 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / August 2008EINSTEIN FRAUD CAMOUFLAGED BY JOURNAL NATURE
Some time ago Philip Ball published in his journal Nature impressive camouflage of Arthur Eddington's 1919 fraud: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070903/full/news070903-20.html Philip Ball: "Arthur Eddington was innocent!" http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2007/09/arthur_eddington_was_innocent.html However camouflaging Eddington's fraud is obviously not enough and Nature strikes even harder. The paper below should have been called: "Forget about Einstein's 1905 false light postulate!": http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v4/n8/full/nphys1042.html Nature Physics 4, 583 (2008) Mark Buchanan "Could Galileo have worked out the principles of the modern theory of relativity? Could he, even in the mid-seventeenth century, have derived the Lorentz transformations, the existence of a fundamental limiting velocity, and the equivalence of mass and energy? The idea sounds preposterous, especially as the limitations of the principle of relativity as Galileo did conceive it only appeared at the dawn of the twentieth century. After all, it was Maxwell's unification of electricity and magnetism and his explanation of the electromagnetic nature of light, along with the Michelson–Morley experiment, that set the stage for Einstein. Could special relativity have been developed, even in principle, by someone who knew almost nothing of light? Just possibly, the answer is yes. That's the provocative view, at least, of physicist Mitchell Feigenbaum of The Rockefeller University in New York, who suggests that Galileo, if he'd had access to some modern mathematics, might well have followed his own intuitions about the relativity of motion to a theory of relativity in something akin to today's form. What makes Feigenbaum's argument doubly interesting is its emphatic conclusion that the logical foundations of relativity have absolutely nothing to do with light, but follow quite independently from basic logic and symmetry considerations." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com [snip] Sound like a fit? 1. The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. 2. That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. 3. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. 4. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. 5. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. 6. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. 7. The belief is, at the least, unlikely. 8. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his psyche. 9. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. 10. Individuals who know the patient will observe that his belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder --Mike Jr > [snip] > > Sound like a fit? > > 1. The patient expresses an idea or belief > with unusual persistence or force. Yes. Earlier expressions of the same idea (by other patients): http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent enévidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity." http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810 238886 Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity. This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman, Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers." http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2 Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com It seems the journal Nature is not alone. The John Hopkins University is also camouflaging the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light postulate in panic: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryMinkowski.pdf Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com <Variations on the same old material deleted - Pentcho, do you ever spend thinking about anything else?> Valev confirms he has delusional disorder, yet again! Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK > [snip] > > Sound like a fit? For Valev, Spaceman or Burt? Myself? > > [snip] > > > Sound like a fit? > > For Valev, Spaceman or Burt? > Myself? If and only if the shoe fits. GPS incorporates General Relativistic corrections in its NAV equations. GPS doesn't work with those corrections turned off. This is a hard fact. Denying General Relativity in its entirety strikes me as delusional. Any successor theory needs to explain everything that GR does and one or two more things that GR doesn't. You perceive the world through your five senses. Some insects see polarized light; we don't (especially when we wear polarizing sunglasses). You shouldn't expect the universe to conform to just the five senses that we humans possess. GR does make sense and yes the universe is really like that. But you have to expand your mind (and your knowledge of math) if you ever hope to grasp it. Compared to Quantum Mechanics, GR is a snap to understand. How is your grasp of Lie and Grassmann algebras these days? --Mike Jr > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is a hard fact. Denying General Relativity in its entirety strikes me > as delusional. I am not delusional in THAT way. I accept that general relativity (GR) is largely the best theory we have concerning gravity and motion. I accept that special relativity is a model that is at best a limiting condition of general relativity (GR). I am not saying that special relativity (SR) applies over any and all conditions. > Any successor theory needs to explain everything that > GR does and one or two more things that GR doesn't. Quantum theory (QT) explains one or two things that GR can't. Furthermore, GR can explain a few things that QT can not. As has often been discussed, QT is inconsistent with GR. A broad theory including both QT and GR as limiting conditions has not been firmly established. However, QT and SR are consistent with each other. Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is formulated to include both QT, SR and electrodynamics as special limits. Furthermore, quantum chromodynamics (QC) has been formulated to include QT, SR and the strong nuclear form as special limits. What is called the standard model (QC and QED together) is consistent with SR. As of yet, there is no general model that includes all these limiting cases and GR. SR is the framework for almost every quantum theory that we have. Therefore, it seems to me that an understanding of SR is a prerequisite for understanding most of physics. GR is wonderful, and probably the best model that we have right now for gravity. However, the mixture of QT and SR is not a limiting case of GR and QT. There is no mixture of GR and QT. Therefore, to really understand QT at present one needs an understanding of SR. > You perceive the world through your five senses. Some insects see > polarized light; we don't (especially when we wear polarizing > sunglasses). You shouldn't expect the universe to conform to just the > five senses that we humans possess. GR does make sense and yes the > universe is really like that. But you have to expand your mind (and > your knowledge of math) if you ever hope to grasp it. I agree. However, I would like a theory of the universe to conform at least to experimental instruments. Which all the physical theories do. I just want to understand these theories in terms of the type of instruments used to confirm them. Which is why I worked really hard to understand the Hafele Keating experiment. I read through the 1971 papers. I thought that they were really one of the best descriptions of relativity that I have read. This wasn't a thought experiment, it was the real thing. > Compared to Quantum Mechanics, GR is a snap to understand. How is > your grasp of Lie and Grassmann algebras these days? Poor. I once knew what a Lie group was. I never knew what a Grassman group is. I recently was