NO positive leap second will be introduced at the end of December2011

oriel36 schrieb:

Son,the addiction to right ascension is generating the belief that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

With or without clocks,the Earth turns 1461 times across 4 orbital
circuits or,in timekeeping terms,1461 days in 4 calendar years with
Feb 29th closing out the 1461 st rotation.

Hello,

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were no
leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too. 365 1/4 days is
not the exact value, it is only rounded with to decimals after the
point, not more.

Bye

On 2011-07-14 12:04 , Uwe Hercksen wrote:


oriel36 schrieb:

Son,the addiction to right ascension is generating the belief that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

With or without clocks,the Earth turns 1461 times across 4 orbital
circuits or,in timekeeping terms,1461 days in 4 calendar years with
Feb 29th closing out the 1461 st rotation.

Hello,

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were no
leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too. 365 1/4 days is
not the exact value, it is only rounded with to decimals after the
point, not more.

Making such generalizations has nothing to do with accurate time keeping
nor decisions as when to insert leap *seconds* (see posting title).

The Earth's rotation is not uniform, nor constant, nor regular nor
predictable beyond a few years.

Between larger scale gravitational effects, earthquakes, plate heaves
and so on, the rotation rate is erratic. Thus the insertion of leap
seconds is decided upon in relatively near time (months-years) and there
is no way to predict leap seconds 10 years from now, never mind centuries.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...om_SI_day_.svg

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Jul 14, 6:04*pm, Uwe Hercksen wrote:
oriel36 schrieb:

Son,the addiction to right ascension is generating the belief that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

With or without clocks,the Earth turns 1461 times across 4 orbital
circuits or,in timekeeping terms,1461 days in 4 calendar years with
Feb 29th closing out the 1461 st rotation.

Hello,

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were no
leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too. 365 1/4 days is
not the exact value, it is only rounded with to decimals after the
point, not more.

Bye

You poor things,being off by close to 4 rotations across 4 orbital
circuits is quite a feat as all it takes is basic arithmetic to count
the 1461 days and rotations that make up 4 years and 4 orbital
circuits,daily and orbital motions are separate so that when viewed
from the standpoint of 24 hour rotations and days,Feb 29th as another
day and rotation accounts for the orbital drift that occurs through
Mar 1st every non leap year.

No point in going into further details such as the 11 minute orbital
discrepancy which separates 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes from the
idealized calendar format of 365 1/4 rotations when you have a
mindnumbing 366 1/4 rotations as a balance for 1 orbital circuit.On a
scale of 1 to 10,this Ra/Dec driven error is unlike anything seen
before and is simply 10 on a catastrophic scale for trying to squeeze
1465 rotations into 4 orbital circuits despite having cause and effect
before readers in terms of the 1461 day/night cycles and subsequently
the 1461 times the temperature fluctuates across 4 years telling
readers that the balance is 365 1/4 rotations per circuit.

You have these guys trying their level best to make something out of a
'leap second' tied to daily rotation while forgetting or not knowing
what the Feb 29th leap day correction does in restoring the
proportional balance between the number of rotations in a year/orbital
circuit and this macro view the current fad look catastrophically
dumb,not bad,not poor,sheer and utter intellectual desolation.

Do you want to explain what Feb 29th does while adhering to 1465
rotations for 4 orbital circuits then good luck to you,you can always
step back,look at the bigger picture and come to the only possible
conclusion as a person who prides their intelligence.

On Jul 14, 6:25*pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 2011-07-14 12:04 , Uwe Hercksen wrote:











oriel36 schrieb:

Son,the addiction to right ascension is generating the belief that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

With or without clocks,the Earth turns 1461 times across 4 orbital
circuits or,in timekeeping terms,1461 days in 4 calendar years with
Feb 29th closing out the 1461 st rotation.

Hello,

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were no
leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too. 365 1/4 days is
not the exact value, it is only rounded with to decimals after the
point, not more.

Making such generalizations has nothing to do with accurate time keeping
nor decisions as when to insert leap *seconds* (see posting title).

The Earth's rotation is not uniform, nor constant, nor regular nor
predictable beyond a few years.

Between larger scale gravitational effects, earthquakes, plate heaves
and so on, the rotation rate is erratic. *Thus the insertion of leap
seconds is decided upon in relatively near time (months-years) and there
is no way to predict leap seconds 10 years from now, never mind centuries..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ation_of_day_l...

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

It is one of those things where a person is required to step way
back,look at the wider picture where the timekeeping system meshes
with planetary dynamics,both daily rotation and orbital motion,and
takes in the breathtaking system both in is subtlety and the
horrendous error which attached itself to that system via trying to
justify daily rotation and orbital motion through right ascension and
stellar circumpolar motion.

It is an astonishing situation to be out an entire 24 hour rotation/
86400 seconds per orbital circuit and this is why proposing 366 1/4
rotations per orbital circuit puts these individual 'leap second'
corrections in perspective,it comes across as a bad joke rather than
what the proponents of the 'leap second' try to make out.Again,the
purpose of Feb 29th more or less explains why there are not 1465
rotations per circuit as the 'leap second' proponents assume,there are
1461 rotations to 4 orbital circuits which reduces to 365 1/4 to 1
orbital circuit.

The system whereby humans gauge the number of orbital circuits using
full rotations is a marvel in itself and extremely old,it is about
time that readers return to the stability of that system before making
conjectures which are at variance with the technical details of the
system and common sense.

On Jul 14, 6:50*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Jul 14, 6:04*pm, Uwe Hercksen wrote:

oriel36 schrieb:

Son,the addiction to right ascension is generating the belief that
there are 366 1/4 rotations in 365 1/4 days -

"The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but
there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year." NASA

With or without clocks,the Earth turns 1461 times across 4 orbital
circuits or,in timekeeping terms,1461 days in 4 calendar years with
Feb 29th closing out the 1461 st rotation.

Hello,

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were no
leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too. 365 1/4 days is
not the exact value, it is only rounded with to decimals after the
point, not more.

Bye

You poor things,being off by close to 4 rotations across 4 orbital
circuits is quite a feat as all it takes is basic arithmetic to count
the 1461 days and rotations that make up 4 years and 4 orbital
circuits,daily and orbital motions are separate so that when viewed
from the standpoint of 24 hour rotations and days,Feb 29th as another
day and rotation accounts for the orbital drift that occurs through
Mar 1st every non leap year.

No point in going into further details such as the 11 minute orbital
discrepancy which separates 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes from the
idealized calendar format of 365 1/4 rotations when you have a
mindnumbing 366 1/4 rotations as a balance for 1 orbital circuit.On a
scale of 1 to 10,this Ra/Dec driven error is unlike anything seen
before and is simply 10 on a catastrophic scale for trying to squeeze
1465 rotations into 4 orbital circuits despite having cause and effect
before readers in terms of *the 1461 day/night cycles and subsequently
the 1461 times the temperature fluctuates across 4 years telling
readers that the balance is 365 1/4 rotations per circuit.

You have these guys trying their level best to make something out of a
'leap second' tied to daily rotation while forgetting or not knowing
what the Feb 29th leap *day correction does in restoring the
proportional balance between the number of rotations in a year/orbital
circuit and *this macro view the current fad *look catastrophically
dumb,not bad,not poor,sheer and utter intellectual desolation.

Do you want to explain what Feb 29th does while adhering to 1465
rotations for 4 orbital circuits then good luck to you,you can always
step back,look at the bigger picture and come to the only possible
conclusion as a person who prides their intelligence.

And, then hanson wrote:

"Einstein, in his own words, just a year before he
folded his relativity tent, closed his umbrella, kicked
the bucket and finally puffed and bit the grass,....
Einstein wrote, in 1954, to his Italian friend Besso:

|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
|||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
|||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, [my] gravitation theory included."
|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein

So, that then is the end of Einstein's infamous fantasy
career-journey which concludes, long last, with what
most enlightened folks have suspected for a long time,
if not outright from the start, that:
====== SR is short for STUPID RANT and ======
===== GR is just a GULLIBLE RECITATION ====

Einstein flagellated himself & came clean (1), after
he was used by the Zios for their own, to them then
noble political agenda. (2)
http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein (1)
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2 (1)
http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft (1)
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity (2)
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR (2)

GR/SR is a useless crock o'****, save it being
"a Base", an "al Qaida", for Einstein Dingleberries
to worship Albert's sphincter.. although AE said
not to do that.

Professor Panteltje wrote:

I do get a bit sick of the 'Einstein was right again crowd'.
He was not, he was just a math fiddler, curve fitter.
If somebody asks: How much is 2 + 3, and Einstein
would have answered : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9.
Then saying: "see, he once did say 5, he was right again",
is really really bad.
He had no clue, and died without one.
That he was pushed by the US at that time as a great
scientist to brush up the Jewish image was also a mistake,
as he did not have that clue, and just jammed science
with his curve fitting replacing simple physics understanding.

