Re: Astronomers,amateur or otherwise.

On Mar 30, 6:52 am, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am still not convinced that posting minor variations of the same
material many times to the same group is the best way to get your
ideas accepted.

If the concept is, as you seem to be saying, both easy to understand
and important then surely peer-reviewed publication in a main-stream
publication is the way to go?

That is, I think, a bit *too* much to ask of the poor fellow. If he
would formulate his ideas clearly enough to post them once so that I
could understand what he was saying, I would be happy.

He used to say that the notion of a changing inclination for the
Earth's axis was a bad notion (I think) but now he is saying it is a
correct one, even supported by Copernicus.

One constant theme, though, is that the 23 hour, 56 minute, 4 second
sidereal day by reference to the stars is a bad, or illegitimate,
notion, so the idea of the axis constantly pointing to Polaris, but
with its constant tilt to the ecliptic plane resulting in the North
Pole tilting towards or away from the Sun depending on what side of
the Sun the Earth is... also has its roots in referring matters to the
fixed stars. Which he constantly denounces as "astrological geometry".

He seems to advocate we go back to the scheme of Tycho Brahe, except
that because his astronomy is heliocentric and not geocentric, if we
are talking about the motions of the planet Uranus, then we have the
Sun and Uranus standing still, and the other planets going around the
Sun with their Uranus-relative synodic periods. But not *really*,
because he knows the Earth and Uranus can't be standing still at the
same time. Just as the only legitimate way to talk about Solar System
motions in a completely position-relative way, ignoring those pesky
astrological stars.

Any peer-reviewed astronomical journal will, of course, even though it
may be polite about rejecting a submission by him, have basically as
derisive an attitude towards such notions as is found in this
newsgroup. Why would astronomers inflict torture on themselves, when
the fixed stars (as an approximation, of course, no one denies this!)
provide the frame of reference in which Kepler's square-cube law is
properly obeyed, and all the motions of the individual planets can be
simply untangled?

But it is impious empiricism to want to do arithmetic easily, when we
should instead just stand in reverent awe of Solar System motions -
another theme running through his posts. Are not peer-reviewed
scientific journals the very temples of this empiricism he decries?

John Savard
.

Relevant Pages

  • OT - weather
    ... I'd like to start by saying that everybody is entitled to be a ... narrow-minded uptight little person if they're inclined that way. ... I haven't seen the sun in a week. ... The pools here close for rain - lightening and thunder shut 'em down ...
    (rec.crafts.textiles.yarn)
  • Re: What is the maximal length of usernames on Solaris?
    ... >I think you're almost saying that given the precedent of one OS, ... listening to the customer. ... >Well, if only Sun used NIS, existing, sure, why not? ... >since others use NIS, you have ...
    (comp.sys.sun.admin)
  • Re: The London Standard Today
    ... > I've just read my copy of today's Sun in the bog and this is what The ... > When confronted earlier this week about his conviction 20 years ago, ... > He admitted misleading the paper, saying: "I knew all this was going to ... scurrillous attacks on the police. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: (RSPoliticsW) Why does the GOP continue to keep putting the gun to their mouth...
    ... part of the right-wing base isn't so sure they actually did get it ... Yes and most of the left wing base still think it's 1967 on almost ... every matter under the sun and the fights are still the same, ... You're saying the *left wing* still thinks it's 1967??? ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)