Fraser Farrell wrote:
>> And this is where the problem is if you want to have an exact sience (but I
>> don't count astrology as one). It would enourmous (I doubt the RAM in an
>> every day computer would be enough). You must understand that the planets
>> and moons are affected not only by the time but by their internal
>> positions. Besides the sun would also have to move, and that would also
>> affect the planets. The diffrence in the modell you use and the reality is
>> very small, but big enough that would make it useless for any (serious)
>> astronomy.
>
>You seem to be misinformed. Serious astronomy was one of the first
>computer applications. Any home computer is quite capable of locating
>every known object in the Solar System - with the accuracy limited only by
>our knowledge of their orbital details; and to a precision limited only
>by the machine's numerical storage limits and the programmer's desire
>to retain significant digits.
What Boanne wrote was:
>2)A table of the rate of motion for each planet
I thought (and still think) it would require to much space to keep the data
in a table, counting them as they are needed are another thing entirely. So
you see I'm not missinformed - but perhaps a bit wage on what I mean. Of
course it is possible to count them from a few values from a table, but
keeping everything in a table? That much RAM isn't available in a single
computer (using all the RAM that is "connected" with the Internet would
perhaps be enough).
//Bernie
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
