El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
> <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > >3 metre wide pixels?
> >What is the remnants of the LEM going to be? Two or three pixels, a slightly > >lighter shade of gray?
> The results that are returned could be a good deal better than you might > expect. If the orbiter takes multiple images crossing the landing areas, > or images on different orbits, they can be combined via the drizzle > algorithm to yield an image with greater resolution than the camera > itself provides. Add in the effects of reflections and shadows, and it > is entirely possible that we'll have enough detail to recognize what we > are seeing as something other than just a few gray pixels. It would be > fun to see that. > _________________________________________________
>>> Any images presented as evidence will be dismissed as more fakes.
>> True. But the point isn't so much to cure and shut up the hoax >> claimants, it's just so that they won't have the power to confuse a >> big chunk of the unsophisticated. There will always be people who will >> believe any nutty idea, but they're few in number; the people who can >> be fooled when a nutty idea sounds plausible enough are far more >> numerous.
>> John Savard
>I'm not sure I agree with this, if for no other reason than, if someone >declares that an image was faked, that the evidence was tainted, then >how is the layperson to trust the evidence?
>On a deeper level, this is the central question of epistemology, "How do >you know that what you know is the truth? How to you verify the >evidence?" Cross-checking and coordination of facts is one of the >methods to try and ferret out the truth, but it takes time and detective >work, which most people don't want to, or are incapable (in my humble >opinion) of doing.
>Of course, what the conspiracy people fail to notice, is that if they >claim that the evidence was tainted, then ANY evidence they present is >also open to the same charge. If you open up that can-of-worms, you >defeat any chance of finding the Truth.
There's a fairly reliable way around the epistimelogical difficulty: Occam's razor. It doesn't always work--nature is nothing if not an exercise in exceptions--but short of carrying out all your own original research, it works better than anything else.
Which is to say, people needn't do all that much detective work. They simply have to know how to think rationally--which most do quite well on an individual basis. Get 'em in groups, however, and all bets are off. -- Dave Occam's Chainsaw
> Still believe the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 'sidereal time'.
There's nothing in the clip to contradict that it does. Furthermore, countless astronomers prove it every night. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California
> >>> Any images presented as evidence will be dismissed as more fakes.
> >> True. But the point isn't so much to cure and shut up the hoax > >> claimants, it's just so that they won't have the power to confuse a > >> big chunk of the unsophisticated. There will always be people who will > >> believe any nutty idea, but they're few in number; the people who can > >> be fooled when a nutty idea sounds plausible enough are far more > >> numerous.
> >> John Savard
> >I'm not sure I agree with this, if for no other reason than, if someone > >declares that an image was faked, that the evidence was tainted, then > >how is the layperson to trust the evidence?
> >On a deeper level, this is the central question of epistemology, "How do > >you know that what you know is the truth? How to you verify the > >evidence?" Cross-checking and coordination of facts is one of the > >methods to try and ferret out the truth, but it takes time and detective > >work, which most people don't want to, or are incapable (in my humble > >opinion) of doing.
> >Of course, what the conspiracy people fail to notice, is that if they > >claim that the evidence was tainted, then ANY evidence they present is > >also open to the same charge. If you open up that can-of-worms, you > >defeat any chance of finding the Truth.
> There's a fairly reliable way around the epistimelogical difficulty: > Occam's razor. It doesn't always work--nature is nothing if not an > exercise in exceptions--but short of carrying out all your own > original research, it works better than anything else.
> Which is to say, people needn't do all that much detective work. They > simply have to know how to think rationally--which most do quite well > on an individual basis. Get 'em in groups, however, and all bets are > off. > -- > Dave > Occam's Chainsaw
s.a.a is the absolute proof (if any were needed) that we all inhabit the Matrix. There is no other reasonable explanation for the way intelligent and educated people repeatedly respond to immoral fools. I have little or no confidence that the world situation has not become a preprogrammed virtual reality game for my personal entertainment and irritation. If what I presently experience is not lunacy then how does one explain anything at all? North Korea? Somali pirates? Farm subsidies and food dumping? Michael Jackson? Microsoft's global monopoly? Afghanistan? Plastic breast implants for topless models? The religious right? George Bush's two terms in office? The Catholic Church. MacDonald's? Obesity? Iran? The celebrity culture? Global Warming? Global recession? The UN? WTF is going on? How can this possibly be reality?
On Jul 3, 10:13 pm, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@**NO**SPAM**verizon.net> wrote:
> > Still believe the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 'sidereal time'.
