(George G. Dishman) wrote in message . com...
(Oriel36) wrote in message . com...
My goodness,it seems so long ago since you first introduced the
passage from the Principia into the discussion and while I have moved
on and expanded on the subject beyond all recognition you now would
not dare discuss Newton's absolute/relative time definition like you
did years ago,

When we previously discussed it, I assumed you were familiar
with the simpler aspects of astronomy.

I became familiar long ago with the most fundamental rotation of
all,the rotation of the Earth on its axis,one full revolution
corresponding to 24 hours.You believe the value to be 23 hrs 56 min 04
sec and this constitutes an error.


You made occassional
comments that didn't seem to fit with your other views, but
it was hard to find where the problem lay.

There is no problem on my part for it is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.Without that
definition of why and how astronomers attributed an equable 24 hour
pace to the axial rotation of the Earth as this alone provides the
basis of clocks as physical rulers of distance.



I now understand
you have an almost Ptolemaic view of the solar system which
explains many of your errors.


The error is not in treating axial rotation as a seperate motion to
orbital motion.As a siderealist you treat the Earth's axial rotation
and orbital motion as one movement and unfortunately this leads to the
relativistic stellar circumpolar framework.





We talked of Kepler's laws and you seemed to accept them yet
and of course the first law says the path of the Earth as it
moves round the Sun is an ellipse with the Sun at on focus.


You talked rubbish as usual and it shows however you did introduce the
necessary passages from Newton which undermine the relativistic
concept.Anyone can now see that the difference between absolute time
and relative time is the astronomical correction known as the EoT,to
argue otherwise is nonsense.



"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"Goes around the Sun" or 'falling around the Sun' is ill-defined,the
Earth does no such thing ..

Now you are saying the Earth does not move round the Sun and
the odd thing is I think you mean both even though they are
obviously contradictory. Until you resolve this fundamental
conflict in your views and decide whether to abandon Kepler
or accept Copernicus, it isn't possible to discuss anything
with you in a sensible manner.


I am fully aware that you now realise the error by considering the
motions of the Earth ,both orbital and axial motion as a single
motion for there is no other way to define the sidereal value for the
motion of the Earth through 360 deg.To define a 24 hour day from a
natural unequal day it is necessary to consider axial rotation
seperate from the variation in orbital motion insofar as the EoT
equalises the variation in orbital motion due to Kepler's second law.





I suggest you do a little research and see if you can draw
what you think is the orbital path of the Earth in relation
to the Sun because as it stands I cannot guess what you think
it looks like. It feels like trying to discuss calculus with
someone who has read all the books and can quote all the rules
but never learned how to add.

George


You are as insincere as they come but I treat you no better or worse
than any siderealist which is the proper term for adherents to
relativity.I have observation,history,geometry and astronomy on my
side,you have nothing.

If you wish to tie the Earth's rotation through 360 deg directly to
stellar circumpolar motion I assure you that you are incorrect,I also
assure you that there is no observed equable motion corresponding to
the axial rotation of the Earth in 24 hours through 360 deg due to the
variation in its orbital motion.

Tell me what you engineer,just in case the public's safety is in
danger,I would never sanction anyone who is so silly that they argue
against the most fundamental rotation of all,the axial rotation of the
Earth through 360 deg in 24 hours.