| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 2006 04:23:26
From:
Subject: Astronomy at School?
|
Hi all,
I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
Regards,
Karol P.
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:57:45
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
TeaTime wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165857726.978931.189790@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Who says the Earth's axial tilt is variable with respect to the sun?
You do,that is why it is so funny.You try to frame it as the Northern
hemisphere tilts towards the Sun in summer and away from the Sun in
winter and that amounts to a variable tilting Earth whichever way you
put it.You cannot bring yourself to conclude that the Earth tilts
sideways to the Sun at the Equinoxes but that is exactly what you are
bound to even if you cannot say it openly -
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/sun/san3.html
By virtue of the dominance of celestial sphere geometers I have to come
to these forums and explain as best I can the actual benefits of
keeping things local are .I cannot complain that it is an enormous task
to make the necessary modifications not even that the genuine people
seem oblivious to the required modification but I certainly would not
be seen contending with a person who is struggling to grasp concepts I
am completely comfortable with.
Go ahead and explain how hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) are
not due to variable axial tilt to the Sun for you will most certainly
be one of the few who is actually aware of what actually causes the
changes in weather patterns in winter and summer.
I > don't know of anyone who makes that assertion and I certainly
didn't (apart
> from my reference to the minute precession which occurs over millennia). I
> clearly stated that the Earth's axis maintains a constant angle to the plane
> of the ecliptic.
Axial tilt is irrelevent other than it is fixed.
When we say the northern hemisphere tilts toward or away
> from the sun we refer to its angular presentation as a result of its orbital
> position. We do not suggest that it wobbles back and forth as it goes
> around. If all your posts are based on a simple misunderstanding of the
> vernacular, let me reassure you. If you prefer, replace the word 'tilts'
> with 'faces' - either is grammatically correct in that context.
Go ahead, whoever 'We' are have yet to apply themselves to the
sprawling area of global climate .I do not have time for wordplays and
neither does humanity insofar as investigators who cannot even explain
cyclical weather patterns using the motions of the Earth are unlikely
to be able to deal with global climate which meshes with astronomy in a
very intimate way.
Now get this right,not you but others who have a shread of originality.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:33:09
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165859865.434094.10700@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> You do,that is why it is so funny.You try to frame it as the Northern
> hemisphere tilts towards the Sun in summer and away from the Sun in
> winter and that amounts to a variable tilting Earth whichever way you
> put it.You cannot bring yourself to conclude that the Earth tilts
> sideways to the Sun at the Equinoxes but that is exactly what you are
> bound to even if you cannot say it openly -
Of course the Earth's axis is tilted sideways on to the sun's axis at the
equinoxes. The earth's axial tilt is constant in space, just as the sun's
is. Since the angle of each axis is fixed in galactic terms and the Earth
orbits around the sun, it must follow that at the equinoxes our tilt is
sideways on to the sun. Hence, roughly an even amount of sunlight falls on
both hemispheres at those two times. At the solstices the axis faces the
sun head on, either towards or away from.
> http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/nof/sun/san3.html
>
> By virtue of the dominance of celestial sphere geometers I have to come
> to these forums and explain as best I can the actual benefits of
> keeping things local are .I cannot complain that it is an enormous task
> to make the necessary modifications not even that the genuine people
> seem oblivious to the required modification but I certainly would not
> be seen contending with a person who is struggling to grasp concepts I
> am completely comfortable with.
From the viewpoint of the earthbound astronomer, the use of the celestial
sphere for locating points of interest is the only practical choice. They
are making their observations from a rotating surface. Without the fixed
axial orientaton (toward Polaris in this case) it would be a very difficult
hobby indeed.
> Go ahead and explain how hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) are
> not due to variable axial tilt to the Sun for you will most certainly
> be one of the few who is actually aware of what actually causes the
> changes in weather patterns in winter and summer.
It is precisely because the Earth and sun's axial orientation is unvarying
with respect to the galaxy that our orbit creates the seasonal weather
changes. Light a big bonfire in the middle of a cricket pitch. Now lean
forward at a constant angle and walk slowly around the fire in a circle,
always facing the pavilion. You will feel a hot backside, then the whole of
your body will feel warm, then a hot head and then the whole of your body
will feel warm again. Winter solstice, spring equinox, summer solstice and
autumn equinox; a simple analogy.
In real weather terms, the depth of cloud and atmosphere sunlight must pass
through before striking the ground varies according to the angle of
incidence. That angle is a product of the earth's fixed axial tilt and the
earth's orbital position.
> Axial tilt is irrelevent other than it is fixed.
Hardly irrelevant. It is the main reason we have seasons at all.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:22:07
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
TeaTime wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165841124.514741.129620@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <SNIP>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
> >
> > What is a little (unintentionally) off-putting with those correct
> > images is that it gives no real idea of the Earth's change in orbital
> > orientation and it can be easily fixed by not showing the difference
> > between the orbital shadow and solar radiation facing in the same
> > direction,at least in the June and Dec images.
>
> The only thing 'wrong' with the presentation of those images, in an
> astronomical sense, is that they show the Earth with its polar axis vertical
> rather than at 23.5 degrees to the vertical. The shadow and illuminated
> portions are precisely what happens in reality.
Funny,funny,funny !.
Keeping the Earth's orientation fixed to Polaris and allowing the Sun
to drift up and down against the horizon denoting a variable axial tilt
to the Sun is remarkable in an era which requires a clear conception of
the relationship between axial and orbital motions and the consequences
for climate and meteorology.
The images from Wikipedia are fine apart from a minor adjustment
which could be made to demonstrate the global asymmetry between June
and December in terms of the Earth's orbital position and the
direction from which it receives solar radiation -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
Celestial sphere geometers are inclined to construct a variable axial
tilt to the imaginary orbital plane whereas a more accurate view allows
the orbital path to generate the drift in the orbital shadow against
fixed axial orientation.
I well understand just how established the variable inclination is and
do not unduly criticise anyone for taking a fresh look at what causes
global climate and then what causes hemispherical weather patterns.It
is well worth the effort.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:55:25
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165857726.978931.189790@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Funny,funny,funny !.
