Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #552662 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-12 17:10 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-02-18 07:27 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-12 17:10 -0800
Kepler's orbital constaints noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 19:25 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-12 20:35 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 22:55 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:32 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 16:35 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:45 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 08:16 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 00:39 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 02:16 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:44 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:53 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 11:04 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:56 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 17:22 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:02 -0600
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 16:12 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 05:51 +0100
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 22:10 -0800
Re: Kepler's orbital constaints Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:30 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 09:42 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 16:18 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:45 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2016-02-13 17:45 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 19:24 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:09 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-14 17:44 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 19:50 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:16 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 08:30 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-15 16:21 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 08:20 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 04:28 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 05:19 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:16 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:30 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:55 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:58 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:21 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:05 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 01:27 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:00 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:19 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:45 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:15 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:28 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:21 -0500
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 08:29 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-16 11:01 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 13:30 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 13:34 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 19:19 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 15:04 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 20:51 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-18 16:57 +1100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:33 +0100
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:07 -0600
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-02-18 16:16 -0800
Re: Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:27 +0100
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 23:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na0v1p$136t$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #553622 |
On 2/16/2016 3:21 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/16/2016 12:58 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/16/2016 10:55 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/16/2016 10:16 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> HVAC knows his profession. Galileo was just isolated. And that is >>>>> HVAC's >>>>> job, to take those spouting the "wrong" theories and "isolate" them >>>>> from >>>>> society and science discussion in general by slandering them with the >>>>> appellation "crank", "kook", "insane" and so forth. It's his job. He's >>>>> the modern day inquisition. (I'm sure he'd prefer that he were still >>>>> using torture to get people to recant and burning people at the stake, >>>>> however) >>>> >>>> Ben, you should feel free to pursue whatever topics you want. Even >>>> scientists do that. And there are some scientists who pursue ideas that >>>> very few others think will amount to anything. >>> >>> Wait a minute Odd, YOU were the one arguing for science censorship to >>> keep topics in bounds. >> >> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role for >> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does NOT >> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >> >> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about fringe >> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just because >> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put results in >> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? > > I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that > censorhip! No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? >I thought you were a publisher. Nope. > Oh wait! No wonder you are > defending censorship! > >>> Have a change of heart of something? Or is that >>> just for ME? Kooks can investigate anything they want but REAL >>> scientists must be censored. Got it. >>> >>>> But you don't want just that freedom. You want RESPECT for pursuing >>>> unpopular scientific ideas. That you can't expect. If you pursue an >>>> idea >>>> that almost no one else does, then you are BY DEFINITION on the fringe. >>>> As a result you will always get comments from people on the other side >>>> of the fence that they don't think what you're doing is worthwhile. >>>> This >>>> is BY DEFINITION true, otherwise you'd have more company who think the >>>> topic is worthwhile. For some reason, getting that kind of comment >>>> irritates you. >>> >>> And the place you got the idea that I "want RESPECT" is? If I wanted >>> respect, I'd be self-censoring to topics YOU approve of and certainly >>> not be jerking chains here! >>> >>>> By the way, you being called insane has almost nothing to do with the >>>> topics you want to pursue. It has to do with the other behaviors you >>>> exhibit. Surely you know that. >>> >>> Nonsense. >> >> No, really. You don't know that? > > Sure I do. I used my superpowers to find out just like HVAC does! > >>> You can deny your debating tactics but I know how to debate >>> too, even if I find it boring. >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 01:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8pUwy.106551$yJ4.42663@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #553756 |
On 02/17/2016 12:05 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/16/2016 3:21 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/16/2016 12:58 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2016 10:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 02/16/2016 11:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 2/16/2016 10:16 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> HVAC knows his profession. Galileo was just isolated. And that is
>>>>>> HVAC's
>>>>>> job, to take those spouting the "wrong" theories and "isolate" them
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> society and science discussion in general by slandering them with the
>>>>>> appellation "crank", "kook", "insane" and so forth. It's his job.
>>>>>> He's
>>>>>> the modern day inquisition. (I'm sure he'd prefer that he were still
>>>>>> using torture to get people to recant and burning people at the
>>>>>> stake,
>>>>>> however)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben, you should feel free to pursue whatever topics you want. Even
>>>>> scientists do that. And there are some scientists who pursue ideas
>>>>> that
>>>>> very few others think will amount to anything.
