View Single Post
  #36  
Old 20-05-2007, 10:24 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 614
Hi Joe,

Please do not think that I (and possibly others) are 'attacking' your theories. I for one take it as a given that there are between 1 and > 100,000 undiscovered objects in the outer solar system. I do not think anyone is questioning your theories and calculations. For all I know they may take real genius to perform. What I, and others, do question is the very first step - the 'observational' data on which all your work is based.

You have 1 ~40 year old image and 1 ~20 year old image for which you have not provided any evidence to show that the 'disappearing' dot is real. You have not, for each image on which the dot exists, shown another image taken by the same scope, same night to show that the dot was real and not something transient. The 3rd image that you published shows, to experienced observers, an image defect but you have chosen to ignore this advise and use your own experience.

Now the issue for me is that you have taken what amounts to flawed data, applied a lot of work (and I am not questioning any of the theory in that work) to produce a result that you want others to fork out lots of time and or money to observe. Flawed data in means flawed data out no matter how good/valid the work in between was. If you started off with quality data then you would have an army of amateur and professionals trying to find this object.

As a final note I would like to point out that one of the base requirements of good science is Peer review. The review may not agree with your findings. This does not make your results any more or less valid but taking the reviews that do not agree with your position personally and attacking them is just a waste of of your time - I don't care if you like them or not. Its up to the wider community to judge if good science has been practiced. The reviews themselves can be reviewed by others. Its not about right or wrong - it's about whether good practice has been overlooked, or a mistake has been overlooked or any number of other things that can affect a result. In other words, this is part of what is widely referred to as 'the scientific method'. A method developed and proven over a millennia......

Cheers

David

Last edited by higginsdj; 20-05-2007 at 11:37 AM.
Reply With Quote