything goes.

The Irish astronomical heritage is magnificent in context of all the other astronomical achievements of people in so many different countries and while the empiricists,for their own self-serving reasons, are convinced that civilization began with the Greeks,history proves otherwise.

What are we to do with fools who believe 1465 rotations in 1461 days,if you were any good I would explain where the rotation of the 'fixed stars' is central to Ra/Dec and Newton's agenda for at least he was systematic in his distortions -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

Don't worry about it,if you knew what was right you would know what this was all about and how it all can be explained in pictures and images.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 11:02am

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is no reason why an orbiting body's number of rotations in its year should match the number of day/night cycles, in fact no planet in the solar system has such a match.

The Irish are both blessed and cursed with a long memory and many of things outsiders would find puzzling,such as why presently there are no riots on our streets, can be answered by a nature that was unique to this Island,at least in terms of societal structure, despite the disappearance of our traditions and the emergence of English common law.When readers see the 'laws of physics' they are simply imitating a group of people who looked on nature the same way they looked at social order -

"Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night./God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light" Alex Pope

Light indeed !,a chimp could tell you that light turns to darkness 1461 times in 4 years/4 orbital circuits due to the rotation of the Earth.

My tradition is from the Brehons and the old Gaelic order,my heritage holds people responsible for their actions,you should read this before you or any other person feels the urge to makes a wild swinging guess or statement without fear of reproach.

"Nor does the fact of having become hereditary appear to have led to the degradation and abuse which might be expected from it in our time, nor to have rendered the office of brehon more easily accessible than before. The essential standard of knowledge was in no degree lowered. The preparatory course of study continued to extend to twenty years. And of course the moral and other requirements were in no degree relaxed. Success as a brehon waited upon ability alone, and failure was attended by so many risks that the profession offered no attraction for unqualified persons. The brehons, like the old Saxon judges, but unlike modern judges, were always liable to damages, disgrace, and other grave punishments if their judgments were illegal or unjust." Brehon laws

http://www.libraryireland.com/Brehon-Laws/Brehons.php

The level of responsibility assigned to politicians,scientists,judges or anyone in authority is far too loose and at a low level and especially in this area of science which affects people more than they can possibly know for when you can cheat and manipulate things at this level and receive recognition for it,anything goes.The empirical peer review process merely rubberstamps the 'laws of physics' which is to say the continuation of a cycle where nobody rocks the boat,it doesn't matter if doctorates can't tell you what causes day to turn to night,as long as reputations and salaries are tied to the 'scientific method' there is no incentive to change or adapt and no responsibility whatsoever.

The Irish astronomical heritage is magnificent in context of all the other astronomical achievements of people in so many different countries and while the empiricists,for their own self-serving reasons, are convinced that civilization began with the Greeks,history proves otherwise.

What are we to do with fools who believe 1465 rotations in 1461 days,if you were any good I would explain where the rotation of the 'fixed stars' is central to Ra/Dec and Newton's agenda for at least he was systematic in his distortions -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton

Don't worry about it,if you knew what was right you would know what this was all about and how it all can be explained in pictures and images.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 11:22am

Ahhh.... sure what can I say but the old saying "there but for the grace of God go I".

An "einsteinian" use of the word God

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 12:02pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Ahhh.... sure what can I say but the old saying "there but for the grace of God go I".

,

A person who cannot match days with rotations across the 1461 days/ 4 years of the calendar system is about as intellectually weak as there is,the utterly ridiculous 1465 rotations/1461 days was originally done to promote the 'laws of physics' and the clockwork solar system of Newton so forget Einstein and those who merely made things worse,this is a fight to recover the string of facts which keep days and nights in tandem with rotations.

As a Catholic,I am well aware of the Gregorian calendar correction which was necessary to restore the number of rotations back in sync with the orbital cycle as the idealized annual correction of 365 days 6 hours and the actual value of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes produces an annual 11 minute orbital drift that accumulates and needs an additional correction beyond the normal Feb 29th correction and to watch the Church remain silent while this tragedy unfolds is more damaging than anything else it has and has not done.

