Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
More horseshït. A swarm of locusts in the Horn of Africa is "due to the climate crisis". No evidence given, just a statement of fact.
https://www.ecowatch.com/locust-swarm-east-africa-2644928358.html0 -
I don't know if anyone on here watches the UK Met Office weekly pod stream on YouTube, but as of late, they talk about the concept of 'climate change' now almost as much as they are talking about the actual weather. Really becoming insufferable at this point and it just totally takes away from the enjoyment of just wanting to sit down and enjoy some weather talk.
New Moon
0 -
-
Gaoth Laidir wrote: »More horseshït. A swarm of locusts in the Horn of Africa is "due to the climate crisis". No evidence given, just a statement of fact.
https://www.ecowatch.com/locust-swarm-east-africa-2644928358.html
Can you follow links? The evidence is given in one.0 -
I can't imagine that anyone could be so dense as to imagine that acknowledgement of the concept of sidereal day would force one to abandon the understanding of solar day, that is like saying that if one accepts the concept of bank charges, one cannot have a bank balance.
Oriel36 is either the biggest buffoon in the history of the internet (no mean feat) or just having us on with a prank meant to illustrate some obscure point known only to himself.
May I point out that precession is not some hoax or imaginary construct, it has been observed over time and is the reason why constellations now rise one month later (at same time of solar day/night cycle) than they did in the Roman empire period, and almost two months later than in the early Egyptian dynasties. So the old reliable sign of the rising of Sirius predicting the Nile flood would be worthless now since Sirius rises with the morning sunrise about three months later than when the sign was considered useful. Hence the phrase "dog days of summer" refers back to those times since Sirius is the brightest star of the constellation Canis Major. Another indicator is that astrological signs are now one month out of sync with the actual position of the Sun in the zodiac. Not that I am a follower, but I do know that these signs were developed back in Roman times when the Sun was in those signs during the months assigned, nowadays, the Sun reaches those zodiac signs one month later (example, Taurus is supposed to be 22 Apr to 21 May, but that applied to the position of the Sun over two thousand years ago, nowadays, the Sun moves through Taurus during the next astrological sign, Gemini, etc).
So precession is real, and sidereal day is just a construct that means nothing much to climate and weather, but to say that it is a mistake or foolishness is just idiocy, you can have whatever frame of reference you wish, the point being more whether it's relevant to any important consideration or not. Sidereal day is useful to astronomers, but has no obvious connection to meteorology.
Another point that I should address was that question of climatic variability in the past. Whether I am an expert or not is actually not the point at all, but recognized experts such as Hubert Lamb, considered to be the foremost climatologist of the 20th century in Britain at least, always gave more emphasis to variability than is now the case, and he was no skeptic of global warming, in fact in his later years he helped found the East Anglia climate unit and spoke about the possibility of a significant temperature rise in the 21st century (but also about cooling beyond that).
He was more of a proponent of the MWP than some modern so-called experts. I would not put much stock in the designation of "expert" in climate change since it's a debated field and who can in fact be an expert in something that is so hazily defined and unknown? But in my own case, while I have no fragile ego to protect, if you want to define expert or non-expert, then in strictly legal terms I might qualify as expert since I have training in the field and work experience. Whether you accept my views or not, the fact remains that I did receive whatever education was available at the time I was a student. And my work is not inconsiderable, I have put together many pages of studies on various climate records, which is perhaps more than many climate scientists have actually done.
That map of the global pattern in the MWP is almost entirely fiction anyway, who's to say that Kazakhstan was cold for two centuries while Greenland and Labrador were evidently in a mild phase? It looks contrived and made up to me, and we keep running into this with climate science, bold and strident requests to take them very seriously as super-intelligent experts, yet many holes and questionable incidents in their approach, like rank amateurs basically, and one has to wonder if the whole house of cards might not come tumbling down if there were a rebellion among the core of scientists involved? I don't trust anything that they say or do, it seems too closely aligned to political movements that I distrust and fear, because as somebody once said, you can vote your way in, but you have to shoot your way out. (the same applies to any totalitarian concept although I believe that was said about communism, they are all dead end paths to a failed state but the failure can be postponed for decades with the application of sufficient force as we see in China or even in Venezuela).
I feel a deep sorrow that our science, which used to be collegial and non-political, has fallen into the hands of ideologues who want to use it to further their political agenda. The fact that they then lie about it just confirms my suspicions that they have a consciousness of guilt. And it is being applied unevenly showing that you can buy your way into the club. When was the last time you heard a climate scientist berating China for its lax environmental standards?0 -
Advertisement
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
...