> There's nothing in the clip to contradict that it does. Furthermore, > countless astronomers prove it every night. > -- > Curtis Croulet > Temecula, California
There is nobody that will object to you and everyone else here but a value for rotation other than the rotation of the Earth through 24 901.5 miles in 24 hours or 69.17 miles per degree of rotation is the astronomical equivalent of denying that men landed on the lunar surface 40 years ago.It being the 4th of July and the frontier spirit of Americans,here is another delightful expression of something you cannot enjoy -
From U2 to H4,from Captain Cook to Lewis and Clark and all the incredible human creative,innovative and investigative spirit helped along by the great motions of the Earth that make existence possible,even for people who do their best to ignore it -
>On Jul 3, 11:03 pm, Dave Typinski <möb...@trapezium.net> wrote:
>> There's a fairly reliable way around the epistimelogical difficulty: >> Occam's razor. It doesn't always work--nature is nothing if not an >> exercise in exceptions--but short of carrying out all your own >> original research, it works better than anything else.
>> Which is to say, people needn't do all that much detective work. They >> simply have to know how to think rationally--which most do quite well >> on an individual basis. Get 'em in groups, however, and all bets are >> off. >> -- >> Dave >> Occam's Chainsaw
>s.a.a is the absolute proof (if any were needed) that we all inhabit >the Matrix. There is no other reasonable explanation for the way >intelligent and educated people repeatedly respond to immoral fools.
Immoral? Immortal, maybe...
>I >have little or no confidence that the world situation has not become a >preprogrammed virtual reality game for my personal entertainment and >irritation.
If what you say is true, then why are you doing this to yourself?
>If what I presently experience is not lunacy then how does >one explain anything at all? North Korea? Somali pirates? Farm >subsidies and food dumping? Michael Jackson? Microsoft's global >monopoly? Afghanistan? Plastic breast implants for topless models? The >religious right? George Bush's two terms in office? The Catholic >Church. MacDonald's? Obesity? Iran? The celebrity culture? Global >Warming? Global recession? The UN? WTF is going on? How can this >possibly be reality?
You're not monolithic, right? I mean, you have many internal desires, some of which no doubt conflict with each other for control of your actions, yes? That's normal.
Multiply all those diverse internal goals by six billion.
That's one reaon reality is far more complex than a model of reality. -- Dave
On Jul 3, 2:49 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still believe the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 'sidereal time'.
I don't believe that the day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds long.
So if you're trying to determine longitude by using the position of the Sun, you had better do it in terms of a 24 hour day. But with corrections for the Equation of Time.
Use a star, and you don't need to bother with that. So that must reflect the Earth's real underlying motion.
> There is nobody that will object to you and everyone else here...etc. ad > nauseum
You do realize, don't you, that the clip cuts off mid-way through a presentation about Harrison's clocks?
You're the only living person who agrees with your alternate reality.
There's a tragedy here. A few years ago, contributors to this newsgroup discussed telescopes, eyepieces, the possibility of seeing faint nebulae and galaxies, astro-imaging equipment and techniques, etc. Now it's mostly dominated by fruitcakes. This is what Usenet has come to. Other groups I formerly enjoyed have been taken over by egomaniacs and flame wars. Fortunately, I see knowledgeable, rational people like Mr. Peterson in other online forums -- just not these Usenet groups. -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California
> The tragedy here is replying to that idiot and especially in an OP that > has nothing to do with this.
True. For me there's a certain wicked fun in replying to him, though. "Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in!" ("they" = Mr. Oriel). -- Curtis Croulet Temecula, California
>> Still believe the Earth turns through 360 degrees in 'sidereal time'.
>I don't believe that the day is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds >long.
>So if you're trying to determine longitude by using the position of >the Sun, you had better do it in terms of a 24 hour day. But with >corrections for the Equation of Time.
>Use a star, and you don't need to bother with that. So that must >reflect the Earth's real underlying motion.