It took Royal Society empiricists 150 years to correct the calendar system to where it should be after the Church had introduced the modification and the reason they celebrate the battle of the Boyne instead of Aughrim on the 12th July is because of that intransigence and that description would be familiar to many Irish readers here in a different matter regarding recent history.The same with Piltdown man hoax,they simply shut their eyes and pretended nothing was wrong for 40 years with the difference being that the cause off the day/night cycle as days and dates within the calendar system is within reach of any reasonable person and not a specialist or expert.

I don't know,we are a proud nation and are not subject to anyone's laws be they social or otherwise and by God,we will not suffer something as utterly stupid as the one that came out of Royal Society England in the late 17th century.The great Englishman John Harrison who built accurate watches around the principle of the Earth's rotation in 24 hours and that we can go outside any time and put this principle into experience as day turns to night knew such hostile opposition from the Royal Society crowd as Newton stated that longitude was not to be found by a watch,the point being that nobody in your empirical circle challenges Newton,not even a guy from West Cork -

" I have told the world oftener than once that longitude is not to be found by watchmakers but by the ablest astronomers. I am unwilling to meddle with any other method than the right one." Newton

One of the oldest clock in the world is Newgrange,the people who built it would have known that they could not continue to show up after every 365 days and expect the shortest day of the year to remain fixed to that number of days but the drift would become obvious after 20 years as even without clocks the ancients knew they had to apply an extra day after every 4 years to maintain the correspondence between the day and the year.

I have certainly lost this forum,no doubt about that,but the idea that we have this astronomical heritage and can't use it effectively is extremely dismal if not painful.I have to apply the saying of another Irishman here -

"Like all poetical natures he loved ignorant people. He knew that in
the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great
idea.
But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made
stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which
they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ
when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge,
cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it,
though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.." Oscar
Wilde

Ellis Dee · 27-10-2011 1:05pm

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/

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 1:33pm

gkell1 wrote: »

,

A person who cannot match days with rotations across the 1461 days/ 4 years of the calendar system is about as intellectually weak as there is,the utterly ridiculous 1465 rotations/1461 days was originally done to promote the 'laws of physics' and the clockwork solar system of Newton so forget Einstein and those who merely made things worse,this is a fight to recover the string of facts which keep days and nights in tandem with rotations.

My very last input here, changing our calender, irrespective of what you do with it, will no more match up day/night cycles with axial rotations than the renaming of "a dog" to "a cow" will magically turn a small jack russell terrier into a large grass eating ruminant.

One has a period of 24hrs the other a period of 23hrs 56min, that 4 minute difference cannot be magically removed.

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 3:47pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

My very last input here, changing our calender, irrespective of what you do with it, will no more match up day/night cycles with axial rotations than the renaming of "a dog" to "a cow" will magically turn a small jack russell terrier into a large grass eating ruminant.

One has a period of 24hrs the other a period of 23hrs 56min, that 4 minute difference cannot be magically removed.

I allow that people don't give basic planetary facts much thought,ask them to go outside and show that the Earth is round and they will probably be stumped momentarily but once they hear the arguments they will be fine with the result of the Earth's curvature -

"..as sailors are aware, since land which is not seen from a ship is visible from the top of its mast. On the other hand, if a light is attached to the top of the mast, as the ship draws away from land, those who remain ashore see the light drop down gradually until it finally disappears, as though setting." Copernicus

That one 24 hour day equates to a rotation of the Earth is no different,that Feb 29th 2012 as both a normal day and 24 hours of rotation will close out the 4 orbital circuits of 1461 days that began on Mar 1st 2008 is tied to the effect of daylight turning to darkness and daily temperature fluctuations and really doesn't require much effort to comprehend.Bad and all as the creationists are,at least they made it to the level where they understand that daylight follows darkness once a day and your views which try to disrupt the balance between days and rotations are truly that awful.

The creation of watches around the principles of the 24 hour day derived as an average from natural noon and the return of the Sun happens 1461 times in 4 years and 4 orbital circuits and within the calendar system as a format of 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.What you numbskulls do is take the average 24 hour day and then attach significance to the return of a circumpolar star even though you have been alerted to the principles that such a determination is made using the convenience of the calendar system,in short,you painted yourselves a monster.In another issue Copernicus comments on what happens when you introduce an unwanted conclusion such as linking daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion -

".. although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. 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. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been fallacies, everything which follows from them could be independently verified." De revolutionibus, 1543

The rise of the toxic strain of empiricism is not just wrong,it is a phenomena as what person in their right mind would argue against cause and effect at the level of the day/night cycle and daily rotation .I don't fault you and although a nuisance you are merely fighting for your late 17th century Royal Society cult but some individuals must have known immediately that when a reader is found arguing against 1461 rotations in 1461 days that something has gone badly wrong.

