Michael Baldwin, Bruce
May 27th 07, 07:12 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.
>
> > So is the speed of light, except it isn't constant.
>
> In a vacuum it is.
Is the dust bag full or empty, Tholoon?
> > "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> > from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A." -Albert
> > ****wit Einstein.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of the existence of anyone with that
> name.
>
> > Don't try to tell me it takes the same time to get an answer back from
> > Cassini as it did to make the request!
>
> You have some evidence to the contrary? And what does that have to
> do with the constancy of the astronomical unit?
>
> > False definitions are bull****.
>
> Then stop using them.
>
> > Hence you are confused.
>
> Classic illogic on your part.
>
> >> The orbit of the Earth, of course, is not constant, nor has anybody
> >> claimed otherwise.
>
> > Define "orbit".
>
> Is that the only word you don't understand from the previous sentence?
>
> > Is it from aphelion to aphelion or synodic?
>
> What does your question have to do with the constancy of the astronomical
> unit?
>
> > Earth too precesses, axially as well.
>
> So what? Doesn't affect the constancy of the astronomical unit. Yet
> another non sequitur statement from you. I can understand why you're
> trying to obfuscate the situation, considering that you can't defend
> the statement you made at the top of the article.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > we are discussing precession of Mercury's longitude of
> > perihelion., see thread title.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> > Hence you are confused.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
> from the person who is confused.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Good example.
>
> Glad to have found something that you can understand.
>
> > According to NIST,
> > "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
> > time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
>
> Yes; it got to the point where the number of transitions between two
> hyperfine levels in the cesium atom could be measured with quite high
> precision, so with the speed of light defined to be a constant with
> the indicated value, the meter could be specified more exactly that
> way than to rely on the length of some standard metal bar stored in a
> climate controlled environment in some Paris bureau. Just how
> accurately would the temperature of that environment need to be kept
> to avoid thermal expansion or contraction of that metal bar at the
> level of one part in a billion?
>
> > Hence the metre *IS* variable.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Inches are still Imperial, thank goodness.
>
> So what? There are 39.37 inches per meter. The conversion should be
> trivial to anyone that can multiply or divide.
Prove it, if you think you can, Dickless.
> > My breathing means both major and minor axes of my chest
> > are variable,
>
> Irrelevant, given that the issue is the alleged variability of the
> measurement unit. The fact that your chest changes size doesn't mean
> that the inch is variable, or the meter is variable, or the astronomical
> unit is variable.
>
> > and you are confused.
>
> Classic repeated unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Astronomical unit
> > The basic unit of length in the solar system. The astronomical unit (AU) is
> > also used to a limited extent for interstellar distances through the
> > definition of the parsec (1 pc = 206,265 AU). It is nearly equal to the mean
> > distance a between the center of mass of the Sun and the center of mass of
> > the Earth-Moon system (a = 1.00 000 23 AU)
>
> Nothing in that statement to indicate variability.
>
> > You are horribly confused.
>
> Classic repeated unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic,
> coming from the person who is horribly confused.
Like you, Tholoon?
> >>> You'll be telling me next the length of a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is
> >>> 1.5 Morris Minors.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the Earth-Sun distance is 1 AU.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. On the contrary, the
> Earth-Sun distance is variable. The Earth's orbital eccentricity
> is almost 2 percent.
>
> > Oops, you already did.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Also suffering from reading
> comprehension problems? You must be, given that I made no such statement.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous hallucination.
>
> I'm well aware that I'm hallucinating, given that I made no such
> statement. No need to tell me about my hallucination.
No need for you to tell us either, Dickless.
> >>>> 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".
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > we are discussing precession of Mercury's longitude of
> > perihelion.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > He's a confused fool,
>
> On what basis do you claim that John Doe is confused?
>
> > then, because he wasn't last year and he won't be tomorrow.
>
> Irrelevant, given that he didn't make the statement last year or
> tomorrow.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > That's what *I* am saying, your definitions are ambiguous.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The first occurrence of
> "ambiguous" in this exchange was mine, and in reference to your
> example.
>
> > According to you, 1 AU = 1.00 000 23 AU.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Where did I allegedly
> make such a statement?
>
> > According to me,
> > The advance of perihelion of Mercury is entirely predicted
> > by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
> > (= 415 orbits)
>
> The problem is the "to within". Newtonian mechanics is quite
> good for most purposes, but not good enough to explain everything.
>
> > which is
> >
> > 415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
> > 149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
> > 8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
> >
> > 43
> > -------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
> > 537840000
> >
> > and Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
> > could not be that accurate.
>
> On what basis do you claim that Einstein's math was restricted
> to log tables and slide rules? Didn't they have pencil and
> paper back in those days? How DID he manage to balance his
> bank account? After all, if you're dealing with thousands of
> dollars and keeping track of it down to the penny, that's SIX
> digits. You don't suppose Einstein might have reached tens of
> thousands of dollars in his lifetime? My god, that's SEVEN
> digits. His 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule couldn't
> be that accurate.
Clearly, you're isn't, Dickless.
> Are you really that stupid?
>
> >>>>> 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've understood my point;
>
> On the contrary, I pointed out why your example is ambiguous.
>
> > even if you don't like it you'll have to live with it.
>
> I'm dealing with my confusion right now.
Go deal with your confusion elsewhere, Tholoon.
> >>>> 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.
>
> > **** you and your non sequitur crap.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition that my statement is "crap".
Crap.
> Classic reliance of foul language on your part, though that
> is a common strategy utilized by those on the losing end of
> a discussion.
Like you, Dickless?
> >> The discussion is about the variety of measurement
> >> units available, not rounding errors.
>
> > No it ****ing well isn't,
>
> Then why did you express amazement that anyone would use a
> century as a measure for Mercury? If the discussion isn't
> about that, then you have nobody to blame for taking the
> discussion off-topic but yourself.
>
> > it's about the advance of perihelion of Mercury.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> >> One can round regardless of
> >> the choice of measurement unit, even when using your preferred
> >> choice of measurement unit, whatever that might be.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> You had better get used to the fact that you are confused.
>
> >> Classic erroneous presupposition. Rather ironic, coming from the
> >> one who is confused.
>
> > You are so erroneously confused you don't know what the subject is.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > See thread title.
>
> See your statement at the top of the article. Then realize that
> your statement was made before my involvement in the discussion.
> Either your statement is on topic, in which case my subsequent
> discussion is also on topic, or you are the one to blame for
> taking the discussion off topic.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > no response needed...
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > but I'll give you one.
>
> One what? One inch? One meter? One astronomical unit? One dollar?
> One kilogram?
>
> > ****head.
>
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.
In other words you don't deny you are a ****head, Dickless.
> >>>>> (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?
>
> > Common knowledge to astronomers,
>
> Many astronomers know that there are multiple ways to define the
> year. You didn't specify which of those you were referring to.
>
> > something you are obviously not.
>
> Classic hallucination on your part. Rather ironic, coming from the
> person who didn't specify the type of year.
>
> > Rough figures: Earth turns 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > The other 4 minutes it uses to turn one more degree and face the sun,
> > the degree it used to travel around the sun.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > 4 minutes * 365 = 1460
> >
> > 1460/60 = 24 hours.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > Did you know the Moon turns on its own axis once a month?
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > 13 revolutions a year, only 12 of which face Earth.
> > What happened to the other Lunar day?
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> >> You haven't even specified
> >> the type of year! Could be the tropical year, the sidereal year,
> >> or the anomalistic year, for examle.
>
> > I didn't have to,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > I was pointing out an ambiguity that you whined was nonsense.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of any whining on my part, but
> glad you realize that your ambiguity was nonsense.
>
> >>> You didn't know that, huh?
>
> >> You're the one with an ambiguous statement, and you're blaming me?
> >> Talk about being confused!
>
> > If I point out ambiguities that you call "nonsense" then yes, I'm
> > blaming you.
>
> The key word here is "if". You weren't the one pointing out the
> ambiguity of use of the word "year". Rather, I was the one who
> pointed it out to you.
>
> >>> That's your confusion.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Rather ironic to boot.
>
> > Arrogant ****head.
>
> I'm well aware that I'm an "arrogant ****head". No need to tell
> me about it.
I'm glad you agree, Tholoon, you arrogant ****head.
> >>>>> the whole issue is riddled with data loss and fiddle factors.
>
> >>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>> ****head.
>
> >> Appropriate signature line you have there.
>
> > For you, yes.
>
> You're the one who used it, not me.
>
> > What's your next new name going to be after I plonk you?
>
> Famous Last Words. You can't defend your statements logically,
> so you threaten to run away. Be my guest.
Dickless bravely runs away.
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.
>
> > So is the speed of light, except it isn't constant.
>
> In a vacuum it is.
Is the dust bag full or empty, Tholoon?
> > "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> > from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A." -Albert
> > ****wit Einstein.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of the existence of anyone with that
> name.
>
> > Don't try to tell me it takes the same time to get an answer back from
> > Cassini as it did to make the request!
>
> You have some evidence to the contrary? And what does that have to
> do with the constancy of the astronomical unit?
>
> > False definitions are bull****.
>
> Then stop using them.
>
> > Hence you are confused.
>
> Classic illogic on your part.