>>>>
>>>> Wait a minute Odd, YOU were the one arguing for science censorship to
>>>> keep topics in bounds.
>>>
>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role for
>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not
>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does NOT
>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want.
>>>
>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about fringe
>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just because
>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put results in
>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche?
>>
>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that
>> censorhip!
>
> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship.
> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your
> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you
> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call
> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship?
Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up
stories of what you think words mean and you will!
>> I thought you were a publisher.
>
> Nope.
Hey I saw someone accuse you on the internet of that so it MUST be true!
I mean Tesla and his birds are true, right?
>> Oh wait! No wonder you are
>> defending censorship!
>>
>>>> Have a change of heart of something? Or is that
>>>> just for ME? Kooks can investigate anything they want but REAL
>>>> scientists must be censored. Got it.
>>>>
>>>>> But you don't want just that freedom. You want RESPECT for pursuing
>>>>> unpopular scientific ideas. That you can't expect. If you pursue an
>>>>> idea
>>>>> that almost no one else does, then you are BY DEFINITION on the
>>>>> fringe.
>>>>> As a result you will always get comments from people on the other side
>>>>> of the fence that they don't think what you're doing is worthwhile.
>>>>> This
>>>>> is BY DEFINITION true, otherwise you'd have more company who think the
>>>>> topic is worthwhile. For some reason, getting that kind of comment
>>>>> irritates you.
>>>>
>>>> And the place you got the idea that I "want RESPECT" is? If I wanted
>>>> respect, I'd be self-censoring to topics YOU approve of and certainly
>>>> not be jerking chains here!
>>>>
>>>>> By the way, you being called insane has almost nothing to do with the
>>>>> topics you want to pursue. It has to do with the other behaviors you
>>>>> exhibit. Surely you know that.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> No, really. You don't know that?
>>
>> Sure I do. I used my superpowers to find out just like HVAC does!
>>
>>>> You can deny your debating tactics but I know how to debate
>>>> too, even if I find it boring.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 09:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na21ub$so9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #553782 |
On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role for >>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does NOT >>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >>>> >>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about >>>> fringe >>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just because >>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put results in >>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? >>> >>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that >>> censorhip! >> >> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. >> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your >> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you >> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call >> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? > > Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up > stories of what you think words mean and you will! Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you. This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a difference of opinion between you and the world. https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 16:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <It5xy.107086$yJ4.70224@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #553854 |
On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role for
>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not
>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does NOT
>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about
>>>>> fringe
>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just
>>>>> because
>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put results in
>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that
>>>> censorhip!
>>>
>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship.
>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your
>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you
>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call
>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship?
>>
>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up
>> stories of what you think words mean and you will!
>
> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you.
> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a difference
> of opinion between you and the world.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping
>
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control
Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any
paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool with
your Polyanna view of real life?
You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid people on
Usenet (this group) are?
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 15:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na2plj$o39$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #554037 |
On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role >>>>>> for >>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does >>>>>> NOT >>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about >>>>>> fringe >>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just >>>>>> because >>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put results in >>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? >>>>> >>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that >>>>> censorhip! >>>> >>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. >>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your >>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you >>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call >>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? >>> >>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up >>> stories of what you think words mean and you will! >> >> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you. >> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a difference >> of opinion between you and the world. >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping >> >> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control > > Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any > paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool with > your Polyanna view of real life? > > You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid people on > Usenet (this group) are? All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in those beliefs, as the links above show. So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do. This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 19:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <R28xy.3009$NW.2514@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #554050 |
On 02/17/2016 04:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not
>>>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does
>>>>>>> NOT
>>>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about
>>>>>>> fringe
>>>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put
>>>>>>> results in
>>>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that
>>>>>> censorhip!
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship.
>>>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your
>>>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you
>>>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call
>>>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship?
>>>>
>>>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up
>>>> stories of what you think words mean and you will!
>>>
>>> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you.
>>> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a difference
>>> of opinion between you and the world.
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control
>>>
>>
>> Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any
>> paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool with
>> your Polyanna view of real life?
>>
>> You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid people on
>> Usenet (this group) are?
>
> All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that
> editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that
> gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in
> those beliefs, as the links above show.
>
> So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do.
>
> This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion.
Sorry, but you are the one alone here. Obviously there is editing. There
is gatekeeping. But when you have control of publication then it's all
about how you use it. Correcting spelling and grammar are one thing.
Stripping all "forbidden" topics is another. Publisher and editor (who
are paid by publishers) spiking is no fantasy and you know it. Save your
debating word games for "explaining" QM. You are just being irrational
again.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 07:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na4gto$1fo3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #554083 |
On 2/17/2016 6:15 PM, benj wrote: > On 02/17/2016 04:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >>>>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does >>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about >>>>>>>> fringe >>>>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just >>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put >>>>>>>> results in >>>>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that >>>>>>> censorhip! >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. >>>>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your >>>>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you >>>>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would call >>>>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? >>>>> >>>>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up >>>>> stories of what you think words mean and you will! >>>> >>>> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you. >>>> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a >>>> difference >>>> of opinion between you and the world. >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any >>> paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool with >>> your Polyanna view of real life? >>> >>> You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid people on >>> Usenet (this group) are? >> >> All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that >> editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that >> gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in >> those beliefs, as the links above show. >> >> So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do. >> >> This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion. > > Sorry, but you are the one alone here. Obviously there is editing. There > is gatekeeping. But when you have control of publication then it's all > about how you use it. Correcting spelling and grammar are one thing. That's not what editors do. Good grief. I encourage you to write an article about cooking and submit it to Popular Mechanics, and then when they 86 your submission, be sure to complain to the editor that his job is correcting spelling and grammar, not to exclude all articles about cooking from his publication. You're an idiot, Ben, not to mention insane. > Stripping all "forbidden" topics is another. Publisher and editor (who > are paid by publishers) spiking is no fantasy and you know it. Save your > debating word games for "explaining" QM. You are just being irrational > again. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 10:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dklxy.36395$NG6.30263@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #554203 |
On 02/18/2016 08:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/17/2016 6:15 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/17/2016 04:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a role
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not
>>>>>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want does
>>>>>>>>> NOT
>>>>>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about
>>>>>>>>> fringe
>>>>>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just
>>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put
>>>>>>>>> results in
>>>>>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that
>>>>>>>> censorhip!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship.
>>>>>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your
>>>>>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names you
>>>>>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up
>>>>>> stories of what you think words mean and you will!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you.
>>>>> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a
>>>>> difference
>>>>> of opinion between you and the world.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any
>>>> paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool
>>>> with
>>>> your Polyanna view of real life?
>>>>
>>>> You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid people on
>>>> Usenet (this group) are?
>>>
>>> All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that
>>> editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that
>>> gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in
>>> those beliefs, as the links above show.
>>>
>>> So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do.
>>>
>>> This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion.
>>
>> Sorry, but you are the one alone here. Obviously there is editing. There
>> is gatekeeping. But when you have control of publication then it's all
>> about how you use it. Correcting spelling and grammar are one thing.
>
> That's not what editors do. Good grief.
Well, if you assure us all of that then it certainly MUST be true
because someone of your learning and experience is never wrong!
> I encourage you to write an article about cooking and submit it to
> Popular Mechanics, and then when they 86 your submission, be sure to
> complain to the editor that his job is correcting spelling and grammar,
> not to exclude all articles about cooking from his publication.
Gosh you get dense when you are on the debating team! You, yourself have
verified that I'm a published author and have submitted articles (and
got paid for them) So I know the difference between editing and censorship.
> You're an idiot, Ben, not to mention insane.
Why is it that the only argument you libs can come up with in a debate
is that your opponent is an "idiot", "moron" and "insane"? That is so
incompetent and shows you have nothing substantial to say.
>> Stripping all "forbidden" topics is another. Publisher and editor (who
>> are paid by publishers) spiking is no fantasy and you know it. Save your
>> debating word games for "explaining" QM. You are just being irrational
>> again.
AGAIN!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 08:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <naf5vs$hrf$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #554235 |
On 2/18/2016 9:21 AM, benj wrote: > On 02/18/2016 08:28 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2016 6:15 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 02/17/2016 04:45 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/17/2016 3:19 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 02/17/2016 10:00 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/17/2016 12:27 AM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Heck no. I never said that. What I did say is that there is a >>>>>>>>>> role >>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>> moderated publications. Moderation and editorial control is not >>>>>>>>>> censorship. Also, your being free to pursue whatever you want >>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>> NOT >>>>>>>>>> translate into your being able to command any audience you want. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is a group of people who do not want to read articles about >>>>>>>>>> fringe >>>>>>>>>> science, which BY DEFINITION, you have an interest in. And just >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> YOU are interested in it, doesn't mean that you get to put >>>>>>>>>> results in >>>>>>>>>> front of their eyeballs. Capiche? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't know what YOU call that but most of us here call that >>>>>>>>> censorhip! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Ben, that's not censorship. Not even close to censorship. >>>>>>>> So when you say "most of us here", are you counting all your >>>>>>>> personalities? Who else here (and I'm willing to count the names >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> list to see if they actually constitute "most of us here") would >>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>> moderation and editorial control to be the same as censorship? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Words, words, words! You "won" this debate yet? Just keep making up >>>>>>> stories of what you think words mean and you will! >>>>>> >>>>>> Not making up a thing, Ben. If anyone is making stuff up, it's you. >>>>>> This isn't a difference of opinion between you and me. It's a >>>>>> difference >>>>>> of opinion between you and the world. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+editing >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+selection >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+gatekeeping >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+censorship+and+control >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right. "Gatekeeping" isn't censorship. Sure. An editor can't spike any >>>>> paper he/she feels is "forbidden"? Just who are you trying to fool >>>>> with >>>>> your Polyanna view of real life? >>>>> >>>>> You in on the "experiment" with HVAC to see just how stooopid >>>>> people on >>>>> Usenet (this group) are? >>>> >>>> All I'm pointing out to you, Ben, is that YOU PERSONALLY believe that >>>> editing is the same as censorship. YOU PERSONALLY believe that >>>> gatekeeping is the same as censorship. But you are pretty much ALONE in >>>> those beliefs, as the links above show. >>>> >>>> So just recognize that most other people do not feel the way you do. >>>> >>>> This is not a one-on-one difference of opinion. >>> >>> Sorry, but you are the one alone here. Obviously there is editing. There >>> is gatekeeping. But when you have control of publication then it's all >>> about how you use it. Correcting spelling and grammar are one thing. >> >> That's not what editors do. Good grief. > > Well, if you assure us all of that then it certainly MUST be true > because someone of your learning and experience is never wrong! Not me, Ben. ANYBODY else other than yourself. Just learn to consult people OTHER THAN YOURSELF about things like what editors do. Like editors. The problem, Ben, is that you only consult yourself about what is true. That's the insanity. > >> I encourage you to write an article about cooking and submit it to >> Popular Mechanics, and then when they 86 your submission, be sure to >> complain to the editor that his job is correcting spelling and grammar, >> not to exclude all articles about cooking from his publication. > > Gosh you get dense when you are on the debating team! You, yourself have > verified that I'm a published author and have submitted articles (and > got paid for them) So I know the difference between editing and censorship. Except that you've mistaken a lot of what editors do as part of their jobs with censorship. You apparently think editing is correcting grammar and spelling. > >> You're an idiot, Ben, not to mention insane. > > Why is it that the only argument you libs can come up with in a debate > is that your opponent is an "idiot", "moron" and "insane"? That is so > incompetent and shows you have nothing substantial to say. > Sorry, Ben, but your behavior that YOU know what editing should entail, regardless of what editors say about it, and that YOU know whether life origin science is really science, regardless what scientists say about it, is plainly insane. > >>> Stripping all "forbidden" topics is another. Publisher and editor (who >>> are paid by publishers) spiking is no fantasy and you know it. Save your >>> debating word games for "explaining" QM. You are just being irrational >>> again. > > AGAIN! > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54bea94e-a255-4d0c-bef8-9d75e917166e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #553506 |