Maybe he figures nobody ever did celestial navigation at night. -- Dave
It being Independence day,who is free to say that the Equatorial Earth will turn today 69.17 miles for every 4 minutes making an entire 24901.5 mile rotation in 24 hours where 1 degree of geographical separation represents 4 minutes of clock time.It is those delightful histories that pop up that are making the difference some detailed like the Huygen's treatise and others more informal such the reasons behind the creation of timezones for mail and train schedules -
Sidereal time,like timezones,is a wonderful convenience based on the timekeeping 24 hour architecture in tandem with its 365/366 day calendar extension however it is a terrible mistake to believe it contains information on the Earth's shape and rotational characteristics which belongs to the core 24 hour/360 degree architecture.Setting aside the complexities which create the 24 hour average and then the use of this average to act as a 'constant' for daily rotation,it all rests on restoring the proper references for daily and orbital motions in terms of the 24 hour average and the 365/366 calendar system out of the raw planetary dynamics which create the daily and annual cycles.
I will restate this one more time - if you believe in a value other than 24 hours for rotation of the Earth as a simple fact with a vast technical and historical reasoning in support,it is the astronomical equivalent to denying that men landed on the lunar surface for that always brings out a repulsive reaction that somebody could diminish a human achievement.A small group of people cannot maintain a 'sidereal time vs solar time' hoax as the history of clocks ,longitude,human adventure and the work of the great astronomers sprouts up through imaging and these little gems of history which show how humans adapt to the flexibility which the 24 hour/360 degree architecture allows -
The choice is not mine to turn this around from a tragedy into a triumph,the stream of history which shows the cruelty directed towards a Harrison or a Wegener,the slowness in adopting things like Calendar reform or correcting the Piltdown man hoax belongs to that same dark gloom which you and everyone here,at least presently, casts on the common history based on the simple fact for daily rotation.Nobody is a failure should they make a small or a large contribution to the common history of human achievement in this matter for independence is not always about physical bravery and courage.
On Jul 4, 4:53 am, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@**NO**SPAM**verizon.net> wrote:
> There's a tragedy here. A few years ago, contributors to this newsgroup > discussed telescopes, eyepieces, the possibility of seeing faint nebulae and > galaxies, astro-imaging equipment and techniques, etc. Now it's mostly > dominated by fruitcakes. This is what Usenet has come to. Other groups I > formerly enjoyed have been taken over by egomaniacs and flame wars. > Fortunately, I see knowledgeable, rational people like Mr. Peterson in other > online forums -- just not these Usenet groups. > -- > Curtis Croulet > Temecula, California
I believe that s.a.a started going downhill when discussion here centred heavily around obscenely expensive optics and equipment. The feeling of exclusion where the majority were not able to afford a box full of kilobuck eyepieces or large aperture Apos was almost palpable. Serious amateur astronomy has now returned to its late 18th-19th century roots. Only the professional classes (and lawyers) can now afford the necessary equipment. The rest of us are just big kids playing with our Chinese (slave labour) made toys. Add together the "entry level" kit of a Paramount or big AP, a Ritchey-Chretién or 16"+ Schmidt Cass and some serious imaging equipment and you have excluded a lot of people. Even the solar instruments become ridiculously expensive as apertures increase to useful levels of resolution. Perhaps they should just take the amateur out of s.a._? s.a.a is on the decline otherwise these trolls would not enjoy the exposure they do presently. Is a "parrot" really any better than a troll?
On Jul 4, 3:53 am, "Curtis Croulet" <calypte@**NO**SPAM**verizon.net> wrote:
> > There is nobody that will object to you and everyone else here...etc. ad > > nauseum
> You do realize, don't you, that the clip cuts off mid-way through a > presentation about Harrison's clocks?
> You're the only living person who agrees with your alternate reality.
Which happens to be that the Equatorial Earth rotates at 69.17 miles every 4 minutes and full Equatorial circumference of 24901.5 miles in 24 hours or alternatively 4 minutes for each degree of geographical separation and 24 hours for a full 360 degrees of rotation and that video clip is just one of those excellent new tools to get inside the core astronomical architecture that makes it possible.
All these little snippets of information mount from behind the 'sidereral time vs solar time' hoax and exist on level where the exploration,creative and innovative spirit of humanity is found yet in all the years here in a forum where people really do think themselves as 'astronomers',they remain stuck in a late 17th century graveyard based on simple mistake by one person.
> There's a tragedy here. A few years ago, contributors to this newsgroup > discussed telescopes, eyepieces, the possibility of seeing faint nebulae and > galaxies, astro-imaging equipment and techniques, etc. Now it's mostly > dominated by fruitcakes. This is what Usenet has come to. Other groups I > formerly enjoyed have been taken over by egomaniacs and flame wars. > Fortunately, I see knowledgeable, rational people like Mr. Peterson in other > online forums -- just not these Usenet groups. > -- > Curtis Croulet > Temecula, California
The magnification exercise actually is a facet of astronomy and a valuable one but astronomy is not a studio apartment where some have a more expensive apartment than others,astronomy is a sprawling arena with rich and stormy areas which appeal to men of adventure,whether it is putting people in space or dealing with the energetic reasoning that stretches back to remote antiquity.Eyepieces,lens caps ,what carpet to put on the floor and other things like that would probably excite the hell out of you but you could just as easily be discussing microscopes if that is the case.
