NavList:

Douglas

You wrote (on the subject of irradiation):
"I am sorry to place such a noxious fuming piece of material evidence under your noses that perhaps you had rather was not there, giving rise to a screwing up of the nose and distorted features as if sucking a lemon, but it does deserve more comment methinks other than the expected poo-poo-ing and harumphing of George Huxtable .......

I can't find the poo-pooing and may have missed it.

What is clear is that the results of Haines and Allen simply do not fit with what is found in practical navigation. We never find errors due to irradiation of up to 15 arcminutes when bringing the sun's lower limb down to the horizon. The paper by Randle and Lampkin (post number 12094)does give results that more closely match reality, of up to 50 seconds error. It also appears to show that by using filters in such a way as to reduce contrast ratio, the irradiation error can also be reduced. This is in accord with one of Haines and Allen's findings.

You also wrote:
"As I said - mention subjective, (but real), phenomena of human physiology to physicists and astronomers, (with the scientific evidence to go with it in this case).. and their eyes glaze over ....."

I'm not sure that this isn't poisoning the well a little. As someone with more training in the biological than physical sciences, my eyes often glaze over once discussion moves from the realms of elementary algebra and trigonometry to the higher realms of mathematics, so I can well understand others finding physiology a bit challenging, with all its biological variability to be accounted for. It has been said that Nature doesn't cheat, but sometimes it can seem that way.

Bill Morris
Pukenui
New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------
NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
Members may optionally receive posts by email.
To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
----------------------------------------------------------------