[geocentrism] Re: Catching up
- From: RM Mentock <mentock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 07:48:28 -0400
At 05:45 AM 8/2/2004, Dr. Jones wrote:
> Dear Alan (and others),
>
> Finally, you stated, "I notice everything has gone very quiet about
Neville's
> flawed paper!" Since the paper was withdrawn, then why should we still be
> discussing it?
>
> Neville.
One important reason for discussing the flawed paper, is that
it provides important clues. Having scoured it before it was
withdrawn, I was impressed with the general lack of errors.
You did an immense job, with only one or two errors--but
those errors were crucial.
I haven't scoured your latest paper (OK, I scanned it for
insults and pulled those out just for the discussion about
"tone" in our postings), but we can use the information that
I derived from your first paper to help us find the error in this
paper. I'm going to assume that you did not make a lot of
errors, maybe only one.
Just from your post to this group, I understand that what
you are doing is analyzing the distance to the stars in a
fashion so that it is consistent with the physics of eyes
and photons, and you are using the Sun as the model, and
calculating how far away it would be if it were a sixth
magnitude star in our sky--I think I would learn a lot just
reading the paper, whether its conclusion is correct or not.
In your post, you state that that your result is 1.27 light
days.
That of course is at odds with modern astronomy. I looked
up a typical sixth magnitude star, and found that it was
listed as 660 light years from the Earth, and 121 times
brighter than the Sun. So, if the Sun were sixth magnitude,
that would mean that it would be at 660/sqrt(121), or 60
light years away. That's considerably farther than your
result of 1.27 light days.
How much farther? 60 light years is (60 x 365.25)/1.27 or
17256 times farther. Since we have taken the square root
of the distance, what happens when we square this? 17256
squared is 297769536. That is very close to the speed of
light in meters per second. Could you, somewhere in the
paper, have converted a distance and forgot about factoring
in the speed of light constant?
That would be my next step, to check those conversions.
Other related posts:
