Hi Bob,
I am sure everything you say is true. I think the term wobble, in reference
to stars, was probably coined by astronomers themselves as a short-hand
method of referring to the phenomena.
My point still is... Today the trend in the scientific community seems to be
increasingly towards stating theory or opinion as proven scientific fact.
It is a case of draw a conclusion, look for evidence to support it, ignore
evidence to the contrary. Essentially the reverse of the true scientific
method. Witness the Martian meteorite ALH 84001. In 1996, it was
postulated that it might contain a microbe, a fossilized piece of primitive
life. Five years later (about a month ago), headlines read something like
"Martian Microbe Confirmed as Early Life". It turns out this was the
opinion of one research team. There is a whole slew of astro-biologists
that are not ready to stick their necks on the line. It was amazing, back
in 1996, that the original announcement was made during the same week
congress was considering funding for more Mars projects. Coincidence? I'm
not saying they shouldn't be funded or it's a bad use of money.
What I am saying, is that the difference between conclusions drawn by direct
observation Vs. what is more or less circumstantial evidence, leaves room
for doubt. I would like to read more "we think", "mights" and "maybes", as
opposed to "scientific dogma". Science has been wrong countless times in
the past. The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know.
Tom C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk & Lesions
> The general laws of motion for heavenly bodies was developed by Kepler
> (1571-1630). Newton's (1642-1727) law says that for every action there is
an
> equal and opposite reaction, further he developed the law of gravity,
> acceleration as a function of combined mass and distance. This
mathematics,
> along with the calculus, proved gravity the natural force that defined
> Kepler's equations. Today, we see some stars move back and forth with
> definite period when plotted over some time. Since they move, acceleration
> is taking place. If acceleration is taking place there must be an equal
and
> opposite reaction somewhere. We see this movement with binary stars, but
> with the observation we are discussing, no second star is seen. Whatever
it
> is that is supplying the mass necessary to produce this phenomena is dark.
> From the period, size of displacement, and the estimated mass of the
> observed star (from brightness, temperature, etc.) a size (mass) may be
> estimated for the dark mass (planet). From the accuracy of the
> instrumentation and from the verified statistics of other observations, an
> accuracy for this mass estimate can be determined. Over time (your 20
years)
> the accuracy of measurements has increased dramatically to make the mass
> estimates sufficiently tight to identify a planet. Since we have all
> observed the dramatic advances in technology in the past 20 years (what
> computer were you using in 1981?), it is not surprising that what was once
> an educated conjecture has now been verified. All this sounds quite well
> grounded in science and mathematics to me. In other words, it IS
> scientifically based. FYI, most of the measurements are made using
> photography (and a clock and calendar).
>
> I have no idea where this word "wobble" came from, but can only assume it
> was used by someone in an attempt to reference the phenomena for those
> ignorant in astronomy and it somehow stuck. The star is NOT wobbling. It
is
> moving back and forth in relation to the background stars.
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
>
> Give blood. Play hockey.
>
> From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was
one
> > of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble
> effect
> > across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post
was
> > probably a poor one...
> >
> > It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20
> years
> > ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today
> is
> > headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is
> > scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the
> conclusion
> > that are drawn now versus then.
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