On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 8:28:08 PM UTC+8, HVAC wrote: > Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks. > ------------- > > Point of order: Galileo was not burned He was a heretic but the church dared not to burn him. Instead he was forced to renounce his teaching that the earth circled the sun and he was put under house arrest and forbidden to publish. Likewise the church put Kepler under pressure. His mother was accused to be a witch. She was not burned or tortured but only shown the implements of torture and threatened with the use of them against her if she did not reveal her alleged liaison with the devil. Today such barbarism has stopped. The policy however of denying dissenting voices access to serious forums continues with the justification they do not accept or 'understand' current dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-16 13:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7bdc0dc1-609e-459b-96aa-c8a099574664@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #553593 |
if Galileo should have been burnt, tOO late; see http://larouchepub.com > He was a heretic but the church dared not to burn him. Instead he was forced to renounce his teaching that the earth circled the sun and he was put under house arrest and forbidden to publish. Likewise the church put Kepler under pressure. His mother was accused to be a witch. She was not burned or tortured but only shown the implements of torture and threatened with the use of them against her if she did not reveal her alleged liaison with the devil. > > Today such barbarism has stopped. The policy however of denying dissenting voices access to serious forums continues with the justification they do not accept or 'understand' current dogma.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 13:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dikot5Fq67rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #552662 |
On 13/02/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > Kepler's 3rd law with adjusted orbital periods > > Kepler's third law in the form t2/r3 gives a constant value. It is a precise law but applying it with the measured values for the orbital periods in seconds for t and the measured semi major axis in metres for r produces results with small differences. > > It suggests that the measured numbers for t and/or r are incorrect. However a small adjustment to the tsec values achieves an identical constant for all nine planets. The adjustments to the tsec values are from -0.065% to +0.002%. > > > measured tsec adjusted tsec semi major axis > MER 7,600,752 7,600,552 57,909,175,000 > VEN 19,414,681 19,414,164 108,208,930,000 > EAR 31,558,464 31,558,202 149,597,890,000 > MAR 59,356,661 59,353,354 227,936,640,000 > JUP 374,365,908 374,574,616 778,412,010,000 > SAT 929,317,806 929,468,424 1,426,725,400,000 > URA 2,651,442,610 2,653,184,989 2,870,972,200,000 > NEP 5,200,560,940 5,203,431,644 4,498,252,900,000 > PLU 7,823,994,908 7,828,997,025 5,906,380,000,000 > > t2/r3 (incorrect t) t2/r3 (adjusted t) > MER 2.97489048E-19 2.97473376E-19 > VEN 2.97489192E-19 2.97473376E-19 > EAR 2.97478313E-19 2.97473376E-19 > MAR 2.97506530E-19 2.97473376E-19 > JUP 2.97141972E-19 2.97473376E-19 > SAT 2.97376974E-19 2.97473376E-19 > URA 2.97082795E-19 2.97473376E-19 > NEP 2.97145237E-19 2.97473376E-19 > PLU 2.97093373E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > Peter Riedt > Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year would have been noticed by now? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 19:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ac57606-8210-48fc-a59e-11cdd96b8d02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #554118 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 13/02/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > Kepler's 3rd law with adjusted orbital periods > > > > Kepler's third law in the form t2/r3 gives a constant value. It is a precise law but applying it with the measured values for the orbital periods in seconds for t and the measured semi major axis in metres for r produces results with small differences. > > > > It suggests that the measured numbers for t and/or r are incorrect. However a small adjustment to the tsec values achieves an identical constant for all nine planets. The adjustments to the tsec values are from -0.065% to +0.002%. > > > > > > measured tsec adjusted tsec semi major axis > > MER 7,600,752 7,600,552 57,909,175,000 > > VEN 19,414,681 19,414,164 108,208,930,000 > > EAR 31,558,464 31,558,202 149,597,890,000 > > MAR 59,356,661 59,353,354 227,936,640,000 > > JUP 374,365,908 374,574,616 778,412,010,000 > > SAT 929,317,806 929,468,424 1,426,725,400,000 > > URA 2,651,442,610 2,653,184,989 2,870,972,200,000 > > NEP 5,200,560,940 5,203,431,644 4,498,252,900,000 > > PLU 7,823,994,908 7,828,997,025 5,906,380,000,000 > > > > t2/r3 (incorrect t) t2/r3 (adjusted t) > > MER 2.97489048E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > VEN 2.97489192E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > EAR 2.97478313E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > MAR 2.97506530E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > JUP 2.97141972E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > SAT 2.97376974E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > URA 2.97082795E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > NEP 2.97145237E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > PLU 2.97093373E-19 2.97473376E-19 > > > > Peter Riedt > > > > Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year > would have been noticed by now? > > Sylvia. Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 15:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <diku6eFr9ctU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #554126 |