There are always going to be a certain amount of people who feel an extreme discomfort outside this tree house astronomy when encountering the works of the great astronomers or even putting contemporary data and images in context and I can tell you that even though none of you mind linking your idea of 'astronomer' to the names of Copernicus and Kepler or even Flamsteed/Newton,you do not actually know or like what they have to say.
The little video clip is an excellent one and more and more are surfacing as time goes on in this rich area of timekeeping astronomy and where it links in with planetary dynamics.SAA will never go back to being a flag of convenience for empirical dullness and people who can't even manage to express the most basic of all planetary facts and the reasoning behind it for such is the greatness of life in always finding a way through stagnation and mediocrity.
The common history of clocks,daily rotation and the 24 hours/360 degree correlation is before everyone,not as a fingerpointing exercise,but as a testament to the spirit of humanity and its goodness.Such is independence.
>I believe that s.a.a started going downhill when discussion here >centred heavily around obscenely expensive optics and equipment. The >feeling of exclusion where the majority were not able to afford a box >full of kilobuck eyepieces or large aperture Apos was almost palpable. >Serious amateur astronomy has now returned to its late 18th-19th >century roots. Only the professional classes (and lawyers) can now >afford the necessary equipment.
Equipment oriented astronomy: fine telescopes, cameras, etc, has never been cheaper. Astronomy is one of the least expensive hobbies I know of. Most people I know who are doing it are spending far less than other people I know with much more common hobbies. _________________________________________________
David Nakamoto <david.nakam...@verizon.net> wrote in news:2Es3m.633$P5.214 @nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
> On a deeper level, this is the central question of epistemology, "How do > you know that what you know is the truth? How to you verify the > evidence?" Cross-checking and coordination of facts is one of the > methods to try and ferret out the truth, but it takes time and detective > work, which most people don't want to, or are incapable (in my humble > opinion) of doing.
Education. Specifically, education regarding rational thinking. People are not taught HOW to think. Using logic and reason does not come naturally to most people. But with such an anti-science stance by many groups, it's gonna be hard to teach folks these "(not so) common sense" skills.
We could very well be on the verge of a new Dark Ages.
> David Nakamoto <david.nakam...@verizon.net> wrote in news:2Es3m.633$P5.214 > @nwrddc02.gnilink.net:
> > On a deeper level, this is the central question of epistemology, "How do > > you know that what you know is the truth? How to you verify the > > evidence?" Cross-checking and coordination of facts is one of the > > methods to try and ferret out the truth, but it takes time and detective > > work, which most people don't want to, or are incapable (in my humble > > opinion) of doing.
> Education. Specifically, education regarding rational thinking. > People are not taught HOW to think. Using logic and reason does > not come naturally to most people. But with such an anti-science > stance by many groups, it's gonna be hard to teach folks these > "(not so) common sense" skills.
> We could very well be on the verge of a new Dark Ages.
I got news for you,with a little bit of effort and the sheer resilience of Western civilisation,we may just manage to escape a nightmare which all of you are a part of.
Not a single one of you can state with certainty that the Earth is round and rotating in any meaningful way,it is some sort of mass indoctrination that I cannot fathom for what group of people can manage to inverted the references for daily and orbital motion to arrive at a conclusion which may look right but isn't.
I have read with horror how the 'sidereal time' people operated in the most repulsive way,uncaring people with no goodness and at one time it took a king to put your kind in its place -
How,for goodness sake,can so many people act in unison to destroy a basic astronomical fact which has a definite reasoning behind it and unmeasureable good consequences ?.Is there not one person here who has the basic goodness to know that a race who can't tell how long it takes the Earth to turn once with all the technical and historical data is in deep,deep trouble ?.
On Jul 4, 2:05 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> asked:
Is there not one person here who has
> the basic goodness to know that a race who can't tell how long it > takes the Earth to turn once with all the technical and historical > data is in deep,deep trouble ?.
No, not one person.
It looks more and more like you are the smartest person in the world, and the only one who can possibly see things the way they really are... NOT.
