NavList:

   

Reply

Jared said-

> Do not assume "the list" agrees with anything simply because no one
>speaks out to >disagree. Silence may simply mean that no one has followed
>the topic, or no one cares to >delve into it to the degree you have.

Jared's comment is correct, of course. But this list has several members
who are very knowledgeable about lunars and celestial geometry, and are
quite uninhibited about pouncing on errors where they find them.

I think (but am not certain) that Jared is referring to section 2 of my
mailing on this topic earlier today. This described a year-old argument,
that the overall accuracy of a lunar was significantly reduced at high Moon
altitudes because the changes in apparent lunar distance became
significantly slowed by parallax. It ended-

"This conclusion seemed to be accepted; at least, nobody seriously argued
with it."

I presume that statement was what Jared was commenting on.

But Jared, I wasn't trying to infer that because nobody seriously argued
with it, that argument must have been CORRECT. Why would I do so, indeed,
when I am now trying to show that that argument I presented a year ago was
WRONG? All I was pointing out was that (from memory) nobody objected to
that argument at the time. No more than that.

George.







================================================================
contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone at
01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
================================================================

   

Reply