On 18/02/2016 2:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 13/02/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> Kepler's 3rd law with adjusted orbital periods >>> >>> Kepler's third law in the form t2/r3 gives a constant value. It is a precise law but applying it with the measured values for the orbital periods in seconds for t and the measured semi major axis in metres for r produces results with small differences. >>> >>> It suggests that the measured numbers for t and/or r are incorrect. However a small adjustment to the tsec values achieves an identical constant for all nine planets. The adjustments to the tsec values are from -0.065% to +0.002%. >>> >>> >>> measured tsec adjusted tsec semi major axis >>> MER 7,600,752 7,600,552 57,909,175,000 >>> VEN 19,414,681 19,414,164 108,208,930,000 >>> EAR 31,558,464 31,558,202 149,597,890,000 >>> MAR 59,356,661 59,353,354 227,936,640,000 >>> JUP 374,365,908 374,574,616 778,412,010,000 >>> SAT 929,317,806 929,468,424 1,426,725,400,000 >>> URA 2,651,442,610 2,653,184,989 2,870,972,200,000 >>> NEP 5,200,560,940 5,203,431,644 4,498,252,900,000 >>> PLU 7,823,994,908 7,828,997,025 5,906,380,000,000 >>> >>> t2/r3 (incorrect t) t2/r3 (adjusted t) >>> MER 2.97489048E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> VEN 2.97489192E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> EAR 2.97478313E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> MAR 2.97506530E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> JUP 2.97141972E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> SAT 2.97376974E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> URA 2.97082795E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> NEP 2.97145237E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> PLU 2.97093373E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>> >>> Peter Riedt >>> >> >> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year >> would have been noticed by now? >> >> Sylvia. > > Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. > Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-17 20:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <942c64f1-714a-4d12-8437-019868c52721@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #554137 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:04:34 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 18/02/2016 2:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 13/02/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> Kepler's 3rd law with adjusted orbital periods > >>> > >>> Kepler's third law in the form t2/r3 gives a constant value. It is a precise law but applying it with the measured values for the orbital periods in seconds for t and the measured semi major axis in metres for r produces results with small differences. > >>> > >>> It suggests that the measured numbers for t and/or r are incorrect. However a small adjustment to the tsec values achieves an identical constant for all nine planets. The adjustments to the tsec values are from -0.065% to +0.002%. > >>> > >>> > >>> measured tsec adjusted tsec semi major axis > >>> MER 7,600,752 7,600,552 57,909,175,000 > >>> VEN 19,414,681 19,414,164 108,208,930,000 > >>> EAR 31,558,464 31,558,202 149,597,890,000 > >>> MAR 59,356,661 59,353,354 227,936,640,000 > >>> JUP 374,365,908 374,574,616 778,412,010,000 > >>> SAT 929,317,806 929,468,424 1,426,725,400,000 > >>> URA 2,651,442,610 2,653,184,989 2,870,972,200,000 > >>> NEP 5,200,560,940 5,203,431,644 4,498,252,900,000 > >>> PLU 7,823,994,908 7,828,997,025 5,906,380,000,000 > >>> > >>> t2/r3 (incorrect t) t2/r3 (adjusted t) > >>> MER 2.97489048E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> VEN 2.97489192E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> EAR 2.97478313E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> MAR 2.97506530E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> JUP 2.97141972E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> SAT 2.97376974E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> URA 2.97082795E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> NEP 2.97145237E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> PLU 2.97093373E-19 2.97473376E-19 > >>> > >>> Peter Riedt > >>> > >> > >> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year > >> would have been noticed by now? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. > > > > Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. > > Sylvia. I used t^2/r^3, Kepler's 3rd law. Is Kepler wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 16:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dil4peFsnmjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #554144 |
