Jonathan Silverlight wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
I have requested an astronomer of distinction to handle a heliocentric
treatment of the material,despite the fact that it is not at all
difficult to determine the disasterous maneuvering of Flamsteed no
such astronomer has come forward.I cannot therefore be faulted for
taking it to a group of people who can handle the material which
predates the gravitational agenda of Newton and resolve the issue as
to why there exists dual rotation rates for the Earth and why the 23
hour 56 min 04 sec value and the method by which that value is
ascertained is incorrect.


Instead of flogging this dead horse any more, could you post Flamsteed's
text, instead of links to a simplified description of sidereal time and
an even more simplified picture of an elliptical orbit. Your links don't
mention him.

Here is the basis of the Flamsteed's incorrect procedure.

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot1.htm




For the umpteenth time (Hah - my spell checker accepts that :-) the 23
hour 56 minute 04 second value is measured, and the 24 hour value is a
convention to allow days and hours of constant length.

It is required to determine the equable 24 hour day First in order to
determine the Earth's orbital period as 365 days 5 hours 49 min on
which the sidereal reasoning is based.

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm

Somehow you fail to comprehend that the assumption of constant axial
rotation through 360 degrees existed as the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency centuries before Flamsteed,the principles of developing
accurate clocks for solving the Longitude problem are based on the 24
hour/360 degree longitude equivalency are based on the assumption of
constant axial rotation.

You cannot prove by direct observation that the Earth axially rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours,what you can do is assume constant
axial rotation and use the Equation of Time adjustment to equalise the
variations over the course of an annual orbit.

There are no 'leap' factors in the Equation of Time,it simply
facilitates the seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next
by the appropriate addition and subtraction of minutes and seconds for
each axial rotation in order to maintain the 24 hour/360 degree
longitude equivalency.







I've been corrected as to whether Newton was writing about relativity
(and I'm rather disappointed !) but he did understand the Equation of
Time.

[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed -- mjh]

I have seen the correction and it is incorrect.Newton knew the
principles behind accurate clocks for solving the Longitude problem
and doubted that such an accurate mechanism could be constructed.The
benchmark for clock accuracy in Newton's era was the noon
determination and the Equation of Time application therefore the
principles which dictate constant axial rotation to the longitude
equivalency are permanently fixed to the geometry and geography of the
planet and its rotation

It was unethical of Flamsteed to piggyback on this already existing
assumption of constant axial rotation in accordance with the
principles of longitude and clocks.He transfers or rather hides an
axial rotational coordinate to an orbital .986 degree/3 min 56 sec
orbital coordinate,great if you wish to catalogue stars based on a
stellar circumpolar framework or condition celestial motion into the
civil calendar but ultimately destroys the work of Kepler and the
exquisite Equation of Time correlation between the natural unequal
day and the 24 hour clock day.

http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/a...1/sidereal.htm

If you wish to adhere to Flamsteed's reasoning,the above graphic is an
astronomical justification of it.It is a poor choice.