On Jun 18, 10:07*am, wrote:
On 17 Jun, 05:16, oriel36 wrote:

the genuine belief among
empiricists that they actually can justify axial rotation in 23 hours
56 minutes 04 seconds because they can see a star returning back to a
observed location in that time.Aaarrr, Jim lad,were it only that
simple.

Of course it could be that you are correct and thousands of
professional and amateur astronomers are wrong.


Here is a case of so-called irreducable complexity,remove or alter any
part of the 'sidereal time' justification and the whoile thing
disintegrates -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

Pick whatever one you like - The natural noon cycle is not 24 hours
exactly for one,there is no constant orbital motion for another but by
then it becomes a matter of demonstrating that the 'sidereal
framework' is a bogus construction and hardly the thinking of
reasonable individuals

I have moved away from opposing people who really want the Earth to
rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds just as I
would have little to say to others who wish to believe the Earth was
created in 7 days,as far as I am concerned such people are welcome to
their beliefs and I would be wrong to disturb their elaborate
conceptual constructions.




However until you can be bothered to publish a detailed explanation of
your theories in a peer reviewed journal I am inclined to believe the
majority.

Offer that poison chalice,no thanks,that is probably at the core of
problem and I am less inclined to criticise that process than I am
those who cannot alter their views to more stable and enjoyable
constructs such as how the 24 hour day is created out of variations in
the natural noon cycle,modifying the explanation for the seasons,apply
rotational dynamics to geological crustal dynamics,things like that.

The peer review process probably started Iin earnest after Newton
while the error created by Flamsteed in drawing a false conclusion
existed before the emergence of the empirical approach to astronomy
and subsequently with the peer review process in tow.Without the
slightest trace of grandstanding or ego,I am qualified to 'peer
review' Flamsteed's asserted proof for constant axial rotation and
find it unsatisfactory.I have demonstrated exactly where it is wrong
and if nobody can act on the information then obviously it will
refllect back into the standard of contemporary peer review.

As you can see,something happened within the past few years for a
fatigue to set in,an ennui that cannot be removed by any amount of
novelties that come under the name of astronomy,even genuine technical
achievements such as the Mars lander cannot generate anything beyond a
brief flash to humanity who have become too accustomed to these
things.The reference to the Lisbon treaty is not out of context,the
wishes of the political world are not those of people who live their
lives withiin the context of Europe,their country,their town,their
homes and finally themselves.My astronomy begins with the individual
and the power of the individual to rise to the appreciation of
terrestrial/celestial phenomena,not as part of some ideological
bandwagon but as a free person who acknowledges how our existence is
so wrapped up in the celestial arena and how our bodies respond to the
daily and annual cycles of the Earth.

A good start would be to appreciate how clocks are kept in sync with
the daily cycle at 24 hours/360 degrees.