the Sky

        Just a meta-comment on Stephens winter/summer stars, and all the associated comments (by Alex et al).

        I think the real problem here is that Greg makes some comment about some celestial thing that he thinks should be true, without thinking for a moment about what it implies about celestial mechanics (or understanding how earthly ones work particularly). Then people like Stephen (or Nick when he was doing his program) spent hours thinking too hard in order to work out a set of celestial mechanics that makes any sense at all.

        I think the only real answer, that will produce a description of the stars that isn't truely bizarre, is to hold down Greg and make him think of the consequences of his decisions, and make him suggest which relatively sane celestial mechanics he likes, and try and get him to stick to it once he has chosen.

        I don't think Greg is all that attached to all the various (possibly contradictory) factoids he has said about the sky. If you demonstrate that making one or two changes will produce a vaguely sane and earth like sky, compared to immensely complicated systems with multiple spheres, and so on, he just might go for it.

        So, anyone volunteer to talk to Greg about it as GC V? I would, but I'll be far too far away.

        Cheers

                David