I never believed we were an island of saints and scholars but neither did I accept the 'thick' tag either,I do firmly believe that we are blessed with individual talents and are afraid of nothing which outsiders glibly call the 'luck of the Irish' when we excel at something.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 4:46pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

My very last input here

OK, the above statement is not true

gkell1 wrote: »

What you numbskulls do is take the average 24 hour day and then attach significance to the return of a circumpolar star even though you have been alerted to the principles that such a determination is made using the convenience of the calendar system

LOL

In another issue Copernicus comments on what happens when you introduce an unwanted conclusion such as linking daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion

Here is the full un-edited text, it is actually Copernicus arguing against the Ptolemaic system. You left out the bit where he says he was talking about eccentric circles and epicycles. LOL

I was impelled to think out another way of calculating the motions
of the spheres of the universe by nothing else than the realisation that
the mathematicians thems e lves are inconsistent in investigating
t h em. For f i r s t, the mathematicians are so uncertain of the motion of
the Sun and Moon that they cannot represent or even be consistent
with the constant length of the seasonal year. Secondly, in establishing
the motions both of the Sun and Moon and of the other five wandering
stars they do not use the same principles or assumptions, or explanations of their apparent revolutions and motions.
For some use only
homocentric circles, others eccentric circles and epicycles, from
which however the required consequences do not completely follow.
For those who have relied on homocentric circles, although they have
shown that diverse motions can be constructed from them, have not
from that been able to establish anything certain, which would
without doubt correspond with the phenomena. But those who have
devised eccentric circles, although they seem to a great extent to have
extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless have in the process admitted much which seems
to contravene the first principle of regularity of motion. Also they have
not been able to discover or deduce from them the chief thing, that is
the form of the universe, and the clear symmetry of its parts. They are
just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other
limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modelled
from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a
monster would be produced from them rather than a man. 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. For if the hypotheses which they assumed had not been
fallacious, everything which follows from them could be indisputably
verified

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 5:03pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Here is the full un-edited text, it is actually Copernicus arguing against the Ptolemaic system.

The sentence stated -

"In another issue Copernicus comments on what happens when you introduce an unwanted conclusion such as linking daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion" Gkell1

The issue is what happens when you introduce a false conclusion which you do by attaching daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and arrive at 1465 rotations in 1461 days as the conclusion can be tested against human experience of 1461 rotations in 1461 days through daylight turning to darkness and temperature fluctuations hence the commentary of Copernicus is directed in a specific technical sense at the most stupid people ever to appear on the planet -

".. although they have extracted from them the apparent motions, with numerical agreement, nevertheless . . . . They are just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head, and other limbs from different places, well painted indeed, but not modeled from the same body, and not in the least matching each other, so that a monster would be produced from them rather than a man. 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

Empiricists care nothing for family,community or nation,as long as the late 17th century Newton is adored and the calendar based Ra/Dec system he built around 'predictions' the one where you imagine that day/nights do not mesh with the number of rotations is stated as a 'fact' even though it is hideous.This is what you believe,nothing more and nothing less and it is inhumanly unhealthy -

"Nature and nature's laws lay hid in Night./God said, 'Let Newton be!' and all was light" Alex Pope

So much for Irish independence,a people who cannot manage to count the number of rotations and days in 4 years/4 orbital circuits knows only a slavery I wouldn't wish in anybody let alone a nation and that I am here maintaining a response with a guy who can't maintain the day/rotation balance is more repulsive than you will ever know given that not one person objected to hideous assumption that the Earth does not rotate once in 24 hours with daily effects as a final arbiter of the link between days and rotations in balance.

The empirical cult is a phenomena,that a guy from West Cork is supporting the idiocy of late 17th century Royal Society empiricism and the dumbest conclusion ever reached is proof enough that something went badly wrong and so it did.Somehow the loss of planetary facts is treated like trivia when readers should be horrified as all this trickles into the education system and the people empiricists choose to treat as achievers and heroes.A dunce like Newton deserves only ridicule regardless of who promotes him as a person apart,if the result of his system turns men against cause and effect at a level of days and rotations ,people better believe this is not good and never will be.

