alt.energy.renewable

On 18 Mar, 02:09, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 17, 10:00=A0am, oriel36 wrote:
> ...> The leap from a specific geometry seen on Earth and stellar
> > evolutionary =A0effeciency 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.
>
> ...
> It is also interesting how some can "plant forest around a tree to
> hide this tree" - i.e. the strategy very characteristic for creatures
> described in the threadhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_=
thread/thread/f43b...
>
> With the totaliztic salute,
> Jan Pajak

No offense but when you are off by 3 minutes 56 seconds off for the
value assigned to axial rotation through 360 degrees you can pass any
judgements you like in my direction ,as far as I am concerned you
insult yourselves -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tiempo_sid%C3%A9reo.en.pn=
g

As for the talk.origins link,this is where creationists meet
astrologers with predictable results,having little to do with matters
of faith and terrestrial/celestial phenonena.IMen generally do not
behave like this but then again I never appealed to those who cannot
grasp the technical details of how clocks were kept in sync with
terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle without tying the 24 hour/
360 deg value to an external reference or constant axial rotation.They
can read it with ease in Huygens work even without the explanation
where the 'average' 24 hour gets transfered to axial rotation as a
convenient 'constant'.

The lack of appreciation of the genius of my astronomical timekeeping
heritage hardly compares with the silly shortcuts taken by Flamsteed
and represented by the sidereal/solar graphic above,something that
exists only in the imagination of the weak minded.You manage to
continue on with a busted 'sidereal time' concept for axial and
orbital motion when a intelligent 21st century guy just looks at
it ,dumps it and picks up the correct working principles which
preceded the error -

http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html

Considering that there is a new orbital component to look at,why
bother remaining with a useless framework which prevents any
productive work from being done.