|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 28, 2010 17:51:42 GMT
What does that statement even mean! The "power" of mathematics is its ability to solve problems. Angles are angles. They haven't got "power". Try and write statements that say something meaningful please. If the "power of angles" is so huge, how come the tides on earth are only one-ten millionth of an earth radius? Given that both the earth-moon system and the Jupiter-sun system are under the influence of the same set of solar system planets how come the "power of maths and angles" doesn't produce anomalous tides on the earth, or cause the Mississippi to flow backwards or whatever? Of course small differences propagate to big differences. There is not much predictability from small things, though, because there are a lot of them to deal with. Oh and you seem to be recasting your forecast again. What was it you said in January? Oh yes: PS. which transits were you referring to? Were they more important than the oppositions? I cannot help you if you are thinking in such false ways. Performing the work of variable mathematics is only for the skilled and talented, and it is not easy. You must earn it over years of hard work, concentration and effort. There are no shortcuts. You will not be able to forecast anything of the climate without first dumping your preconceptions. I keep saying the same thing to you because it is true. Get an astronomical ephemeris. Learn to read it. Observe and study the weather over your local region. Record the positions of the Sun and Moon to start with, and then the planets, and observe and record your local weather and climate conditions. You will see the results for yourself over time. Repeat again and again, until it becomes obvious to you that celestial bodies force the Earth's climate and weather. That is the scientific method. Observe, study and record. You are not going to learn any other way. Argue, cherry-pick, and nickel and dime all you want - but you will learn nothing until you first get it clearly understood from where you are, in Devon, England, that your weather (like all the weather globally) is caused by celestial bodies, magnetism, and conditions in space. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2010 20:18:09 GMT
It was a genuine question. Which astronomical transits were you referring to when you stated that the El Niño was going to continue to the end of the year.
If I said, for example, there will be X hurricanes due to levels of Saharan dust in the Atlantic, then you might reasonably ask whether the levels are low or high, or where the dust is.
You said:
So which transits were you referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 28, 2010 21:03:11 GMT
It was a genuine question. Which astronomical transits were you referring to when you stated that the El Niño was going to continue to the end of the year. If I said, for example, there will be X hurricanes due to levels of Saharan dust in the Atlantic, then you might reasonably ask whether the levels are low or high, or where the dust is. You said: So which transits were you referring to? Why would you want to know? If I answer your "genuine" question, why would it matter which transits they are since you claim that the planets have no influence on the Earth. Listen man - I work for a living. I actually forecast. I am not interested in teaching you something you say is "garbage." That response doesn't exactly lead to anything worthwhile penetrating your skull, so let's not go there. You are better off doing your own work from where you are. Observe your own local weather and learn to read a scientific astronomical ephemeris. That is how you will begin the journey of someday being able to forecast the climate and weather. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 28, 2010 21:38:29 GMT
You keep telling that lie about me referring to your forecast as "garbage". Obviously you are trying to deflect from something. What are you trying to deflect me from?
You said that "according to astronomical transits. My forecast shows that the entire year of 2010 will be El Nino,"
What transits? You mentioned "astronomical transits" four times in your original forecast but didn't once specify which ones. Why link a specific effect to a generic cause? Are you padding your prognostications with astrological jargon?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 28, 2010 22:56:07 GMT
You keep telling that lie about me referring to your forecast as "garbage". Obviously you are trying to deflect from something. What are you trying to deflect me from? You said that "according to astronomical transits. My forecast shows that the entire year of 2010 will be El Nino," What transits? You mentioned "astronomical transits" four times in your original forecast but didn't once specify which ones. Why link a specific effect to a generic cause? Are you padding your prognostications with astrological jargon? Generic cause? Padding prognostications? What does all that mean? It may be "jargon" to you, but then again, you are not knowledgeable about the science to be able to make that determination now, are you? What do you have against learning Steve? Is it that at whatever age you now are that you've determined that there is nothing more for you to learn? I have published enough data and information for you to know how astronomical forecasting is done at a basic level. You cannot do algebra until you have learned addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. You will learn nothing with the attitude you have shown. Not a thing. It does not matter what you "believe" or what you do not "believe." The Sun and Moon, and planets rise, culminate and set following the laws of physics without your belief. What part of that do you not get? If you simply observe your own local weather with a scientific astronomical ephemeris you will begin to learn. That is the scientific method. Observe, study, record. Now, either you do not care, or have determined that it is all bullshit because it is easier not to think, study, and learn than it is to just blow it all off - based on what, your lack of knowledge about the subject? Your "questions" about this and that shows you do not understand, and you will not learn that way because not only is your mind not open to learning new things but appears to be cluttered with a lot of pseudo-science mumbo jumbo which tries to forecast from effects as the causes. That is ass-backwards. That is why you cannot forecast. It is the truth. What is so hard about stopping that behavior and learning the proper path? Oh, right, you've said that that path leads nowhere. Based on what, your experience, knowledge and practice of the astronomical forecasting science, or your lack thereof? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 29, 2010 10:45:12 GMT
It's not as though I am asking you to disclose your secrets.
You said that "according to astronomical transits. My forecast shows that the entire year of 2010 will be El Nino,"
"Transit" is a domain specific term. If you give me an example of transits that you considered to be important then I will understand better what you mean by your use of the phrase "astronomical transit".
You keep going on about the scientific method. Part of the method is explaining what you've done. If I'd submitted a thesis that simply said "According to my calculations, we should at great expense to cost and weight budget build Compton scattering event selection technology into this space telescope" then it would have been thrown out.
|
|
|
|
Post by dartman321 on Oct 29, 2010 13:09:48 GMT
Steve:
You are arguing with the equivalent of a "witchdoctor", a "shaman", or an "alchemist". He cannot answer your question. It's like asking a voodoo priestess to factually explain her tea leaves. Only she can see what should be obvious to all. The "Astromet" is trying to put some distance between himself and the "all knowing, all seeing, far reaching" prognostications he made in the original post in this thread. While most of his prognostications proved to be false, his original forecast does serve a useful purpose. It makes for good reading in the waiting room of your local gypsy fortune teller.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 30, 2010 3:19:48 GMT
It's not as though I am asking you to disclose your secrets. You said that "according to astronomical transits. My forecast shows that the entire year of 2010 will be El Nino," "Transit" is a domain specific term. If you give me an example of transits that you considered to be important then I will understand better what you mean by your use of the phrase "astronomical transit". You keep going on about the scientific method. Part of the method is explaining what you've done. If I'd submitted a thesis that simply said "According to my calculations, we should at great expense to cost and weight budget build Compton scattering event selection technology into this space telescope" then it would have been thrown out. Steve, every motion by a planetary body is a transit, including those of the Earth. As with the planets, the weather and climate is always in motion. There are varying rates of motion at mathematical angles among the planets relative to the Sun and the Earth. These are called transits. Contrary to dartman's Neanderthal (witchdoctor?) views of astronomical forecasting, most if not all of the work of the advanced forecasting I do is mathematical. This is reading variable math as applied to the celestial bodies, the Sun, Moon and planets relative to the Earth and the astrophysical forces that cause Earth's climate to react. This is called the weather. So, while dartman seems to have some rather ignorant views of astronomical forecasting, he should check out the fact that mathematicus is more like it - not "witchdoctor." It's amazing just how stupid some people like Dartman sounds when he most likely cannot even read a scientific ephemeris. So, who really is the ignorant one here? Goes to show just how sad some people are in the 21st century who want to drag us all back to the days of the Neanderthals. I'm glad I missed that boat dartman. |
|
|
|
Post by atra on Oct 30, 2010 3:25:20 GMT
Steve: You are arguing with the equivalent of a "witchdoctor", a "shaman", or an "alchemist". He cannot answer your question. It's like asking a voodoo priestess to factually explain her tea leaves. Only she can see what should be obvious to all. The "Astromet" is trying to put some distance between himself and the "all knowing, all seeing, far reaching" prognostications he made in the original post in this thread. While most of his prognostications proved to be false, his original forecast does serve a useful purpose. It makes for good reading in the waiting room of your local gypsy fortune teller. yup |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 30, 2010 3:34:21 GMT
Steve: You are arguing with the equivalent of a "witchdoctor", a "shaman", or an "alchemist". He cannot answer your question. It's like asking a voodoo priestess to factually explain her tea leaves. Only she can see what should be obvious to all. The "Astromet" is trying to put some distance between himself and the "all knowing, all seeing, far reaching" prognostications he made in the original post in this thread. While most of his prognostications proved to be false, his original forecast does serve a useful purpose. It makes for good reading in the waiting room of your local gypsy fortune teller.
~ Arthur Schopenhauer |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Oct 30, 2010 9:55:34 GMT
Astromet
Even icefisher has deserted you - isn't it time to "throw in the towel" and admit that your predictions have no more scientific basis than the "mystic megs" who write the horoscope columns in the daily papers. Sure - you might get lucky from time to time but so do I most weeks betting on football matches.
