Psychotic Humpty Roberts places foot in mouth (again).

On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.



So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.



Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think le Verrier couldn't possibly have claimed there was
such a thing as "anomalous precession of Mercury" in 1859, and
that the ensuing 50 years of controversy could not have occurred.

But it did occur. So what exactly do you think le Verrier's
conclusions were that started that controversy? Why do you think
he proposed the existence of the inner planet Vulcan?

Le Verrier couldn't possibly solve
Kepler's equation to any reasonable accuracy without a computer, and certainly
not to within 0.1 arc seconds per orbit.

Ah but he wouldn't need to, and I know this is the source of
your disbelief.

Just because you couldn't figure out a way, doesn't mean some
eminent 19th-century mathematician couldn't. Long before there
were computers, mathematicians were wrestling with ways to get
high accuracy with paper and pencil. There is no limit on the
number of places in a hand square root, a long division, or a
multiplication, you know.

In this case, the answer to the dilemna is what are called
"perturbation
methods", which were invented for precisely such problems and
which work very well. Given that x(t) is a solution for some
differential equation with force F(x), you pose this question: Suppose
I replace F with slightly-different force F+dF, giving rise to a
slightly
different solution x + dx. Can I get an equation just for the part
dx(t) that interests me?

The answer is yes. You don't need to solve for the whole solution.
You just solve the perturbation equation for the amount of
perturbation.

My computer in 1990 was running at 12 MHz and it took 1/2
an hour to run one complete orbit, so I sacrificed accuracy.

You may not be God's gift to numerical methods. Somewhere
around 1985 I was generating complete orbits with 4th-order
Runge-Kutta methods with Pascal code that ran in a few
seconds. And I didn't need to sacrifice accuracy.

I'm not claiming any great brilliance in programming, but perhaps
you weren't aware of the most accurate and efficient methods
for numerical solution of differential equations. As it happens,
I had enough education to know of the existence of such
methods, and so all a colleague had to do was say "Runge-
Kutta" and I had what I needed to pull an algorithm out of a
numerical analysis textbook.

Much faster today, of course. It would take Urbain Le Verrier
a million years to obtain the same accuracy, poor ignorant stooopid
bull****ting tord.

But of course he wouldn't need to.

Are you forgetting that he successfully told the astronomers where
to find Neptune? Just how much perturbation do you think Neptune
causes on Uranus?

I have NEVER disputed empirical data. I dispute reduced data
quite often. Retract your accusation, poor ignorant libellous ****head.

You have disputed that 19-th century astronomers were able to
measure an EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drift in the EMPIRICALLY
OBSERVED perihelion to within a few arc sec per century of
slope. There is nothing theoretical about this. It's pure EMPIRICAL
data. You put it on graph paper, you draw a line, you measure
the slope of that line. You dispute that the perihelion OBSERVATIONS
were accurate enough to do so.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.



So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.



Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think


Never mind what I think, ****head, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *******.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.



So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.



Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think le Verrier couldn't possibly have claimed there was
such a thing as "anomalous precession of Mercury" in 1859, and
that the ensuing 50 years of controversy could not have occurred.

But it did occur. So what exactly do you think le Verrier's
conclusions were that started that controversy? Why do you think
he proposed the existence of the inner planet Vulcan?

Le Verrier couldn't possibly solve
Kepler's equation to any reasonable accuracy without a computer, and certainly
not to within 0.1 arc seconds per orbit.

Ah but he wouldn't need to, and I know this is the source of
your disbelief.

Just because you couldn't figure out a way, doesn't mean some
eminent 19th-century mathematician couldn't. Long before there
were computers, mathematicians were wrestling with ways to get
high accuracy with paper and pencil. There is no limit on the
number of places in a hand square root, a long division, or a
multiplication, you know.