introduced to the Poincare group. > > > > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > Poor. I once knew what a Lie group was. I never knew what a > Grassman group is. I recently was introduced to the Poincare group. Darwin123, I don't know why I felt the need to get on my high horse. sci.physics is deluged with "Einstein hoax" nonsense from people who apparently can't respond to rational argument. I guess I should just ignore it. On my last flight to Colorado Springs (via Denver), I reread the early chapters of Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality". It's a long flight. All the math that you need to understand General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is covered. Grassmann algebra, for instance, is covered on pages 211-15. --Best regards, --Mike Jr > GPS incorporates General Relativistic corrections in its NAV > equations. This is utterly wrong. No manufacturers of GPS products need to take GR into account. <shrug> > GPS doesn't work with those corrections turned off. You are so ignorant. <shrug> > This is a hard fact. What a typical Einstein Dingleberry in action! <shrug> > Denying General Relativity in its entirety strikes me > as delusional. Denying Allah is delusional. Denying Jehovah is also delusional. Denying Mazda is absolutely delusional. You are speaking as a zealous priest. <shrug> > Any successor theory needs to explain everything that > GR does and one or two more things that GR doesn't. GR is f*cked right from the ground up, but your demand is actually doable. <shrug> > You perceive the world through your five senses. Smell, sight, audio, temperature, and what is the last one? Intimacy? > Some insects see > polarized light; we don't (especially when we wear polarizing > sunglasses). You make absolutely no sense at all. If you wear the right type of sun-glasses, you should have no problems seeing omnipotent light filtered as polar light. <shrug> > You shouldn't expect the universe to conform to just the > five senses that we humans possess. That is a useless statement in the making. <shrug> > GR does make sense I bet you that you do not even know the mathematics of GR. <shrug> > and yes the > universe is really like that. You are so delusional. > But you have to expand your mind (and > your knowledge of math) if you ever hope to grasp it. Your bluff is called. <shrug> > Compared to Quantum Mechanics, GR is a snap to understand. How is > your grasp of Lie and Grassmann algebras these days? Throwing around buzz words to make yourself feel like a scholar, eh? > > GPS incorporates General Relativistic corrections in its NAV > > equations. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Throwing around buzz words to make yourself feel like a scholar, eh? LOL! > 1. The patient expresses an idea or belief > with unusual persistence or force. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > --Mike Jr It seems to me that there are several regular contributors to usenet astronomical groups - and to the various other astronomical groups that exist - that exhibit this condition. They post similar material very frequently, sometimes multiple times a day. They reject, or ignore, any and all evidence that might disprove their own views. Some usenet groups have been left almost unusable by their actions, to the point where most of the more active amateur astronomers no longer read or post to the groups. It is highly unlikely that any campaign within usenet to "get them to stop" will succeed so this leaves ignoring them, filtering them or posting a standard answer to their postings as possible options. A FAQ can be produced as has been done in the case of John Greaves. Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK Martin, Yes, I think you are right. It's unfortunate that there is little to nothing we can do for them. It's relatively easy for anyone to get on the net, especially those who are the least among us who have great difficulty in thinking straight. I've often wondered why someone doesn't write a PhD thesis on these folks? I'm sure it's a measure of some type of how many folks suffer from mental illness:( > I've often wondered why someone doesn't write a PhD thesis on these > folks? > > I'm sure it's a measure of some type of how many folks suffer from > mental illness:( I'm sure people do all the time. We just don't run in the same circles.  SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye Yes then there are those delusional about hard core science who are victims of a unwavering belief system. >> I've often wondered why someone doesn't write a PhD thesis on these >> folks? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I'm sure people do all the time. We just don't run in the same circles. >Yes then there are those delusional about hard core science who are victims >of a unwavering belief system. While I disagree about your assertion regarding "hard core science", I'd have to say that if I'm going to be a "victim" of anything, I'd rather it be an unwavering system than a wavering one. The good thing about an unwavering belief in science is that it doesn't lead to an unwavering belief in any particular facts or theories. That's quite the opposite of most other belief systems. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com > While I disagree about your assertion regarding "hard core science", I'd > have to say that if I'm going to be a "victim" of anything, I'd rather [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lead to an unwavering belief in any particular facts or theories. That's > quite the opposite of most other belief systems. I think this is what the pseudoscientists don't get, fundamentally. Of course no real scientists are perfect either. Andrew Usher > Yes then there are those delusional about hard core science who are victims > of a unwavering belief system. You can join the other delusional posters in my kill file. >> Yes then there are those delusional about hard core science who are >> victims of a unwavering belief system. > > You can join the other delusional posters in my kill file. And you are?..Punk? If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+ postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day - might be enough! Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material **** to people who are not interested **** seems like a total waste of your life. Time to change the record, please! Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK > If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+ > postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day - [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people who are not interested **** seems like a total waste of your > life. Time to change the record, please! A kill file is your friend. Only Min the Dim YEC paranoid religious nutter and YEC nutter Ed Conman "brain as dead as coal" morph significantly. BradGuth Venusian nutter, Oriface36 anti-siderial time and most of the anti-relativity crowd all sit with the same posting address and are very easily ignored. N*ncy and the radish planet X has vanished without trace. So sometimes the odd one does give up. You can also kill file anything with a title ALL IN CAPITALS, or cross posted to more than five or including certain groups with only limited risk of collaterall damage. You can't stop the nutters posting. I suppose we could attempt to maximise the body count of nutters topping themselves at the next predicted major "End of the World" (TM) event which I believe is scheduled for Dec 21st 2012 when the Mayan calendar overflows and Earth will be demolished by the Vogon destructor fleet (or eaten by a mutant star goat). Hale Bopp only scored 39 on this count. Regards, Martin Brown ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Anti-sidereal time !,no, you are welcome to believe that childish 'sidereal time' notion if you wish,the real arguments are what occured after Flamsteed justified the Earth's motions using the return of a star to a meridian and specifically the mutation of Newton in respect to retrogrades and their resolution using a perspective from an orbitally moving Earth, Newton trumped up a hypothetical observer on the Sun which leads to the current dismal situation as to how to 'define' a planet . The problem is not the 'definition' of a planet ,the problem is that nobody affirms the great insight of Copernicus in respect to what planets are in terms of their 'wandering' motion - "Yet [these orbital motions] differ in many ways [from the daily rotation or first motion]. In the first place, they do not swing around the same poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through the zodiac. Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus I am promoting the heliocentricity of Kepler and Copernicus by stating exactly what planets are in terms of motion,how they were observed and distinguished from the Sun and moon and how their 'wandering' motion was resolved from an orbitally moving Earth. Those going to the convention may suffer from unfamiliarity with what the planets are and how they fit into the geocentric/heliocentric scheme but as for delusions,well,considering that not a single person here has affirmed that Newton bungled the main approach to and resolution of retrogrades,I would say that an favorable outcome at the upcoming convention is unlikely - "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 You can do nothing with that silly perspective of Newton except demonstrate that none of you are astronomers.I can say I have tried to make a difference using as many of the original texts and modern imaging as possible,you and the others thumbsuckers have done nothing and that is where I leave you. On Aug 14, 9:40 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+ > > postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day - [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Martin Brown > ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com** On Aug 13, 4:06 am, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > It seems to me that there are several regular contributors to usenet > astronomical groups - and to the various other astronomical groups > that exist - that exhibit this condition. It's also possible -- indeed, likely -- that some of these "people" aren't people at all, but rather artificial-intelligence programs designed to simulate paranoid schizophrenics. This seems like the most probable explanation for "oriel36." It's hard to imagine a ny real person, no matter how abnormal, composing such a huge volume of prose that is syntactically excellent and utterly devoid of content. Obviously, if these "people" are in fact 'bots, there must be some real people behind them to direct their actions and compose the occasional relevant response. It does seem pretty clear that DJM is a real person, in any case. And not one that you'd want to meet in a dark alley, either. In addition to being crazy, he's a really nasty human being. (Most crazy people are totally harmless, and many are quite likeable.) To use a metaphor that my Puritan ancestors would have taken literally, he's "possessed by the Devil." Ultimately, maybe, it doesn't matter -- you have to treat them all the same, anyway. - Tony Flanders On Aug 15, 4:42 pm, tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 13, 4:06 am, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > person, no matter how abnormal, composing such a huge volume of prose > that is syntactically excellent and utterly devoid of content. One hundred years ago they were running around declaring that there is no 'absolute time' via Newton as his worthless defintions - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured." Newton All Isaac is doing is pointing out the difference between the variations in the natural noon cycle and the 24 hour cycle where there is no external reference for 24 hours and certainly not using the daily cycle yet you unfortunate people believe there is an equable 24 hour cycle in order to create a 3 minute 56 second difference using the axial and orbital motions of the Earth - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.png Anyone here can now easily look at the principles which seperate the variations in natural noon from 24 hour noon,you can even call the difference absolute time and relative time if you like,but you would look ridiculous if you tried to reject either once you understand what the Equation of Time does and especially with the availibility of excellent texts - http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html It is 'absolute space' that is relevent at the moment,the attempt to remove the resolution for the observed 'wandering' motions of planets from the observer on an orbitally moving Earth to a hypothetical observer on the Sun - "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 There is no more need to 'define'a planet no more than there was a need to 'define' time or space,most people already know what they are and apply commonsense to new discoveries.The problem is that the majority either cannot see where Newton bungled the main heliocentric argument based on the resolution of retrogrades or do not want to see,even when the actual motions explicitly support Copernicus and obliterate the nuisance view of Newton - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif If Pluto is seen moving against the stellar background and displays apparent retrograde motion as seen from a moving Earth then it is a planet by that virtue alone however commonsense should bookend the planets between Mercury and Pluto as 9 in number for reasons that future generations will appreciate. Unlike you I do not speculate on the mental condition of people here but I will say that a person either develops a talent from astronomy or does not and put most things down to unfamiliarity with the historical and technical details. > Obviously, if these "people" are in fact 'bots, there must be some > real people behind them to direct their actions and compose the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Tony Flanders > It's also possible -- indeed, likely -- that some of these "people" > aren't people at all, but rather artificial-intelligence programs > designed to simulate paranoid schizophrenics. This seems like the most > probable explanation for "oriel36." It's hard to imagine a ny real > person, no matter how abnormal, composing such a huge volume of prose > that is syntactically excellent and utterly devoid of content. Apparently you have never had him pick things from your website to comment on or any of the many other behaviors that pretty much rule out his being a "bot" (which is not really an appropriate term anyhow). He's a real person. His name is Gerald Keleher and he lives in the midwest somewhere (don't recall off hand). It fascinates me that people will go to extreme lengths to come up with alternative explanations to what is a simple, common, and well known problem: mental illness. SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye >Apparently you have never had him pick things from your website to >comment on or any of the many other behaviors that pretty much rule out >his being a "bot" (which is not really an appropriate term anyhow)... Bot [noun]; the larva of a fly, which infests the skin causing an ulcerous sore. In what way is the term inappropriate? _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com >> Apparently you have never had him pick things from your website to >> comment on or any of the many other behaviors that pretty much rule out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > In what way is the term inappropriate? LOL! SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye His name is Gerald Keleher and he lives in the > midwest somewhere (don't recall off hand). > > It fascinates me that people will go to extreme lengths to come up with > alternative explanations to what is a simple, common, and well known > problem: mental illness. Ya AMERICANS ! go figure On Aug 15, 9:42 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > tony_fland...