Spectral Analysis

Dave0301

Hello,

Does anyone have any pointers on where to read up on doing spectral analysis using software like SPLAT...

Also, can anyone recommend a good text book to read up on radiative transfer? I would want it to start off at an introductory level and build from there.

Two rather niche questions, but any advice appreciated!

ps200306

Have used SPLAT but can't remember where I read up on it, so can't really add to what a Google search will show you. I haven't come across entire books on radiative transfer, just a few that have it as a chapter or even just a section within a chapter on the radiative transfer equation and its solutions:

• An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Bradley Carroll & Dale Ostlie, (Pearson).
• An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution, Dina Prialnik, (Cambridge).
• The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, David Gray, (Cambridge).

I guess they would all qualify as introductory. They're on the reading list for a master's degree in astrophysics so involve a reasonable degree of maths. I also have some lecture notes. PM me if you'd like to discuss.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

• An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Bradley Carroll & Dale Ostlie, (Pearson).
  

It has all the value of expensive toilet paper

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Modern-Astrophysics-Bradley-Carroll-ebook/dp/B075WXXX7V

Have a look inside and they declare that while the Copernican system resolved some appearances it was not as predictive as the Ptolemaic framework.

Does anyone here want to know why the predictive framework of Ptolemy doesn't work with interpreting planetary motions and solar system structure ?.

Didn't think so but the Royal Society Brits made people believe it could hence 200+ years of bluffing.

Zubeneschamali

oriel36 wrote: »

Have a look inside and they declare that while the Copernican system resolved some appearances it was not as predictive as the Ptolemaic framework.

That is not what it says. It says it is not successful are predicting planetary position more accurately. This is because both systems use circles, and need epicycles.

It was Kepler's use of elliptical orbits and varying orbital speeds which improved predictions.

oriel36

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is not what it says. It says it is not successful are predicting planetary position more accurately. This is because both systems use circles, and need epicycles.

It was Kepler's use of elliptical orbits and varying orbital speeds which improved predictions.

The issue between the Pope and Galileo wasn't whether the Earth moved around the Sun but whether the system which predicts astronomical events (eclipses, transits, ect) could also be used to prove the Earth orbits the Sun. There was only one system inherited from Ptolemy where the Sun moved directly through the constellations while the planets 'wandered' -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/sun_ecliptic.gif

"Moreover, we see the other five planets also retrograde at times, and
stationary at either end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun
always advances along its own direct path, they wander in various
ways, straying sometimes to the south and sometimes to the north; that
is why they are called "planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

The entire pseudo-science of astrophysics is based on a wandering RA/Dec Sun -

https://community.dur.ac.uk/john.lucey/users/solar_year.gif


What the antecedent Ptolemaic framework did was allow astronomers to predict astronomical events within the calendar system as dates whereas RA/Dec allowed astronomers to predict the exact times of an event using a 24 hour clock within dates of the calendar system. It makes the latter 17th century framework more accurate for predictions of planetary positions to each other using a celestial sphere but it doesn't provide any basis for planetary motions and structure of the solar system.

It all becomes confrontational but I will point out that although I have considered by historical viewpoints I am not chained to them up to and including the frameworks used by Kepler and Copernicus. I suggest others become less confrontational as I am not attacking positions but presenting based on merit as to whether predicting astronomical events is one thing while interpreting motions and structure is altogether something else.


Kepler's framework is not geocentric and this is a major mistake of those who promote celestial mechanics and specifically Newton's treatment of it -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

Zubeneschamali

I apologize to the OP for correcting gerald, he will now ruin this thread by writing a million words even less relevant than the above.

oriel36

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I apologize to the OP for correcting gerald, he will now ruin this thread by writing a million words even less relevant than the above.

You kids have your own thing going.

ps200306

Gerald Kelly, this thread has literally nothing to do with a wandering RA/Dec Sun or any of your other insane ravings. Politeness clearly doesn't work with you. From here on every one of your posts gets reported. NOW WILL YOU PLEASE BUGGER OFF.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Gerald Kelly, this thread has literally nothing to do with a wandering RA/Dec Sun or any of your other insane ravings. Politeness clearly doesn't work with you. From here on every one of your posts gets reported. NOW WILL YOU PLEASE BUGGER OFF.

You are basically misguided students living off distortions created a few centuries ago that have nothing to do with astronomy.

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry.

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

What I wouldn't give to discuss the details with people who are not afraid of astronomy or a bunch of voodoo chanting drones from the late 17th century!.

Dave0301

ps200306 wrote: »

Have used SPLAT but can't remember where I read up on it, so can't really add to what a Google search will show you. I haven't come across entire books on radiative transfer, just a few that have it as a chapter or even just a section within a chapter on the radiative transfer equation and its solutions:

• An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Bradley Carroll & Dale Ostlie, (Pearson).
• An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution, Dina Prialnik, (Cambridge).
• The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres, David Gray, (Cambridge).

I guess they would all qualify as introductory. They're on the reading list for a master's degree in astrophysics so involve a reasonable degree of maths. I also have some lecture notes. PM me if you'd like to discuss.

Thanks for the reply. It is indeed for an MSc that I am asking. I have a copy of An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution, which is okay, but a bit sparse on radiative transfer as I was looking for more depth. I am still brushing up on my maths!

Have used SPLAT a bit as well, but I am finding some of the data reduction a bit tricky.

ps200306

Dave0301 wrote: »

...a bit sparse on radiative transfer as I was looking for more depth.

Let me compare it to the other ones and get back to you.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry.

You raving nincompoop. Your Newton quote is from the Principia, first published 1687. Kepler wrote in his Harmonices Mundi in 1619 "But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists between the period times of ANY two planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean distance" (emphasis mine). I'm not sure your maths stretches to calculating the gap of nearly 70 years, but hopefully you at least notice that Kepler is earlier. And in fact Kepler had done the calculation in 1618 using the Earth and all five of the classical planets. Newton even gives Kepler's own measurements in a table in the Principia just after the quote you mined.

What's more Newton proved that Kepler's three laws followed from the assumption of a centrally directed gravitational force following an inverse square law. The third law is not exact for an elliptical orbit: the 3/2th power or "sesquiplicate proportion" that Newton referred to has a dependency on the sum of the central mass and the orbiting mass. But the tiny planetary masses compared to the solar mass render the departure from Kepler's third law negligible.

Of course, if you're incapable of learning it from a textbook, you're not going to take it from me. So please just go away and start your own thread that the rest of us can ignore.

slade_x

oriel36 wrote: »

Does anyone here want to know why the predictive framework of Ptolemy doesn't work with interpreting planetary motions and solar system structure ?.

Everyone here can read all the other threads containing your views on the matter, of which there are many at this point

oriel36 wrote: »

Didn't think so but the Royal Society Brits made people believe it could hence 200+ years of bluffing.

Didnt' think so? then why continue to spam it. And people are aware of the Royal Society, adding an additional "Brits" descriptor is redundant and considering the tone, its addition suggests a negative connotation. If you wish to continue with anti british sentiment, do it elsewhere if that's your agenda.

oriel36 wrote: »

I suggest others become less confrontational as I am not attacking positions but presenting based on merit as to whether predicting astronomical events is one thing while interpreting motions and structure is altogether something else.

I would suggest you do the same, with none of the insults I see in the other threads

slade_x

ps200306 wrote: »

From here on every one of your posts gets reported.

The report option has a clear function for breaches of conduct / charter rules. not just for the sake of it. I'd suggest not to use it in such a fashion please

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Kepler wrote in his Harmonices Mundi in 1619 "But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists between the period times of ANY two planets is precisely the ratio of the 3/2th power of the mean distance" (emphasis mine).

Kepler's loose correlation between orbital periods and distance from the Sun doesn't address the individual behavior of the planets even if Sir Isaac attempted to impose a belief that it does so why you make words bold, make sure you include "any two planets" -

"The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets
is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the
orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are
proportional to the cubes of the mean distances." Kepler

This expands into an explanation given in the previous reply where such orbital comparisons are based on an average - "of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter.".

How many here, moderators or not, have the wits to return to the original proposal of Kepler -

"But it is absolutely certain and exact that the ratio which exists
between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the ratio
of the 3/2th power of the mean distances, i.e., of the spheres
themselves; provided, however, that the arithmetic mean between both
diameters of the elliptic orbit be slightly less than the longer
diameter. And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which
is one year, and the period of Saturn, which is thirty years, and
extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio
by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the
most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun.
1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube
root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is
greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is
slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from
the sun." Kepler

There is nothing there that addresses individual orbital geometry so ban me if that is required to save the crown jewel in the empirical universe of the so-called 'inverse square law'. I wouldn't expect anything else from perpetual students who simply can't have a reasonable discussion.

oriel36

slade_x wrote: »

Didnt' think so? then why continue to spam it. And people are aware of the Royal Society, adding an additional "Brits" descriptor is redundant and considering the tone, its addition suggests a negative connotation. If you wish to continue with anti british sentiment, do it elsewhere if that's your agenda.

The Brit descriptor is now owned by the English as a positive/neutral term so don't be an apologist unless you wish to extend your allegiance to the political world as well as to their Royal Society world.

