"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
You said I couldn't depict the EoT on the figures so I have done
that.
If you now understand what they are showing, I will put back Figure
2
and you can comment on the point of the thread.
http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm
In case you have trouble finding the article, here is the recent
content:
Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
...
Noon is the alignment of a longitude meridian with the Sun and
at any
given location on the planet from pole to pole this alignment
takes
place.
Fine, and if you look at figures 1 and 3, you will see that the
blue line representing the Greenwich Meridian is pointing at the
Sun. This is (natural) noon on these days.
As the Earth axially rotates to face the Sun and repeats the
alignment you find that the second drawing in your website does
not
reflect the inequality but sundials do.
a) The second drawing does not depict noon in any way. This is
_intentional_.
b) The series of drawing is _not_ intended to depict the
inequality
of natural days. I have told you that several times yet you
still
make the same error. If anything illustrates incompetence it is
your inability to take onboard what I have said repeatedly.
Your diagrams and especially the third diagram leaves no room to
put
the Equation of Time correction ...
Looking first at figure 1, on Nov. 3 2003, the EoT has a value
of 16m 26s and the Sun is ahead of mean time. The figure shows
the meridian aligned with the Sun so that is natural noon. If
the Sun is ahead of mean time, it is not yet noon by GMT so we
have to subtract the 16m 26s. That means a clock on the wall
of the Greenwich Observatory would show 11:43:34 when the Sun
was due south on the 3rd.
Do you agree so far?
Now looking at figure 3, note that the EoT correction is also
16m 26s on the 4th Nov 2003. The same calculation applies so
the clock on the wall would show 11:43:34 when the Sun was due
south on the 4th as well. That means that from figure 1 to
figure 3 is a change of exactly 24 hours.
If you follow that and agree I haven't made any mistakes in the
calculations, I will next talk about figure 2.
George
George
If you ever decide to put a figure 3 in your graphics,
Gerald, if you ever decide to read the page, you will find
figure 3 is already there (it is figure 2 that is omitted
as stated above).
be sure to show
the alignments without applying the Equation of Time
Gerald, if you ever decide to read the page, you will find
that is what was already done (as stated above).
I suggest you try looking at the page _before_ criticising
it to avoid further embarrassment.
Now try to understand, the two diagrams on the page should
_not_ be contentious. The aim is to lay down something
simple we can agree before adding in the bit that will
probably cause a disagreement. Please look again and see
if I have addressed your concerns, then we can actually
start to have a conversation. Remember these are _not_
intended to be an explanation of the EoT, the purpose is
quite different as you will see when we can move on.
All you have to do is show the Earth's alignment with the Sun(Noon) in
terms of absolute time as distinct from showing it with the EoT
applied and then you overturn a century's worth of ignorance.I do not
particularily like the way Newton phrased the EoT but it is easy to
understand where he is coming from.
The matter can be expressed,in fact it begs expression in basic
English but your diagrams will suffice when you include the Earth's
alignment with the Sun in terms of a 24 hour clock,call it mean
time,absolute time,clock time or whatever,the definition given by
Newton will make sense and more importantly it cannot be tampered
with.
Gerald, I still get the impression you haven't
looked at the figures since I updated them. You are
still asking me to do something that is already done.
http://www.dishman.me.uk/George/SolarDay/index.htm
Figure 3 shows an alignment _exactly_ 24 hours after
that in figure 1. Both alignments are _precisely_ the
natural noon for that day. To achieve that, I had to
use one of four particular days in the year but we
can use the fact that the rotation of the Earth is
constant to apply any conclusion to other days via
the EoT since it deals with the variation of the
natural day.
So have you any complaints about those figures or can
you agree that:
a) Figure 1 shows the noon alignment on the 3rd Nov.
b) Figure 3 shows the noon alignment on the 4th Nov.
c) The Sun appears due south at 11:43:34 on both days.
d) The figures are separated by exactly 24 hours.
If you disagree, please say specifically what you think
the error is. If not, please say you agree and we can
move on.
George