alt.energy.renewable

On 16 Mar, 20:34, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
> Bill Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:22:06 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
>
> >
> >> You are used to applying terrestrial ballistics to planetary motion to
> >> account for Keplerian orbital geometries ,specifically Newton's agenda =
but
> >> it appears that Keplerian geometries,on account of the existence of =A0=
those
> >> fragile rings may be due to a combination of planetary heliocentric mot=
ion
> >> and the Sun's galactic orbital motion,in short,it is the Sun's forward
> >> motion which produces the orbital geometries rather than something
> >> intrisic to planetary heliopcentric motion.
>
> >> It is a whole different ball game,you can't budge from your antiquated
> >> jargon and I am certainly not going to try to change your grade school
> >> views,too dull and dismal to be anything productive and besides,there i=
s
> >> an astrological core at the heart of all your pretensious nonsense.
>
> > Get back to us when you can calculate interplanetary trajectories better=

> > than present theory.
>
> Gerald is a nut case, he will never change.http://groups.google.com/group/=
sci.astro/msg/8a6600f0f1579161?amp;oe=3D...
>
> Best, Dan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You must be joking !,that post refers to the single copyright I have
from 1990 expressing stellar evolution and effeciency in terms of two
external rings and one smaller intersecting internal ring.Although it
is now a private work,I have the satisfaction of watching the rings
emerge from observations 4 years later in May 1994 -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/SN1987a_s.jpg

The leap from a specific geometry seen on Earth and stellar
evolutionary effeciency is not as wide as people would imagine but
over the years I have learned how quickly your kind can surround a
lively topic with diluting jargon and now the topic based at looking
at volume/density ratios from the perspective of a specific geometry
is now private and I am happy to keep it that way.

Considering that you are roughly 3 minutes 56 seconds off in regard to
the Earth's axial rotation through 360 degrees,I would say you can
call me anything you like.