On May 23, 12:48 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:

The empiricist conclusions of William James rightly summed up the
difference between my concepts as an astronomer and your concepts
based on astrology,magnification and astrophotography -

"Compared with this world of living individualized feelings, the world
of generalized objects which the intellect contemplates is without
solidity or life. As in stereoscopic or kinetoscopic pictures seen
outside the instrument, the third dimension, the movement, the vital
element, are not there. We get a beautiful picture of an express train
supposed to be moving, but where in the picture, as I have heard a
friend say, is the energy or the fifty miles an hour?"


Content with your celestial sphere peep show,where the stars ever
return to the same position 3 minutes 56 second seconds earlier,you
all lose the sense of our own planet's astronomical cycles and the
great think of men who grasped by intutive intelligence the sheer
scale of the celestial arena.

James wrote that over 100 years ago just as empiricism was about to
fester ,at least on the astronomical side,into the 1905 concepts where
the conclusions matched those of a 1898 science fiction novel by H.G.
Wells. and we now inhgerited the worse part of the tradition insofar
as it has now blossomed into unapologetic astrology.The unfortunate
Pete and his 'occultation' of Saturn being an example today.

Chris,your voice echoes off the celestial sphere wall that you believe
in and even though,as a favor,I leave with the conclusions of a
Christian empiricist (almost a contradiction in terms) like James,I
imagine that your 'healthyminded ' religion would never accept that
investigation of natural phenomena is a facet of religion.