"Oriel36" wrote in message
m...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"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.
...
"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the
equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are
truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used
for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their
more accurate deducing of the celestial motions."

Now Gerald, sit down quietly and read my paragraph and Newton's
together. If you read them carefully you will find that they
both say exactly the same thing, the EoT only corrects for the
inequality of the natural days.

I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT ..

Well you wouldn't, would you, it shows you are wrong.

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.

It is when you define the rotation of the Earth through 360 degrees to
the sidereal value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

The day is defined as you said above "using the Sun alone as a
reference" so that we can eat lunch in daylight. Rotation on
the other hand is measured:

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/eartho...d/figure3.html

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:

The EoT is a consequence of Kepler's second law ...

However, we are talking about Kepler's _First_ Law:

"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.

You are saying that the axial rotation of the planet ..

No, I am talking about the planet's _orbital_ motion as
described by Kepler's _First_ Law. Perhaps you could try
answering again but this time see if you can keep to the
point.

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.


It is Kepler's second law which accurately reflects the EoT..

Pay attention Gerald, we are talking about orbital motion
and Kepler's _First_ Law.

"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.


The Earth rotates and you rotate with it,with every 4 minutes
West/East of Greenwich you move 1 deg on the surface of the planet.

No I am just sitting here at home, enjoying the holiday and not
moving over the surface of the planet at all. What you mean is
that if I were 1 degree of longitude west of here, natural noon
would occur 4 minutes later. You really must try to be more
careful with your wording. That is why the correspondence is
to degrees of longitude, not degrees of rotation.

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.

Study Harrison and his keeper of longitude,you will find that the pace
of a 24 hour clock is fixed to the Earth's rotation through 360
degrees in 24 hours with subdivisions of 1 hour per 15 degrees and 1
deg per 4 minutes.

Harrison said "longitude" so I'll just believe he knew the
difference, something it appears you have yet to learn.

George