I feel a deep sorrow that our science, which used to be collegial and non-political, has fallen into the hands of ideologues who want to use it to further their political agenda. The fact that they then lie about it just confirms my suspicions that they have a consciousness of guilt. And it is being applied unevenly showing that you can buy your way into the club. When was the last time you heard a climate scientist berating China for its lax environmental standards?
You did well to get accusations of extremism, lies, fraud, conspiracy and corruption into one, short and bitter, peroration.
Have you been taking trolling lessons from O36?0 -
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »I can't imagine that anyone could be so dense as to imagine that acknowledgement of the concept of sidereal day would force one to abandon the understanding of solar day, that is like saying that if one accepts the concept of bank charges, one cannot have a bank balance.
Oriel36 is either the biggest buffoon in the history of the internet (no mean feat) or just having us on with a prank meant to illustrate some obscure point known only to himself.
May I point out that precession is not some hoax or imaginary construct, it has been observed over time and is the reason why constellations now rise one month later (at same time of solar day/night cycle) than they did in the Roman empire period, and almost two months later than in the early Egyptian dynasties. So the old reliable sign of the rising of Sirius predicting the Nile flood would be worthless now since Sirius rises with the morning sunrise about three months later than when the sign was considered useful. Hence the phrase "dog days of summer" refers back to those times since Sirius is the brightest star of the constellation Canis Major. Another indicator is that astrological signs are now one month out of sync with the actual position of the Sun in the zodiac. Not that I am a follower, but I do know that these signs were developed back in Roman times when the Sun was in those signs during the months assigned, nowadays, the Sun reaches those zodiac signs one month later (example, Taurus is supposed to be 22 Apr to 21 May, but that applied to the position of the Sun over two thousand years ago, nowadays, the Sun moves through Taurus during the next astrological sign, Gemini, etc).
So precession is real, and sidereal day is just a construct that means nothing much to climate and weather, but to say that it is a mistake or foolishness is just idiocy, you can have whatever frame of reference you wish, the point being more whether it's relevant to any important consideration or not. Sidereal day is useful to astronomers, but has no obvious connection to meteorology.
Another point that I should address was that question of climatic variability in the past. Whether I am an expert or not is actually not the point at all, but recognized experts such as Hubert Lamb, considered to be the foremost climatologist of the 20th century in Britain at least, always gave more emphasis to variability than is now the case, and he was no skeptic of global warming, in fact in his later years he helped found the East Anglia climate unit and spoke about the possibility of a significant temperature rise in the 21st century (but also about cooling beyond that).
He was more of a proponent of the MWP than some modern so-called experts. I would not put much stock in the designation of "expert" in climate change since it's a debated field and who can in fact be an expert in something that is so hazily defined and unknown? But in my own case, while I have no fragile ego to protect, if you want to define expert or non-expert, then in strictly legal terms I might qualify as expert since I have training in the field and work experience. Whether you accept my views or not, the fact remains that I did receive whatever education was available at the time I was a student. And my work is not inconsiderable, I have put together many pages of studies on various climate records, which is perhaps more than many climate scientists have actually done.
That map of the global pattern in the MWP is almost entirely fiction anyway, who's to say that Kazakhstan was cold for two centuries while Greenland and Labrador were evidently in a mild phase? It looks contrived and made up to me, and we keep running into this with climate science, bold and strident requests to take them very seriously as super-intelligent experts, yet many holes and questionable incidents in their approach, like rank amateurs basically, and one has to wonder if the whole house of cards might not come tumbling down if there were a rebellion among the core of scientists involved? I don't trust anything that they say or do, it seems too closely aligned to political movements that I distrust and fear, because as somebody once said, you can vote your way in, but you have to shoot your way out. (the same applies to any totalitarian concept although I believe that was said about communism, they are all dead end paths to a failed state but the failure can be postponed for decades with the application of sufficient force as we see in China or even in Venezuela).
I feel a deep sorrow that our science, which used to be collegial and non-political, has fallen into the hands of ideologues who want to use it to further their political agenda. The fact that they then lie about it just confirms my suspicions that they have a consciousness of guilt. And it is being applied unevenly showing that you can buy your way into the club. When was the last time you heard a climate scientist berating China for its lax environmental standards?
You’ve seriously lost it MT
Are you saying that climate change is all a Chinese conspiracy? Who is buying off all these scientists?
