Michael Baldwin, Bruce
May 27th 07, 07:00 AM
Right on cue, completely anal retentive kookdancing queen, Dickless
Davie the "irrelevaant" Ignoranus, whined and
tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
> Androcles writes:
>
> >>> Why anyone would use 100 Earth years as a measure for Mercury
> >>> is simply amazing.
>
> >> What's allegedly amazing about it? Lots of people use the
> >> astronomical unit as a measure for Mercury's semimajor axis,
> >> for example. That's another unit derived from the use of
> >> the Earth as a reference.
>
> > Which you hallucinate to be constant and not just another approximation.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of any hallucination on my part.
> The astronomical unit is a constant, by definition. The orbit of
> the Earth, of course, is not constant, nor has anybody claimed
> otherwise.
>
> > Strange as it may be to you, Earth has a moon, Luna and the two revolve
> > about a barycentre.
>
> Non sequitur. We're talking about the astronomical unit.
>
> > Earth has many semimajor axes.
>
> One for every epoch of osculation and for every origin of the reference
> frame. So what? Doesn't make the astronomical unit a variable. To use
> an example, just because the circumference of your chest varies during
> your breathing cycle doesn't mean the inch is a variable.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the length of a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is 1.5
> > Morris Minors.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> The mass of Mercury is often
> >> expressed in units of Earth masses.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the mass of an elephant is 2.4 hippopotami.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. However, it's quite
> common to say things like "this book weighs twice as much as that
> book". That makes "that book" the unit of mass measurement. Or
> you might hear John Doe say that he's twice as old as his sister
> Jane Doe. That makes Jane Doe the unit of age measurement. Or
> you might here an administrator say that his salary is five times
> that of the delivery boy, which makes the salary of the delivery
> boy the unit of salary measurement. The everyday world is replete
> with such examples. The problem with your example is that it doesn't
> refer to specific objects, but rather to a collection that varies
> within the collection, and therefore your example is ambiguous.
>
> >>> Talk about confusion,
>
> >> What alleged confusion? Does the use of a solar mass for the
> >> masses of other stars, instead of kilograms, also confuse you?
>
> > Ok, so use the elephant as the unit of mass and we'll soon see who is
> > confused.
>
> There is no such thing as "the" elephant. There are lots of them,
> with a wide variety of masses, therefore your example is ambiguous.
>
> >> You had better get used to the fact that there are multiple
> >> time units in use, multiple distance units in use, multiple
> >> mass units in use, and so on.
>
> > All of which can lead to rounding errors which accumulate,
> > resulting in an UNOBSERVED 43.1 arc seconds per
> > 118.621186 Jovian orbits.
>
> Non sequitur. The discussion is about the variety of measurement
> units available, not rounding errors. One can round regardless of
> the choice of measurement unit, even when using your preferred
> choice of measurement unit, whatever that might be.
>
> > You had better get used to the fact that you are confused.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition. Rather ironic, coming from the
> one who is confused.
>
> >>> 4.31 arc seconds per Earth year with Mercury's sidereal period
> >>> of 88 Earth days and 365.25 days per year
>
> >> Older equations for the values of various astronomical parameters
> >> used the Besselian century as the time argument. Now many of those
> >> equations have been recast to use the Julian century instead. The
> >> coefficients to the time arguments had to be changed for the units
> >> to be consistent.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> (or is it 366.25 sidereal days),
>
> >> Where did that come from?
>
> > There is exactly one more sidereal day than solar days in a year.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? You haven't even specified
> the type of year! Could be the tropical year, the sidereal year,
> or the anomalistic year, for examle.
>
> > You didn't know that, huh?
>
> You're the one with an ambiguous statement, and you're blaming me?
> Talk about being confused!
>
> > That's your confusion.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Rather ironic to boot.
>
> >>> the whole issue is riddled with data loss and fiddle factors.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> > ****head.
>
> Appropriate signature line you have there.
Nice PKB you have there, Dickless.
Davie the "irrelevaant" Ignoranus, whined and
tholed like the antagonistic arsehole that he is:
> Androcles writes:
>
> >>> Why anyone would use 100 Earth years as a measure for Mercury
> >>> is simply amazing.
>
> >> What's allegedly amazing about it? Lots of people use the
> >> astronomical unit as a measure for Mercury's semimajor axis,
> >> for example. That's another unit derived from the use of
> >> the Earth as a reference.
>
> > Which you hallucinate to be constant and not just another approximation.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of any hallucination on my part.
> The astronomical unit is a constant, by definition. The orbit of
> the Earth, of course, is not constant, nor has anybody claimed
> otherwise.
>
> > Strange as it may be to you, Earth has a moon, Luna and the two revolve
> > about a barycentre.
>
> Non sequitur. We're talking about the astronomical unit.
>
> > Earth has many semimajor axes.
>
> One for every epoch of osculation and for every origin of the reference
> frame. So what? Doesn't make the astronomical unit a variable. To use
> an example, just because the circumference of your chest varies during
> your breathing cycle doesn't mean the inch is a variable.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the length of a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is 1.5
> > Morris Minors.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >> The mass of Mercury is often
> >> expressed in units of Earth masses.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the mass of an elephant is 2.4 hippopotami.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. However, it's quite
> common to say things like "this book weighs twice as much as that
> book". That makes "that book" the unit of mass measurement. Or
> you might hear John Doe say that he's twice as old as his sister
> Jane Doe. That makes Jane Doe the unit of age measurement. Or
> you might here an administrator say that his salary is five times
> that of the delivery boy, which makes the salary of the delivery
> boy the unit of salary measurement. The everyday world is replete
> with such examples. The problem with your example is that it doesn't
> refer to specific objects, but rather to a collection that varies
> within the collection, and therefore your example is ambiguous.
>
> >>> Talk about confusion,
>
> >> What alleged confusion? Does the use of a solar mass for the
> >> masses of other stars, instead of kilograms, also confuse you?
>
> > Ok, so use the elephant as the unit of mass and we'll soon see who is
> > confused.
>
> There is no such thing as "the" elephant. There are lots of them,
> with a wide variety of masses, therefore your example is ambiguous.
>
> >> You had better get used to the fact that there are multiple
> >> time units in use, multiple distance units in use, multiple
> >> mass units in use, and so on.
>
> > All of which can lead to rounding errors which accumulate,
> > resulting in an UNOBSERVED 43.1 arc seconds per
> > 118.621186 Jovian orbits.
>
> Non sequitur. The discussion is about the variety of measurement
> units available, not rounding errors. One can round regardless of
> the choice of measurement unit, even when using your preferred
> choice of measurement unit, whatever that might be.
>
> > You had better get used to the fact that you are confused.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition. Rather ironic, coming from the
> one who is confused.
>
> >>> 4.31 arc seconds per Earth year with Mercury's sidereal period
> >>> of 88 Earth days and 365.25 days per year
>
> >> Older equations for the values of various astronomical parameters
> >> used the Besselian century as the time argument. Now many of those
> >> equations have been recast to use the Julian century instead. The
> >> coefficients to the time arguments had to be changed for the units
> >> to be consistent.
>
> Note: no response.
>
> >>> (or is it 366.25 sidereal days),
>
> >> Where did that come from?
>
> > There is exactly one more sidereal day than solar days in a year.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? You haven't even specified
> the type of year! Could be the tropical year, the sidereal year,
> or the anomalistic year, for examle.
>
> > You didn't know that, huh?
>
> You're the one with an ambiguous statement, and you're blaming me?
> Talk about being confused!
>
> > That's your confusion.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Rather ironic to boot.
>
> >>> the whole issue is riddled with data loss and fiddle factors.
>
> >> Nonsense.
>
> > ****head.
>
> Appropriate signature line you have there.
Nice PKB you have there, Dickless.