On May 12, 11:27*pm, Dave Typinski wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

If we let the distant stars remain fixed, then this means we must
accept that the actual rotational period of the Earth is what is
referenced to them. Thus, it is the 23 hour, 56 minute, and 4 second
view that lets the stars remain unmoving.

A proof closer to home is to examine the relationship of satellite
orbit altitude and orbit period. *


The 'sidereal time vs solar time' fiction which uses the motions of
the Earth to justify itself is easily disproved,the independent daily
rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds is the astronomical equivalent of Piltdown man,even in
principle,the value requires two additional qualifiers and cannot be
proposed as an independent fact,,the qualifiers being that a star
returns to a meridian in 23 hours 56 minutes 4 sec based on the 24
hour average day within the equable 365/366 day calendar system.




Since they aren't higher and Earth isn't lighter, they don't orbit in
one solar day, but in a sidereal day. *Since they're geostationary,
the Earth itself must complete one rotatation in one sidereal day, not
in one solar day. *QED.


The Earth must not do anything,that is just the sound of numbskulls
trying to force a round peg into a square hole where the bridge
between the fictional sidereal vs solar day is expressed in 3 minutes
56 second orbital terms -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

In comparative terms,this is astronomical 'ground zero',the first
attempt to take a known and stable astronomical principle which rely
on raw observations of the natural noon inequality and fudge the
observations to fit the conclusions.It is happening today with
conclusions based on carbon dioxide and global warming but
fundamentally it all began with Flamsteed and his ill-considered
conclusion by using the return of the star Sirius to his meridian as a
gauge to judge daily and orbital motions -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical..." John Flamsteed 1677

Rotation is only absolute when referenced to the fixed stars.

What you are trying to say is that the rotation of the Earth through
360 degrees can be expressed as an independent fact aside from orbital
motion hence these insane individual leap second corrections linked
to variations in daily rotation.What you do not know is that ,inherent
in the conclusion of Flamsteed which reflects your statement, is the
astrological architecture which projects the Earth's spherical
geometry into the celestial arena as a structural fact -

http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy...phere_anim.gif

Your absolute rotation and your absolute universe looks like that,if
you can't figure out the reasoning why the astrological architecture
infects all reasoning ahead of it and especially the further
distortions introduced by Newton,then you will hardly understand the
genuine consequences which surface in the inability to deal with
climate issues properly.


Rotation
referenced to other frames is valid and useful, but it's relative
rotation, not absolute.

A nifty resource:http://www.1728.com/kepler3a.htm

--
Dave

This is not an exercise in convincing people they are wrong,this is a
call for astronomers who can provide the platform for stable
conceptual approaches to astronomy and the effects of planetary
dynamics on terrestrial disciplines such as climate and geology.It is
clear that the majority cannot grasp the cross currents of
arguments,some historical,some ideological but mostly technical which
have contributed to the current crisis however there are always
people,even those who were originally hostile,who have the
intelligence and the courage to deal with the matter effectively .

You can,in the 21st century, openly reason that the Earth rotates
through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 without fear of
objection and that is pretty shocking.I can tell those who may wish
to return to the restore point of the natural noon inequality that
nobody is required to know the exact technical and historical details
of how the 24 hour day emerged through the variations in length of
time it took the Sun to return to a meridian,only that the convenience
of transferring the average 24 hour day to 'constant' daily rotation
is just a quirk and advantage of the original system hence there is no
external celestial reference for daily rotation as an independent
motion.