>
> Keeping the Earth's orientation fixed to Polaris and allowing the Sun
> to drift up and down against the horizon denoting a variable axial tilt
> to the Sun is remarkable in an era which requires a clear conception of
> the relationship between axial and orbital motions and the consequences
> for climate and meteorology.
There is nothing funny (or even funny x3) in the above. Imagine the plane
of the ecliptic as a large circular sheet of paper. In the centre, imagine
a vertical stick, representing the sun's axis. On the edge of the sheet
imagine a stick set at an angle of 23.5 degrees to the vertical,
representing the earth's axis. Now revolve the sheet, but as it turns, keep
the Earth stick pointing at the same 'infinitely distant' point all the
time. That point is very close to Polaris. At the summer solstice, the
stick is leaning directly towards the sun. At the winter solstice, it is
leaning directly away from the sun; hence the seasons. The tilt isn't
variable. The Earth is an example of a damned good gyroscope. We see the
sun apparently 'move' across the sky because we are rooted on the surface of
a planet that revolves daily. We see the sun's midday position relative to
the horizon apparently 'drift up and down' throughout the year BECAUSE our
tilt is constant, despite our orbiting the sun. These are merely relative
motion effects, nothing more. Suspended out in space, we can observe the
mechanism more simply, as depicted in the light/shadow link you posted. But
there is nothing new in any of this and I'd suggest that any of our
stargazing friends here are very well aware of it.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:42:32
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Teatime, just place oriel36 in a killfile, it'll save you countless hours of
trying to explain something that he refuses to belive in, even if that
something is a true as can be & is used by everyone else. He's as bad as
DJM.
--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
"TeaTime" <licknsticker@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:hYgfh.5000$Dr3.675@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com>Barfed on screen:
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:08:57
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:42:32 -0800, "Starlord"
<starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote:
>Teatime, just place oriel36 in a killfile, it'll save you countless hours of
>trying to explain something that he refuses to belive in, even if that
>something is a true as can be & is used by everyone else. He's as bad as
>DJM.
An innocent question about teaching astronomy in
school managed to provoke long an irrelevant rants from both of our
newsgroup's resident crackpots. Sad, really.
-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165857726.978931.189790@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Who says the Earth's axial tilt is variable with respect to the sun? I
don't know of anyone who makes that assertion and I certainly didn't (apart
from my reference to the minute precession which occurs over millennia). I
clearly stated that the Earth's axis maintains a constant angle to the plane
of the ecliptic. When we say the northern hemisphere tilts toward or away
from the sun we refer to its angular presentation as a result of its orbital
position. We do not suggest that it wobbles back and forth as it goes
around. If all your posts are based on a simple misunderstanding of the
vernacular, let me reassure you. If you prefer, replace the word 'tilts'
with 'faces' - either is grammatically correct in that context.
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 22:07:05
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
<licknsticker@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
(the usual bollocks).
Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 23:12:42
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:3jlrn2h47au8snfbi06qj5oqkn3oicfb14@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
> Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
> writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
> --
> Mark McIntyre
You're probably right, Mark. Since I'm also something of a naive (albeit
curious) outsider, who raises a few eyebrows whenever I post something, I
couldn't help but be inquisitive about these guys who are so diligently
persistent in their pursuits. Both Brad and Gerald suffer from megalomania,
which manifests itself in their constant insults and rudeness. Neither of
them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to get them started. Both
are happy to post their repetitive jargon in off-topic response to any other
posts. Both are extraordinarily well read and that fact, coupled with their
tenacity, is what drew me to attempt to reason with them. Both have
momentarily softened towards me, only to rescind any such notion in their
very next post. I'm no expert in psychiatry, but what I see is paranoid
delusion and obsessive behaviour on both their parts.
I don't think ignoring them will make them go away, any more than proving
them wrong in black and white. It's a shame and the nuisance factor they
present here is an unfortunate byproduct of their lives. The appearance of
silly children like lechergod, who come to poke a stick at them, gives one
cause to wonder about our future. I haven't killfiled anyone since I first
came to this group and don't like doing that on principle, but I will desist
from further exchanges with them. This is on the strength of your advice and
also because I've exhausted my reasoning capabilities and patience.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:32:47
From: Mark McIntyre
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:12:42 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
<licknsticker@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Both Brad and Gerald suffer from megalomania,
>which manifests itself in their constant insults and rudeness. Neither of
>them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to get them started.
Sure, but if nobody responds, the conversations are _really_ short. .
>I don't think ignoring them will make them go away,
It does as far as I'm concerned - the only reason I see their tripe is
because people reply to them.
>any more than proving them wrong in black and white.
Indeed, its pointless talking with people like this, they have a
(probably clinical) monomaniacal view which is not susceptible to
reason.
>I haven't killfiled anyone since I first
>came to this group and don't like doing that on principle, but I will desist
>from further exchanges with them.
Thanks muchly! Really, you simply have to ignore them. Killfile them,
don't respond to their posts, warn others off.
--
Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 11:44:57
From: Mark Dunn
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Yes. feeding the trolls makes following posts very difficult, since they are
in my killfile and you're not.
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net > wrote in message
news:0vtrn2h67dot6p1ehmc2dc8mj3v4rbagu0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:12:42 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
> <licknsticker@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Both Brad and Gerald suffer from megalomania,
> >which manifests itself in their constant insults and rudeness. Neither
of
> >them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to get them started.
>
> Sure, but if nobody responds, the conversations are _really_ short. .
>
> >I don't think ignoring them will make them go away,
>
> It does as far as I'm concerned - the only reason I see their tripe is
> because people reply to them.
>
> >any more than proving them wrong in black and white.
>
> Indeed, its pointless talking with people like this, they have a
> (probably clinical) monomaniacal view which is not susceptible to
> reason.
>
> >I haven't killfiled anyone since I first
> >came to this group and don't like doing that on principle, but I will
desist
> >from further exchanges with them.
>
> Thanks muchly! Really, you simply have to ignore them. Killfile them,
> don't respond to their posts, warn others off.
