Intellectual nadir

The Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 24 hours,period.


George Dishman wrote
No, 23h 56m 4s.

There are certain statement which cannot be reduced further such as
why clocks register the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
in 24 hours,disagree with it such as the adoption of the sidereal
value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec through 360 degrees and it too amounts
to a definite statement ,much as the creationists are positively
certain that the Earth is 6000 years old.

How counterintuitive is relativity and opposed to common sense,well if
men can't figure out what the most fundamental rotation of all is -
the Earth rotation on its axis and the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency,it sure is opposed to common sense and marks us as a
civilisation that loved the gutter.

The puppet show of Einstein/Newton may somehow constitute the worse
epoch in human endeavor with no central correction system to correct
truly awful lapse in reasoning that mark us as the most intellectually
weak people ever to inhabit the planet,period.

George Dishman wrote
No, 23h 56m 4s.

There are certain statement which cannot be reduced further such as
why clocks register the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
in 24 hours,disagree with it such as the adoption of the sidereal
value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec through 360 degrees and it too amounts
to a definite statement ,much as the creationists are positively
certain that the Earth is 6000 years old.

How counterintuitive is relativity and opposed to common sense,well if
men can't figure out what the most fundamental rotation of all is -
the Earth rotation on its axis and the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency,it sure is opposed to common sense and marks us as a
civilisation that loved the gutter.

The puppet show of Einstein/Newton may somehow constitute the worse
epoch in human endeavor with no central correction system to correct
truly awful lapse in reasoning that mark us as the most intellectually
weak people ever to inhabit the planet,period.


I think, I'm going to bang my head against a brick wall
......

There, I feel better now.



DaveL

"Dave" wrote in message ...


George Dishman wrote
No, 23h 56m 4s.

There are certain statement which cannot be reduced further such as
why clocks register the rotation rate of the Earth through 360 degrees
in 24 hours,disagree with it such as the adoption of the sidereal
value of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec through 360 degrees and it too amounts
to a definite statement ,much as the creationists are positively
certain that the Earth is 6000 years old.

How counterintuitive is relativity and opposed to common sense,well if
men can't figure out what the most fundamental rotation of all is -
the Earth rotation on its axis and the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency,it sure is opposed to common sense and marks us as a
civilisation that loved the gutter.

The puppet show of Einstein/Newton may somehow constitute the worse
epoch in human endeavor with no central correction system to correct
truly awful lapse in reasoning that mark us as the most intellectually
weak people ever to inhabit the planet,period.


I think, I'm going to bang my head against a brick wall
.....

There, I feel better now.



DaveL


You have disgraced yourselves,things known a millenia ago seem beyond
you and not even one has acknowledged the error.So be it.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sourc...cer-astro.html

In message , Oriel36
writes
You have disgraced yourselves,things known a millenia ago seem beyond
you and not even one has acknowledged the error.So be it.

Since I'm in the mood to rant, Gerald, and you have provided some
entertainment, here's a little quiz question for you if you'd care to
try it.

If you adjust the rate of a clock at mid-day to record 24 hours for each
360 degree rotation of the Earth, how many days pass before the Sun
rises at midnight?
It's all right, I'm not expecting an answer. Who am I to dim the
blinding light of your intellect with the mundane practicalities of
reality?

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills

DT wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
You have disgraced yourselves,things known a millenia ago seem beyond
you and not even one has acknowledged the error.So be it.

Since I'm in the mood to rant, Gerald, and you have provided some
entertainment, here's a little quiz question for you if you'd care to
try it.

If you adjust the rate of a clock at mid-day to record 24 hours for each
360 degree rotation of the Earth, how many days pass before the Sun
rises at midnight?
It's all right, I'm not expecting an answer. Who am I to dim the
blinding light of your intellect with the mundane practicalities of
reality?

Denis

Noon is a precise geometric term,it is when a longitude meridian
rotates to face the Sun directly,this is kid's stuff and no offense
intended.

You remain in intellectual kindergarden with terms such as mid-day and
midnight which are terms that have no bearing on the Equation of Time
and the noon adjustment.The EoT serves the purpose of facilitating the
seamless transition from one 24 hour day to the next even though there
is an natural observed asymmetry between each complete axial
rotation,hence the isolation of axial rotation to 24 hours/360 degrees
via the EoT.

The determination of the 24 hour day via the EoT makes the calendar
system possible for the annual cycle is based on the equable 24 hour
day as 365 days 5 hours 49 min.The calendrical drift which required
the Gregorian correction where festivals were drifting against the
seasons are peculiarities restricted to the calendar system and do not
affect the determination of the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency which
is based on the EoT loop system where there are no fractions to take
into account against the annual cycle.

The EoT table below is adequate for your answer,if you are not capable
of determining why it is required to determine the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency first before you construct the calendar system,it is no
longer my business to recycle the whole presentation again.

http://www.burnley.gov.uk/towneley/tryall/eot3.htm

If you wish to remain astronomical creationists and incorrectly
determine the wrong value for rotation of the Earth through 360
degrees (sidereal value) that is your business for I would not go out
of my way to convince the other creationists that they are incorrect.

In closing,early 20th century thinking is based on the notion that
there are no galaxies.From the vantage point of 2004 data,the ideas of
relativity are primitive especially when it speaks on cosmological
structure and motion.The originator of relativity dismisses the notion
of galaxies in 1920 for he knew no better and it appears that you and
your colleagues have followed him.

Insofar as your primitive notions and errors can be traced to the
foundations of the 24 hour day via the EoT,clocks,geometry and
astronomy I leave you to admire your relativistic nonsense where there
are stars everywhere and galaxies nowhere.

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space. "

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

You are correct,the stuff from 1920 is beneath me as you are,at least
it appears that you want to remain with your stellar circumpolar
universe and there is nothing I can do about it.

In message , Oriel36
writes
DT wrote in message
...
In message , Oriel36
writes
You have disgraced yourselves,things known a millenia ago seem beyond
you and not even one has acknowledged the error.So be it.

Since I'm in the mood to rant, Gerald, and you have provided some
entertainment, here's a little quiz question for you if you'd care to
try it.

If you adjust the rate of a clock at mid-day to record 24 hours for each
360 degree rotation of the Earth, how many days pass before the Sun
rises at midnight?
It's all right, I'm not expecting an answer. Who am I to dim the
blinding light of your intellect with the mundane practicalities of
reality?

Denis

Noon is a precise geometric term,it is when a longitude meridian
rotates to face the Sun directly,this is kid's stuff and no offense
intended.
Snipped

Come on Gerald! I'm not trying to be tricky, I just want you to try and
think outside your particular box.
I'll accept plus or minus 2 days, how's that? You understand the concept
of tolerances surely?
;-)
Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills

DT wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
DT wrote in message
...
In message , Oriel36
writes
You have disgraced yourselves,things known a millenia ago seem beyond
you and not even one has acknowledged the error.So be it.

Since I'm in the mood to rant, Gerald, and you have provided some
entertainment, here's a little quiz question for you if you'd care to
try it.

If you adjust the rate of a clock at mid-day to record 24 hours for each
360 degree rotation of the Earth, how many days pass before the Sun
rises at midnight?
It's all right, I'm not expecting an answer. Who am I to dim the
blinding light of your intellect with the mundane practicalities of
reality?

Denis

Noon is a precise geometric term,it is when a longitude meridian
rotates to face the Sun directly,this is kid's stuff and no offense
intended.
Snipped

Come on Gerald! I'm not trying to be tricky, I just want you to try and
think outside your particular box.
I'll accept plus or minus 2 days, how's that? You understand the concept
of tolerances surely?
;-)
Denis

There is no box,there are graphic tools which can explain exactly how
the 24 hour/360 degree equivalency is determined by the Earth's
rotation and the fact that it is noon along any given longitude
meridian on the surface of the planet.

I will only note that anyone good at graphics can explain why clocks
were developed as rulers of distance using the EoT computation and I
assure you that I am the greatest proponent of modern graphic tools
to sweep through the utter garbage where men define the Earth's 360
degree axial rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion and the
sidereal value.

I suspect you would rather remain with relativistic wordplays than
actually absorb what Newton wrote even when graphics are before you.

http://www.pafko.com/tycho/mars.html

"It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and
effectually to distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from
the apparent; because the parts of that immovable space, in which
those motions are performed, do by no means come under the observation
of our senses. Yet the thing is not altogether desperate; for we have
some arguments to guide us, partly from the apparent motions, which
are the differences of the true motions; partly from the forces, which
are the causes and effects of the true motion.@
Principia

In message , Oriel36
writes
wrong answer snipped
I suspect you would rather remain with relativistic wordplays than
actually absorb what Newton wrote even when graphics are before you.

Like you, there are many things I don't know, but I am sufficiently
familiar with Newton's work, in the fields of political assassination as
well as alchemy and 'fysiks', to know that your interpretation, along
with your answer to a simple question, is entirely in error.
Have you the stature to consider that you may just possibly be wrong?
;-)
Denis
(wanders off muttering about the state of education in this country....
When I was a boy...... bring back the birch.... a good thrashing....
bloody rail network..... you just can't get the staff these days....
need a bit of national service..... I think I'll have a nice cup of
tea.)
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills

DT wrote in message ...
In message , Oriel36
writes
wrong answer snipped
I suspect you would rather remain with relativistic wordplays than
actually absorb what Newton wrote even when graphics are before you.

Like you, there are many things I don't know, but I am sufficiently
familiar with Newton's work, in the fields of political assassination as
well as alchemy and 'fysiks', to know that your interpretation, along
with your answer to a simple question, is entirely in error.
Have you the stature to consider that you may just possibly be wrong?
;-)
Denis
(wanders off muttering about the state of education in this country....
When I was a boy...... bring back the birch.... a good thrashing....
bloody rail network..... you just can't get the staff these days....
need a bit of national service..... I think I'll have a nice cup of
tea.)

"As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars
everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in
detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other
words: However far we might travel through space, we should find
everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the
same kind and density. 1
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."


http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Cut through all the relativistic garbage and at the bottom of it are
those two paragraphs.

Most people who have a passing interest in the structure of the
Universe would find Albert's 1920 comments to be entirely laughable
yet it is still the height of fashion.The poor guy had an
excuse,galaxies other than our own and stellar rotation around the
galactic axis was not discovered until 1923,Albert's universe not only
does not make a provision for galactic structures but more or less
uses Newton to argue against it.

DT wrote in message ...
....
Denis
(wanders off muttering about the state of education in this country....
When I was a boy...... bring back the birch.... a good thrashing....
bloody rail network..... you just can't get the staff these days....
need a bit of national service..... I think I'll have a nice cup of
tea.)

:-D Stiff upper lip, old boy.