Re: Ironic SAA
- From: allisonki@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:03:27 -0700
On Aug 26, 2:56 pm, oriel36 <geraldkelle...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you ever get around to
realising that trying to fit 4 annual orbital cycles of the Earth into
a calendar cycle based on 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days
is a hopl;ess waste of effort then you could probably find yourself
doing something useful but as it is,you are just another sour
indiovidual with a cartoon view of the Earth's motions derived via
Flamsteed.
You know, everybody knows that, you're not telling us anything we
don't know.
We all know that the earth does not revolve around the Sun once every
365 days, and every 366 days every fourth year. The calendar in
standard use assumes thusly because it is convenient and simple to do
so for civil purposes.
No need to bring that up again here.
Sorry.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ironic SAA
- From: oriel36
- Re: Ironic SAA
- From: Margo Schulter
- Re: Ironic SAA
- References:
- Ironic SAA
- From: Greg Crinklaw
- Re: Ironic SAA
- From: oriel36
- Ironic SAA
- Prev by Date: Re: "Good... Morning...SAA"
- Next by Date: Re: "Good... Morning...SAA"
- Previous by thread: Re: Ironic SAA
- Next by thread: Re: Ironic SAA
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|