Are all these scientists communists in disguise?
You’re ridiculously paranoid about communists taking over under the guise of action on climate change.
Get over yourself. You’re not the last of a great breed of climate scientists and everyone now is just lying about the science.
You’re a contrarian, you’re the crank on the hill shouting about socialists coming to take over everything and accusing everyone else with expertise who disagrees with you of being in on the conspiracy0 -
I don't know if anyone on here watches the UK Met Office weekly pod stream on YouTube, but as of late, they talk about the concept of 'climate change' now almost as much as they are talking about the actual weather. Really becoming insufferable at this point and it just totally takes away from the enjoyment of just wanting to sit down and enjoy some weather talk.
I used to watch the news to hear about cats getting rescued from trees but all those murders really took away from my enjoyment0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I know, globalism isn't communism, it's just a collectivist ideology that is based on Marxism and wants to use force and a one-party state to achieve its goals.
Vast difference -- my bad.
("hail to the new king, same as the old king.")
Apparently climate skeptics have no monopoly on denial. But believe what you want. I'm a libertarian, that's what I do on a regular basis.0 -
Well the one thing that the critic got wrong was how I might see myself, actually I would not want the title of "climate scientist" at all, I think that's for the modern breed, I just see myself as one of many people with longer memories of what climatology used to be like and what its goals used to be. That was a long way from what is going on with climate science.
As to the rest of the critique, I don't deny in the least being very concerned about the conflation of climate science and far leftist political agendas which are inherently opposed to free enterprise and prosperity. This is exactly how it has played out in recent years in each western country and to say otherwise is just another bald-faced lie. I would rather advise governments to accept what is more than likely inevitable, and to stop adding ridiculous burdens onto the lives of their citizens in a futile effort to change that inevitable outcome.
If that makes me some sort of bad person in your eyes, I couldn't care less. I am doing what I think is right. Aren't you?0 -
Who is buying off all these scientists?
Never mind that.
All these climate scientists are out rating and validating each others' scientific research papers through peer reviews.
I have a huge problem with that and it is not discussed enough if at all.
It is absurd and against all objectivity expected of any scientific field. It's actually a scandal but there are no proper controls on it.0 -
As to being "paranoid" -- if it was just a concern for my own freedom, I think I can outlast the globalists, I am fairly close to the end of my expected run anyway.
I am concerned for the freedom of younger generations who may be forced into the new feudalism of the globalists. It may not be exactly the same as communism (or fascism which some others compare it to) but with totalitarian ideas and systems, what difference does it make what you call it, the basic concept is that an elite uses force to turn their fellow citizens into slaves for their own benefit.
What do you think is really going on with this climate change political agenda?
Do you think the elites will cycle to work, grow their food on their balconies, and give up consumer goods?
Did the elites who ran the USSR give up much? No. But the citizens were expected to do so. It's the same old same old. Call it whatever name you want, it is a form of enslavement. Once they have you feeling guilty for wanting any sort of a life, they have you. But watch them closely, they won't be giving much up, it's you that will be expected to do that. Hence the concept of offsets (we can do this because we purchased an offset). Yeah right, do as they say, not as they do.
Greta is a good little party girl, she stays off the planes and goes by boat. Sooner or later she will just swim. When they don't need her any more, she will probably have to swim. Think I'm kidding? Let's revisit this around 2040 and see where we are then. Maybe enough people will come to their senses that my concerns will prove to be superfluous. I hope so.0 -
Peer review !! Haha. There’s no scientific validation for climate change , not even “observe a phenomena” . It’s a modern day myth. Believers only require hysterical observance of every day weather events and historical weather/climate reports and make deductions on these to suit their obscene scaremongering narrative. Never before has such an incredible lie been sold so well. Even intelligent people are falling for this anti-science climate change agenda. I challenge them every time to demonstrate via scientific method that climate change exists. None of them have even heard of the scientific method and rely on some new age science that allows observance (historical or present reports then declaring “SCIENCE “) to overrule respected scientific method. Scary times ahead in my opinion.0
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
May I point out that precession is not some hoax or imaginary construct, it has been observed over time and is the reason why constellations now rise one month later (at same time of solar day/night cycle) than they did in the Roman empire period, and almost two months later than in the early Egyptian dynasties.
