![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 3, 5:26*am, oriel36 wrote:
Is it so much to ask that professional career astronomers accept that the Ra/Dec framework is a genuine observational convenience for predicting events within the 365/366 day calendar system thereby relieving the conceptual gridlock Well, yes, it is too much to ask. Because professional career astronomers aren't _noticing_ any "conceptual gridlock". Newtonian empiricism, framehopping, and imaginary observers seem to be working just fine for them, and, indeed, these things form the basis *for* work which they perceive as highly productive. If someone like you comes out of left field to tell them that, no, they're doing it all wrong, and _especially_ if you try to extol the virtues of *intuition* (guided by "authority", yet!) in preference to mathematics... no, they won't listen. If you had something which you could explain in language they understand, and point to as what they would gain, it might be different. Failing that, it seems like you simply want to set astronomy back 400 years for no good reason. John Savard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global climate | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | January 20th 10 09:32 PM |
Global climate | oriel36 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 21st 07 11:35 AM |
Key to global climate studies | oriel36 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | September 21st 06 09:09 PM |