Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Hans ... nothing ventured, nothing gained I
> guess is an old saying.
>
> Here is a third attempt, so far the response has
> been as usual hostile but not threatening.
> Interesting how the argument shifts depending who
> you are presenting it to. The argument has now
> shifted to the fact that the semi major axis were
> different 4500 years ago. And of course the old
> stand by argument when no other is available is
> that the ancient builders could not have done this
> because they did not know this. Circular argument
> as always. So far though no one has shown the data
> as presented as being in error and mercifully so
> far no one has resorted to that ugly word ...
> co-incidence.
>
> Here is the site. Lots of action though.
>
> Cheers and thanks again for your good wishes.
> Don Barone
>
> It can be said of Kepler, as of few great
> scientists, that what he accomplished would never
> have been done had he himself not done it. The
> discovery from the examination of naked-eye
> observational reports that planets move on
> ellipses, and according to the area law, is so
> exceedingly improbable – and Kepler’s manner of
> arriving at it
> was so decidedly personal – that it lies outside
> the course of any inevitable development.
> Bruce Stephenson
> Kepler’s Physical Astronomy, 1987
Interesting thread at UM. They are correct again. However you refusal to understand their legitimate criticism of your work doesn't do you any good. Every single place you go you will get similar valid criticism.
It not about the numbers which you try to make it about.
It's the hypothesized correlations that people have issues with. Where the numbers come from and how the AE would have not had the data. You use a very convoluted irrational method to get fairly accurate numbers.
Until you can explain why you are using those methods to get those numbers and can explain why or how the AE would have used them your ideas remain modern results taken out of context.
And very key point is why would teh AE have done this and why we never see it again and what possible use would it have been to them.
....and no showing me a bunch of numbers won't make it good. You need to look beyond the numbers to what the others are talking about.
Show how the AE would have gotten the idea for those numbers, how they would have calculated it and why it would have been of any value to them?
