#1
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy 101
"ANDREW ROBERT BREEN" wrote in message ... In article , Ron Larham wrote: /more Minnery/ I'm just curious, but how many times have _you_ seen mercury? It's hard to escape the impression that he's been inhaling it for years. Nice to see you here Andy rather than on SMN. When I were a lad if you did science you inhaled mercury, thats why we are all mad scientists. RonL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy 101
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... In message , eyelessgame writes Yes yes, that's very interesting and you have proven you can cut and paste from someone's science text, but how many times have _you_ seen Mercury? eyelessgame Irrelevant, surely. Is there any truth in the story that Copernicus never saw Mercury? He at least contributed to astronomy! But the problem is that we are still giving this infantile troll enough attention to ensure it will be back (and I know I'm as guilty as the rest :-) -- The point is: Someone who tells us at length how easy it is to deduce X for observation of Y should at least have seen Y. RonL |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy 101
"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote in message ... In message , eyelessgame writes Yes yes, that's very interesting and you have proven you can cut and paste from someone's science text, but how many times have _you_ seen Mercury? eyelessgame Irrelevant, surely. Is there any truth in the story that Copernicus never saw Mercury? He at least contributed to astronomy! But the problem is that we are still giving this infantile troll enough attention to ensure it will be back (and I know I'm as guilty as the rest :-) -- The point is: Someone who tells us at length how easy it is to deduce X for observation of Y should at least have seen Y. RonL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy 101
"Martin Frey" wrote in message ... "Ron Larham" wrote: Irrelevant, surely. Is there any truth in the story that Copernicus never saw Mercury? He at least contributed to astronomy! But the problem is that we are still giving this infantile troll enough attention to ensure it will be back (and I know I'm as guilty as the rest :-) -- The point is: Someone who tells us at length how easy it is to deduce X for observation of Y should at least have seen Y. RonL Why? Copernicus is credited with 30 odd observations and Kepler was no great shakes due to poor eyesight. What he looked at was a long long list of observations done by someone else - Tycho. They were not telling someone else that it was easy to deduce X from Y they were doing their own analysis. This is not at all the same thing. If I advance a theory with practical implications the practical tests will be done by others whether I do them or not. How many of the guys who built the Moon stuff had been to the Moon? Does it matter whether they'd even seen the Moon? The practical tests were done by Armstrong and co - and oh yes, they did test it. Presidential briefing sometime in the late 50's early 60's: VonBraun: Mr President we can send a man or men to the moon and return them using rocket technology. President: What evidence do you have to support this claim Dr VonBraun? VonBraun: Well Mr President, we calculate that to return a party from the moon we will need to deliver XXtons to the surface. This translates into a launch payload of YYtons. Rockets we have in service could launch this payload in N launches or we could build a new launcher using rocket technology A (which is undergoing bench tests at present), which will yield specific impulse I, which means we could lift the payload in a single launch. There are a number of risks which will have to be investigated, but I believe it is doable. Its not rocket science you know. President: OK, lets spend some more money to confirm your claims Dr VonBraun. Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomy 101
"Martin Frey" wrote in message ... "Ron Larham" wrote: Irrelevant, surely. Is there any truth in the story that Copernicus never saw Mercury? He at least contributed to astronomy! But the problem is that we are still giving this infantile troll enough attention to ensure it will be back (and I know I'm as guilty as the rest :-) -- The point is: Someone who tells us at length how easy it is to deduce X for observation of Y should at least have seen Y. RonL Why? Copernicus is credited with 30 odd observations and Kepler was no great shakes due to poor eyesight. What he looked at was a long long list of observations done by someone else - Tycho. They were not telling someone else that it was easy to deduce X from Y they were doing their own analysis. This is not at all the same thing. If I advance a theory with practical implications the practical tests will be done by others whether I do them or not. How many of the guys who built the Moon stuff had been to the Moon? Does it matter whether they'd even seen the Moon? The practical tests were done by Armstrong and co - and oh yes, they did test it. Presidential briefing sometime in the late 50's early 60's: VonBraun: Mr President we can send a man or men to the moon and return them using rocket technology. President: What evidence do you have to support this claim Dr VonBraun? VonBraun: Well Mr President, we calculate that to return a party from the moon we will need to deliver XXtons to the surface. This translates into a launch payload of YYtons. Rockets we have in service could launch this payload in N launches or we could build a new launcher using rocket technology A (which is undergoing bench tests at present), which will yield specific impulse I, which means we could lift the payload in a single launch. There are a number of risks which will have to be investigated, but I believe it is doable. Its not rocket science you know. President: OK, lets spend some more money to confirm your claims Dr VonBraun. Cheers Martin -------------- Martin Frey N 51 02 E 0 47 -------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Guide to the Best Spanish Language Astronomy Education MaterialsDebuts at NOAO Web Site (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 6th 04 01:03 AM |
Astronomers to Coldly Go Where No-one Has Gone Before/Canada Foundationfor Innovation Invests Over $12M in Space Exploration (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 12th 03 02:07 AM |
ANN: reprint of Clerke's HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY | Bill McClain | Astronomy Misc | 7 | October 30th 03 08:05 PM |
ANN: reprint of Clerke's HISTORY OF ASTRONOMY | Bill McClain | Amateur Astronomy | 7 | October 30th 03 08:05 PM |
FS: Old Astronomy Books, 23 books at $2 - $6 each | Oldbooks78 | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | October 3rd 03 07:54 PM |