On 18/02/2016 3:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:04:34 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18/02/2016 2:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 13/02/2016 12:10 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> Kepler's 3rd law with adjusted orbital periods >>>>> >>>>> Kepler's third law in the form t2/r3 gives a constant value. It is a precise law but applying it with the measured values for the orbital periods in seconds for t and the measured semi major axis in metres for r produces results with small differences. >>>>> >>>>> It suggests that the measured numbers for t and/or r are incorrect. However a small adjustment to the tsec values achieves an identical constant for all nine planets. The adjustments to the tsec values are from -0.065% to +0.002%. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> measured tsec adjusted tsec semi major axis >>>>> MER 7,600,752 7,600,552 57,909,175,000 >>>>> VEN 19,414,681 19,414,164 108,208,930,000 >>>>> EAR 31,558,464 31,558,202 149,597,890,000 >>>>> MAR 59,356,661 59,353,354 227,936,640,000 >>>>> JUP 374,365,908 374,574,616 778,412,010,000 >>>>> SAT 929,317,806 929,468,424 1,426,725,400,000 >>>>> URA 2,651,442,610 2,653,184,989 2,870,972,200,000 >>>>> NEP 5,200,560,940 5,203,431,644 4,498,252,900,000 >>>>> PLU 7,823,994,908 7,828,997,025 5,906,380,000,000 >>>>> >>>>> t2/r3 (incorrect t) t2/r3 (adjusted t) >>>>> MER 2.97489048E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> VEN 2.97489192E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> EAR 2.97478313E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> MAR 2.97506530E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> JUP 2.97141972E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> SAT 2.97376974E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> URA 2.97082795E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> NEP 2.97145237E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> PLU 2.97093373E-19 2.97473376E-19 >>>>> >>>>> Peter Riedt >>>>> >>>> >>>> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year >>>> would have been noticed by now? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. >>> >> >> Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > I used t^2/r^3, Kepler's 3rd law. Is Kepler wrong? > Probably not. Your semi-major axis lengths are approximations, given that they end in an unlikely number of zeros. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 07:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <na3oec$1dq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #554144 |
Dne 18/02/2016 v 05:51 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:04:34 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year >>>> would have been noticed by now? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. >>> >> >> Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > I used t^2/r^3, Kepler's 3rd law. Is Kepler wrong? No, you are wrong, misinterpreting Kepler. See the link, especially bottom part. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html#c6 BTW, rules of statistics say inaccurate input cannot provide accurate output . -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 10:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <na4q8h$1hv$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #554144 |
On 2/17/2016 10:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:04:34 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 18/02/2016 2:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> >>>> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year >>>> would have been noticed by now? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. >>> >> >> Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. >> >> Sylvia. > > I used t^2/r^3, Kepler's 3rd law. Is Kepler wrong? > Kepler's law as you used it is known to be wrong, because it assumes the mass of the sun is infinite. If you correct for the ratio of the mass of sun to the mass of the planets, in the manner described by Newton, you get a slightly different law than Kepler's approximation. Newton's version of the law gets the relationship between period and orbital radius right without altering the data. I'll repeat, Peter: Adjusting data to make a law work is a scientific no-no. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 16:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <68824550-982a-4524-afeb-1da56468e07a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #554254 |
On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:07:50 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/17/2016 10:51 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12:04:34 PM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 18/02/2016 2:19 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year > >>>> would have been noticed by now? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. > >>> > >> > >> Or maybe you've simply got the math wrong. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > I used t^2/r^3, Kepler's 3rd law. Is Kepler wrong? > > > > Kepler's law as you used it is known to be wrong, because it assumes the > mass of the sun is infinite. If you correct for the ratio of the mass of > sun to the mass of the planets, in the manner described by Newton, you > get a slightly different law than Kepler's approximation. Newton's > version of the law gets the relationship between period and orbital > radius right without altering the data. > Do you mean Newton's universal gravitation law or another formula?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 07:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <na3o2g$vor$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #554126 |
Dne 18/02/2016 v 04:19 Peter Riedt napsal(a): > On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 10:34:18 AM UTC+8, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> >> >> Don't you think that a 262 second error in the length of an Earth year >> would have been noticed by now? > > Good point. Maybe the seconds are correct but the semi major axis is wrong. > .. or some of presumptions... Provide complete steps of your analysis. -- Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web