re: 690 AD,

E.P. Grondine — 9/28/2004 7:07:16 PM (archived)

Thanks again for this information on the reliability of these Chinese observation reports.

I was hoping to resolve the problem of the start of the Mayan long count of days, but it looks like any answer still has to be put in very conditional terms - mis en place dans une maniere conditionelle, non?

Thanks -
ed

The whole thread (18 posts)

Raoul, your help please, concerning comets - E.P. Grondine - 9/27/2004 8:54:04 PM
- Oooops... - E.P. Grondine - 9/27/2004 9:01:20 PM
  - re: Halley's Comet - Raoul - 9/27/2004 9:07:03 PM
    - re: Sorry....I went too fast - Raoul - 9/27/2004 9:10:57 PM
      - re: However, 4 orbits earlier... - Raoul - 9/27/2004 9:17:56 PM
        
        re: Here - Raoul - 9/27/2004 9:28:31 PM
        
        Thanks! - E.P. Grondine - 9/28/2004 12:02:50 AM
        
        re: Comets - Raoul - 9/28/2004 7:43:10 AM
        
        690 AD, not 690 BC - E.P. Grondine - 9/28/2004 1:59:28 PM
        
        re: 690 AD, - Raoul - 9/28/2004 2:37:32 PM
        
        re: 690 AD, - E.P. Grondine - 9/28/2004 7:07:16 PM
        
        re: re:J'en ai bien peur, en effet:) (n/t) - Raoul - 9/28/2004 9:44:37 PM
        
        pas de responsabilitie, mais avec "thanks" - une autre question - E.P. Grondine - 9/29/2004 12:15:25 AM
        
        re: Encke - Raoul - 9/29/2004 7:42:54 AM
        
        re: Encke - E.P. Grondine - 9/29/2004 2:18:41 PM
        
        re: Encke - Raoul - 9/29/2004 5:13:50 PM
        
        re: Comets - REB - 9/28/2004 1:20:53 PM
        
        Ooops - still problems - you're not the only one moving too fast - E.P. Grondine - 9/28/2004 12:12:27 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Space/Science

The whole thread (18 posts)