>
> --
> Mark McIntyre
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 15:27:14
From: Craig Oldfield
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
In article <9aCdnUTG0vquQR7YRVnygAA@bt.com >,
markrhdunn@nospamatgmail.com says...
> Yes. feeding the trolls makes following posts very difficult,
As does top posting, please don't.
--
Craig Oldfield
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Dec 2006 16:43:07
From: Father Kylesmas
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Craig Oldfield <craig@craigoldfield.co.uk > verbally sodomised in
news:MPG.1fee003553211478989b3e@localhost:
> In article <9aCdnUTG0vquQR7YRVnygAA@bt.com>,
> markrhdunn@nospamatgmail.com says...
>> Yes. feeding the trolls makes following posts very difficult,
>
> As does top posting, please don't.
I'm feeding a troll. Here Craigy Craigy Craigy, looks at this nice pie.
--
Phil Kyle™
T
h i
i s
s l
f i l
S o n o
i u e n
g r s g
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 12:51:55
From: Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"TeaTime" <licknsticker@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:KBlfh.15095$HV6.1237@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net:
>
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3jlrn2h47au8snfbi06qj5oqkn3oicfb14@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
>> Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
>> writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
>> --
>> Mark McIntyre
>
> You're probably right, Mark. Since I'm also something of a naive
> (albeit curious) outsider, who raises a few eyebrows whenever I post
> something, I couldn't help but be inquisitive about these guys who are
> so diligently persistent in their pursuits. Both Brad and Gerald suffer
> from megalomania, which manifests itself in their constant insults and
> rudeness. Neither of them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to
> get them started. Both are happy to post their repetitive jargon in
> off-topic response to any other posts. Both are extraordinarily well
> read and that fact, coupled with their tenacity, is what drew me to
> attempt to reason with them. Both have momentarily softened towards me,
> only to rescind any such notion in their very next post. I'm no expert
> in psychiatry, but what I see is paranoid delusion and obsessive
> behaviour on both their parts.
>
> I don't think ignoring them will make them go away, any more than
> proving them wrong in black and white.
In the case of Oriel, it's a bot just repling with canned responses to
keywords.
Klazmon.
<SNIP >
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:06:18
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
This is an exercise in keeping things local.
Hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) are not due to variable axial
tilt to the Sun,the seasons are a subset of a global change in orbital
orientation against fixed axial orientation.Trying to account for
seasons by saying that the Northern hemisphere tilts towards the Sun in
summer and away in winter is tantamount to a variable tilting Earth
whatever way you try to put it.
Here is what you do.
1 Drop the Earth's axial/Equatorial reference to the Sun or celestial
background and acknowledged that it remains fixed and a consequence of
axial rotation.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA00114_modest.jpg
2 Acknowledge a change in the relationship between the orbital
orientation (determined by the seperation between solar radiation and
the orbital shadow) and fixed axial orientation due to the motion and
path of the Earth's orbit around the Sun -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Seasonearth.png
3 Use the oscillation of temperature bands to determine that
hemispherical weather patterns (seasons) are influenced by the length
of time a location spends in the Earth's orbital shadow or in direct
solar radiation more than inclination to solar radiation. -
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
Stick to those few basic tenets which drop referencing the Earth to the
distant Sun and create a more productive view based on the behavior of
axial and orbital motions/orientation in received solar radiation and
in the Earth orbital shadow.
Of course you have developed the variable tilting Earth and its
attendent celestial sphere geometry to the point where you simply
cannot see the new approach to climate and to seasons -
http://www.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.html
By referencing everything off axial co-ordinates to celestial sphere
geometry and refusing to consider orbital motion in isolation, you fail
to see that the orbital path of the Earth which causes the orbital
shadow to change against fixed axial orientation generates global
climate which in turn can be reduced to hemispherical weather
patterns.
I do not know why meteorologists or climatologists do not pick up on
the required astronomical modification required to bring excellent
imaging and data in line with 21st century climate studies.It is an
enormous task yet the benefits are incredibly powerful and different
than the poor way of varying the tilt of the Earth to the Sun to
explain the seasons.Perhaps it is laziness,perhaps indoctrination or
something worse but allowing the orbital path and consequently orbital
orientation to drift longitudinally and latitudinally against fixed
axial orientation is the only way to go.
Spare me your deep breaths or whatever silly emoticon I have to put up
with,climatology will become far more interesting and dynamic once it
starts to mesh accurately with astronomy and what is known about the
motions of the Earth in direct solar radiation.
TeaTime wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> laboured on in message
> news:1165841124.514741.129620@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <SNIP>
> > Even with imaging of the Earth from space and with priority given to
> > climatology and global warming,these guys still can;'t provide the
> > correct explanation for hemisopherical weather patterns (seasons).They
> > still attribute a variable axial tilt to the Sun rather than adopt the
> > changing orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation -
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
>
> <DEEP BREATH>
>
> Let's try to get rid of some of your confusion about the seasons. The
> Earth's orbit is in the shape of an ellipse, so that sometimes the Earth is
> a tiny bit closer to the Sun than at other times. But this does not account
> for the seasonal weather change. You can imagine that if the seasons were
> caused by the Earth's orbit, people in the northern hemisphere and people in
> the southern hemisphere would have the same seasons. For example, if winter
> occurred because the Earth was further away from the Sun, everywhere on
> Earth would be cold at the same time. Summer in the northern hemisphere
> occurs at the same time as winter in the south, and vice-versa. It turns out
> that the Earth's orbit is nearly perfectly circular, and the difference
> between its closest point and its furthest point is very small. In actual
> fact, the Earth is furthest away from the Sun in June when it is summer in
> the northern hemisphere.
> The Earth is a very special planet in many ways. Just as Earth's unique
> atmosphere and its distance from the Sun work together to make Earth the
> right temperature to support life, Earth's orbit and its tilt work together
> to create the seasons. The tilt of Earth's rotational axis and the Earth's
> orbit work together to create the seasons. As the Earth travels around the
> Sun, it remains tipped in the same direction, its axis pointing towards the
> star Polaris. This means that sometimes the northern half of the Earth is
> pointing towards the Sun (summer), and sometimes it is pointing away
> (winter). These points in the Earth's orbit are called solstices. The
> Earth's tilt remains an almost constant 23.5 degrees to the plane of the
> ecliptic, apart from a very very slow and tiny precession which takes place
> over thousands of years.