Frames, frames, frames... if you can't understand them, you are sunk... so... you are sunk.
However, I know several 5th graders who could show you...
> On Jul 4, 2:05 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> asked:
> Is there not one person here who has
> > the basic goodness to know that a race who can't tell how long it > > takes the Earth to turn once with all the technical and historical > > data is in deep,deep trouble ?.
> No, not one person.
> It looks more and more like you are the smartest person in the world, > and the only one who can possibly see things the way they really > are... NOT.
> Frames, frames, frames... if you can't understand them, you are > sunk... so... you are sunk.
> However, I know several 5th graders who could show you...
There is nothing remotely close to the scale of this tragedy where not a single person can state clearly that the Earth turns once in 24 hours and the reasoning behind it.
The description by Harrison of how clocks work with the daily cycle as the Earth rotates to noon from page 91 onwards is so simple,even omitting the Equation of Time correction,that to see my fellow human beings do everything in their power to obscure what is basically the most basic fact linking shape and rotation far exceeds the cruel treatment of Harrison himself and extends the cruelty to the entire discipline of astronomy.
What can any race of people possibly gain from distorting the reasoning which links an astronomer such as Huygens to the inventor that is Harrison through the references that link daily rotation to the Sun -
"Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in the same line exactly ( you are then immediately to set the Watch, not precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation of the day by the Table."
This nightmare of indifference must surely represent some type of situation which our race has not seen before insofar as were a man to propose that the Earth is flat by looking out his window,nobody would pay attention to his views on important matters.You,as 'sidereal time' proponents do much the same thing with not a hope of matching the distances in the table with time and geographical separation -
John Harrison had the authority of the King behind him and still these astrologers persisted in trying to wreck the achievement of this man and his industry which amounts to an 18th century one man version of NASA.Today there is no authority in existence,none !
On Jul 4, 4:37 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What can any race of people possibly gain from distorting the > reasoning which links an astronomer such as Huygens to the inventor > that is Harrison through the references that link daily rotation to > the Sun -
> "Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by > a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the > distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness > of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being > placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in > the same line exactly ( you are then immediately to set the Watch, not > precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation > of the day by the Table."
I agree that the day is 24 hours long on average. But there is no external reference for the Earth turning in a uniform manner with a period of 24 hours. The Sun is the reference for the unequal natural noon cycle only.
What we gain from considering the uniform motion that does have a reference as the Earth's rotation is an ability to understand where the Equation of Time comes from.
> There is nothing remotely close to the scale of this tragedy where not > a single person can state clearly that the Earth turns once in 24 > hours and the reasoning behind it.
> The description by Harrison of how clocks work with the daily cycle as > the Earth rotates to noon from page 91 onwards is so simple,even > omitting the Equation of Time correction,that to see my fellow human > beings do everything in their power to obscure what is basically the > most basic fact linking shape and rotation far exceeds the cruel > treatment of Harrison himself and extends the cruelty to the entire > discipline of astronomy.
> What can any race of people possibly gain from distorting the > reasoning which links an astronomer such as Huygens to the inventor > that is Harrison through the references that link daily rotation to > the Sun -
> "Draw a Meridian line upon a floor and then hang two plummets, each by > a small thred or wire, directly over the said Meridian, at the > distance of some 2. feet or more one from the other, as the smalness > of the thred will admit. When the middle of the Sun (the Eye being > placed so, as to bring both the threds into one line) appears to be in > the same line exactly ( you are then immediately to set the Watch, not > precisely to the hour of 12. but by so much less, as is the Aequation > of the day by the Table."
> This nightmare of indifference must surely represent some type of > situation which our race has not seen before insofar as were a man to > propose that the Earth is flat by looking out his window,nobody would > pay attention to his views on important matters.You,as 'sidereal time' > proponents do much the same thing with not a hope of matching the > distances in the table with time and geographical separation -
> John Harrison had the authority of the King behind him and still these > astrologers persisted in trying to wreck the achievement of this man > and his industry which amounts to an 18th century one man version of > NASA.Today there is no authority in existence,none !
I think it's finally official, Feckwit has clearly gone around the bend.
I don't see that there is any hope for him whatsoever.
Couple of years ago I was listening to something about ufo's and some person said its "all about the money". Just like the scam artists that you see on cable at 3 or 4 or 5 am with their "get rich quick" schemes.... They get rich while poor souls pay x number of dollars for their tape & cd "how to" programs.
|