@yahoo.com wrote: > > It's also possible -- indeed, likely -- that some of these "people" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > To reply take out your eye So much for the 'Great Planet Debate' !. In the late 17th century,they created the 'wandering Sun' in order to create a fictional tie-in between the return of a star and daily rotation,how's that for a delusion ! - http://epod.usra.edu/archive/images/solar-analemma-102816-utc2.jpg I prefer the 'wandering planet' perspective known to both geocentric and heliocentric astronomers before the introduction of the 'wandering Sun' - "Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. " Copernicus To think that I offered you personally the differential rate between daily rotation and the orbital orientation (the EoT) change using natural noon as a benchmark,one of the most important aspects of climate studies given that it explains not just the variations in the naural noon cycle but also seasonal variations in daylight/darkness. The celestial arena is too exciting to bother about mental conditions be it yours or anyone else's Greg, Maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of us have had experience with mental illness in our families, our close circle of friends or via professional circles. The others have not had that experience. And of course, those who are seriously ill do not realize that they are. Personally, I have to believe that spammers and those that spend their time writing computer viruses and spyware etc have to be some variant of the mentally ill for all most of these are meant to destroy or disrupt. Ed On Aug 18, 2:31 pm, "P. Edward Murray" <P.EdwardMur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Greg, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Ed So what is your story Ed !. I have a very short litmus test to see if people can reason by themselves and come to an individual conclusion of if they cannot reason for themselves and come to false conclusions. Here ware the observed wandering motions of Jupiter and Saturn as seen from Earth and simultaneously their resolution as seen from an orbitally moving Earth - http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif That is simple enough Ed until an alternative approach is placed before people with Newton's name attached - "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 For some strange reason they cannot bring themselves to affirm that Newton got it wrong,no,they positely refuse to believe he got it wrong even when actual imaging demonstrates otherwise. Mental illness,mass indoctrination,plain silliness - you got 'em all Personally I like to believe it is just unfamiliarity touched with bone laziness. Oriel, Get a life, please! > Oriel, > > Get a life, please! Oh yeah, that's helpful. On Aug 22, 12:08 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Oriel, > > > Get a life, please! > > Oh yeah, that's helpful. Just can't help yourself can you??? On Aug 22, 12:08 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > P. Edward Murray wrote: > > Oriel, > > > Get a life, please! > > Oh yeah, that's helpful. Just can't help yourself can you??? ========================= Get a life, please! > <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ========================= > Get a life, please! pot, kettle, black On Aug 22, 10:23 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ========================= > Get a life, please! pot, kettle, black ============= Just can't help yourself can you??? On Aug 22, 7:08 am, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Oriel, > > > Get a life, please! > > Oh yeah, that's helpful. If I wish to book a flight now, they ask about paying for my carbon footprint,a modern version of denominational Christian indulgences,sort of washing away my CO2 sins and even if the intention is good and I'm sure people don't mind paying out,perhaps it says more about our civilisation reaching a crossroads just as denominational Christianity once did ( Btw,I am very much a Christian). The truth is that our civilisation can't even explain the seasonal variations in daylight/darkness properly let alone the more complex seasonal meterological patterns or the umbrella of global climate,worse still,even the basic daily cycle of day and night due to diurnal rotation is not exempt from ridiculous views that crept in around the late 17th century.For somebody like myself who find this intolerable,not just the exciting technical details which produces a more accurate view but the sheer intransigence in retaining a hoplelessly flawed view,there can be no greater betrayal than an intentional silence. All the billions spent on climate studies and not a cent goes towards looking at the possible variations which arise out of the relationship between daily and the annual orbital motions of the Earth insofar as if the framework organised around the Equatorial Coordinate system and the reasoning behind it does not exist,it is simply fiction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time How wonderful the facade of the concerned scientist diligently probing terrestrial and celestial phenomena to come up with answers in the best interests of the wider population when I have found things to the contrary,at least here in this forum.So,how helpful are you Greg,or Brian ,Chris or the rest ? when even the daily cycle is referenced to a celestial sphere instead of the central Sun and to the behavior of the orbital motion of the Earth,or what amounts to the same thing,the wrong value assigned to daily rotation through 360 degrees. You think I am attacking Flamsteed/ Newton when truly I am looking at the closer links between astronomy and climate studies and that is the unfortunate part ,you cannot outgrow the personalities to look at the actual technical details even when contemporary imaging answers most of the questions and objections.The damnest thing is that I know you are capable of surmounting your astrological background and actually doing some genuine astronomy but be that as it may,people need to start discussing things openly for a change and if that means me withdrawing then so be it. > The truth is that our civilisation can't even explain the seasonal > variations in daylight/darkness properly let alone the more complex > seasonal meterological patterns or the umbrella of global > climate,worse still,even the basic daily cycle of day and night Certainly you cannot with all your drivel. You have never made one coherent statement in anything you have written for the past year or more. Have fun, sing and dance every day and call your mother often. Rolando On Aug 22, 5:34 pm, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > The truth is that our civilisation can't even explain the seasonal > > variations in daylight/darkness properly let alone the more complex [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rolando I have posted the excellent time lapse footage of Uranus often enough to clearly show how the longitudinal motion of the Equatorial rings show that a planets orbits the central Sun in a specific way with the additional bonus of seeing the unique rotational orientation show how diurnal rotation is seperate. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b The Earth has a 360 degree orbital component with respect to the central Sun and whether I make a mess of explaining it or not,it will be there regardless.This motion causes both the seasonal variations in dayligh/darkness and the natural variations in the noon cycle when allied with diurnal rotation and noon as a benchmark. See what modern imaging from Hubble can do ! - I guess not. On Aug 22, 10:34 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > The truth is that our civilisation can't even explain the seasonal > > variations in daylight/darkness properly let alone the more complex > > seasonal meterological patterns or the umbrella of global > > climate,worse still,even the basic daily cycle of day and night > Certainly you cannot with all your drivel. You have never made one > coherent statement in anything you have written for the past year or > more. > Have fun, sing and dance every day and call your mother often. > > Rolando "Rolando"?? Are you serious?? I' would bet you are not a PhD in anything much less astronomy; probably without even a Bachelors in science, right? Perhaps you need to take your own advice? On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 22, 10:34 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Perhaps you need to take your own advice? Roland may not have a a PhD, but he has been at the forefront of optical design and manufacturer of Astro-Physics telescopes. After seeing how you like to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about I'm not terribly surprised at your post. On Aug 24, 3:56 pm, mommycal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > seeing how you like to shoot your mouth off about things you know > nothing about I'm not terribly surprised at your post. You people who cannot control yourselves, including Roland, and continuously rail at the "nutters" are responsible for ruining saa. Have you no self-control; are you so egotistical you can not screen the "nutters" out? Do you have to continue to debate the"nutters" and/ or insult them? Can't you just ignore them" Pathetic--your type has ruined saa, not the "nutters". Moderated groups on Yahoo mostly do not tolerate this nonsense--that is why they thrive. "Shoot my mouth off" because you don't like what I say?? Interesting, childlike response. On Aug 25, 4:35 pm, "M104 gal wrote: > Pathetic--your type has ruined saa, not the "nutters". Moderated > groups on Yahoo mostly do not tolerate this nonsense--that is why they > thrive. Define "your type", "ruined" and "thrive" in this context. Yahoo groups are serial, not parallel, threading. One self appointed "loudmouth" can completely monopolise a Yahoo group. Even to the point of making it his private, online, commercial, sales outlet. He will regularly interrupt interesting threads to flog his latest hit of excess kit or tat. Even advertising non-astromical stuff on occasions. Question the "loudmouth" about such activities and his adoring fans descend on you like vultures. The moderator gets frightened about losing membership and its bye-bye to the critics and a lingering death to the Yahoo group. Why are you so afraid of off-topic threads? Are you such a compulsive reader that you can't ignore them? Or such a slow a reader that you get to the end of the thread before you understand that the content is off topic? Is it intellectual snobbery on your part? Surely not? ; -) Regards Your type. "Thriving in the ruins of the us.s.a.a. ..tra-la." > On Aug 25, 4:35 pm, "M104 gal wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Your type. > "Thriving in the ruins of the us.s.a.a. ..tra-la." "Afraid of off topic threads"??? Is English your first language? I clearly stated that continuing to debate on off topic threads with people you label "nutcases" is a sophomoric exercise--particularly when you have no real scientific credentials yourself. These debates would be amusing if they didn't take up so much time. What is your brilliant theory as to why so many folks have quit saa for the Yahoo Groups, Cloudy Nights forums, etc ? And you seem to participate in very different Yahoo groups--all of mine have strong moderators including Rod Mollise of saa. > On Aug 25, 4:35 pm, "M104 gal wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Your type. > "Thriving in the ruins of the us.s.a.a. ..tra-la." "Afraid of off topic threads"??? Is English your first language? I clearly stated that continuing to debate on off topic threads with people you label "nutcases" is a sophomoric exercise--particularly when you have no real scientific credentials yourself. These debates would be amusing if they didn't take up so much time. What is your brilliant theory as to why so many folks have quit saa for the Yahoo Groups, Cloudy Nights forums, etc ? And you seem to participate in very different Yahoo groups--all of mine have strong moderators including Rod Mollise of saa. >> On Aug 25, 4:35 pm, "M104 gal wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > And you seem to participate in very different Yahoo groups--all of > mine have strong moderators including Rod Mollise of saa. I agree with Chris. There is no one here who does not want to be here. The 'problems' on saa are what they are. You can get upset and annoyed, or you can take charge of those things which _you_ have control over to make the experience better for yourself. The expectation you have that other people should not respond to "nutters" and "trolls", is simply unrealistic in any unmoderated setting. You have to make choices for yourself (such as: grow a thicker skin, learn to ignore/filter content you don't care about - or cut and run to a moderated group). You won't find a perfect solution anywhere - but you're welcome to keep complaining as long as you like. Try that on a moderated group. Best Regards, A. Lurker SignatureEmail address is a Spam trap. > On Aug 25, 4:35 pm, "M104 gal wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Your type. > "Thriving in the ruins of the us.s.a.a. ..tra-la." "Afraid of off topic threads"??? Is English your first language? I clearly stated that continuing to debate on off topic threads with people you label "nutcases" is a sophomoric exercise--particularly when you have no real scientific credentials yourself. These debates would be amusing if they didn't take up so much time. What is your brilliant theory as to why so many folks have quit saa for the Yahoo Groups, Cloudy Nights forums, etc ? And you seem to participate in very different Yahoo groups--all of mine have strong moderators including Rod Mollise of saa. On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Have fun, sing and dance every day and call your mother often. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Perhaps you need to take your own advice? Oh yes, I'm serious. You should try it yourself. Life could take on a whole new meaning. Rolando P.S. I am a graduate engineer and have worked in diverse industries since 1964. I've worked many years in the optical industry at various companies, have done research on power conversion for military and industrial projects, worked in aerospace, developed power systems for aircraft and satellites, designed and developed solar power conversion systems, and designed and built electric propulsion for automobiles and electric torpedos for the US Navy. For the last 25+ years I have concentrated on fabricating amateur telescopes and building a company that can compete on the world stage. > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > concentrated on fabricating amateur telescopes and building a company > that can compete on the world stage. My 2 cents: you shouldn't give this jerk and his inferiority complex the time of day. I kill-filed him long ago... SignatureGreg Crinklaw Astronomical Software Developer Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html Comets: http://comets.skyhound.com To reply take out your eye On Aug 26, 2:22 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > To reply take out your eye Ahhh--the master "plonker" strikes again. Pathetic! Haven't you figured out yet that opinions are like a.sholes--everyone has one ( except you, of course, who seems to have several. You are one of the worst offenders at replying to obviously disturbed people--get your jollies that way, do you? On Aug 26, 2:22 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > To reply take out your eye Ahhh--the master "plonker" strikes again. Pathetic! Haven't you figured out yet that opinions are like a.sholes--everyone has one ( except you, of course, who seems to have several. You are one of the worst offenders at replying to obviously disturbed people--get your jollies that way, do you? On Aug 26, 2:22 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Astronomical Software Developer > Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m) Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take your advise. Rolando On Aug 26, 2:22 pm, Greg Crinklaw <theskyhoundyour...@yahoo.com> wrote: > chris1...@aol.com wrote: > > On Aug 22, 2:51 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > To reply take out your eye Ahhh--the master "plonker" strikes again. Pathetic! Haven't you figured out yet that opinions are like a.sholes--everyone has one ( except you, of course, who seems to have several. You are one of the worst offenders at replying to obviously disturbed people--get your jollies that way, do you? This is very odd. :-) We have a lawyer who thinks he's god but keeps repeating himself endlessly and having childish tantrums because he can't have his own way. And a calm optician. Whom almost everybody admires (almost as a god) and wishes he'd repeat his work endlessly. There are those who directly contribute to the progress of the human race and then there are lawyers. (There are a few exceptions of the latter remembered for their remarkable talents and inventiveness in other fields. Their legal skills are now long forgotten) And there's Greg. Endlessly repeating his almost free advice (his 2 cents worth) and fulfilling his life's work as a plonker. Not much has changed then. :-) > This is very odd. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not much has changed then. :-) You put a smile on my face. Everybody *hates* lawyers until they really need one; then they want the nastiest, toughest gun in town. Obama, BTW, is a lawyer. Roland "almost a god"?? What a hoot! His overpriced scopes, minus all the hype, are not any better in any meaningful way than a number of similar scopes that can be obtained right now without a three year wait. And China will soon eat *Rolando* for lunch as they continue to move upscale. BTW, what ever happened to Carl Zambuto who used to be the group's "god"? I do know he quit making large mirrors for some reason. Quality problems? Market dried up? Some of you are too funny--take Rolando's advice--lighten up! You take yourselves far too seriously. > This is very odd. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not much has changed then. :-) You put a smile on my face. Everybody *hates* lawyers until they really need one; then they want the nastiest, toughest gun in town. Obama, BTW, is a lawyer. Roland "almost a god"?? What a hoot! His overpriced scopes, minus all the hype, are not any better in any meaningful way than a number of similar scopes that can be obtained right now without a three year wait. And China will soon eat *Rolando* for lunch as they continue to move upscale. BTW, what ever happened to Carl Zambuto who used to be the group's "god"? I do know he quit making large mirrors for some reason. Quality problems? Market dried up? Some of you are too funny--take Rolando's advice--lighten up! You take yourselves far too seriously. > This is very odd. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Not much has changed then. :-) You put a smile on my face. Everybody *hates* lawyers until they really need one; then they want the nastiest, toughest gun in town. Obama, BTW, is a lawyer. Roland "almost a god"?? What a hoot! His overpriced scopes, minus all the hype, are not any better in any meaningful way than a number of similar scopes that can be obtained right now without a three year wait. And China will soon eat *Rolando* for lunch as they continue to move upscale. BTW, what ever happened to Carl Zambuto who used to be the group's "god"? I do know he quit making large mirrors for some reason. Quality problems? Market dried up? Some of you are too funny--take Rolando's advice--lighten up! You take yourselves far too seriously. On Aug 27, 2:58 am, "M104 gal wrote: > Some of you are too funny--take Rolando's advice--lighten up! You take > yourselves far too seriously. Touché! When the lawyers start queing to provide justice for the billions of innocent and impoverished victims of your present client base then perhaps you can start blowing your own trumpet. Even begin to criticise others in your arrogant, yobbish, working class, money is everything-morals mean nothing, sort of way. I know it can't be easy deciding to be a lawyer. It's a matter of how well you are brought up, I suppose. You can't even claim you just drifted into it because you fell in with a bad circle. Or were forced into it just to escape from grinding poverty and chronic drugs abuse. The latter came later. To force down the bitter bile of rising scruples on those sweaty, sleepless nights. Wondering if anyone suspects what you actually do for a living. Why are politicians as bad as they are? Because many of them were lawyers before they went really bad. Those who weren't were quickly corrupted by those who were and already on the gravy train. Not that it's ever a valid excuse, you understand. They should have known what they were getting into before going off the straight and narrow. Many had a difficult upbringing with father's who were practicing lawyers and often spending time in jail. Some even had mothers who did it for the money and the very flexible expenses account. Not that anybody likes to talk about it. Or even admit it to their friends. Nobody likes the shame or the stigma. Revulsion is a common reaction with many families being quite fairly ostracised. Their kids quickly find that it is easier to tell their friends and neighbours that their parents are weapons dealers for corrupt and vicious régimes, like America. Or even that they are major drugs importers for the Taliban and Al Quaida. This also helps to explain away the fleet of exotic sports cars and luxury limousines endlessly paraded in front of their tasteless, "new money" mansion which they are forced to call home. Anything but the awful truth. ;-) > On Aug 27, 2:58 am, "M104 gal wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > endlessly paraded in front of their tasteless, "new money" mansion > which they are forced to call home. Anything but the awful truth. ;-) As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there is a serious amount of material for lots of PhD theses surrounding the human psyche, human relationships, human mental disease, the internet etc. It somewhat amusing that many people do not have the courtesy to provide their name when engaging in discourse - intelligent or otherwise - and simply hide behind their keyboard. As for Rolando, his vice is participating in a thread filled with filth and to do so with his identity up-front. Anthony. > As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there is a serious amount of > material for lots of PhD theses surrounding the human psyche, human [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anthony. Seems to me "Rolando" is pretty proud of his self-important "biography". And we are supposed to know who "Rolando" is?? See: "P.S. I am a graduate engineer and have worked in diverse industries > since 1964. I've worked many years in the optical industry at various > companies, have done research on power conversion for military and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concentrated on fabricating amateur telescopes and building a company > that can compete on the world stage. " You did seem get the original point of my first post. IGNORE the nutters. None of you appear to be capable of this, however; rather you seem compelled to show them how *smart* you are and insult them. Shame on you all. > As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there is a serious amount of > material for lots of PhD theses surrounding the human psyche, human [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Anthony. Seems to me "Rolando" is pretty proud of his self-important "biography". And we are supposed to know who "Rolando" is?? See: "P.S. I am a graduate engineer and have worked in diverse industries > since 1964. I've worked many years in the optical industry at various > companies, have done research on power conversion for military and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concentrated on fabricating amateur telescopes and building a company > that can compete on the world stage. " You did seem get the original point of my first post. IGNORE the nutters. None of you appear to be capable of this, however; rather you seem compelled to show them how *smart* you are and insult them. Shame on you all. On Aug 27, 9:00 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems to me "Rolando" is pretty proud of his self-important > "biography". And we are supposed to know who "Rolando" is?? See: > > "P.S. I am a graduate engineer and have worked in diverse industries You accused me of not having a degree of any kind in your previous posts. So I simply provided you with my "biography". I am a graduate engineer. I have an engineering degree. I did attend college and took a minor in astronomy. It has been an interest of mine since I was very young. You know who I am. You even commented that the Chinese will push me and my company aside someday. You seem to know a lot about my business, so don't claim ignorance. Rolando On Aug 27, 9:11 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 27, 9:00 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Rolando Your BS in ?? engineering (was it optics or astronomy ) of 40 years ago does not qualify you to argue current cosmology, nor does 25 years of grinding glass. Notice in the quote above I used the word *we* not *I*. Your assumption that everyone on saa knows you is the ultimate pomposity. And like nutcase Crinkclaw, you state that you "are going to filter me out" and then the very next day you respond to my post within minutes. Get a grip! IGNORE THE NUTCASES--my original point, ignored by you and those who want to change the debate to suit themselves and have NO self control. And *I* --not *WE*--do believe the Chinese and the recent proliferation of affordable true RC's are going to take the strut out of you soon enough. Ask Carl Zambuto. A good RC beats a good refractor anytime for astrophotography--all the serious amateur photographers are making the switch to RC's, aren't they? On Aug 27, 9:40 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > A good RC beats a good refractor anytime for astrophotography--all the > serious amateur photographers are making the switch to RC's, aren't > they?- And *I* --not *WE*--do believe the Chinese and the recent > proliferation of affordable true RC's are going to take the strut out > of you soon enough. 1) I can't filter you out, I am accessing this on Google and they do not have filtering capability. 2) All serious amateur photographers? Well, maybe not all. Tony Hallas recently sold his 14" Cass and is replacing it with a refractor, one I just finished. It was not me who recomended this to him, rather he did some experiments with various scopes and determined that a refractor has the performance for his particular needs. 3) If you're hoping that we will soon go belly up, your hopes will be dashed I'm afraid. Our company has grown at a rate of more than 15% per year for the last 25 years and shows no sign of slowing down. We have lots of new products that are being made and delivered in short order. We also have a fair amount of business from research facilities (people who do cosmological research, and I count them among my friends). 4) While it is true that Chinese companies are doing quite a lot of business here, they do not pay taxes in the US. My company does pay taxes, along with competitive wages, and that contributes to the overall wellbeing of Americans, and raises the standard of living for all of us, you included. Some of that money, believe it or not, goes into cosmological research (i.e the Mars rovers, research satellites, Hubble etc). While we are on the subject of the Mars Rover, the same company that made the drive system for the Rovers also makes our gears. That's Forest City Gear, a small precision gear manufacturer just up the street from us. Fred Young started the company (on a shoestring) about the same time we started Astro-Physics Inc. Both of our companies have grown to many times their original size, each having a simple dream- build quality products at affordable prices. That dream is still alive today, the American Dream, and no foreign company will ever destroy it! Rolando > 1) I can't filter you out, I am accessing this on Google and they do > not have filtering capability. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Rolando Thank you, Roland (Rolando) -Sam On Aug 27, 10:16 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 27, 9:40 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dashed I'm afraid. Our company has grown at a rate of more than 15% > per year for the last 25 years and shows no sign of slowing down. > 4) While it is true that Chinese companies are doing quite a lot of > business here, > > Rolando Growth at 25% per year for 25 years--simple math indicates you must have started at a very small base and further indicates that any claim that you personally grind all your lenses is simply a fraud. What do you do, breathe on them and then say they are your personal product? How many lenses does your operation turn out a year? You are also good at the weak "strawman" argument--I never said you were about to go out of business, did I?? And your apparent argument that you are qualified to debate cosmology because "you have some customers who are involved in cosmology" is, well, just plain silly. Back to my original post for the 10th time--IGNORE THE NUTCASES; DO NOT DEBATE THEM; DO NOT INSULT THEM! That is, if you have any self control which I seriously doubt. On Aug 27, 10:32 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > Growth at 25% per year for 25 years--simple math indicates you must > have started at a very small base and further indicates that any claim [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Back to my original post for the 10th time--IGNORE THE NUTCASES; DO > NOT DEBATE THEM; DO NOT INSULT THEM! Does that include you by any chance? My operation turns out about 300 lenses per year of various sizes, and yes, I polish and figure every one of them. To call me a fraud is rather insulting of you, is it not? (watch Made in America episode about Astro-Physics and you will see how we make stuff). By the way, telescopes themselves are not the major part of our business. I am quite qualified to debate the kind of cosmology that involves the earth turning on its axis. I have to know the details of this since I have to know how the stars move in the sky above in order to write the software that is used to control our products (mountings), so they can accurately follow their motions, and can determine where stuff is so that the telescope can point accurately to these objects. Rolando On Aug 27, 10:52 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:32 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Rolando There you go again. To "polish and