You asked Steve
What do you have against learning Steve?
Now while Steve might disagree with a lot of the posters on this blog (including me on some things) he has always appeared willing to engage in a sensible debate and to give considerations to the other person's point of view, at least.
However the following is typical of the responses from you.
Listen man - I work for a living. I actually forecast. I am not interested in teaching you something you say is "garbage."
You've said something similar to me on more than one occasion. If you're not "interested in teaching us something" - what exactly are you doing on this blog? Surely if you want to persuade people you need to explain properly the science behind your theories. You say you "work for a living" implying, presumably, that there are constraints on your time but you appear to have enough time to post here pretty frequently.
I asked you about planetary tidal effects and, in particular, the effects of Jupiter on the sun. You could have responded to that in a few minutes. The effect is negligible. The tidal force of one body on another is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between them. The tidal effects of the moon on the earth are relatively large because the distance between the Earth and Moon is short. The tidal effects of the Sun on the Earth are only about half of those of the Moon because, although it has much greater mass, the Sun is much further away.
The tidal forces of both Jupiter and Venus on the Sun are about the same, i.e. tiny fractions of a millimetre.
You witter on about "mathematics" and "angles" without demonstrating any understanding of what you are talking about. Do the "angles" relate to the relative positions of the planets in the solar system. If so - what is the relevance? Many years ago, while at primary school, I remember there was a bit of a scare in the news about the imminent "end of the world". I didn't understand the specifics at the time, but apparently at around 2 o'clock on one afternoon all the major planets were aligned with the Earth and the Sun. This, according to some people, would cause the earth to be ripped apart. Naturally, us kids sat staring out of the window waiting for this spectacular event to unfold. I think some were genuinely disappointed when nothing happened. Not a thing - not even a ripple - not a single hair on anyone's head was moved out of place. But why would it? The effects (or change in effects) would be barely measurable. There has been a similar planetary alignment since (in 2000) as well as numerous others in previous times.
So - are Tidal Forces a key factor in your predictions? If not - what angles are you referring to and what is their relevance?
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Oct 30, 2010 11:23:44 GMT
Astromet Even icefisher has deserted you - isn't it time to "throw in the towel" and admit that your predictions have no more scientific basis than the "mystic megs" who write the horoscope columns in the daily papers. Sure - you might get lucky from time to time but so do I most weeks betting on football matches. You asked Steve What do you have against learning Steve?Now while Steve might disagree with a lot of the posters on this blog (including me on some things) he has always appeared willing to engage in a sensible debate and to give considerations to the other person's point of view, at least. However the following is typical of the responses from you. Listen man - I work for a living. I actually forecast. I am not interested in teaching you something you say is "garbage." You've said something similar to me on more than one occasion. If you're not "interested in teaching us something" - what exactly are you doing on this blog? Surely if you want to persuade people you need to explain properly the science behind your theories. You say you "work for a living" implying, presumably, that there are constraints on your time but you appear to have enough time to post here pretty frequently. I asked you about planetary tidal effects and, in particular, the effects of Jupiter on the sun. You could have responded to that in a few minutes. The effect is negligible. The tidal force of one body on another is inversely proportional to the cube of the distance between them. The tidal effects of the moon on the earth are relatively large because the distance between the Earth and Moon is short. The tidal effects of the Sun on the Earth are only about half of those of the Moon because, although it has much greater mass, the Sun is much further away. The tidal forces of both Jupiter and Venus on the Sun are about the same, i.e. tiny fractions of a millimetre. You witter on about "mathematics" and "angles" without demonstrating any understanding of what you are talking about. Do the "angles" relate to the relative positions of the planets in the solar system. If so - what is the relevance? Many years ago, while at primary school, I remember there was a bit of a scare in the news about the imminent "end of the world". I didn't understand the specifics at the time, but apparently at around 2 o'clock on one afternoon all the major planets were aligned with the Earth and the Sun. This, according to some people, would cause the earth to be ripped apart. Naturally, us kids sat staring out of the window waiting for this spectacular event to unfold. I think some were genuinely disappointed when nothing happened. Not a thing - not even a ripple - not a single hair on anyone's head was moved out of place. But why would it? The effects (or change in effects) would be barely measurable. There has been a similar planetary alignment since (in 2000) as well as numerous others in previous times. So - are Tidal Forces a key factor in your predictions? If not - what angles are you referring to and what is their relevance? Lots