"Oriel36" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...

... is all historically documented
how a day is defined using the Sun alone as a reference.

That's right, the apparent (geocentric) motion of the Sun
defines the 24h day.


Only after the EoT is applied ...

No, the EOT only deals with the variation of the day from
the mean. The original definition of 24h was just the solar
day, that is based on the Sun as you say, but later it was
refined to be the mean solar day.

and that computation is actually an
adjustment to the variation in the Earth's orbital motion derived from
Kepler's second law which causes the variation in the natural day from
noon to noon.I am defining a day by the motions of the Earth on its
axis and its motion around the Sun,

The day is not yours to define, nature does that for us.

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.

You are again forgetting the contribution of the Earth's
orbital motion, oh but I forgot, you are with Ptolemy on
this.

Let me show you how the EoT equalises the orbital motion of the Earth
to a constant orbital displacement

The EOT does not affect the motion of the Earth, it is
merely a factor that allows us to calculate natural noon
from civil time or vice versa. However, what I am talking
about is the the contribution the orbital motion makes to
the _mean_ day, not the variation of specific days from
that mean.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSc...res/kepler.htm

Good, now look at the box entitled "Kepler's First Law: The orbits
of planets are ellipses with the sun at one focus of the ellipse."
and notice that the blue line representing the Earth's orbit 'goes
round' the red symbol representing the Sun:

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

Until you resolve this contradiction in your statements,
nothing you say will make sense. Either the Earth orbits
the Sun or it doesn't, make up your mind.


Too imprecise on your part,

Then look at the diagram above if you are struggling to
understand what I am saying, it's really not that hard.
Kepler's First Law requires that the path of the Earth
emcompasses the Sun, your statement above requires that
it does not, yet you claim to accept Kepler's Laws. That
contradiction in your ideas makes it very hard to talk
to you.

Along time ago, the Ptolemaic model said the Earth was
static and the Sun and stars revolved around it in 24h
and 23h 56m 4s respectively. The Copernican model that
replaced it said the Earth both spun on its axis and
revolved around the Sun. Historically our understanding
moved from no rotation to one rotation per sidereal day,
and AFAIK nobody but you has imagined the Earth rotates
360 degrees in 24h with the stars spinning round us once
a year.

Historically,astronomically and geometrically,the development of
accurate clocks relied on the principle that the Earth axially rotates
through 360 degrees in 24 hours exactly,

The original development of clocks was of course based on the
arbitrary choice to break the solar day into 24 hours and if
the varied from day to day, it didn't matter much. You said
as much in the first paragraph quoted above.

When navigation came to rely on clocks, that situation changed
and the variation could not accepted, so the correspondence was
refined to be between 24 hours and the mean solar day, with the
EOT describing the deviation from the mean.

the pace of this clock where
meridian differences correspond to 'time' difference emerge from the
equalising of the natural day gauged by the motions of the Earth using
the Sun as a reference to a 24 hour equality .

You are not insulting me,you are insulting John Harrison who said

"I think I may make bold to say," wrote Harrison, "that there is
neither any other Mechanism or Mathematical thing in the World that is
more beautiful or curious in texture than this my watch or timekeeper
for the Longitude."

Exactly, he didn't say ".. than this my watch or timekeeper
for the rotation." You need to learn the difference.

John Harrison
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/t.../images/H4.gif

The next thing I need to hear from you is why you choose to go against
this true genius who based his clock on the work other brilliant
men,if it is incapacity then just say so but I assure you the rotation
of the Earth through 360 degrees is 24 hours exactly.I admire
stubborness in a man but not insincerity for the is the creed of a
slave.

I will just stick with what Harrison said, longitude, not
rotation, and defend him against your perversion of his
work. I don't think you do it out of malice, just ignorance.

George