The Precession of the Equinoxes has a wonderful explanation that can only be explained within the older framework where the stars transition from an evening to morning appearance or what is effectively from left to right of the Sun.
https://sol24.net/data/html/SOHO/C3/96H/VIDEO/
It is remarkable that nobody here admires the new demonstration that the Earth orbits the Sun using the change in position of the stars due solely to the orbital motion of the Earth (minus daily rotation) thereby setting the Sun up as a central and stationary reference for all observations.
The first annual appearance of Sirius ( that date changes with latitude in case non-astronomers like the meteorologist wonder) represents a celestial marker for the Earth orbital position in space as the star appears just far enough to the right side of the Sun to be seen as a dawn appearance -
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181123.html
Because days equate to rotations, the ancient astronomers saw that Sirius would skip a first annual appearance by one day after four cycles of 365 days hence -
".. on account of the precession of the rising of Sirius by one day in the course of 4 years,.. therefore it shall be, that the year of 360 days and the 5 days added to their end, so one day shall be from this day after every 4 years added to the 5 epagomenae before the new year" Canopus Decree 238 BC
The proportion of 1461 rotations for 4 orbital circuits reduces, by simple arithmetic, to 365 1/4 days/rotations for one orbital circuit to a close proximity.
The slight drift in the position of the stars above and beyond the dynamics of the calendar framework (Sirius and its drift ) is a consequence that a further refinement is required using the same principles as those which create the calendar. It was this drift that was tackled by the Catholic Church as dates drifted away from the Equinox and Solstice positions hence they applied a 10 day correction in 1582 while the Royal Society dunces refused to enact until 150 years later.
All these explanation require a decent graphical and imaging treatment so I cobble together what imaging and historical documents I can to support that the Earth turns once each day, 365 1/4 times for one orbital circuit and 1461 times in 4 orbital circuits/4 years.
The academic airheads today think the Earth turns once in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds , 366 1/4 times for one orbital circuit, 1465 times in 4 orbital circuit/4 years due to the clockwork solar system modelers that sprung into existence a few centuries ago. I guess people have no pride in themselves.
Once again, because it is so important for genuine climate research,axial precession doesn't account for the Precession of the Equinoxes but rather is resolved by using proportions of daily rotations to orbital circuits as a further refinement. It restores the original correct perspective of Copernicus, at least concerning the rotation of North and South Poles each orbit to the circle of illumination and the central Sun each year -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#/media/File:Earth_precession.svg
In the absence of daily rotation and all its effects, the entire surface of the Earth still turns once to the Sun each year but parallel to the orbital plane.
It accounts for the polar day/night cycle in isolation at the North/South Poles and the seasons where this surface rotation combines with daily rotation.0 -
Peer review !! Haha. There’s no scientific validation for climate change , not even “observe a phenomena” . It’s a modern day myth. Believers only require hysterical observance of every day weather events and historical weather/climate reports and make deductions on these to suit their obscene scaremongering narrative. Never before has such an incredible lie been sold so well. Even intelligent people are falling for this anti-science climate change agenda. I challenge them every time to demonstrate via scientific method that climate change exists. None of them have even heard of the scientific method and rely on some new age science that allows observance (historical or present reports then declaring “SCIENCE “) to overrule respected scientific method. Scary times ahead in my opinion.
So, you're saying: its not been ridiculously mild this winter? You're saying that its not been even more mild in eastern Europe? You're saying that glaciers aren't melting? You're saying sea ice isn't declining? You're saying all the evidence and data that shows warming consistent with model projection is what? Lies, fraud, a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people from across the scientific spectrum?
Really?0 -
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »Never mind that.
All these climate scientists are out rating and validating each others' scientific research papers through peer reviews.
I have a huge problem with that and it is not discussed enough if at all.
It is absurd and against all objectivity expected of any scientific field. It's actually a scandal but there are no proper controls on it.
Tell you what, you read the scientific research papers you don''t like, correct them, and the let us know what is right?
Would that be doable? I do want to know the truth and you seem like an authority we could trust.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
M.T. Cranium wrote: »As to being "paranoid" -- if it was just a concern for my own freedom, I think I can outlast the globalists, I am fairly close to the end of my expected run anyway.
I am concerned for the freedom of younger generations who may be forced into the new feudalism of the globalists. It may not be exactly the same as communism (or fascism which some others compare it to) but with totalitarian ideas and systems, what difference does it make what you call it, the basic concept is that an elite uses force to turn their fellow citizens into slaves for their own benefit.
What do you think is really going on with this climate change political agenda?
Do you think the elites will cycle to work, grow their food on their balconies, and give up consumer goods?
