NavList:

   

Reply

George?
 < The true lunar distance, when measured, is made up from
two components. One is the apparent lunar distance, as measured. The other
is the correction for displacement by parallax...
You MUST think of these two components together, not dismiss the second as
being "only a correction". The end result is a corrected value which
changes at a steady rate.>
 Whether the two values must be considered together, whether one may be 
dismissed, and which of your positions must stand are all matters that can 
readily be proven or disproven.

 Complete the theories, insert the actual numbers, perform the lunars using 
the real numbers both ways, and see which way provides the more accurate 
result, and what the overall difference is--if any. There is no tempest in 
this teapot, you have simply offered a theory which now needs a simple (ahem) 
proof to be done.

 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. It sounds like a 
number of members with some knowledge of lunars have enough interest to 
perform observations and calculations with you, to see if they do indeed 
support the one theory or the other.

 Unlike the debates among the early atomic scientists (i.e., whether an atom 
bomb would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and end all life on earth, 
or whether it could explode at all) there is nothing to be lost by getting 
out of the lab and performing the experiment here.

   

Reply