>
> Notice that when the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun, the
> southern hemisphere is tilted away. This explains why the hemispheres have
> opposite seasons. The link
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png demonstrates this
> perfectly.
>
> Halfway between the solstices, the Earth is neither tilted directly towards
> nor directly away from the Sun. At these times, called the equinoxes, both
> hemispheres receive roughly equal amounts of sunlight. Equinoxes mark the
> seasons of autumn and spring and are a transition between the two more
> extreme seasons, summer and winter.
>
> There is no black magic or mumbo-jumbo to all this, Gerald. If you point
> your backside towards the fire it will get hot - if you point it away at an
> angle it won't get so warm. Even first year primary school children can
> understand this simple 3-dimensional trick of the light, so it is is
> difficult to understand why you drag ancient figures and heliocentricity
> into your endless drivel. We all KNOW the earth orbits around the sun. We
> all KNOW its axis is tilted and that combined with its 12 month orbit this
> yields the seasons. You can dress the mechanism up any way you want; it
> doesn't change what is fundamentally a very simple concept. But if you feel
> the need to challenge any part of the above explanation (an explanation that
> is shared by the same scientists who successfully send probes with pinpoint
> accuracy to the furthermost planets of our Solar System) then please state
> clearly where you think the errors lie. I wait with baited breath.
|
| |
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:53:06
From: Andy G
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
I teach astronomy at all levels all over the UK
It is still taught in all schools but at differeing levels
Cheers
Andy
StarDome Planetarium - Your Window On The Universe - Officially Out Of This
World!
Mr Andrew R Green B.Sc(Hons) FRAS.
www.stardome-planetarium.com
www.stardomeplanetarium.co.uk
<kpdocs@operamail.com > wrote in message
news:1165839805.924879.51070@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
> often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
> topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
> general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
> and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
> curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
> be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
> of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
> the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
> what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
> where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karol P.
>
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:54:32
From: Andy G
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
differing even!
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:53:17
From: Christian Astronomer
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
On 11 Dec 2006, kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
>Hi all,
>I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
>often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
>topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
>general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
>and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
>curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
>be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
>of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
>the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
>what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
>where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>Regards,
>Karol P.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
It is a sad testament to what the viciously Anti-Christian
Liberal Atheists have done to academia, and especially to
their students: who they kidnap, rape, torture and murder
with their filthy, incessant and abominable lies and deceit.
However, the good news is that America leads the free world.
Soon, our United States Supreme Court will decide, and our
law-enforcement personnel will force at gunpoint, all public
schools to include the popular theory of Intelligent Design,
right over the top of the orthodox Liberal Atheist theory of
Evolution. That will be the "coup de grace" against Atheists:
who effectively hijacked our U.S. Government ever since 1947.
Once that happens, then the Anti-Christian Liberal Atheists
will be forced -- at gunpoint if necessary -- to acquiesce,
and accept the fact that not every man, woman, or child in
the world is a Rabidly-insane Anti-Christian inhuman animal.
Similarly, the rest of the free world will follow suit. See?
I look forward to that day, when the Anti-Christian Liberal
Atheists are forced at gunpoint to **cease and desist** from
their suicidal and genocidal, God-hating, Family-hating, and
Country-hating insanity! And I will rejoice when the A.C.L.U.,
the Anti-Christian Liberal Union, gets effectively de-fanged
by our U.S. Supreme Court. While they're committing suicide,
we non-Atheists will be dancing upon their collective grave. :)
Merry Christmas & Io Saturnalia!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRX1YiJljD7YrHM/nEQK8pACg2TYsMEj9qumEHRRDgDbihcoWdRgAoLeP
cRLp2epUyIBjH8lTGQIvzC8w
=tGh1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 09:40:25
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Christian Astronomer wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2006, kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
>> often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
>> topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
>> general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
>> and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
>> curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
>> be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
>> of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
>> the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
>> what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
>> where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>> Regards,
>> Karol P.
>
> It is a sad testament to what the viciously Anti-Christian
> Liberal Atheists have done to academia, and especially to
> their students: who they kidnap, rape, torture and murder
> with their filthy, incessant and abominable lies and deceit.
>
> However, the good news is that America leads the free world.
> Soon, our United States Supreme Court will decide, and our
> law-enforcement personnel will force at gunpoint,
Really? I didn't know that "Intelligent" Design was up in front of the
Supreme Court.
If you lie to someone, no matter how many people believe the lie, it's
still a lie. You've been lied to and you believe it and continue to
spread the lie, which makes you an idiot.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 06:07:17
From: Star1
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
* drop from: ...
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 07:23:27
From: Dave
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Star1 wrote:
<snip incessant stupidity >
Aw, stupid, bigoted, racist, liar, asshole can't think of anything to
say? Why don't you go and kill some Atheists so we can get rid of you.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:45:41
From: Sam Wormley
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
> often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
> topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
> general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
> and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
> curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
> be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
> of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
> the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
> what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
> where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karol P.
>
Astronomy is often a part of "earth science" or "physical science"
in middle or high schools and is taught in many colleges and
universities. There are many of us in this newsgroup that teach
astronomy at community colleges, universities and elder college
classes.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 04:45:24
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
kpd...@operamail.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
> often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
> topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
> general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
> and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
> curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
> be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
> of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
> the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
> what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
> where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karol P.
In the 1960's,terrestrial ballistics extended to sending rockets into
space was a genuine human achievement but it is not astronomy although
you would hardly know it.
I see the Polish people watch the work of the countryman (Copernicus)
destroyed by less careful men, without objection and even with their
full support but then again, astronomy is an individual pursuit that
does not pander to nationalistic sentiments.It is however open to
false ideologies and although the spurt of interest generated by
humanity's first endeavor into space in the 60's is a genuine
achievement,the exotic and novelistic concepts of the eartbound
creatures still moves in the opposite sub-geocentric direction.