If you can't deal with astronomical material as an independent reasonable person then ban me as I have no control over that. Most of what happens in an astronomy forum belongs in a mathematician's forum.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

There is nothing there that addresses individual orbital geometry so ban me if that is required to save the crown jewel in the empirical universe of the so-called 'inverse square law'.

Wow! I mean, WOW! It took me a couple of readings to appreciate the sheer lack of comprehension behind your arrogant disdain for the mathematics. Let's forget anything to do with an inverse square law or anything at all to do with Newton's gravitation. Your understanding breaks down at a much more trivial level. The root of your objection is as follows:

Kepler says (and you quote): "The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances."

And I now realise you accept that Kepler applies this to any two planets even though he uses the Earth and Saturn by way of example.

But then Newton says (as you quote): "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun."

And your objection goes as follows (and I quote): "Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry."

So Kepler compared the orbits of the planets to each other, while Newton drew a correspondence between the period and orbital radius of a single planet. And this is the nub of your objection. Once again, wow!

You considered yourself qualified to pour disdain on a college-level textbook. So you won't object to a little mathematics that the average 12-year-old could understand. Here is Kepler's exact statement in English and in compact form:

"the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances" ...


The above holds for any pair of planets, subscripted 1 and 2. By a trivial manipulation (that our 12-year-old would understand) we can produce this exactly equivalent expression:




And the only way this relation can be true for any pair of planets is if these ratios are all equal to some constant, k:



So again by a trivial manipulation:





... which only involves a single planet and is exactly equivalent to Newton's statement: "the periodic times of the five primary planets are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun." Kepler and Newton said exactly equivalent things. If your lack of understanding truly runs this deep then I suggest it is you who are the "voodoo chanting drone".

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

.

But then Newton says (as you quote): "That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun."

And your objection goes as follows (and I quote): "Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry."

So Kepler compared the orbits of the planets to each other, while Newton drew a correspondence between the period and orbital radius of a single planet. And this is the nub of your objection. Once again, wow!

Wow indeed !, you are out of your depth and so are those nuisances that take the name of 'moderator', peer reviewer or whatever they call themselves.

The axiom for the orbital motion of the Earth around the Sun is based on the motion of the Sun through the constellations and not the Sun around the Earth hence a false equivalence.

The periodic times argument of the original astronomers is based on the motion of the Sun directly through the constellations as opposed to the direct/retrograde motions of the planets as noted by Kepler's method and specifically with Mars is based on that principle -

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum

There is no budget in any description known to any astronomer to equate a perceived motion of the Sun around the Earth with the Earth's orbital motion around the Sun. as Isaac tried to do with his absolute/relative space and motion.

The axiom for daily rotation is based on the observation that the Sun appears to move around the Earth but no astronomer worthy of the name since antiquity would confuse an observation for a daily rotation or the Sun's daily motion with orbital motion where the position of the Sun in the constellations or Zodiac took priority. Without this principle, even the geocentric principle that the Sun's 365 orbital motion between the 687 day period of Mars and the 225 day period of Venus would be lost so that Copernicus switched the Sun's position with the Earth in a heliocentric framework.

The nearest Newton came to astronomers was trying to imitate Huygens who once again equates the motion of the Earth through the constellations with the motion of the Sun -

"Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signs,
or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49
min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon,
are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in
Astronomy."
Huygens

That is where Sir Isaac was trying to ape Huygens with absolute/relative time of what is called by different names through astronomical history as the equation of days, the additive/subtractive equation or more recently the equation of time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia


I am sure among yourselves you profess great understanding but when mathematicians had integrity and honesty they could admit to not have the faintest idea how Isaac got to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions and you and the rest are no different -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical, but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at his results. The reason why it was presented in a geometrical form appears to have been that the infinitesimal calculus was then unknown, and, had Newton used it to demonstrate results which were in themselves opposed to the prevalent philosophy of the time, the controversy as to the truth of his results would have been hampered by a dispute concerning the validity of the methods used in proving them. He therefore cast the whole reasoning into a geometrical shape" Rouse Ball 1908

I don't know who you are but don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

The truth is that I find Newton's attempt interesting but in the realm of forensics while his followers are just boring in being cheerleaders without knowing what the whole spectacle means. Being banned is just another attempt to remain dull and gloomy when there are genuine discussions to be had. At least you try and to your credit I give you that .

Signing off for the weekend.

ps200306

Another thousand word rambling tract with no attempt to engage. Let's try again.

Kepler says: "the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances" ... i.e.

Newton says: "the periodic times of the five primary planets are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun" i.e. .

You said: "Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry."

