Bill Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:22:06 -0700, oriel36 wrote:
>
> <snip prior>
>> 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
those
>> fragile rings may be due to a combination of planetary heliocentric
motion
>> 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
is
>> 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=UTF-8
Best, Dan.
|