Even with imaging of the Earth from space and with priority given to
climatology and global warming,these guys still can;'t provide the
correct explanation for hemisopherical weather patterns (seasons).They
still attribute a variable axial tilt to the Sun rather than adopt the
changing orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
What is a little (unintentionally) off-putting with those correct
images is that it gives no real idea of the Earth's change in orbital
orientation and it can be easily fixed by not showing the difference
between the orbital shadow and solar radiation facing in the same
direction,at least in the June and Dec images.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:53:00
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1165841124.514741.129620@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
>
> What is a little (unintentionally) off-putting with those correct
> images is that it gives no real idea of the Earth's change in orbital
> orientation and it can be easily fixed by not showing the difference
> between the orbital shadow and solar radiation facing in the same
> direction,at least in the June and Dec images.
The only thing 'wrong' with the presentation of those images, in an
astronomical sense, is that they show the Earth with its polar axis vertical
rather than at 23.5 degrees to the vertical. The shadow and illuminated
portions are precisely what happens in reality.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:23:10
From: TeaTime
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com > laboured on in message
news:1165841124.514741.129620@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP >
> Even with imaging of the Earth from space and with priority given to
> climatology and global warming,these guys still can;'t provide the
> correct explanation for hemisopherical weather patterns (seasons).They
> still attribute a variable axial tilt to the Sun rather than adopt the
> changing orbital orientation against fixed axial orientation -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png
<DEEP BREATH >
Let's try to get rid of some of your confusion about the seasons. The
Earth's orbit is in the shape of an ellipse, so that sometimes the Earth is
a tiny bit closer to the Sun than at other times. But this does not account
for the seasonal weather change. You can imagine that if the seasons were
caused by the Earth's orbit, people in the northern hemisphere and people in
the southern hemisphere would have the same seasons. For example, if winter
occurred because the Earth was further away from the Sun, everywhere on
Earth would be cold at the same time. Summer in the northern hemisphere
occurs at the same time as winter in the south, and vice-versa. It turns out
that the Earth's orbit is nearly perfectly circular, and the difference
between its closest point and its furthest point is very small. In actual
fact, the Earth is furthest away from the Sun in June when it is summer in
the northern hemisphere.
The Earth is a very special planet in many ways. Just as Earth's unique
atmosphere and its distance from the Sun work together to make Earth the
right temperature to support life, Earth's orbit and its tilt work together
to create the seasons. The tilt of Earth's rotational axis and the Earth's
orbit work together to create the seasons. As the Earth travels around the
Sun, it remains tipped in the same direction, its axis pointing towards the
star Polaris. This means that sometimes the northern half of the Earth is
pointing towards the Sun (summer), and sometimes it is pointing away
(winter). These points in the Earth's orbit are called solstices. The
Earth's tilt remains an almost constant 23.5 degrees to the plane of the
ecliptic, apart from a very very slow and tiny precession which takes place
over thousands of years.
Notice that when the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun, the
southern hemisphere is tilted away. This explains why the hemispheres have
opposite seasons. The link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seasonearth.png demonstrates this
perfectly.
Halfway between the solstices, the Earth is neither tilted directly towards
nor directly away from the Sun. At these times, called the equinoxes, both
hemispheres receive roughly equal amounts of sunlight. Equinoxes mark the
seasons of autumn and spring and are a transition between the two more
extreme seasons, summer and winter.
There is no black magic or mumbo-jumbo to all this, Gerald. If you point
your backside towards the fire it will get hot - if you point it away at an
angle it won't get so warm. Even first year primary school children can
understand this simple 3-dimensional trick of the light, so it is is
difficult to understand why you drag ancient figures and heliocentricity
into your endless drivel. We all KNOW the earth orbits around the sun. We
all KNOW its axis is tilted and that combined with its 12 month orbit this
yields the seasons. You can dress the mechanism up any way you want; it
doesn't change what is fundamentally a very simple concept. But if you feel
the need to challenge any part of the above explanation (an explanation that
is shared by the same scientists who successfully send probes with pinpoint
accuracy to the furthermost planets of our Solar System) then please state
clearly where you think the errors lie. I wait with baited breath.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 18:30:35
From: Patrick Edward Murray
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Mark & Teatime,
Yeah I agree, Ignoring them doesn't work either. It's really, really
sad that they can't help themselves, oh and let's not forget Min
either:(
Funny but most of these folks never turn up very much in regular
astronomy clubs:)
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 00:04:12
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
On 11 Dec 2006 04:23:26 -0800, kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
>often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
>topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
>general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
>and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
>curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
>be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
>of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
>the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
>what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
>where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
>
>Regards,
>
>Karol P.
Here (New Hampshire, USA), Astronomy is part of the elementary school
curriculum, as part of the general science course. In my own town's
school system, this includes, weather permitting, a trip outdoors at
night to view the sky both by the naked eye and through a telescope.
I'm a firm believer that Astronomy should be taught in school. We see
the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars every day. A knowledge of what
these bodies are, where they are in relation to each other, and how
they move through space relative to each other is essential to the
understanding of the daily oceanic tides and why the Earth has
seasons. It provides useful examples of the laws of mechanics and
the Newtonian model of relativity. And, when taught properly, it's a
lot of fun and helps instill into children a sense of wonder and
curiosity in the natural world around them, and makes Science
more meaningful and interesting to them.
-Paul W.
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:53:37
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Starlord wrote:
> Teatime, just place oriel36 in a killfile, it'll save you countless hours of
> trying to explain something that he refuses to belive in, even if that
> something is a true as can be & is used by everyone else. He's as bad as
> DJM.
>
>
Good for you,enjoy the Earth doing the variable tilt hoola so you can
keep your dumb celestial sphere geometry -
http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/seasons/images/earthyrb.gif
No doubt you will have a great time keeping that variable tilting Earth
fixed to Polaris. but when you reach that level,you reach the bottom.