Did the elites who ran the USSR give up much? No. But the citizens were expected to do so. It's the same old same old. Call it whatever name you want, it is a form of enslavement. Once they have you feeling guilty for wanting any sort of a life, they have you. But watch them closely, they won't be giving much up, it's you that will be expected to do that. Hence the concept of offsets (we can do this because we purchased an offset). Yeah right, do as they say, not as they do.
Greta is a good little party girl, she stays off the planes and goes by boat. Sooner or later she will just swim. When they don't need her any more, she will probably have to swim. Think I'm kidding? Let's revisit this around 2040 and see where we are then. Maybe enough people will come to their senses that my concerns will prove to be superfluous. I hope so.
What is free life about, IYO? How can I spot true freedom?
Is work slavery? Is consumerism slavery? Is a buy and throw away culture a kind of slavery?
I think you might have the answers.......0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »
I can't imagine that anyone could be so dense as to imagine that acknowledgement of the concept of sidereal day would force one to abandon the understanding of solar day, that is like saying that if one accepts the concept of bank charges, one cannot have a bank balance.
The fraudulent pseudo-science of 17th century astrophysics is based on the solar vs sidereal day fantasy so contemporaries have lost the basic facts of a round and rotating Earth and into the relationship to Earth sciences including the relationship between one rotation and the day/night cycle.
Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100s
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1674.4 km/h; 1040.4 mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
The Earth's rotation is determined by the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems so the Equatorial rotation velocity is actually 1669.7 km/h; 1037.5 mph and therefore turning its full 24,901 mile equatorial circumference in 24 hours. It is from this point of view that the connection between one day/night cycle and rotations anchored to the central/stationary Sun (noon) come into play.
All the squirming is due to a historical maneuver where the late 17th century guys tried to displace the Lat/Long system with RA/Dec so they could have their dull and clunky clockwork solar system. The same happened with climate as computer modelers organised things to suit themselves so what happened with clocks in the late 17th century is happening with computer generated hallucinations in ours.
People should be temporarily ashamed of themselves when they see the Wikipedia article about our home planet being unable to express the facts of a round and rotating Earth for everything else will be junk when referring planetary motions to Earth sciences.0 -
I am tolerant of different points of view, just when one of them decides that it has to enforce that point of view and silence anyone who disagrees with it, do we see problems for personal freedom.
As to how any individual finds balance, that is likely to be a religious question more than a philosophical one, and this is not the right forum for a religious discussion. But as you might guess, my religious views are not particularly aggressive towards others, what works for me might not work at all for the next person (and vice versa). I have my hands full making sense of my own life and don't consider myself some sort of guru for other people making sense of their lives. Good luck to anyone who tries to do so. The advice we got was "seek and ye shall find," and that has proven to be very helpful to me in my life. But what I found was certainly not what I expected to find.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »I am tolerant of different points of view, just when one of them decides that it has to enforce that point of view and silence anyone who disagrees with it, do we see problems for personal freedom.
As to how any individual finds balance, that is likely to be a religious question more than a philosophical one, and this is not the right forum for a religious discussion. But as you might guess, my religious views are not particularly aggressive towards others, what works for me might not work at all for the next person (and vice versa). I have my hands full making sense of my own life and don't consider myself some sort of guru for other people making sense of their lives. Good luck to anyone who tries to do so. The advice we got was "seek and ye shall find," and that has proven to be very helpful to me in my life. But what I found was certainly not what I expected to find.
Look, you said we are going to be enslaved. OK, what does not being enslaved look like? Or don't you know?0 -
The fraudulent pseudo-science of 17th century astrophysics is based on the solar vs sidereal day fantasy so contemporaries have lost the basic facts of a round and rotating Earth and into the relationship to Earth sciences including the relationship between one rotation and the day/night cycle.
Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100s
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1674.4 km/h; 1040.4 mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
The Earth's rotation is determined by the 24 hour and Lat/Long systems so the Equatorial rotation velocity is actually 1669.7 km/h; 1037.5 mph and therefore turning its full 24,901 mile circumference in 24 hours.
All the squirming is due to a historical maneuver where the late 17th century guys tried to displace the Lat/Long system with RA/Dec so they could have their dull and clunky clockwork solar system. The same happened with climate as computer modelers organised things to suit themselves.
People should be ashamed of themselves when they see the Wikipedia article on our home planet being unable to express the facts of a round and rotating Earth for everything else will be junk when referring planetary motions to Earth sciences.