>
> >> The orbit of the Earth, of course, is not constant, nor has anybody
> >> claimed otherwise.
>
> > Define "orbit".
>
> Is that the only word you don't understand from the previous sentence?
>
> > Is it from aphelion to aphelion or synodic?
>
> What does your question have to do with the constancy of the astronomical
> unit?
>
> > Earth too precesses, axially as well.
>
> So what? Doesn't affect the constancy of the astronomical unit. Yet
> another non sequitur statement from you. I can understand why you're
> trying to obfuscate the situation, considering that you can't defend
> the statement you made at the top of the article.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > we are discussing precession of Mercury's longitude of
> > perihelion., see thread title.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> > Hence you are confused.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
> from the person who is confused.
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > Good example.
>
> Glad to have found something that you can understand.
>
> > According to NIST,
> > "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a
> > time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second."
>
> Yes; it got to the point where the number of transitions between two
> hyperfine levels in the cesium atom could be measured with quite high
> precision, so with the speed of light defined to be a constant with
> the indicated value, the meter could be specified more exactly that
> way than to rely on the length of some standard metal bar stored in a
> climate controlled environment in some Paris bureau. Just how
> accurately would the temperature of that environment need to be kept
> to avoid thermal expansion or contraction of that metal bar at the
> level of one part in a billion?
>
> > Hence the metre *IS* variable.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Inches are still Imperial, thank goodness.
>
> So what? There are 39.37 inches per meter. The conversion should be
> trivial to anyone that can multiply or divide.
Prove it, if you think you can, Dickless.
> > My breathing means both major and minor axes of my chest
> > are variable,
>
> Irrelevant, given that the issue is the alleged variability of the
> measurement unit. The fact that your chest changes size doesn't mean
> that the inch is variable, or the meter is variable, or the astronomical
> unit is variable.
>
> > and you are confused.
>
> Classic repeated unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > Astronomical unit
> > The basic unit of length in the solar system. The astronomical unit (AU) is
> > also used to a limited extent for interstellar distances through the
> > definition of the parsec (1 pc = 206,265 AU). It is nearly equal to the mean
> > distance a between the center of mass of the Sun and the center of mass of
> > the Earth-Moon system (a = 1.00 000 23 AU)
>
> Nothing in that statement to indicate variability.
>
> > You are horribly confused.
>
> Classic repeated unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic,
> coming from the person who is horribly confused.
Like you, Tholoon?
> >>> You'll be telling me next the length of a Rolls Royce Silver Cloud is
> >>> 1.5 Morris Minors.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > You'll be telling me next the Earth-Sun distance is 1 AU.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. On the contrary, the
> Earth-Sun distance is variable. The Earth's orbital eccentricity
> is almost 2 percent.
>
> > Oops, you already did.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Also suffering from reading
> comprehension problems? You must be, given that I made no such statement.
>
> > Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous hallucination.
>
> I'm well aware that I'm hallucinating, given that I made no such
> statement. No need to tell me about my hallucination.
No need for you to tell us either, Dickless.
> >>>> 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".
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > we are discussing precession of Mercury's longitude of
> > perihelion.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > He's a confused fool,
>
> On what basis do you claim that John Doe is confused?
>
> > then, because he wasn't last year and he won't be tomorrow.
>
> Irrelevant, given that he didn't make the statement last year or
> tomorrow.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > That's what *I* am saying, your definitions are ambiguous.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The first occurrence of
> "ambiguous" in this exchange was mine, and in reference to your
> example.
>
> > According to you, 1 AU = 1.00 000 23 AU.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Where did I allegedly
> make such a statement?
>
> > According to me,
> > The advance of perihelion of Mercury is entirely predicted
> > by Newtonian Mechanics to within 43 arc seconds per century
> > (= 415 orbits)
>
> The problem is the "to within". Newtonian mechanics is quite
> good for most purposes, but not good enough to explain everything.
>
> > which is
> >
> > 415 orbits * 360 degrees = 149400 degrees
> > 149400 degrees * 60 arc minutes = 8964000 arc minutes
> > 8964000 arc minutes * 60 arc seconds = 537840000 arc seconds.
> >
> > 43
> > -------------------------------- x 100 = 0.00000799494273389855719%
> > 537840000
> >
> > and Einstein with his 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule
> > could not be that accurate.
>
> On what basis do you claim that Einstein's math was restricted
> to log tables and slide rules? Didn't they have pencil and
> paper back in those days? How DID he manage to balance his
> bank account? After all, if you're dealing with thousands of
> dollars and keeping track of it down to the penny, that's SIX
> digits. You don't suppose Einstein might have reached tens of
> thousands of dollars in his lifetime? My god, that's SEVEN
> digits. His 4-figure log tables and 3-figure sliderule couldn't
> be that accurate.
Clearly, you're isn't, Dickless.
> Are you really that stupid?
>
> >>>>> 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've understood my point;
>
> On the contrary, I pointed out why your example is ambiguous.
>
> > even if you don't like it you'll have to live with it.
>
> I'm dealing with my confusion right now.
Go deal with your confusion elsewhere, Tholoon.
> >>>> 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.
>
> > **** you and your non sequitur crap.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition that my statement is "crap".
Crap.
> Classic reliance of foul language on your part, though that
> is a common strategy utilized by those on the losing end of
> a discussion.
Like you, Dickless?
> >> The discussion is about the variety of measurement
> >> units available, not rounding errors.
>
> > No it ****ing well isn't,
>
> Then why did you express amazement that anyone would use a
> century as a measure for Mercury? If the discussion isn't
> about that, then you have nobody to blame for taking the
> discussion off-topic but yourself.
>
> > it's about the advance of perihelion of Mercury.
>
> You're not ready to discuss that topic. Much in the same way that
> students need to learn algebra before they tackle calculus, you need
> to understand basic celestial mechanics before you tackle the precession
> of Mercury's line of apsides. That you don't understand basic celestial
> mechanics was illustrated by the statement at the top of the article,
> namely your amazement that anyone would use a century as a measure for
> Mercury. Of course, you've not stated what measurement unit you would
> use, but no matter what your preferred choice is, you'll look as silly
> as someone saying that inches are okay to use, but meters are not.
>
> >> One can round regardless of
> >> the choice of measurement unit, even when using your preferred
> >> choice of measurement unit, whatever that might be.
>
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> >>> You had better get used to the fact that you are confused.
>
> >> Classic erroneous presupposition. Rather ironic, coming from the
> >> one who is confused.
>
> > You are so erroneously confused you don't know what the subject is.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > See thread title.
>
> See your statement at the top of the article. Then realize that
> your statement was made before my involvement in the discussion.
> Either your statement is on topic, in which case my subsequent
> discussion is also on topic, or you are the one to blame for
> taking the discussion off topic.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> > Non sequitur,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > no response needed...
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
> > but I'll give you one.
>
> One what? One inch? One meter? One astronomical unit? One dollar?
> One kilogram?
>
> > ****head.
>
> Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.
In other words you don't deny you are a ****head, Dickless.
> >>>>> (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?
>
> > Common knowledge to astronomers,
>
> Many astronomers know that there are multiple ways to define the
> year. You didn't specify which of those you were referring to.
>
> > something you are obviously not.
>
> Classic hallucination on your part. Rather ironic, coming from the
> person who didn't specify the type of year.
>
> > Rough figures: Earth turns 360 degrees in 23 hours, 56 minutes.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > The other 4 minutes it uses to turn one more degree and face the sun,
> > the degree it used to travel around the sun.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > 4 minutes * 365 = 1460
> >
> > 1460/60 = 24 hours.
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > Did you know the Moon turns on its own axis once a month?
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> > 13 revolutions a year, only 12 of which face Earth.
> > What happened to the other Lunar day?
>
> Non sequitur. The issue is the ambiguity of your usage of "year"
> when you claimed that there is exactly one more sidereal day than
> solar days in a year.
>
> >> You haven't even specified
> >> the type of year! Could be the tropical year, the sidereal year,
> >> or the anomalistic year, for examle.
>
> > I didn't have to,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > I was pointing out an ambiguity that you whined was nonsense.
>
> Classic erroneous presupposition of any whining on my part, but
> glad you realize that your ambiguity was nonsense.
>
> >>> You didn't know that, huh?
>
> >> You're the one with an ambiguous statement, and you're blaming me?
> >> Talk about being confused!
>
> > If I point out ambiguities that you call "nonsense" then yes, I'm
> > blaming you.
>
> The key word here is "if". You weren't the one pointing out the
> ambiguity of use of the word "year". Rather, I was the one who
> pointed it out to you.
>
> >>> That's your confusion.
>
> >> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Rather ironic to boot.
>
> > Arrogant ****head.
>
> I'm well aware that I'm an "arrogant ****head". No need to tell
> me about it.
I'm glad you agree, Tholoon, you arrogant ****head.
> >>>>> the whole issue is riddled with data loss and fiddle factors.
>
> >>>> Nonsense.
>
> >>> ****head.
>
> >> Appropriate signature line you have there.
>
> > For you, yes.
>
> You're the one who used it, not me.
>
> > What's your next new name going to be after I plonk you?
>
> Famous Last Words. You can't defend your statements logically,
> so you threaten to run away. Be my guest.
Dickless bravely runs away.