and lots of comments to get to your "question" Glc. I am a professional, a writer, and work for a living so I can type fast, does that answer your question? I don't know about what you heard about the planets "ripping the earth apart" or some such nonsense when you were in elementary school. What does that have to do with scientific astrology? I never wrote "horoscope columns," and I never subscribed to the pop culture astrology you obviously confuse with the true science. I also never bet on horse matches. Glc, I suggest before you continue discussion with me that you actually read intelligent texts on astrology because you are confused about what it is that you are actually talking about. I wrote a history of meteorology that is on this board as well as brief tutorials on this board which are still here, so I don't get where you say that I've not written anything on this subject. All you have to do is be able to read. Moreover - tidal forces are a fact on Earth since the major component of our atmosphere consists of water vapor. The air tide of the Earth is gaseous and massive. This is where our weather comes from when forced by celestial bodies, primary the Sun and the Moon. You can test the Moon's influence right from your home reading a lunar table in a scientific astronomical ephemeris. To study astrometeorology and long-range forecasting, you are going to have to learn. You are not going to learn by debating a subject you have little knowledge of along with the snarky comments that prove your mind is not open to learning new things. That is ego and it is uncalled for. At least learn the basics of the subject so you are able to debate from a stance of knowledge - not ignorance of, in this case, astronomical forecasting of the climate and weather. Re-read what Dr. Seymour said about people who talk about the distance of planets and gravity, and you should see why that argument holds little water. What amazes me about some here who cannot seem to get anything about magnetics as if it does not exist. Even worse are those who behave as if mathematical angles have no power in their lives. I say they are very wrong indeed. I disagree with your opinion that planetary forces are "negligible," and ask you, based on what baseline? Distance? Again, re-read Dr. Seymour's findings so you can clearly get what I've been saying here about the forcing of celestial bodies on the Earth's weather. And, try not to forget that the Earth is a planet. It lives in space, and is part of a system, called the solar system. Those who often have problems understanding the rules of astronomical forcing of the climate and weather are very much linear thinkers who have problems with interdisciplinary thinking and synthesis. In order to break this very bad habit, remember that the Earth is round, that it is angled at 23 deg., and has its own rate of motion on its axis. So do the other planets, as does the Sun. All of space, where the Earth lives, is magnetic, and magnetic lines of force penetrate every square meter of the Earth - even right through your own body. Your climate and weather comes from space and is forced by the Sun, its many influences, the Moon, and the astrophysical motions of planets and angles relative to the Earth. Again - Astrophysical = causes
Geophysical = effectsAs above, so below... This should not be a difficult concept for anyone who accepts the fact that the Earth is not flat. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 30, 2010 12:36:15 GMT
Astromet:
You may understand the celistial affect to our climate, but it appears that you do not understand the climatic effect of the celistial bodies.
Your forcast was proven wrong. Man up and admit it. None of us....and I mean the worlds population in totality, have an effective grasp on the forces affecting climate on earth. At this point we have hints, but no one has put all those hints together. The man/woman that does that will be basking in the Bahamma's when it is cold up north. And they will not have a care in the world.......as their every whim will be taken care of.
|
|
|
|
Post by astroposer777 on Oct 30, 2010 16:13:19 GMT
Here are some charts that I found, which I assume are similar to those used by Astromet, which some may find interesting.    The images are from weathersage.com/forecasts/Either through ignorance or open mindedness, I have no qualms with accepting that external forces could be the main driver of climate on Earth. Even though I believe that mankind has a net detrimental impact on the environment, I have a hard time believing that we can fundamentally change the ebb and flow of cyclical climate changes (short of all out nuclear war). I would also speculate that Astrometeorlogy is a discipline of observational relationships, and as such would be hard to quantify by numerical values. |
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Oct 30, 2010 17:27:49 GMT
I'm not taking sides, I don't want to take sides, I'm only want to observe. But I got to comment.
My observation is everybody needs to focus on the weather and try to limit comments and replies to actual and potential weather events. Otherwise the blog gets bogged down into equivocal misunderstandings and disagreements like this. "But then people used to believe that foul air carried diseases, that the earth was created in 7 days, that the right chemical process could turn lead to gold" Well I believe "foul" air does carry disease, I believe the earth was "created" and I believe the "right" process can turn lead to gold. Air "fouled" by a pathogen can create disease, the earth was "created" by events and the "right" process can alter a substance. We don't have transparent aluminum yet but.....
I'm not taking sides, I don't want to take sides, I'm only want to observe. But I got to comment. THIS IS ONE HECK OF A BLOG!
|
|
