Re: A Plea to Oriel36


oriel36 wrote:
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)

So what !,yesterday you came here thinking business as usual and ended
up clinging to empirical notions that are cartoonlike in content and
character.

Unsupported assertion. How on earth do you know what other people are
thinking, and why do you think that your postings are any challenge at
all to science?


As far as I am concerned

i.e. this is an unfounded assertion

the correct interpretaion

i.e. my interpretation, and I refuse to accept any other as valid no
matter how strong the evidence..

of the Earth
overtaking the slower moving planets thus determining that heliocentric
planetary motions are seen directly from Earth is enough to consign the
Newtonian mutation to the substandard junk from whence it came.

....which assertion is unsupported by anything as vulgar as evidence,
and conveniently ignores the fact that the Newtonian model was good
enough to get man to the moon.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The empirical voodoo chanting

...i.e. mislabel and denigrate those who know enough about the subject
to recognise a load of bollocks when they read it...

scares away people

....i.e. because they are not appreciating your great wisdom there must
be something wrong with them, not your argument...

from appreceating the
original Copernican insight

i.e. let's ignore any science you can't understand..

and insofar as a little intuitive

i.e. effort not backed up by any rigourous mathematics and logic, and
therefore within your range of comprehension ..

effort
is rewarded with a genuinely easy to understand

....even by someone as mathematically illiterate as you are...

and gorgeous
concept,

i.e. one which you can only defend on aesthetic, rather than scientific
grounds..

made easier with time lapse footage,

i.e. reduced to an inaccurate form which can be understood easily ..

there is really no need to
get into the awful Newtonian mutations

i.e. the bits you don't understand...

which makes appreceation
impossible.

i.e. if it's too hard for you understand, it must be wrong.


There are people who have the intuitive faculties beaten out of them

i.e. there are people trained to think, not just to rely on intuition,
which as any engineer or scientist will tell you, is usually wrong...

in
order to receive an indoctrination

i.e. education

into cult thinking

i.e.science

,empiricism
becomes a cult

i.e. you never made the grade because it demands evidence and logic

by virtue of extending its non intuitive approach into
astronomy


i.e. by using the tools of science to investigate the universe..

when it should have limited itself to processes and treated
astronomy and geology through the intuitive faculties

i.e. it should have stuck to astrology...

which affirm or
reject hypothesis based on physical considerations.

i.e. they reject arguments such as yours which are not supported by
evidence

There is no such
thing as counter-intuitive,

....em... there is...


there is such a thing as counter-productive

Well yes, there is. it's called relying on intuition rather than
investigation using the tools of science

and it is the intuitive faculties which recognise concepts as
productive or not.

Emm...no. It's the hard evidence - such as being able to send a man to
the moon - which shows that some concepts are productive.


The real tragedy is that there are good kids and people who suffer from
the inability to uses their intuitive gifts,

i.e. they are educated in science

not strong enough to bypass
the dismal and exotic empirical junk

i.e. science, which has proved to be the most powerful tool for the
investigation of the universe yet devised by mankind...

to where they can appreceate what
our ancestors really did

i.e. they should be taught to worship the past...

and how they thought.This is why Western
civilisation is rotting from the inside,it gives credit to the
insincere and the frauds

Quite so. How else would GWB have been elected president?

through misuse of its greatest achievements
such as Copernican heliocenticity and its later Kplerian/Roemerian
refinements.

I don't think that many people are "misusing" these historical theries
in astronomy. Except you, of course.


I suspect that if there were strong and outwardly successful people
they would object as strongly as I have to the vandalism wrought on a
great and ancient astronomical heritage

i.e. if they were as clever as I am they would see that what I am
asserting without foundation is true..

but I have yet to see
indications that they are aware that something went badly wrong.

Which may of course simply mean that you are wrong and the scientists
are correct.


RF

.