Guest guest Posted June 2, 2006 Report Share Posted June 2, 2006 At 02:35 AM 6/2/06 -0000, Ken Irving wrote: >...If you like technical reading, have at it with the above URLs (these >are tifs of the original pages), but if you are just curious, go there >and look at the title pages and maybe the introductions of the two >publications as a means of getting a better idea about how bogus >Bradley's promotion of this Apex number was. I don't think he meant it >to be that way, but he was smart enough (an accomplished amateur >astronomer) and able enough that he could have followed up on it, >rather than just running it with it because it fit a favored >hypothesis... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Doesn't this over enthusiasm of Bradley (apparent also in the writing style of SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS) suggest that his rainfall research might be similarly flawed? I've always suspected that there were problems with that research, especially since we've never had access to the raw data, and the research has never been replicated. Therese Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2006 Report Share Posted June 3, 2006 Therese, We must try always to empathize ourselves into the times under consideration as in forty years some of our astro taken-for-granteds will be equally dismissed. Bradley was offering a work up of A.N.Vyssotsky and Peter van de Kamp. It was picked up by everyone and held to for a long time. It seemed a given...0 Capricorn hard angled from Aldebaron-Antares. Very neat...perhaps a mendelian perogative. What surprises me are those several who came into knowing its errors early on and said nothing to correct it in the understanding of others for a long time. Perhaps you could direct us to some of these 'over enthusiasms' of Bradley in SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS? His use of houses has always delighted me. Dark*Star _______________________________ therese hamilton wrote: > At 02:35 AM 6/2/06 -0000, Ken Irving wrote: > > >...If you like technical reading, have at it with the above URLs (these > >are tifs of the original pages), but if you are just curious, go there > >and look at the title pages and maybe the introductions of the two > >publications as a means of getting a better idea about how bogus > >Bradley's promotion of this Apex number was. I don't think he meant it > >to be that way, but he was smart enough (an accomplished amateur > >astronomer) and able enough that he could have followed up on it, > >rather than just running it with it because it fit a favored > >hypothesis... > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Doesn't this over enthusiasm of Bradley (apparent also in the writing style > of SOLAR AND LUNAR RETURNS) suggest that his rainfall research might be > similarly flawed? I've always suspected that there were problems with that > research, especially since we've never had access to the raw data, and the > research has never been replicated. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.