Orgonomy: The Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-12-2011, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2011 03:48 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.
Ok, point taken. There is no such thing as constellation. So we are moving only towards the star Regulus, which some primitive desert folks included into a roughly lion-shaped lines between stars that appear to be nearby when viewed from Earth. Good enough? Smile
I just can't imagine why anyone would argue about that, in your place I'd be ashamed to be so pedantic. Unless you're an astrophysicist and imprecise terminology makes you see all red, in which case I'm sorry Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 03:46 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 03:43 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.
Ok, point taken. There is no such thing as constellation. So we are moving only towards the star Regulus, which some primitive desert folks included into a roughly lion-shaped lines between stars that appear to be nearby when viewed from Earth. Good enough? Smile
I just can't imagine why anyone would argue about that, in your place I'd be ashamed to be so pedantic Undecided
When I'm among friends, we have such a nice custom of "you know what I mean." It saves time.

See Bill Clinton as reason why precision in language is important.
Then look at the way his successor used that same gift for imprecision in language to help America resume it's imperialistic agenda.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2011, 03:50 PM (This post was last modified: 25-12-2011 03:52 PM by Chas.)
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 02:16 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:42 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 05:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And it is a fact that we are indeed moving towards the constellation of Leo.

No, we're not moving toward the constellation Leo. That is a virtually meaningless assertion. Leo is made up of several unrelated stars, at distances of 8 to 35 light years, with various relative motions, and Leo spreads across forty degrees of the sky.

Just to be clear on this. The stars in Leo appear to be in Leo just because we happen to view them from that angle. The statement that we are moving towards Leo is fuzzy but based on the statement that we *appear* to be moving towards a point *apparently* located in Leo - I'm just quoting off the top of my head from a book I read way back, published in the 70s or 80s I think. Should be easy to verify. So yes, to move towards Leo is meaningless, since Leo's stars are only related to each other by their closeness *in the night sky*. But we *are* moving towards a point, whose *apparent* position is located in the constellation Leo. (I think, I thought it was Sagittarius?) Sure wikipedia will be more clear than me Tongue

Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.

Just explaining your statement a bit Chas Wink Not bein' all pedantic... just this is one of those easily overlooked imprecisions of speech which lead to misunderstanding of the science, so I thought worth expanding on.
Luminon's statement, that is Smile Sorry Luminon. Judged and found guilty by a jury of one without trial. You should sue me, but I'm the judge for that case too Tongue

No problem - I didn't mean to come across snippy.
(25-12-2011 03:43 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.
Ok, point taken. There is no such thing as constellation. So we are moving only towards the star Regulus, which some primitive desert folks included into a roughly lion-shaped lines between stars that appear to be nearby when viewed from Earth. Good enough? Smile
I just can't imagine why anyone would argue about that, in your place I'd be ashamed to be so pedantic. Unless you're an astrophysicist and imprecise terminology makes you see all red, in which case I'm sorry Undecided

You are trying to provide evidence - precision is of utmost importance. If your evidence is fuzzy, it ain't evidence. I would think that's obvious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-12-2011, 07:42 PM
RE: Orgonomy: The Evidence
(25-12-2011 03:43 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-12-2011 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, I thought that was obvious from my statements. But my point is that the statement that "we are moving toward Leo" is so fuzzy that it is not scientific; it can't be used to prove or support anything.
Ok, point taken. There is no such thing as constellation. So we are moving only towards the star Regulus, which some primitive desert folks included into a roughly lion-shaped lines between stars that appear to be nearby when viewed from Earth. Good enough? Smile
I just can't imagine why anyone would argue about that, in your place I'd be ashamed to be so pedantic. Unless you're an astrophysicist and imprecise terminology makes you see all red, in which case I'm sorry Undecided

You are trying to provide evidence - precision is of utmost importance. If your evidence is fuzzy, it ain't evidence. I would think that's obvious.
The constellation Leo spans 40 friggin' degrees of the 180 - that's nearly a quarter of the sky.

In your place I would be ashamed to be so ignorant of evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: