[geocentrism] Re: Catching up
- From: "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 12:18:16 +0100
I suspect the error in the paper is more to do with the disregard of the
pupil aperture in collecting and focussing the incoming starlight. Dr Jones
calculates exactly as if the pupil diameter were the size of a small group
of 1.5 micron diameter rods, and declares that no light focussing of any
kind takes place apart from directly on to the fovea. I don't believe this
is a correct statement.
Rather than argue around the paper however, the best way to show who is
right would be to go out on the next dark, clear night (this might take a
while in the UK!!!). Let your eyes adapt and pick out a faint star. Then,
artificially reduce the size of your pupil by a device such as holding a
piece of card with a small (<1mm) hole in it, as close to your eyeball as
you can. (This might also work if you just half-close your eyelids.)
If the stars appear dimmer and harder to see, pupil diameter is a factor,
contrary to the paper. If your view of starlight is totally unchanged, that
element of the paper stands.
Rob.
-----Original Message-----
From: RM Mentock [mailto:mentock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 02 August 2004 12:48
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Catching up
[snip]
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.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Other related posts:
