Thanks George

"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

Don't you just love the variable positional orbital displacement
due
to Kepler's second law which undermines the whole basis of
designating the sidereal value with its constant .986 degree
displacement.

Still trying to change the subject by telling the same
tired old lies eh? That's constant rotation, not constant
displacement as I have pointed out to you many, many times.

Well George,it looks like you and your colleagues have got yourselves
into a bit of a stew,the justification for the sidereal value relies
on the .986 degree or 3 min 56 sec difference and this is posited in
terms of the orbital displacement for each axial rotation.

It is the _average_ angular displacement as I have pointed out
dozens of times, sidereal time does not imply the displacement
is constant, it assumes rotation is constant. This is what I
said on the 21st November:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
My dissapointment is in recognising that you did genuinely attempt
to
make a difference yet did not assimilate the material such as the
variation in orbital displacement whereas the sidereal view is a
constant .986/3 min 56 sec displacement.

I have told you dozens of times that is not true yet you
continue to repeat the lie. The sidereal view, as you call
it, is that the displacement varies from 0.953 degrees to
1.019 degrees through the year. The value of 0.986 is only
the mean, as in Greenwich _Mean_ Time.

More than a month later it is a lie you are still repeating.

....

Hey,George,I have to live uncomfortably with insincerity and insults

The only insult you bring upon yourself. If you tell lies as
you do again above, then I will continue to expose that. Start
telling the truth and your problem will disappear.

It is not a problem save that like impatience,it is something that has
to be lived with, ...

You don't need to live with it, you just need to stop
repeating the lie. I'm not even asking for an apology,
just truthfulness in the future.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...

Don't you just love the variable positional orbital displacement
due
to Kepler's second law which undermines the whole basis of
designating the sidereal value with its constant .986 degree
displacement.

Still trying to change the subject by telling the same
tired old lies eh? That's constant rotation, not constant
displacement as I have pointed out to you many, many times.

Well George,it looks like you and your colleagues have got yourselves
into a bit of a stew,the justification for the sidereal value relies
on the .986 degree or 3 min 56 sec difference and this is posited in
terms of the orbital displacement for each axial rotation.

It is the _average_ angular displacement as I have pointed out
dozens of times, sidereal time does not imply the displacement
is constant, it assumes rotation is constant. This is what I
said on the 21st November:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
My dissapointment is in recognising that you did genuinely attempt
to
make a difference yet did not assimilate the material such as the
variation in orbital displacement whereas the sidereal view is a
constant .986/3 min 56 sec displacement.

I have told you dozens of times that is not true yet you
continue to repeat the lie. The sidereal view, as you call
it, is that the displacement varies from 0.953 degrees to
1.019 degrees through the year. The value of 0.986 is only
the mean, as in Greenwich _Mean_ Time.

More than a month later it is a lie you are still repeating.

...

Hey,George,I have to live uncomfortably with insincerity and insults

The only insult you bring upon yourself. If you tell lies as
you do again above, then I will continue to expose that. Start
telling the truth and your problem will disappear.

It is not a problem save that like impatience,it is something that has
to be lived with, ...

You don't need to live with it, you just need to stop
repeating the lie. I'm not even asking for an apology,
just truthfulness in the future.

George


When you look at the Beagle 2 pressroom,you do not witness a picture
of Kepler in the background denoting the significance of his 1609
planetary laws based on the motion of Mars nor a picture of Newton who
based his gravitational laws on Kepler's work.All you see is an
insipid 'spacetime' diagram with Lat/Long features that come from
nowhere and go nowhere.

Apologises indeed !,when you and your colleagues completely destroy
the work of previous astronomers without remorse it becomes a matter
of inhumanity,while using their work to get to Mars you would
simultaneously gloat how wrong they are.

The novelty of the spirit probe will pass but while the novelty exists
there is hardly room for discussing the substance of Kepler's work and
Newton's use of it.