Lat/long vs RA/dec is not a choice of two competing paradigms, it is simply an observation that there are two ways to measure space from two components of the earth's orbit in space. One method (RA/dec) uses our equitorial plane, the other (lat/long) uses our orbital plane. The two are not the same because we are moving along at a 23.4 deg tilt (as you keep saying) so you can in theory have two systems depending on which plane you use as a frame of reference.
There is no shame in choosing one over the other. And people who are familiar with the two systems know that the earth moves around the Sun once a year and rotates 365.25 times on its axis relative to the Sun (in slightly rounded numbers). Knowing how to speak French does not mean that I forget all the meanings of words in English. I think that's what your objection suggests, that if we pollute our minds with the wrong system (I think RA/dec is your bogeyman) then we somehow lose our ability to understand anything in the right system. I don't see one as right and one as wrong. In fact it was inevitable that somebody would move us from one system to two. Maybe there's a third one waiting to be uncovered. Something about timing lines and well I won't get into the rest of that.0 -
Look, you said we are going to be enslaved. OK, what does not being enslaved look like? Or don't you know?
Well just visit your local school and see if you can spot an example or two.
I am warning people that they will be enslaved, I don't intend to be.
Another way to avoid it is to become a slave-driver.
There is nothing new under the sun in regards to human behaviour.
Whenever you have an opinion that an elite insists that the underclasses must hold to be full citizens, you have the foundation for slavery. People must then choose to be either willing slaves, rebels, or what I call "secret grumblers" which would be people who think like me but prefer to keep their views hidden because they fear reprisals (or even the foul looks of their virtue signalling neighbours and relatives). That is also a sort of slavery.
But here's where I would start, set aside two weeks and read The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It is tough going. But it's even tougher coming back.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Lat/long vs RA/dec is not a choice of two competing paradigms, it is simply an observation that there are two ways to measure space from two components of the earth's orbit in space.
The planet turns once each day and a thousand times in a thousand days so watching you squirm to excuse a silly late 17th century mistake and carelessness is not the reasonable considerations of a person in the 21st century. I have experience of what you do for over two decades and know all too well that neither the road to disaster is acknowledged nor the road to recovering basic planetary facts is within your perspective therefore it is for those who can recognise a shell ideology when they see it before moving on to productive and creative research.
Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4.100s
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1674.4 km/h; 1040.4 mph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
If a person commits themselves to the solar vs sidereal fantasy of Royal Society theorists, there are bound to express the equatorial rotational velocity in those terms hence the shameful expression above which defies the actual facts of geometry, geography and rotation of our home planet once each day. Because they organised rotation to be something other than 24 hours and in defiance of the Lat/Long system they were forced to conclude more rotations than 24 hour days like people going from one disaster to the next to keep the RA/Dec corpse dancing and that English framework was meant to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions via Sir Isaac.
Thankfully the Earth and its motions doesn't suffer from the dithering and squirming of academics who are desperate to maintain the integrity of their English subculture so they can load humanity with intellectual pretense, anxiety and dull conclusions. The Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and it is this fact which allows everyone here to use their GPS systems and enjoy the Sun coming into view and turning out of sight each 24 hour day.0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »Well just visit your local school and see if you can spot an example or two.
Like?
Anyway, I have to (like millions upon millions of others) away to work to earn a living. Slavery and all that...0 -
M.T. Cranium wrote: »I know, globalism isn't communism, it's just a collectivist ideology that is based on Marxism and wants to use force and a one-party state to achieve its goals.
Vast difference -- my bad.
("hail to the new king, same as the old king.")
Apparently climate skeptics have no monopoly on denial. But believe what you want. I'm a libertarian, that's what I do on a regular basis.
Sorry M.T, I was more making a general statement (and one I have made many times before) rather than being critical of your point of view.
But I would argue that rather than 'globalism', at least as we know it today, being a push to bring about a communist or 'Marxist' style global governance, that it is instead just the natural extension of the North European/American Neoliberal economic model, which I am sure you would agree, is the antithesis of all that perceived to be 'communistic', and as one David Harvey once contended "The dominance of Neoliberalism as the contemporary economic regime is the successful attempt by the rich and powerful to restore class power".
I think you can see where I might be coming from.New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
Phew, that's a relief.
But, we're* still really bad people, right?
(*I'm neither but I'm closeish)
There are many new lamposts put up around the country just waiting to find meaningful purpose, and in my coming Communist Republic, a meaningful purpose they shall find.
That's all I'm sayin'...New Moon
0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement