"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.


Funny,funny,funny,it is no wonder you have'nt the foggiest notion of
Newton's difference between the natural unequal day and the 24 hour
day and his complimentary use of Kepler's planetary laws for his own
agenda by means of forces.Here it is again,perhaps you would like to
alter it but unfortunately you cannot.

"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."

I may not particularly like the way he phrases the EoT but he is
essentially correct,there is no observed celestial motion
corresponding to the pace of axial rotation through 360 degrees in 24
hours.So what,you adhere to a concept which can't even begin to define
the terms absolute and relative.





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.


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.

Now you are getting the message,now if you want to do better, transfer
'noon' to the rotation of the Earth and civil longitude coordinates.



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.


The contribution to the variation in the natural day is due to
Kepler's second law and therefore is a property of orbital
motion,axial rotation is taken as a constant so be a good kid and try
and draw the conclusion on your own.Constant axial rotation acting in
concert with variable orbital motion generates the concept we know as
a 'day',the natural day or relative time as Newton called it.To remove
the variation in a natural day to facilitate the seamless transition
from one 24 hour day to the next via axial rotation using the Sun as a
reference,the EoT retains it natural alignment component as relative
time but bridges to the civil time of planetary longitude and this is
what makes Newton's absolute time as something that never change.





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,there is a very good
reason why you do not give the Earth a constant .986 deg/3 min 56 sec
displacement in its orbit but as a child of the relativistic concept,I
would'nt expect you to know any better.It does'nt take a genius to
figure out that you are supporting observations made of the basis of
the sidereal value linked directly to axial rotation of the planet.


"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 through 360
degrees is 23 hours 56 min 04 sec,your reasoning is this is what you
see through stellar circumpolar motion.



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
adjustment,this permits the isolation of axial rotation from orbital
motion,I would then remark that the Earth has another rotation around
the galactic axis but you love stellar circumpolar motion for your own
relativistic 'fixed star' reasons.



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.


Go ahead and say it ,clocks were developed as rulers of distance,it
is not so hard and it has great astronomical consequences.

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 constant 24 hour day is a wonderful thing,it allows you to escape
notions of fixed stars for the axial rotation of the Earth and even
the 'day' as determined by the natural variation for each axial
rotation.


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.


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.Use
the Sun as a reference,apply the EoT and you can apply the time
difference for the keeper of the longitude meridian of Greenwich to
your local time to act as both ends of a ruler.This is a spectacular
historical achievement and you should really enjoy it.


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

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.If you ever give up your adherence to the sidereal
figure and Albert's useless concept,let me know and we will discuss
the implications of making observations from the basis of the rotation
of the local Milky Way stars around the galactic axis.

I am a Christian and Christianity is at the bottom of everything I do
for it all amounts to the connection between the Infinite and the
definite or as time,the Eternal and the temporal.You speak of 'nature'
and what it care and does'nt care about but I know the best things are
unexpressible such as time and love and all the good things.You deal
with a concept which thinks it can alter time and the cosmos if you
move quick enough but it was always for men who never lived and
die,the world no better or worse for their existence but perhaps exist
only as cautionary lessons.

I do not plea for the tyranny of idealism has always borrowed on
hypnotic words which seduce the feebleminded and your relativistic
concept more than any is a testament to that,the quest for knowledge
is a mug's game in contrast to the quest of Christianity which begins
in the heart.The reason a Kepler,Newton or a Pascal accomplished much
is that they were Christian even if their beliefs differfrom each
other and I assure you that it is absolutely impossible to
investigate natural phenomena as an end in itself for man's end is the
Infinite from the definite and revealing it where and as often as
possible.