NavList:

   

Reply

George Huxtable wrote:

> On second thoughts, I would alter that a bit, to suspend it by a sling from
> near its mid point, or its centre of gravity, rather than its far end. But
> the obvious part of the rigging to sling it from would be between two
> shrouds (which are set up bar-tight), through a gap between the ratlines;
> never from a yardarm.

It doesn't matter where you suspend it, it would not work.  Ships move.
  And Halley's was a 52 foot pink, hardly a stable platform to support
an instrument.

> And (especially if we were to take the Royal Society's engraving at face
> value, as Mike seems to wish us to do), there would be no call for a stiff
> tube to support the brass plate. That would be the tail wagging the dog.
> It's the brass plate, of whatever size, supporting the telescope, whatever
> it's made of.

A - a large brass plate with a non-stiff telescope would work (I already
posted a statement to that effect).  However, you reject the notion that
the plate is large.
B - a smaller brass plate is supported by the telescope.  I already
posted a statement on the same - the telescope needs to be stiff to
support the plate.  Pasteboard won't do.

> That applies only to Mike's special interpretation of the instrument, and to
> the Royal Society engraving. To an open mind things are different, with our
> new understanding of how Newton's note can be read..

I have an open mind, however, I'm not gullible. I'll accept anything
that can be reasonably proved.  I've seen no such proof.

You are continually referring to some mythical Newtonian instrument that
you never describe and is completely undocumented.  Provide a reliable
source or drop the fantasy.

Mike


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply