A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Precession of Mercury's longitude of perihelion - (so called "anomaly")



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 27th 07, 07:00 AM posted to sci.astro,rec.music.classical,comp.os.os2.advocacy,ne.weather,rec.aviation.products
Michael Baldwin, Bruce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 975
Default Precession of Mercury's longitude of perihelion - (so called "anomaly")

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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.