KW wrote:

Please allow Yours Truly to remind everyone whether if he/she is a
true scholar of physics or another Orwellian-ill-educated Einstein
Dingleberry that fall in the following ridiculous traits:

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

Newton discovered the law of gravity in which if the gravitating mass
is positive, gravitational force is attractive. The reverse, although
never been observed, must be true. That is if the gravitating mass is
negative, the gravitational effect must be repulsive or antigravity.
shrug

Later on, it was discovered by Poisson that the gradient of the
Newtonian gravitational potential is equivalent to the mass density.
In free space, this mass density [rho] is zero.

hanson wrote:

Revisiting an earlier discussion:
http://tinyurl.com/hanson-d2G-Question
Newton in his 2 or 3rd Principia edition, 300 years
before Einstein, addresses Gravitation as
G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2.
Einstein was to lazy or stupid to incorporate
G = d2(1/rho)/dt^2 into his GR croc. Or maybe
Albert was still scared from his 1907 confession
and apology for him having stolen E-mc^2.
http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2
http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft

Despite all that, like brainwashed addicted cultists,
current day Dingleberries still worship Einstein's
sphincter, full well knowing that for the last 70 years,
experiments show Newtonian's gravitation also to be:
G = H^2/rho
wherein H is the Hubble constent and rho is the
mas-density (even on cosmic scales), (some
small digits & pi omitted here) all of which can
be concatenated into the skeletal 1234 cosmic
envelope as
c = (GM/R)^1/2 = (GMH)^1/3 = (GM*b_r)^1/4
IOW, none of Einstein's convoluted **** has
any use in the here and real universe that we
live in. .... KW is correct in his assessment.

KW continued & wrote:

However, it does not take a genius to figure out if the
mass density is negative, gravitational effect becomes
repulsive. Poisson was the very first person to suggest
antigravity but knew better not to. Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar was just so ****ing ignorant that this
nitwit, this plagiarist, and the liar had no hesitation to claim
negative mass density in vacuum in which the giants before this
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar knew better not to go there.
shrug
Now, the self-styled physicists are getting hard-ons whenever Dark
Energy (negative mass density in vacuum) is mentioned. What the ****
does negative mass mean? The only plausible answer is ignorance.
After all, they are still worshipping Einstein the nitwit, the
plagiarist, and the liar as a god. Anything this nitwit, the
plagiarist, and this liar uttered just bedazzaled the hell out of
these self-styled physicists. That is called Dingleberry
worshipping. shrug
Moving on to GR, the silliness embraced by the self-styled physicists
exponentially amplifies. The Schwarzschild metric was discovered by
Hilbert not Schwarzschild. Both metrics are mathematically legal
solutions to the field equations that are static, spherically
symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild's original solution
does not allow for the existence of black holes. Let's look at the
Schwarzschild metric before the integrating constant is identified
through the boundary requirement of satisfying the Newtonian law of
gravity. There are more integration constants, but for the purpose of
this discussion, they are ignored.

** ds^2 = c^2 (1 + K / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 + K / r) - r^2 dO^2
Where
** K = One of the many integration constants
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

Notice this particular solution predicts just about everything from
gravitation to antigravity. There is no definitive reasoning to pin-
point this particular integration constant as the following besides
through this boundary condition that emphasizes hind sights are
always 20/20. shrug

** K = - 2 G M / c^2, Newtonian compatibility requirement

This point collaborates with Professor Ponte's astute observation of
how Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar reasoned.
shrug

Chris.B" wrote:

I fully agree with what KW, JP & hanson said above.
I adore and revere Koobee Wublee, Jan Panteltje and hanson
I am honored to be on the poster list as an appendage..
I have requested them to repost his note every time
I do respond to it. I need to see this post every day.
It makes me feel being intelligent and smart like they are.
I don't know any arithmetic nor algebra at all.
My personal negativity which I have posted about in my
google group profile forces me to be like this. Here is
my passport-http://tinyurl.com/Picture-of-Chris-B "

No I didn't.

Chris.B wrote:

[snip crqp]

See, Sam, you've done it again.

-Please- don't crosspost, ever.

It only brings in the nutters,

Jan

On Jul 14, 10:50*am, oriel36 wrote:

Do you want to explain what Feb 29th does while adhering to 1465
rotations for 4 orbital circuits then good luck to you,

Why should that be a problem at all, since we still adhere to 1461 day/
night cycles for 4 orbital circuits?

We just don't call a day/night cycle a rotation because (as the
Equation of Time shows) it doesn't have a uniform duration in
(mechanical) time. But we can still work with and count day/night
cycles to make leap years.

John Savard

In sci.astro.amateur message , Thu, 14 Jul
2011 18:04:59, Uwe Hercksen posted:

the year 2000 was a leap year, but the years 1900, 1800 and 1700 were
no leap years and the year 2100 will be no leap year too.


2100 will be the first year divisible by 100 that was nowhere a Leap
Year, In 1900, