On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:15:12 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote,
in part:

This definition is in mean orbital elements though, not osculating
orbital elements.

Yes, that could work, as long as it is the celestial longitude for the
coordinates of date. But a definition in terms of celestial longitude is
still a "conventional" definition, whereas the one in terms of
declination is the fundamental definition - thus, for Oriel's purposes
in examining or re-thinking the root causes of celestial phenomena, he
is using the right definition, even if it isn't the current official one
by means of which our almanacs are written.

Of course a lot to criticize in his postings - but when off-base
criticisms are applied to that sort of thing, the confusion quickly
becomes hopeless.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html