Re: Solutions-R-US

[Big Jim <bigjim@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,
I'm sorry for the passion. Those that know me know that when I get like 
this I become...difficult?
I am convinced.  Maybe its because my mind isn't as perplexed with 
alternative possibilities. It is possible to not be able to see the forest 
for the trees. I am waiting for a PDF program. When that arrives I will 
post my explanations and methods. In the mean time there is a temporary 
page up for you all.
As far as my method goes, telling me at every turn.. it could also be this 
or it could be that, will never accomplish anything. You wont see it until 
you look at it. To me, if John was right his method should encompass the 
entire MS. It should explain zodiacal and astrological pages too. There 
should be a tie in. By telling John, well it could also be this or that, 
without dealing with the actual method and seeing if it holds up throughout 
the entire MS, is wrong.  John was the first person I talked to in this 
group. I had found his page and asked him why if he had a solution, was it 
not torn apart? Gone into from every angle.
I watched in the same amazement when the work of Dr Schoch and John West 
was pooh poohed by the scientific community. How does this work? How is 
advancement achieved?
No I'm not a long standing member of this group. I'm the proverbial guy 
that walks in the door and watches. I size up everything and then do what 
needs to be done. If I succeed I succeed. If not, I tried.  I tried the 
Voynich because quite frankly Im bored. I need mental stimulation. Speaking 
of which, the person that sent me the email concerning the scientist's 
facts on my page, here is your reply;
Jim,
I don't want to get in the middle of this controversy. I can't afford the
time. So if you convey my comments to your group, it is with the
understanding that I won't respond to any emails.
As for the Galactic center distance. At one time 30,000 light years was
quoted and it has progressively come down over the years. The value that Mr.
***** gave is not the most up to date. Recent papers cite a value of 25,000
light years (which is probably accurate to x 3000 light years). Over the
past two decades I have personally used the value of 23,000 light years which
is supported by several pieces of observational data. It is really not
worthwhile to quibble over a difference of less than 9%.
Concerning the diameter of the Galaxy's nuclear bulge, I base my 14x estimate
of the nuclear bulge diameter on the infrared map published by Matsumoto. 
Infrared
gives us our clearest view of the distribution of stars in the Milky Way's
bulge. The values given in text books will vary depending on what set of
data they base their estimate on (whether it be optical or infrared
observations). An old astronomy textbook by Jastrow (circa 1977) cites
rough measurements for the bulge that figure a diameter of about 19x, but
these are probably based on optical observations, which do not give as clear
a view of the bulge morphology. ****** 's estimate of a 40x diameter is
certainly much too large.
In regard to the molecular hydrogen gas ring, *****  seems to confuse this
with the nuclear bulge. It is a ring of gas that surrounds the nuclear
bulge, hence is a separate feature. My rough figure of 14,000 light years
for the radial distance of the ring from the GC assumes a GC distance to
Earth of 23,000 light years. Hence tan of 14,000/23,000 is 31x, just like I
said, not 35.4x What's important is the angular size of the ring as viewed
by us. That's the real datum to talk about. Published observation show that
the line of sight optical depth of this ring reaches a peak at around 31.5x x
2x of arc from the Galactic center. The Voynich "Galaxy" diagram shows a
convoluted border extending from about 27x to 31x of arc from the center of
the circle, when viewed from a point on the circumference of the circle.
This certainly overlaps the angular range of 31.5x x 2x observed for the
molecular gas ring peak density. This diagram is an art drawing, not a
precise plot. So it is meaningless to quibble over a matter of a few degrees.
To avoid confusion, perhaps your website quote of my email should be changed
to read "...This gives an angular size of 31 degrees of arc measured from
the gas ring to the Galactic center."
This avoids someone mistakenly thinking I was referring to the diameter of
the ring in that calculation.
Anyway I am quite confident in my calculations.

And here is the temp page.

Regards
Jim

http://www.gloryroad.net/~bigjim/private.htm