A decent discussion among climatologists and meteorologists would
probably be too much to ask but ultimately it all amounts to dropping
variable tilt to the Sun,keeping motions and orientations local and
for goodness sake,stop referencing axial orientation off the orbital
plane,ecliptic or whatever celestial sphere geometry term you are
accustomed to using.
I do not think Teatime would thank you for at least he is making an
attempt to escape the quandry but then again he along with anyone else
is more than welcome to match and better my accurate descriptions for
global climate and hemispherical weather patterns using the motions of
the Earth.It is well worth the effort and is long overdue.
> --
> There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
> universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
> Egyptians, or the Toltechs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
> brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
> heavens.
>
>
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> The Church of Eternity
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html
>
>
> "TeaTime" <licknsticker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hYgfh.5000$Dr3.675@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com>Barfed on screen:
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:40:36
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
TeaTime wrote:
> "oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1165857726.978931.189790@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Funny,funny,funny !.
> >
> > Keeping the Earth's orientation fixed to Polaris and allowing the Sun
> > to drift up and down against the horizon denoting a variable axial tilt
> > to the Sun is remarkable in an era which requires a clear conception of
> > the relationship between axial and orbital motions and the consequences
> > for climate and meteorology.
>
> There is nothing funny (or even funny x3) in the above. Imagine the plane
> of the ecliptic as a large circular sheet of paper. In the centre, imagine
> a vertical stick, representing the sun's axis. On the edge of the sheet
> imagine a stick set at an angle of 23.5 degrees to the vertical,
> representing the earth's axis. Now revolve the sheet, but as it turns, keep
> the Earth stick pointing at the same 'infinitely distant' point all the
> time. That point is very close to Polaris. At the summer solstice, the
> stick is leaning directly towards the sun. At the winter solstice, it is
> leaning directly away from the sun; hence the seasons. The tilt isn't
> variable. The Earth is an example of a damned good gyroscope. We see the
> sun apparently 'move' across the sky because we are rooted on the surface of
> a planet that revolves daily. We see the sun's midday position relative to
> the horizon apparently 'drift up and down' throughout the year BECAUSE our
> tilt is constant, despite our orbiting the sun. These are merely relative
> motion effects, nothing more. Suspended out in space, we can observe the
> mechanism more simply, as depicted in the light/shadow link you posted. But
> there is nothing new in any of this and I'd suggest that any of our
> stargazing friends here are very well aware of it.
Stargazing indeed !,the celestial sphere setup is designed to combine
axial and orbital motion into a single 'sidereal' motion by justifying
the Earth's motions using the return of a star in 23 hours 56 minutes
04 seconds,it is not geocentric,it is sub-geocentric or an astronomical
nadir.
There is something entirely new in what I presented but in this
disgusting era where everything tries to be assimilated into a mediocre
empirical muck I have to continue as though celestial sphere
geometers did not exist in the hope of the slightest sign of
acknowledgement that a major modification is necessary.
The price of your celestial sphere concepts,either the Newtonian ones
of the later exotic 20th century version,is extraordinarily expensive
but no matter.It requires somebody who can become comfortable with the
correct relationship between axial and orbital motions/orientations .Do
this openly for a change and drop this silly pretense that you are
familiar with treating axial and orbital motions locally in direct
solar radiation and in the orbital shadow.Better stiil,discuss the
thing like men for a change and not like fools.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 09:44:01
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th wrote:
> "TeaTime" <licknsticker@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:KBlfh.15095$HV6.1237@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net:
>
> >
> > "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:3jlrn2h47au8snfbi06qj5oqkn3oicfb14@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
> >> Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
> >> writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
> >> --
> >> Mark McIntyre
> >
> > You're probably right, Mark. Since I'm also something of a naive
> > (albeit curious) outsider, who raises a few eyebrows whenever I post
> > something, I couldn't help but be inquisitive about these guys who are
> > so diligently persistent in their pursuits. Both Brad and Gerald suffer
> > from megalomania, which manifests itself in their constant insults and
> > rudeness. Neither of them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to
> > get them started. Both are happy to post their repetitive jargon in
> > off-topic response to any other posts. Both are extraordinarily well
> > read and that fact, coupled with their tenacity, is what drew me to
> > attempt to reason with them. Both have momentarily softened towards me,
> > only to rescind any such notion in their very next post. I'm no expert
> > in psychiatry, but what I see is paranoid delusion and obsessive
> > behaviour on both their parts.
> >
> > I don't think ignoring them will make them go away, any more than
> > proving them wrong in black and white.
>
> In the case of Oriel, it's a bot just repling with canned responses to
> keywords.
>
> Klazmon.
>
> <SNIP>
I love the canned responses from Nasa explaining cyclical weather
patterns (seasons) -
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980211f.html
Nobody courageous enough to actually look at the oscillation of
temperature bands over the course of an annual orbit and come to the
simple conclusioin that the major influence on cyclical weather
patterns in terms of precipitation , temperatures ect is the length of
time a location spends in direct radiation and in the Earth's orbital
shadow -
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
I suppose that humanity has to suffer the idea of referencing the Sun
against the horizon as being high and low in causing seasonal
temperature variations but even if the inclination of solar radiation
hitting a location effects cyclical temperatures,the major cause is
locally in the relationship between axial and orbital motions and
orientations.
Is everyone a damn astronomical creationist or is there one individual
who has enough self-regard to acknowledge that humanity is in big
trouble,not from climate imbalances such as global warming but from
such low levels of intuitive intelligence that even if it wishes to
change its perception of the delicate balances which make existence
possible,it remains stuck in a sub-geocentric celestial sphere concepts.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:51:38
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Considering that the work of Copernicus and the reasoning he used to
create the heliocentric arrangement of planets was destroyed by 17th
century guys who had other agendas,whatever you call 'scientists' in
Poland they sure are not from the heritage of Copernicus.
You have this ridiculous situation where I have to promote the working
methods and insights of your countryman Copernicus while you appear to
court favor with a bunch of celestial sphere imbeciles who twisted his
insights into a tangled mess.You should be ashamed of yourself as a
Polish person that this intellectual holocaust continues with the full
support of your dumb countrymen who call themselves 'scientists'
.Considering that you cannot even promote the Copernican insight using
modern time lapse footage that is not insult,it is a simple fact.
kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
> Sadly, this kind of people start influencing education in Poland. But
> it is not astronomy what they fight (since it is nonexistent - long
> gone from the curriculum). It is the theory of evolution - our current
> secretary of education actually attempted to include creationism in
> biology classes. Polish scientists wrote a letter to Nature magazine to
> stop that nonsense and it worked.
>
> There, let us go back to the original topic. Thank you for your great
> answers. I always wondered what it is like in the US and other
> countries. Were there any cases where astronomy was cancelled from the
> curriculum like in Poland?
>
> Regards,
>
> Karol P.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 08:11:42
From:
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Sadly, this kind of people start influencing education in Poland. But
it is not astronomy what they fight (since it is nonexistent - long
gone from the curriculum). It is the theory of evolution - our current
secretary of education actually attempted to include creationism in
biology classes. Polish scientists wrote a letter to Nature magazine to
stop that nonsense and it worked.
There, let us go back to the original topic. Thank you for your great
answers. I always wondered what it is like in the US and other
countries. Were there any cases where astronomy was cancelled from the
curriculum like in Poland?
Regards,
Karol P.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:58:40
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Looking at the 'specification' syllabus designed to promote celestial
sphere astrology,.the students will end up being made stupid through
education at worst or lose interest at best.
http://www.edexcel.org.uk/VirtualContent/18093.pdf
All the necessary celestial sphere indoctrination,posed as questions,
to refer axial tilt to ecliptic,the difference between solar
days.sidereal days and other gems of the soul destroying march into a
cult that almost destroyed astronomy,both geocentric and heliocentric.
How outwardly respectable this holocaust appears, the creative spark
,which would otherwise produce a productive meshing of astronomy with
Earth sciences, fades to become a tangled mess with no hope to
reconcile one with the other.
Far from trying to escape your lousy indoctrinated condition,you use
the necessary defences which protect your ideologies and make
sure,through educating children,that they follow the same dour and
dismal path.
Maybe it will happen that youth will overcome this swamp condition
through genuine concern for the state of the planet and how
understanding astronomy mutually compliments understanding the
intricate and gorgeous web of life.Until then,all things fade to
celestial sphere grey.
Martin Brown wrote:
> Andy G wrote:
>
> > I teach astronomy at all levels all over the UK
> >
> > It is still taught in all schools but at differeing levels
>
> Usually as a part of the physics syllabus, but it is available as a
> separate GCSE exam qualification through Edexcel (formally London
> board). Details available at:
>
> http://www.edexcel.org.uk/quals/gcse/astronomy/gcse/1627/ri/specification/
> (it was an easy extra certificate for anyone keen on astronomy)
>
> A quick glance at the modern syllabus suggests that it has become more
> qualitative and all the spherical trig for rising setting and
> coordinate transforms has been removed.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:26:52
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
You did try to ascend to the level of reasoning involved in
heliocentric astronomy but like so many others you plummet back to the
level of the celestial sphere peep show.
The thing is that in streamlining the astronomical elements involved in
the creation of global climate norms which in turn can be reduced to
hemispherical weather patterns,climatologists get to treat the
relationship between axial and orbital motions locally rather than
going off referencing axial orientation to the distant central Sun.
Your kind believe they will lose something by taking a radical and
fresh look at what is astronomically involved in climate and
meteorology but considering that I am just reworking the images of the
Earth seen from space into modifying the older variable inclination to
the Sun concepts to see the stupid tactic of ostracism applied in a
crucial area of human studies,that is quite remarkable.
This killfiling business sounds great when nothing is at stake and when
a person strives to promote his own ends and interests but it does not
work when a person promotes the exquisite and exciting works of Western
astronomy.Even I like the ability of the 17th century guys to thrash
out things openly even if they jumped the tracks at a basic level but
as for this dour and dismal era,well....
TeaTime wrote:
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:3jlrn2h47au8snfbi06qj5oqkn3oicfb14@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
> > Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
> > writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
> > --
> > Mark McIntyre
>
> You're probably right, Mark. Since I'm also something of a naive (albeit
> curious) outsider, who raises a few eyebrows whenever I post something, I
> couldn't help but be inquisitive about these guys who are so diligently
> persistent in their pursuits. Both Brad and Gerald suffer from megalomania,
> which manifests itself in their constant insults and rudeness. Neither of
> them actually needs to be engaged in discussion to get them started. Both
> are happy to post their repetitive jargon in off-topic response to any other
> posts. Both are extraordinarily well read and that fact, coupled with their
> tenacity, is what drew me to attempt to reason with them. Both have
> momentarily softened towards me, only to rescind any such notion in their
> very next post. I'm no expert in psychiatry, but what I see is paranoid
> delusion and obsessive behaviour on both their parts.
>
> I don't think ignoring them will make them go away, any more than proving
> them wrong in black and white. It's a shame and the nuisance factor they
> present here is an unfortunate byproduct of their lives. The appearance of
> silly children like lechergod, who come to poke a stick at them, gives one
> cause to wonder about our future. I haven't killfiled anyone since I first
> came to this group and don't like doing that on principle, but I will desist
> from further exchanges with them. This is on the strength of your advice and
> also because I've exhausted my reasoning capabilities and patience.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 03:11:05
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Paul Winalski wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:42:32 -0800, "Starlord"
> <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote:
>
> >Teatime, just place oriel36 in a killfile, it'll save you countless hours of
> >trying to explain something that he refuses to belive in, even if that
> >something is a true as can be & is used by everyone else. He's as bad as
> >DJM.
>
> An innocent question about teaching astronomy in
> school managed to provoke long an irrelevant rants from both of our
> newsgroup's resident crackpots. Sad, really.
>
> -Paul W.
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
You and the astrologer are buddies by virtue of your very wonderful
mechanical system known as the zodiac by the astrologer and the Ra/Dec
system by celestial sphere geometers.
