NavList:

   

Reply

 Frank wrote:
>
> I think [position via moon parallax is]
> quite a novel concept for this group of people. I suppose that's why a
> couple of people were determined to attack it instead of trying it out.

Having followed this topic with some interest, as was also shown by
others, I don't recall 'attacks' as such. What I do remember are
requests for more detailed information, and perhaps the expression of
a little frustration when this was not forthcoming. Don't be so quick
to assume the mantle of the martyr, Frank. Do feel encouraged to
explain fully new concepts.

The other interesting aspect here is that we now know this idea was
described in 1912...how?

Because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal and has thus
endured 94 years so far. I seem to remember some pooh-poohing of this
suggestion when proposed as appropriate for Frank. Perhaps the value
of publication in such journals has been supported by this revelation.

The advantage of peer review before publication is that the process
(should) ensure that the idea is complete (whole), is well expressed,
and (hopefully) able to be demonstrated. It makes a good idea better,
while weeding out the others.

Which brings us full circle to the shortcomings of the expression of
this idea as presented.

100% for ingenuity, Frank; but only 30% for clear expression.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply