Maybe I shouldn't have started this blog now, not with everything that's been going on.

Yesterday my thesis advisee also showed up for consultation. He believed he had a problem because according to an online research he read, whose link he found in a messageboard, the meteor showers were moving at a rate of at least one degree per day.

He concluded that this meant the showers moved completely around the celestial sphere in the course of one year. Therefore he couldn't give a graphical representation of where the meteor showers were coming from because it would change significantly every month.

First of all, I told him, the information he looked up wasn't verified by NASA or the other reliable sites on astronomy information we have, so that's enough reason for him to leave it out.

Second, meteor showers are only visible for an average of one month out of the year. So even if the associated constellation is visible, it doesn't mean he has to pinpoint the meteor shower when it's not the period of their occurence.

Third, just like with that astronomy calendar website, all he needs to put is the meteor shower that's visible for the upcoming month of the date his software reads from the computer's system clock. If he has a graphical representation of the general direction that the shower is visible in a given time, well and good.

But I told him that the panel will not nitpick that he did not include the minute adjustment in the direction of the meteor shower. He may keep that information in reserve in case they ask him how extensive his research was, but that would be the only purpose of that information, to show that he did look it up. He does not have to include it in his software.

This guy is still worried about the panel finding the depth of his knowledge wanting, when what they are asking for is much simpler.