Are you sure you want to justify the Earth's motions using the same
system which the astrologers use -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
There are people who imagine they are teaching astronomy but what they
are teaching has far more in common with 'predictive' astrology than
with geocentric thinking ,never mind Western heliocentric thinking .The
geocentrists could 'predict' the positions of planets but never went
so far as to retain the stellar background in drawing their
conclusions,that is why they are superior to sub-geocentric
empiricists.
Innocent indeed !,how many generations ,how many good kids were denied
the chance to admire and develop an appreciation for astronomy and the
great men who inhabited the discipline.Your barren and sterile concepts
,designed to create the maximum focus on yourselves and your
telescopes,stand in sharp contrast to the magnificense of the celestial
arena and the great cycles which make your miserable existence
possible.
In short,you are far more destructive than the creationists for the
celestial sphere core of your concepts is institutional policy which in
turn filters through the education system like a virus.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 02:39:00
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
You believe that you are superior to the resident astrologer here but
you are all cut from the same sub-geocentric cloth insofar as your
concepts begin and end in celestial sphere geometry.No doubt you are
not entirely to blame as your indoctrination forces you to accept
ridiculous notions and even when you have the images of Earth from
space explicitly dictating that you absolutely must treat axial and
orbital motions locally in respect to climate you still wish to retain
the dumb idea of referencing the Earth's axis to the distant central
Sun.
En masse you are like Tycho Brahe,you have excellent tools and
excellent data but no intuitive intelligence to use the data based on
physical considerations -
"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of that
diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . " Kepler
To mesh climatology with heliocentric astronomy an enormous
modification to Copernican reasoning is required in respect to the
astronomical reasons given for cyclical hemispherical weather patterns
(seasons),specifically the original reasons given in Chapter 11 of De
Revolutionibus -
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html
The last modification was accomplished by Kepler in respect to orbital
geometries however the new modification is far more vital for
climatological purposes and to jettison the mutations brought in by
Flamsteed/Newton.
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:37:36 GMT, in uk.sci.astronomy , "TeaTime"
> <licknsticker@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"oriel36" <geraldkelleher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> (the usual bollocks).
>
> Teatime, _please_ stop feeding this bloody troll. He is famous for
> writing utter bollocks, so why waste your energy?
> --
> Mark McIntyre
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 11:02:28
From: oriel36
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Paul Winalski wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2006 04:23:26 -0800, kpdocs@operamail.com wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I guess that issue may be considered part of space policy as it is
> >often where future astronomers and astronauts may first encounter the
> >topic of what is "out there" and become fond of it. Also, it spreads a
> >general knowledge of basic things like causes of day and night, seasons
> >and other things where astronomy and earthly matters meet. I am very
> >curious what it is like where you live in. In Poland astronomy used to
> >be a regular subject at school around the time of the golden space era
> >of the 1960s, then was degraded to becoming part of physics classes in
> >the 1980s and driven completely out of school curricula around now. So,
> >what are you opinions on that? Is astronomy still taught at school
> >where you live? Should it be taught at school at all?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Karol P.
>
> Here (New Hampshire, USA), Astronomy is part of the elementary school
> curriculum, as part of the general science course. In my own town's
> school system, this includes, weather permitting, a trip outdoors at
> night to view the sky both by the naked eye and through a telescope.
>
> I'm a firm believer that Astronomy should be taught in school. We see
> the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars every day. A knowledge of what
> these bodies are, where they are in relation to each other, and how
> they move through space relative to each other is essential to the
> understanding of the daily oceanic tides and why the Earth has
> seasons. It provides useful examples of the laws of mechanics and
> the Newtonian model of relativity.
Ah,not the Copernican reasoning nor the Keplerian refinements but the
Newtonian model.I wonder how many parents here would suffer their kids
to be indoctrinated into an ideology where children's natural intuitive
intelligence is beaten out of them.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
A child can see the Earth's faster orbital motion overtaking the slower
forward motion of Jupiter and Saturn thereby affirming that we do see
planetary motions around the Sun from a moving Earth just as Copernicus
had all those centuries ago.
The empiricist cannot see what is in front of him,so indoctrinated into
the veracity of Newton to acknowledge a catastrophic error which a
child could pick up on -
"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
It is not a matter of ideologies,the easy to understand modern way to
grasp what Copernicus did and how he did it is now possible through
modern imaging while the false ideology should be jettisoned without
regard for how well established it is.
And, when taught properly, it's a
> lot of fun and helps instill into children a sense of wonder and
> curiosity in the natural world around them, and makes Science
> more meaningful and interesting to them.
>
> -Paul W.
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
Adults know all too well that experiences,good or bad,often appear in
outlines first and then become visible with familiarity.You cannot
treat astronomy and especially heliocentric astronomy as one fact piled
on top of another and to force it on kids at an early age is about as
cruel as it gets .Everyone is an astronomer by virtue of experiencing
the geometric cycles of the day and the year however the details of
what is responsible for both is what makes a person a very good
astronomer insofar as the great Western astronomers worked off the idea
of an axially rotating and orbitally moving Earth from observations of
the Sun and the motions of the other planets.
Your kind rob kids of developing that intuitive intelligence which
serves the appreciation of terrestrial and celestial geometries and
how they mesh to make existence possible,the educational structure
being designed to facilitate that the mathematician and his equational
concerns dominates astronomy rather than those who can go outside and
really appreciate the celestial arena.
The poet William Blake got it right -
http://www.wutsamada.com/alma/modern/newton.jpg
"Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed & govern'd
their Passions, or have no Passions, but because they have cultivated
their Understandings" Blake
It is not easy to develop the necessary intuitive intelligence which
affirms matters of faith and matters of natural phenomena,and
especially astronomy, in a world which seems hellbent on destroying it
in children. Astronomy is all geometry but not all mathematics is
geometry and that is where Newton originally exploited and hijacked
genuine astronomical working principles.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 04:44:52
From: thequazi@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astronomy at School?
|
Since when is "Intelligent design" a science? Shouldn't it be offered
in the ciriclum under a World religion or Christian studies class?
|
|