Whereas I showed that the two statements are exactly equivalent, using mathematics a 12-year-old would understand. I'm going to assume that your obfuscatory response stems from embarrassment. If not, try for once to engage with the actual statements above.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

Another thousand word rambling tract with no attempt to engage. Let's try again.

Kepler says: "the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances" ... i.e.

Newton says: "the periodic times of the five primary planets are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun" i.e. .

You said: "Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry."

Whereas I showed that the two statements are exactly equivalent,

Your response belongs in a mathematics forum whereas the technical details of Kepler's insights are purely observational and easily appreciated.


"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

Watching a mathematician try to play an astronomer can be an assault on the eyes but then again you seem to be having a good time at the expense of the original methods and insights.

All astronomers since Ptolemy gauged the motions of the planets and the Sun (geocentricity) against a stationary background hence the signs on the rim of Kepler's diagram where the motion of Mars is gauged against the faster motion of the Earth -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

"Copernicus, by attributing a single annual motion to the earth,
entirely rids the planets of these extremely intricate coils leading
the individual planets into their respective orbits ,quite bare and
very nearly circular. In the period of time shown in the diagram, Mars
traverses one and the same orbit as many times as the 'garlands' you
see looped towards the center,with one extra, making nine times, while
at the same time the Earth repeats its circle sixteen times " Kepler

The hapless mathematicians think it is geocentric hence their anti-astronomical view of direct/retrogrades -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton


There is no equivalence between the Sun around the Earth and the Earth around the Sun, mathematicians may swear there is but an astronomer worthy of the name would never assent to such a crude notion.

I would shrug and ask where are the astronomers amid all the hapless mathematicians ?.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

Kepler observed no such thing, his proportion between two orbital periods relates to the period of the Earth and distance from the Sun compared to Saturn. Only a complete incompetent like Newton would mistake this loose correlation with individual orbits of planets and their geometry.

oriel36 wrote: »

Your response belongs in a mathematics forum whereas the technical details of Kepler's insights are purely observational and easily appreciated.

Ironically all you have done is to prove that Kepler's insights are not easily appreciated and that you have completely missed their significance. You may be happy to watch planets encircle the Sun without wondering why they do it, but I suspect you are in a minority of one in your lack of curiosity. Kepler's Laws would be mere observational anecdotes were it not for the unifying insights -- both mathematical and physical -- provided by Newtonian mechanics and gravitation.

Astronomy has been a mathematical subject for thousands of years, and vastly more so since the scientific revolution. Your attempts to elevate the purely observational and denigrate the mathematical are like trying to fly an aeroplane with one wing. You crashed and burned when you ignorantly dismissed Newton's restatement of Kepler's harmonic law.

oriel36 wrote: »

I would shrug and ask where are the astronomers amid all the hapless mathematicians ?.

And I would say: take it up with Galileo. I can do no better than quote him from Il Saggiattore, itself a response to an astronomical treatise in your own dogmatic style by a Jesuit, Orazio Grassi:

"Natural philosophy is written in this grand book — I mean the Universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth."

You spoke before of an astronomical symphony. Astronomy without mathematics is like watching the orchestra play without being able to hear the instruments.

oriel36

ps200306 wrote: »

"Natural philosophy is written in this grand book — I mean the Universe — which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth."

He was talking about geometry at a time they didn't have time lapse, sequential imaging and all those things which are available today.

Here is the Earth overtaking Mars -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181108.html

Here is Kepler's best graphical description of the same thing -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler#/media/File:Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg

The mathematicians, starting with Newton, think it is geocentric, but if this is an astronomy forum with supposedly astronomers present, then they should enough to defend the principles which do not permit non-geometric pretense.

ps200306

oriel36 wrote: »

He [Galileo] was talking about geometry at a time they didn't have time lapse, sequential imaging and all those things which are available today.

None of those things would be available to day without mathematical physics and astronomy. How do you think SOHO got to its orbit about L1? How do you think the existence of L1 was even established? It certainly can't be determined by observation -- there's nothing to see there.

oriel36 wrote: »

The mathematicians, starting with Newton, think it is geocentric, but if this is an astronomy forum with supposedly astronomers present, then they should enough to defend the principles which do not permit non-geometric pretense.

You think Newton was a geocentrist? You truly are away with the fairies.

slade_x

oriel36 wrote: »

If you can't deal with astronomical material as an independent reasonable person then ban me as I have no control over that. Most of what happens in an astronomy forum belongs in a mathematician's forum.

The material of your posts do not concern me, Its the manner in which you post and your conduct that's the issue. And each individual here does have control over whether they get banned or not as most can exercise an appropriate level of self control. Abiding by a forum charter is a choice. Either respect the forum rules or don't. If you can't you will receive a ban.