People can do better than this.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 5:12pm

But those who have
devised eccentric circles, although they seem to a great extent to have
extracted from them the apparent motions [..............] They are
just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head[........

LOL

you forgot the bit in bold, again.

He is not talking about deducing the fact the earth rotates from the circumpolar motion of the stars.

gkell1 wrote: »

"In another issue Copernicus comments on what happens when you introduce an unwanted conclusion such as linking daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion"

You say "such as" not Copernicus. LOL .

gkell1 · 27-10-2011 5:46pm

Cú Giobach wrote: »

But those who have
devised eccentric circles, although they seem to a great extent to have
extracted from them the apparent motions [..............] They are
just like someone including in a picture hands, feet, head[........

LOL you forgot the bit in bold, again.

He is not talking about deducing the fact the earth rotates from the circumpolar motion of the stars.

You are looking for any loophole and this is fine,however badly I phrased the sentence about people who draw false conclusions by using the commentary of Copernicus in such matters,it still stands that it applies to people who imagine 1465 rotations in 1461 days,a monster of a system which defies experience as any sane human being will testify by experiencing day turning to night 1461 times due to the rotation of the Earth and corresponding to 4 years /4 orbital circuits.

Your particular system uses the calendar convenience of 365 days in 3 years and 366 days in 1 year to draw a conclusion that a star returns to the same position 366 1/4 time that can only contain 365 1/4 rotations.Any reasonable person who is aware that the average 24 hour day is referenced to the central Sun and rotation happens 1461 times in 4 years would have no problem determining that the human devised 24 hour average that still retains the rotational marker of AM and PM (Ante and Post meridiem) and allows the steady transiton from one 24 hour day to the next 24 hour day substitutes for steady daily rotation as an assumption and not a direct observation.Too stupid to know that daily and orbital motions are combined and no external reference can be used to isolate daily rotation,the Feb 29th correction which maintains the proportion of 365 1/4 rotations to 1 orbital circuit is the one certain technical point that resolves the ability to distinguish daily and orbital motions and expanded to 1461 rotations in 4 orbital circuits is a no-brainer as they say.

Again,you are merely indoctrinated into Royal Society empiricism for a person who cannot express that one day and its experienced effects is the same as 24 hours of rotation is not in control of the reasoning faculties and it gives everyone else a lesson in what I have dealt with for over a decade.You think you are defending Newton's clockwork solar system but I see it differently,I see people paying the price for ignoring their heritage and forgetting that the best things in life are close to human experience.If a person cannot go outside and mesh their experience of a day with one 24 hour rotation of the Earth then they may as well give up,I couldn't do it yet you and many others like you can and that is not directed as an insult but as an affliction you have.

I have certainly lost this forum and although I always abide by my astronomical heritage which covers astronomy from timekeeping to invention,adventure to interpretation and there I make my home,the loss of this forum is probably one of the saddest as it has readers of my home nation here.You want to create an imbalance between 1461 rotations and 1461 days then fine and I will reluctantly let it stand as the fight has gone out of my race and it shows.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You say "such as" not Copernicus. LOL .

Unless you are absolutely intent on avoiding the use of "In another issue Copernicus comments.." I wouldn't make a huge deal out of it even if I accept the sentence was badly phrased .It still leaves the monster of a system painted by late 17th century empiricists who tried to model the motions of the Earth using the calendar system by not sticking to the proper principles and that is where the commentary of Copernicus is relevant.

People can do better,behind the technical issues is a hope for intellectual honesty in a world that hasn't seen much lately and this hope comes from a position of intellectual strength and not the indoctrinating weakness of a late 17th century cult that is Newton's toxic strain of empiricism.

Cú Giobach · 27-10-2011 6:03pm

gkell1 wrote: »

it still stands that it applies to people who imagine 1465 rotations in 1461 days,a system which defies experience as any sane human being will testify by experiencing day turning to night 1461 times due to the rotation of the Earth.
l

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

I see it differently

You certainly do. Do you live here.

I always abide by my astronomical heritage

ROFL

:D:D:D
Please stop, now my sides are hurting.

Is Pluto a planet?

Comments