[geocentrism] Re: Reality-check on science
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:00:09 +1100
Dear Neville Jones,
You seem to imply that large telescopes are a waste of taxpayers money
because they are useless. I apologize if I have misinterpreted you.
You should know that with a larger telescope you have a larger light
collecting surface. That means you can see fainter objects, or you can
resolve fast and transient events because you can take shorter exposures,
or you can get higher spectral resolution. All of these increased capabilities
have led to advances in our understanding of the Universe - and the most
exciting part is, of course, all the stuff that we didn't expect or anticipate
to find by getting larger instruments.
You should also know that many 8-10 meter class telescopes are outfitted
with adaptive optics, that filter out the blurring of the turbulent atmosphere,
and allow close to diffraction limited observations.
And of course, none of this has any effect on what kind of orbits we have
in the Solar system, and what orbits what - the necessary observations were
done before the lens and the telescope was invented.
You should also know to distinguish between observation and interpretation.
Astronomical observations are not fundamentally different from taking pictures
with a tele-photo lens - we just use more accurate equipment than most amateurs
can afford.
The interpretation of the observations, is where we compare with those
theories that have survived tests against past observations. If our
observations support that theory, then everything is honky-dory, but also
boring! If on the other hand we have a discrepancy, then we look at the
methodology of the observations, and all the possible sources of errors.
Then we look at the simplifying assumptions of the theory, and establish
whether they all hold - if not, we try to improve the theory so we can discard
that assumption. That is how science progress. If, on the other hand, we find
that one of the founding assumptions of the theory, does not hold, then we
will have to discard the theory all together, pending confirmation by other
groups. And then it is back to the drawing board to try to come up with a
theory that encompasses both the old and the new observations.
That is science. It might be slow, but the key is that it is a convergent
process.
Sorry for such a lengthy reply.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul,
>
> The diffraction limit of "big expensive" telescopes is not achieved in the
> real world. Also, no astronomer is "directly examin[ing] the universe," but
> rather making observations in a terrestrial laboratory and seeking to promote
> and understand those observations within the currently accepted model.
>
> Neville
> www.GeocentricUniverse.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:17:37 +0000 (GMT)
>
>
> Jack L
> I doubt one person in a hundred would regard this statement as patronising.
> There was an attempt at humour in there -- perhaps that is what has sparked
> your ire?
> What Regner is doing that only a very small percentage of the overall
> population is doing -- is being a professional astronomer. He gets to use
> lots of big expensive exciting equipment to directly examine the universe. I
> don't know about you but I'm envious.
> Paul D
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> Dear Paul,
> Why did you find it necessary to patronise Regner in that way? Regarding the
> 'real thing' what in heavens name is Regner doing that no-one else is?
>
> Jack
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Deema
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Allen D
> I'd be careful about advising Regner to refer to a model. He doesn't need
> one. He plays with the real thing!
> Paul D
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
