Evan Burton

And again

Another

More of those 'impossible' manoeuvres.

Your opinion, Paul, and not supported by his actions on this board. It's just another example of when a moderator does something that some people don't like, some people decide that the moderator is "unsuitable" or "abuses their position". Perhaps some people should read the guidelines and try to adhere to them.

Thomas Hockey (Editor). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. 2 volumes.

xlv + 1,341pp., illus., bibl., indexes. New York: Springer, 2007. $499 (cloth).

I would not purchase this book. This is not intended as a judgment of its overall quality, but there are reasons for my decision, which I shall explain at the end of this review. As should be evident from the price, The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers is a reference book for libraries. According to the publisher's description, there are approximately 1,550 biographical sketches of from one hundred to fifteen hundred words by about four hundred authors from forty different countries. The object is to present summaries of the life and work of astronomers, and others pertinent to astronomy, with selected references to more detailed sources. The technical level is fairly low, with mathematical formulas in only three articles that I have noticed and no diagrams at all, although it is difficult to clarify subjects such as planetary and lunar theory without diagrams. Still, even with these limitations, many of the authors do a good job of explaining the astronomy. There are pictures of some people, including Archimedes and Ptolemy, but not Einstein or Hubble; I do not understand the criterion for selection. Now, the value of a collection of this kind lies, not in the more important figures, for whom summary biographies are readily available, but in the lesser known, who have been treated, if at all, only in specialized literature and the Dictionary of Scientific Biography (DSB). And for this purpose the work is indeed useful, although there is considerable variation in quality, from excellent to deficient. Let me begin with what appears to me the best.

The articles on Islamic astronomers are uniformly excellent. From the eighth to the fifteenth centuries the most important and original astronomy—observational, mathematical, and physical—was from the Islamic world, and it is commendable that this is here fully recognized. Those astronomers translated into Latin and known in Europe—for example, al-Battanı, Thabit ibn Qurra, Jabir ibn Aflah—are treated, as are those often called the "Maragha school"—as Nasır ad-Dın at-Tusı, Muayyad ad-Dın al-Urdı, Ibn ash-Shatir—whose planetary and lunar theories, as well as being of great interest in themselves, were essential to Copernicus and through his work to European astronomy of the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (Curiously, the article on Copernicus ignores this entirely.) Equally important are many astronomers, among the most important Ibn Yunus and al-Bırunı, whose work was unknown in the West until the historical research of the modern period, and they too are given thorough treatment. The authors include some of the finest scholars of Arabic astronomy and mathematics, and many articles supplement or supersede those in the DSB and the Encyclopedia of Islam, since there has been so much original research in the last thirty or so years. It is particularly fortunate that through an arrangement between the publisher and the Islamic Scientific Manuscript Initiative (ISMI), all of these articles are available in open access at http://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/.

Probably the most often consulted articles will be those on astronomers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, many not in the DSB, which make up well over half of the entire work and are among the best. The coverage is wide, taking in not only Western Europe and North America but also Russia, Japan, India, Latin America, and other regions considered only slightly in previous English-language reference works; and it is very current, since people born up to 1918, some still living, are included. Likewise, the articles treat contributors to every field of astronomy in the modern period: observation and instruments, celestial mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, planets and comets, stellar structure and evolution, distribution of stars in the galaxy, external galaxies, cosmology, and also other scientists, as physicists, whose work is pertinent to these fields. Where the work is highly technical, it sometimes appears as though the authors could do more to explain it, but most of the articles are better than that, many are excellent, and can be considered reliable. Here above all the collection shows its great value.

The problems are with earlier periods: antiquity, the Middle Ages except for Islamic astronomy, the Renaissance, and the early modern period. With a few exceptions, the articles on antiquity are uninformative. There is little that can be written of biography, so what remains is the work, but, again with a few exceptions, the authors do not really understand the astronomy, certainly not technically, and at best summarize some of the less technical secondary literature.

Many articles are devoted to Greek philosophers whose contribution to astronomy, if any, is so trivial and doubtful that there appears to be no reason to include them at all. The same is true of some, though not all, of the articles on the European Middle Ages: accounts of works that can seriously be called astronomical, as tables with their instructions and descriptions of instruments, are of uneven quality, and theologians and philosophers whose contribution to astronomy was little or nothing receive more attention than is warranted. The greatest disappointment, however, concerns the Renaissance and early modern periods. There are many articles considering both major and minor figures, although the selection is peculiar: some of serious interest, as Giovanni Bianchini and Francois Viete, are omitted, while John Milton is included (because of some Copernican references in Paradise Lost). Some of the articles are excellent, but some are dreadful: inaccurate, even nonsensical descriptions of the astronomy; citations of texts that have never been looked at, let alone read; inability to understand the astronomy or read the language, most often Latin, of the primary sources, or even to read and understand the secondary sources cited as references; and omissions in the references of important and serious secondary sources. It would be unkind to single out examples, but the deficiencies are obvious and such articles should have been rejected and replacements commissioned. The presence of bad articles makes one suspicious of good ones, and unfairly so; it is in the interest of the authors who have done their job well not to be accompanied by those who have not. Since the entire work is available on line by subscription, it should be possible over time to replace the deficient articles with improved versions, and it is to be hoped that the publisher will do so. This can also remedy the problem that I believe precludes purchasing the book, to which we now turn.

There are three articles—on Newton no less, Flamsteed, and J. C. Adams—by one Nicholas Kollerstrom. The articles themselves are not distinguished: the one on Newton gives him credit for practically nothing, an interpretation with little to recommend it already done to death in the contentious literature on Newton, and all three look for conspiracies. Kollerstrom is an astrologer who publishes an annual volume called Gardening and Planting by the Moon and also investigates horoscopes of famous people, including Newton and Princess Diana. (In 2003 I corresponded with him about Galileo's horoscopes, although he did not then mention that he was an astrologer and it did not occur to me to ask.) But he has another specialty for which he has become better known. His tirades—the correct word—are available on numerous Web sites, both in audio and video interviews and in his own articles, among them "The Auschwitz 'Gas Chamber' Illusion" and the inimitable "School Trips to Auschwitz." I will not quote or summarize them here—I originally did but decided they are too offensive to repeat—but note that he defends Nazis and condemns their victims and supports his claims by links to strident Jew-hating Web sites, which return the compliment by posting his articles. He also holds that 9/11 in the United States and 7/7 in Britain were the work of "international Zionism" aided by the CIA, MI6, and Mossad, with clandestine conspiracies to explain all of this (as well as the death of Princess Diana). And to show his bona fides, in answer to a reporter who said he had a degree in astronomy, he writes: "I have a PhD in the history of astronomy—that could be rather relevant to the 7/7 research, because as a science historian my training involves the accessing of primary-source data and not relying upon gossip and hearsay."

Now, the editors of this volume could have had no way of knowing this side of Kollerstrom because he had not yet published these papers when he was asked to write his articles; and his honorary research fellowship at University College London was not terminated until 22 April 2008. It appears that in the last several years his interests have gone from eccentric to unspeakable. But I would not for all that excuse his inclusion, for a line has been crossed that should never be crossed. This is why I would not purchase this book. It is my intention to return the book to the publisher, and I hope that others, including libraries, do the same. I suggest that Springer withdraw the book from distribution until the deficient articles, and particularly Kollerstrom's, are replaced.

Evan

Have you actually seen the review?

Yep.

I think I have to agree with Jim here.

Although I believe Kollerstrom is completely wrong in his beliefs, and agree with totally with Swerdlow's assessment, it didn't have anything to do with the publication. The most Swerdlow says about Kollerstrom's articles is that they are undistinguished, have little to recommend them and they look for conspiracies. He doesn't really illustrate those examples.

And Dale Brown had a drug lord hold US airports to ransom by flying aircraft into them.

John,

I'd just look at the -200 series of each model. That has the majority of the pertinent information.

As far as hard copy books, I'm not sure. I tend to specialise in military; perhaps Bill could offer some suggestions?

Steve: Cheers.

I've been trying to find a point of entry into this matter while a mate's been badgering me with this stuff about 911 for years to the point where it's an off limit point of discussions or we'd rapidly approach the point of coming to blows while screaming, no you're the x idiot. Short and sweet. Thank you.

A couple of dumb questions?

What were the plane models that hit the various places(of course assuning they did..bla bla bla)? Evan would you recommend an aero plane book or books that covers these models? Is world aircraft info files by bright star aero space publishing 7 vols adequate?

edit: a coupla funny typos

No such thing as dumb questions.

The aircraft involved were:

American Airlines 11, which was a B767 Model 223ER

United Airlines 175, which was another B767 but a Model 222

These were the WTC aircraft.

American Airlines 77, a B757 model 223, hit the Pentagon.

United Airlines 93, a B757 model 222, crashed in Pennsylvania.

Now, you might notice something: both American Airlines aircraft, although different aircraft (B767 / 757) had the same model number. Same with the United aircraft. That is quite common; it's a suffix that Boeing add to identify who purchased the aircraft.

So a B757-222 and a B757-223 are both 200 series, essentially exactly the same, just sold to different airlines.

The B767s are a little different because UA175 was a 200 series but AA11 was a 200 ER (extended range). Very similar but not quite the same.

Regarding the books - did you want a hard copy book or online references? There are a number of good online sites. For instance, have a look at 757.org.uk for information about the B757.

Henry David Thoreau had a beautiful motto, which has seldom been followed by anyone, unfortunately; "Simplify." Most issues are made too complex and confusing, when the truth can usually be at least generally established by using a bit of common sense.

Don,

Some things are counter-intuitive or can be over-simplified. For instance, what if I said it makes no sense that two small pieces of uranium, apparently harmless by themselves, could cause a massive explosion when brought together? It makes no sense at all, totally ridiculous.

- Before 911, there was no previous example of a high rise building (not to mention something the size of the WTC) collapsing from fire damage. On 911 there were 3 examples of this. Since 911, there have been no more.

Before 27 March 1977, there has never been a case where two large airliners had collided on the ground causing massive loss of life. Indeed, it had been said it was a million to one chance of happening. Since then, it has not happened again. Do you believe that the Tenerife disaster was faked?

- Most of the remains from the WTC towers were finely ground into smithereens, yet we are to believe one of the hijacker's passports was found, in perfect condition, a few blocks away? Magic bullet, anyone?

In 1985, a British Airtours B737 caught fire on the ground, destroying the aircraft and killing 55 of the 137 on board.... yet there were items onboard (such as the emergency guide in the seat pocket) which were completely untouched.

- We are also expected to believe that the Pentagon- which has security cameras everywhere- somehow managed to miss capturing a clear image of the craft that slammed into it that day?

The Pentagon had cameras INSIDE it, and some external cameras looking at doors, etc. Wide area surveillance cameras would not be required because there were patrols and secured doors.

The debunkers will continue to answer with official sources and "experts." I know nothing about the pilots arguing that the official story is true, but if they making that argument, then their alleged expertise fails to impress me. I don't change my opinion merely because someone who has some related experience disagrees with me. I use common sense, deductive reasoning, and also judge political events in a larger context. Based on all this, my analysis of the official story of 911 is that it is demonstrably impossible.

In that case, Don, you fall victim to confirmation bias. Another example: if I were to say that I have no expertise in any of the relevant areas but have read Vincent Bugliosi's work and am satisfied that Oswald acted alone, because it aligns with my impressions of common sense and deductive reasoning, and that I need not know anything more about the assassination of JFK, you (and I would imagine most people here) would consider me foolish. Some might say I adopt that position because I don't like anything to do with a conspiracy theories.

(Incidentally, I have never read his works nor have I formed an opinion)

I love how you quote me out of context with no explanation for why I may have been saying whatever I may have said.

I quoted you directly, showing that you have said other people lack the experience, etc. Anyone can find the quotes themselves by going through this thread. If I get the time and / or inclination, I may add the links to the source quote in the post so that people can read what you said.

That you abuse your role as a moderator has revealed your bias again and again.

In no way, shape or form have I abused my position. I split off various posts because of member complaints. I have not touched your later posts because you complained about it! You have three other moderators participating in the thread - are they barred from taking any action simply because they choose to post? Sorry Jim, but as another moderator has once stated, just because I am a moderator it doesn't mean I am not allowed to have an opinion nor state it.

I deal with persons and groups in whom I have confidence, which does not extend to anyone you would cite. Pilots for 9/11 Truth and CIT, which I regard as credible sources, have both produced important documentaries that support my positions.

Personally, I do not share your confidence in them. Why don't you ask some of them to join the Forum? That way those of us that do have expertise can argue the facts, and laymen such as yourself can listen and form an opinion regarding who is right and who is wrong? Of course, when you cite people or groups as your source, it would not be unreasonable to expect people who disagree with those sources to disagree with you.

You say you have four members with extensive aviation experience "who all disagree with (my) assertions". So do they all disagree with all of my assertions? or do all of them disagree with some of my assertions? or do some of them disagree with one or another assertion and the others with one or another different assertions?

They would have to confirm for themselves, of course, but based on posts all have made in response to your assertions (or the same assertions but made by different people), I am reasonably confident in saying they are likely to disagree with all or your assertions.

Check out "What didn't happen at the Pentagon". Which assertions of mine do they disagree with in that particular article?

I'll let them speak for themselves, however, a question to be asked is will you reply to them?

Oh - and thank you for the replies.

IF you ignored those two factors and could stand the noise in the cockpit you could very easily go about twice as fast and not damage the aeroplane at all.

And if you were not concerned about damaging the aircraft at all because you intended to fly it into your target in a minute or so? How fast do you estimate you could fly not destroying the aircraft but seriously over-stressing it?

Bill Sherwood,

As an experienced 747 captain and flight instructor, could you comment on various 9-11 claims that have been made? Specific claims I would ask you to comment on are:

1. Impossible for aircraft to be flown at speeds claimed.

2. Impossible for hijackers, who were described as poor pilots, to have carried out manoeuvres claimed.

3. Impossible for a 757 to get closer that 60 feet AGL flying at 500 mph towards Pentagon because of ground effect.

4. Aircraft could not have hit light poles during approach to Pentagon because it would have ripped the aircraft wings off.

5. Claims that there should have been bigger 'pieces' of an aircraft found at the Pentagon.

6. That wreckage found on the Pentagon lawn "...should have been singed by fire...".

And any other 9-11 aviation aspects that you feel qualified to give an opinion on.

Thanks!

Fluoride is a big envionmental problem and only used in the lunar lander engine designs.

That's not correct, Jim. It may well pose environmental hazards, but it was not used in the lunar lander (LM) design. The fuels were a mixture of Aerozine 50 and nitrogen tetroxide (N₂O₄). This was used in the LM APS, DPS and the ascent stage RCS. It's used in spacecraft and some missile systems because it can be stored for long periods.

I believe fluorine was investigated for use in launch vehicle propellent (not by itself but being mixed with other fuels such as hydrogen or mixed with an oxidiser such as oxygen), but I couldn't tell you how much it is in use today.

Hi Jill!

Your expertise in film studies should make your posts interesting reading.

Welcome!

One of the things Jim has insisted on is that the fact that the pilots stalled on approach is quite unbelievable. I've posted examples of where this has happened in the past, and I said it would happen again... and it has: Air France 447. Their pitot system iced up giving erroneous readings. Instead of doing what we're are all taught - aviate, navigate, communicate - the pilots continued to try to pull the aircraft's nose up whilst it was in a stall (the correct action is to lower the nose, build up airspeed and stabilise the aircraft, then pull out of the dive).

From the link below:

In the Colgan Air crash on February 12, 2009, near Buffalo, New York, that killed 50 people, the captain overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had slowed too much and pulled the nose upward. If he had pushed it down, the National Transportation Safety Board said, he might have saved the plane. On August 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela, killing all 160 aboard, after it stalled at 11,000 metres. The Venezuelan government blamed the pilots for failing to recognise that they were in a stall during a 3½ minute plunge.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/air-france-crash-investigation-sparks-calls-for-better-pilot-training-20110603-1fl24.html#ixzz1OGEyXkLc

I loved 'Contact' (the book - the movie was okay but as usual they changed it).

Yep, that's one of the exciting things about the Higgs-boson particle. It could mean the FTL travel becomes possible. If that happens, well, doors open everywhere.

Oh! That's where the Higgs-boson comes in. If you can control mass, the you could - theoretically - reach the speed of light and have zero mass 9also helps with accelerating you to the speed as well).

Have I got that right?

John D - ???

Apologies, I don't understand your point.

See also:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=199747

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=199750

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16139&view=findpost&p=199759

That's the bit that doesn't make sense to me, Steve. I really want to believe; it would be so fantastic I simply cannot properly express it. I have two problems though:

1. There is still no credible photographic evidence; and

2. If we were being visited, why not make very public contact by landing in the middle of London or Sydney or something.

It could be argued that something similar to the Star Trek 'Prime Directive' prevents point 2, but if so why are there reports of encounters with alien life form, why the cattle mutilations, why the numerous sighting, etc. It doesn't add up.

Hi Tom! Welcome to the Forum. Hope you enjoy yourself!

G'day Barry - welcome to the Forum! I haven't read anything on constitutional law; anything else I may have read?