In this case, the answer to the dilemna is what are called
"perturbation
methods", which were invented for precisely such problems and
which work very well. Given that x(t) is a solution for some
differential equation with force F(x), you pose this question: Suppose
I replace F with slightly-different force F+dF, giving rise to a
slightly
different solution x + dx. Can I get an equation just for the part
dx(t) that interests me?

The answer is yes. You don't need to solve for the whole solution.
You just solve the perturbation equation for the amount of
perturbation.

My computer in 1990 was running at 12 MHz and it took 1/2
an hour to run one complete orbit, so I sacrificed accuracy.

You may not be God's gift to numerical methods. Somewhere
around 1985 I was generating complete orbits with 4th-order
Runge-Kutta methods with Pascal code that ran in a few
seconds. And I didn't need to sacrifice accuracy.

Hey!
Welcome to the club :-))


I'm not claiming any great brilliance in programming, but perhaps
you weren't aware of the most accurate and efficient methods
for numerical solution of differential equations. As it happens,
I had enough education to know of the existence of such
methods, and so all a colleague had to do was say "Runge-
Kutta" and I had what I needed to pull an algorithm out of a
numerical analysis textbook.

Much faster today, of course. It would take Urbain Le Verrier
a million years to obtain the same accuracy, poor ignorant stooopid
bull****ting tord.

But of course he wouldn't need to.

Are you forgetting that he successfully told the astronomers where
to find Neptune? Just how much perturbation do you think Neptune
causes on Uranus?

I have NEVER disputed empirical data. I dispute reduced data
quite often. Retract your accusation, poor ignorant libellous ****head.

You have disputed that 19-th century astronomers were able to
measure an EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED drift in the EMPIRICALLY
OBSERVED perihelion to within a few arc sec per century of
slope. There is nothing theoretical about this. It's pure EMPIRICAL
data. You put it on graph paper, you draw a line, you measure
the slope of that line. You dispute that the perihelion OBSERVATIONS
were accurate enough to do so.

Excellent post, Randy. As always.
I told you this a few times before, but I have to tell you again
how I admire your patience.
But if you continue like this, you might bring him just over
his limit. Do be careful - we don't want to loose him yet :-)

Dirk Vdm

On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.

So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.

Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think

Never mind what I think, ****head, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *******.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

2. Androcles says no, they don't.

That was easy.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message ups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.

So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.

Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think

Never mind what I think, ****head, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *******.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.


A GR calculation gets it hopelessly wrong, 2.502 degrees a year (four figure accuracy).
GR does not agree with empirical observation.
GR is ****ed.

2. Androcles says no, they don't.

****ing liar.
Produce the evidence, you poor sick stooopid whacko *******.

That was easy.
Yes, it certain was, moron.

On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.

So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.

Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think

Never mind what I think, ****head, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *******.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.

I see I went too fast.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

Perturbation method with a Newtonian model predicts 55.57
arcsec per year drift.

55.57 is inconsistent with 56+-0.1.

2. Androcles denies that the observations are 56+-0.1.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message oups.com...
On May 1, 11:37 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in oglegroups.com...
On May 1, 4:14 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:08 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:59 pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in ooglegroups.com...

"Androcles believes that it was impossible for Urban Le Verrier
to observe that the precession of Mercury was 566 arcsec
per century"
Correct, Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) didn't observe for a century,
he was dead after 66 years. Therefore it was impossible.

I see no tables, no notes, no positions of Mercury written down.
There is no empirical data there to deny.

No, only the conclusion from the empirical data.

You accused me of disputing empirical data and used the above as
an example, stooopid illiterate blind Poe.
I want the EMPIRICAL data to run through my computer, then
I can check Urbain Le Verrier's calculations.
Withdraw your accusation, libellous ****head.

So what is your position. Be coherent. Is it that it was impossible
for le Verrier to observe this rate of precession? Or that it
was possible.

Today you say

Doesn't apply, I have never stated what you claim, you lying tord,
and I resent any insinuation that I did. The observations are
reasonably accurate, the theory is garbage.

Do you mean LE VERRIER'S observations are reasonably
accurate?

I don't have his observations but I anticipate they are reasonable, poor
stooopid illiterate tord.
If Urbain Le Verrier claims Mercury was at such and such Right Ascension
and Declination on a specified date and time then I'll not dispute it, I have
no reason to. Of course, I want to know what clock he used as well when
he timed his observation. I might dispute that.
I do not dispute empirical data. Never have, never will.

Give me Urbain Le Verrier's observations (a photostat copy of his handwriting will do),
I want to check his mathematics and his conclusion. I have no reason to suppose
Urbain Le Verrier was not a conscientious and honourable man (which is more than
I can say for you) but he could have made a simple error which my computer will not.
That's known as data reduction, poor ignorant Poe.

Because a couple of weeks ago you said Le Verrier's 1859
paper was garbage.

So which one is your position on the Le Verrier paper?

The conclusion you claim for it is garbage,

So you think

Never mind what I think, ****head, you've been caught lying.
You accused me of rejecting empirical evidence.
Produce the evidence, you sick *******.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

Yes, and NM calculations agree with that to within 43 arc seconds per century,
or 0.00000799494273389855719%.
NM agrees with empirical observation.

I see I went too fast.

Not fast enough to catch me. You are Poor Blind Poe, you see nothing.
And you will eventually fail to respond, I have you beaten and I can snip
better than you, ****.

1. Astronomers have empirical observations showing a drift rate
of 56+-0.1 arc sec per year in the perihelion of Mercury (as observed
from earth).

Now you say +-100 arc seconds per millenium error in OBSERVATION?
That's more than 70,000 times the 14 arc seconds per orbit (empirically).
You are ****ing crazy, you reject empirical data.
Don't waste your time, poor stupid ****headed illiterate innumerate Poe.
GR calculation is WAY off, 2.502 DEGREES a year.
You owe me an apology, disgusting lying cretin.
Withdraw, run away, call it what you like, you are ****ed with no data
to back your lies.

In article ,
"Androcles" wrote:

Now you say +-100 arc seconds per millenium error in OBSERVATION?
That's more than 70,000 times the 14 arc seconds per orbit (empirically).
You are ****ing crazy, you reject empirical data.
Don't waste your time, poor stupid ****headed illiterate innumerate Poe.
GR calculation is WAY off, 2.502 DEGREES a year.
You owe me an apology, disgusting lying cretin.
Withdraw, run away, call it what you like, you are ****ed with no data
to back your lies.


More androcles nonsense!

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Androcles" wrote:

Now you say +-100 arc seconds per millenium error in OBSERVATION?
That's more than 70,000 times the 14 arc seconds per orbit (empirically).
You are ****ing crazy, you reject empirical data.
Don't waste your time, poor stupid ****headed illiterate innumerate Poe.
GR calculation is WAY off, 2.502 DEGREES a year.
You owe me an apology, disgusting lying cretin.
Withdraw, run away, call it what you like, you are ****ed with no data
to back your lies.


More androcles nonsense!

It seems that Randy has succeeded in almost doubling
Androfart's blood pressure.
Push, Randy, push!

Dirk Vdm

In article ,
"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote:


"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Androcles" wrote:

Now you say +-100 arc seconds per millenium error in OBSERVATION?
That's more than 70,000 times the 14 arc seconds per orbit (empirically).
You are ****ing crazy, you reject empirical data.
Don't waste your time, poor stupid ****headed illiterate innumerate Poe.
GR calculation is WAY off, 2.502 DEGREES a year.
You owe me an apology, disgusting lying cretin.
Withdraw, run away, call it what you like, you are ****ed with no data
to back your lies.


More androcles nonsense!

It seems that Randy has succeeded in almost doubling
Androfart's blood pressure.
Push, Randy, push!

Dirk Vdm


You can almost see that vein pulsating on his forehead....

--
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.

COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken
of the saucerhead high command).