figure" a lens does not include the initial grinding does it? I did not call you a fraud but I will call you very slippery with words. Back of the napkin math--if you spend 1/2 of a normal 1,500 hour work year only on working on "figuring and polishing" optics, that means you spend less than 2.5 hours per lens. Magic fingers? And if you are counting a triplet lens as one, your statement is even more misleading and even less time per lens ( maybe about 1 hour ). Hugely overpriced product perhaps? Are you suggesting you have no opticians on your payroll other than you who can properly prepare an APO lens cell? Interesting business model. Tracking software is so simple it is available free all over the net as you must know. Improved astro CCD cameras ( and even improved DSLR cameras ), combined with vastly improved astro imaging and adjusting of images software ( much of it again free ) are making the optics aspect of the picture equation virtually generic once you reach a level of quality that many makers other than you now exceed, including the Chinese. IGNORE THE NUTTERS! And if you place me in that category, I could care less--feel free to ignore me if you can. On Aug 27, 11:17 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 27, 10:52 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > you have no opticians on your payroll other than you who can properly > prepare an APO lens cell? Interesting business model. You know very little about the optics industry as your above statements indicate. Nobody grinds lenses anymore by hand. It is all highly automated. We have one of the most automated machines in this industry - the Opticam. This machine was originally developed for the US military to provide US manufacturers with the capability to produce lenses in case of war when overseas shipments of optics from sources such as China and perhaps Europe might be cut off. In any case, we bought one 'cause its a neat machine and produces a very accurate surface from a raw blank of glass. In fact, it is so accurate that no further polishing is necessary if the optic is used for infrared imaging. No grit is used in this machine - all surface cutting is done with fine diamond tools. The glass surface is almost clear and free of grinding pits, so the next phase of polishing can be done quite quickly. It takes the machine about 12 minutes to prepare each surface for polishing from a raw plano blank. Initial polishing is also highly automated. No human hands touch the glass. The fine ground blanks are loaded into the CNC polisher where the precision laps remove the surface marks left over by the diamond grinding wheels. One person can operate both of these processes without breaking a sweat. After intitial polishing, the lenses go to one of 18 spindles where they get about 1 - 2 hours each of fine polish with a traditional pitch tool. Here again, these are hands off operations where the machines do the work. All I do is load the spindles and turn the machines on and off. The surfaces are carefully monitored with test plates to make sure that they conform to the desired radius. When finished, they are assembled into lenses (triplets in the case of my refractors, but I also make other optics). These are then tested on the interferometer and double pass autocollimator and adjusted or figured until they meet spec. The lenses are then disassembled and the individual elements sent out for coating. The final step is for me to assemble the elements into lenses and put them into the final tube assemblies - the tubes made by our technicians. Except for the coatings, all the above optical work I do myself - that's why I cannot crank out thousands of them and never will. At this time I have no other opticians on my payroll, but that may change at some point. I have developed processes that do not require a lot of unskilled labor, rather I invested in modern equipment to do the bulk of the work. My workday is long, but it is interesting for me and I enjoy it. I hope you enjoy yours equally. > Tracking software is so simple it is available free all over the net > as you must know. Improved astro CCD cameras ( and even improved DSLR [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > level of quality that many makers other than you now exceed, including > the Chinese. Controlling a mount is not as simple as you make it out to be. Going by your statements above, you know very little about this. In any case, mount control software was not readily available 20 years ago when we made our first GoTo systems. The rest of your statement is gobbledigook that I cannot understand - something about generic levels of quality now exceeded by Chinese. Sorry it does not compute... Optics have nothing to do with controlling a mounting and producing accurate tracking. We do know what we are doing along those lines. Our mounts have proven themselves in actual battle conditions, including down in Antarctica in temperatures of -100F and colder, where they track happily along at sub-arc second levels for periods of 24 hours or more. Rolando On Aug 27, 11:59 am, chris1...@aol.com wrote: > On Aug 27, 11:17 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > Rolando There you go again--mixing and confusing a discussion of optics with a different one involving tracking and mounts. Most quality RC scope users don't use your mounts anyway--they opt for SBIG Paramounts or the RC makers' own proprietary mounts. But then you knew that didn't you? You did not invent G0-TO tracking, period. If your "automated lens making machines are so good" ( better than ion milling? see http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?pid=11158 ), then it would seem that you personally add very little to the optics unless you claim the machines screw up frequently. Let me try to make my astrophotography point real simple. With today's software and CCD cameras, a large number of companies, including the Chinese, turn out optics than can equal or exceed your optics ( at the same price point ) in the quality of properly processed astropics. What part of this statement do you not understand? Your claim to fame seems to be you are a good marketer who has fostered an erroneous notion that your optics are superior to those of every other manufacturer. Do you also suggest that one of your 6" APO's has the same or better optical resolution as that of a quality 10" RC ( about the same price point )? If so, you need to go back to school on basic optics 101. Your 44 year old engineering degree ( in what? ) may be a little out of date. Did it ever occur to you that I may also have a science degree as well as a law degree? One of my favorite pastimes is making a fool out of self-styled technical "experts" on a witness stand where the Judge will not allow them to dissemble or give non-responsive answers. It is child's play largely because of the "experts" arrogance and dumb assumption that no lawyer can understand science. Do you have any notion of what patent lawyers do? What is involved in high stakes patent litigation? Apparently not. On Aug 27, 12:33 pm, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > There you go again--mixing and confusing a discussion of optics with a > different one involving tracking and mounts. Most quality RC scope > users don't use your mounts anyway--they opt for SBIG Paramounts or > the RC makers' own proprietary mounts. But then you knew that didn't > you? We sell lots of mounts to people who purchase RCs. Right now one of the leading makers of RCs has 4 of our largest mounts on order for use with their 24" RCs for their customers. > You did not invent G0-TO tracking, period. Of course I did not invent GoTo tracking. Never claimed I did. I developed the control scheme for ours. I said it was NOT SIMPLE, contrary to what you suggested |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message