Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #552662 > unrolled thread

Kepler's 3rd with adjusted orbital periods

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#554553 — Re: Kepler's orbital constaints

Dne 19/02/2016 v 07:10 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:51:21 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 19/02/2016 v 01:12 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 12:02:38 AM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gravitationally_rounded_objects_of_the_Solar_System
>>>>
>>>> Note that none of the information on this page includes orbital period 
>>>> in seconds or semimajor axis in any units. So again, I ask you, where 
>>>> did the data in your table come from?
>>>>
>>> I used the quoted mean distance from the sun and orbital periods in earth years converted to seconds.
>>>
>> At mean distance there is a trap in
>> what exactly is meant by the mean.
>>
>> Mean as arithmetic mean of perigee and apogee ?
>> Mean as arithmetic mean for orbit points ?
>> Mean as arithmetic mean for time points ?
>>
>> So it is much better
>> to use explicit semi major axis data, which are available.
>>
> 
> Your suggestion is excellent as 'mean' can mean different things.
> 
The mean is a standard statistical term.

The average is the arithmetic mean,
where there is also
the geometric mean based on multiplication
and harmonic mean based on reciprocal values.

All of them can be also weighted.
-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#552818

On 2/12/2016 7:10 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%.
>
>

Which of the numbers in the table below are measured and which are ones 
you calculated?

> 	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
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553032

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 11:42:31 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 7:10 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%.
> >
> >
> 
> Which of the numbers in the table below are measured and which are ones 
> you calculated?
> 
> > 	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
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Measured tsec and semi major axis.
Calculated adjusted tsec and the two t2/r3 calculations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553159

On 2/13/2016 6:18 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:

>
> Measured tsec and semi major axis.
> Calculated adjusted tsec and the two t2/r3 calculations.
>

What is your source of measured data? Please cite.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553048

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 11:10:57 AM UTC+10, Peter Riedt wrote:
[...]
> measured semi major axis in metres

Where do your values come from? AFAICT, your values agree with the best current values  for about 5 significant figures for the inner planets, and 3 significant figures for the outer planets, which suggests the differences in t^2/r^3 for the measured values results from inaccurate r.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553074

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 9:45:50 AM UTC+8, Timo wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 11:10:57 AM UTC+10, Peter Riedt wrote:
> [...]
> > measured semi major axis in metres
> 
> Where do your values come from? AFAICT, your values agree with the best current values  for about 5 significant figures for the inner planets, and 3 significant figures for the outer planets, which suggests the differences in t^2/r^3 for the measured values results from inaccurate r.

Or inaccurate orbital periods.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553134

Dne 13/02/2016 v 02:10 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 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%.
> 

Such adjusting is not proper treatment of measured values
with their systematic and random errors.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553226

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:09:32 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 13/02/2016 v 02:10 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > 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%.
> > 
> 
> Such adjusting is not proper treatment of measured values
> with their systematic and random errors.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553232

On 2/14/16 7:44 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks.


   Heretics were not necessarily right or wrong, but cranks are
   contradicted by physics observational data.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553279

Dne 15/02/2016 v 02:44 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:09:32 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 13/02/2016 v 02:10 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> 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%.
>>>
>>
>> Such adjusting is not proper treatment of measured values
>> with their systematic and random errors.
>>
> 
> Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks.
> 

So let call you a crank...  :-)

Everybody who wants to push the knowledge further,
should know much more than basics.

You have troubles even with basics.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553282

Dne 15/02/2016 v 02:44 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 2:09:32 AM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 13/02/2016 v 02:10 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>> 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%.
>>>
>>
>> Such adjusting is not proper treatment of measured values
>> with their systematic and random errors.
> 
> Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks.
> 

You systematically ignore in all your posts
the statistical aspect of experimental data.

Evaluating the measured data in physical equations
leads at the end to comparison
of 2 inaccurate, but theoretically equal values.

Those values have
estimation of their means
and estimation of their standard deviations.

Than it is evaluated , usually by Ftest,
if the difference is at chosen confidentiality level
statistically significant or not.

IF there are values 0.995 and 1.005,
based on experimental data,
it is not justified to say they are different
without proper statistical analysis of accuracy.

Aside of that, the essential prerequisite is
to get the equations right.

G.( M_s + M_p ) = 4.pi^2 . a_p^3 / T_p^2

where indexes _s and _p stand for Sun and Planet, respectively.


-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553453

On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:30:53 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:

> 
> IF there are values 0.995 and 1.005,
> based on experimental data,
> it is not justified to say they are different
> without proper statistical analysis of accuracy.
> 
The nine values I have calculated for the nine planets using Kepler's constant t2/e3  are identical. No differences, nil error. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553489

Dne 16/02/2016 v 01:21 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Monday, February 15, 2016 at 3:30:53 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>>
>> IF there are values 0.995 and 1.005,
>> based on experimental data,
>> it is not justified to say they are different
>> without proper statistical analysis of accuracy.
>>
> The nine values I have calculated for the nine planets using Kepler's constant t2/e3  are identical. No differences, nil error. 
> 
Well, this is your biggest mistake.. :-)
You have spoiled the data processing to achieve that.

There are never "No differences, nil error"
in processing experimental data.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553506

Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks. 
-------------

Point of order: Galileo was not burned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553512

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

Correct, others were.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553553

On 02/16/2016 07:28 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Science has advanced since Galileo. Heretics are no longer burned but merely called cranks.
> -------------
>
> Point of order: Galileo was not burned
>
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)

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553561

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553577

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. 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. You can deny your debating tactics but I know how to debate 
too, even if I find it boring.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#553584

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?

> 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?

> 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]

#553622

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! I thought you were a publisher. 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]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web