A planet with smaller planets orbiting it was problematic for the
orderly, comprehensive picture of the geocentric model of the
universe, in which everything was supposed to circle around the Earth.
As a consequence, many astronomers and philosophers initially refused
to believe that Galileo could have discovered such a thing.

Galileo continued to observe the satellites over the next eighteen
months, and by mid 1611 he had obtained remarkably accurate estimates
for their periods—a feat which Kepler had believed impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Leaving aside the fools he had to deal with, the structured thought at
the end of the dark ages was violently disinclined to allow any leeway
to a science that was a given in most arian philosphies but ran
counter to the dogma of trinitarian ones.

Einstein came up against another philosphy in his later years, the
dogma of chance. Could god be playing dice with the solar system?

It allowed the dogma of chaos theory to fall off its flat earthed
backside into the present state of affairs. If it had been allowed to
flower as a fractal representation the universe with its mutiplicity
of micro~ and macro~ cosms, it might have blossomed into the reasoned
logic that:

If he does play dice, he lets us share the game on equal terms.

Consider simple number theory and chance. If the planet were one of a
set of dice; which as it happens, it does resemble, then the chances
are the moon behaves as the other in the pair.

And perhaps the sun is another but at its distance, or due to the
constraints of the other planets, we can ignore it or assume it always
throws a six, then the numbers that can come up are somewhere between
1 and 6 or 2 and 12.
Or even 1 and 12.

Which fits nicely on the scale of natural hazards.

Coincidence?
Perhaps, or not.
As the case may be.

On Jul 24, 5:00*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
A planet with smaller planets orbiting it was problematic for the
orderly, comprehensive picture of the geocentric model of the
universe, in which everything was supposed to circle around the Earth.
As a consequence, many astronomers and philosophers initially refused
to believe that Galileo could have discovered such a thing.

Galileo continued to observe the satellites over the next eighteen
months, and by mid 1611 he had obtained remarkably accurate estimates
for their periods—a feat which Kepler had believed impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Leaving aside the fools he had to deal with, the structured thought at
the end of the dark ages was violently disinclined to allow any leeway
to a science that was a given in most arian philosphies but ran
counter to the dogma of trinitarian ones.

Einstein came up against another philosphy in his later years, the
dogma of chance. Could god be playing dice with the solar system?

It allowed the dogma of chaos theory to fall off its flat earthed
backside into the present state of affairs. If it had been allowed to
flower as a fractal representation the universe with its mutiplicity
of micro~ and macro~ cosms, it might have blossomed into the reasoned
logic that:

If he does play dice, he lets us share the game on equal terms.

Consider simple number theory and chance. If the planet were *one of a
set of dice; which as it happens, it does resemble, then the chances
are the moon behaves as the other in the pair.

And perhaps the sun is another but at its distance, or due to the
constraints of the other planets, we can ignore it or assume it always
throws a six, then the numbers that can come up are somewhere between
1 and 6 or 2 and 12.
Or even 1 and 12.

Which fits nicely on the scale of natural hazards.

Coincidence?
Perhaps, or not.
As the case may be.

You quote Einstein and Galileo?? I hope it is not in comparison! Their
theories have been seen to work. Their outcomes can be replicated.
Einsteins theoretical predictions are constantly being validated. The
science has moved on, but the main body of their work was correct.

You cannot predict from your theories. You won't collate any records.
You won't return to predictions and explain why they were not correct.
Thus, it appears that they have no use.

Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 24, 5:00 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
A planet with smaller planets orbiting it was problematic for the
orderly, comprehensive picture of the geocentric model of the
universe, in which everything was supposed to circle around the Earth.
As a consequence, many astronomers and philosophers initially refused
to believe that Galileo could have discovered such a thing.

Galileo continued to observe the satellites over the next eighteen
months, and by mid 1611 he had obtained remarkably accurate estimates
for their periods—a feat which Kepler had believed impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Leaving aside the fools he had to deal with, the structured thought at
the end of the dark ages was violently disinclined to allow any leeway
to a science that was a given in most arian philosphies but ran
counter to the dogma of trinitarian ones.

Einstein came up against another philosphy in his later years, the
dogma of chance. Could god be playing dice with the solar system?

It allowed the dogma of chaos theory to fall off its flat earthed
backside into the present state of affairs. If it had been allowed to
flower as a fractal representation the universe with its mutiplicity
of micro~ and macro~ cosms, it might have blossomed into the reasoned
logic that:

If he does play dice, he lets us share the game on equal terms.

Consider simple number theory and chance. If the planet were one of a
set of dice; which as it happens, it does resemble, then the chances
are the moon behaves as the other in the pair.

And perhaps the sun is another but at its distance, or due to the
constraints of the other planets, we can ignore it or assume it always
throws a six, then the numbers that can come up are somewhere between
1 and 6 or 2 and 12.
Or even 1 and 12.

Which fits nicely on the scale of natural hazards.

Coincidence?
Perhaps, or not.
As the case may be.

You quote Einstein and Galileo?? I hope it is not in comparison! Their
theories have been seen to work. Their outcomes can be replicated.
Einsteins theoretical predictions are constantly being validated. The
science has moved on, but the main body of their work was correct.

You cannot predict from your theories. You won't collate any records.
You won't return to predictions and explain why they were not correct.
Thus, it appears that they have no use.


Weatherlawyer is taking the p*ss, it's all one p*ss take. He doesn't
believe in what he says. He only says it to wind up people.

--
Joe Egginton
Wolverhampton
175m asl

On Jul 24, 8:53 am, Joe Egginton wrote:
Dawlish wrote:

You quote Einstein and Galileo?? I hope it is not in comparison! Their
theories have been seen to work. Their outcomes can be replicated.
Einsteins theoretical predictions are constantly being validated. The
science has moved on, but the main body of their work was correct.

You cannot predict from your theories. You won't collate any records.
You won't return to predictions and explain why they were not correct.
Thus, it appears that they have no use.

Good boy. Who is a clever fellow. Nice do... err.... boy.

Would you like another biscuit?

Weatherlawyer is taking the p*ss, it's all one p*ss take. He doesn't
believe in what he says. He only says it to wind up people.

Good though eh?

Well I find it compulsive at any rate.

Talking about taking the p*ss, how do you stop him drinking from the
toilet bowl?

On Jul 24, 11:08*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:53 am, Joe Egginton wrote:

Dawlish wrote:

You quote Einstein and Galileo?? I hope it is not in comparison! Their
theories have been seen to work. Their outcomes can be replicated.
Einsteins theoretical predictions are constantly being validated. The
science has moved on, but the main body of their work was correct.

You cannot predict from your theories. You won't collate any records.
You won't return to predictions and explain why they were not correct..
Thus, it appears that they have no use.

Good boy. Who is a clever fellow. Nice do... err.... boy.

Would you like another biscuit?

Weatherlawyer is taking the p*ss, it's all one p*ss take. He doesn't
believe in what he says. *He only says it to wind up people.

Good though eh?

Well I find it compulsive at any rate.

Talking about taking the p*ss, how do you stop him drinking from the
toilet bowl?

Whatever, really. I'll continue to help, by monitoring your forecasts
to see if there really is any use in what you do.

On Jul 24, 11:36 am, Dawlish wrote:

Whatever, really. I'll continue to help, by monitoring your forecasts
to see if there really is any use in what you do.

There's nice innit? Help yourself to the biscuit.

On Jul 24, 11:08 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 24, 8:53 am, Joe Egginton wrote:

Weatherlawyer is taking the p*ss, it's all one p*ss take. He doesn't
believe in what he says. He only says it to wind up people.

Good though eh?

Well I find it compulsive at any rate.

Here's a number list that the coincidences appealed to me sitting in
front of a home PC zenning what the finest duperstupour compoopers
c*n't:
1
33
1,000

I bet no one can guess what it is.

It should not be a surprise to people because we know that human error
can always occur
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2115522.stm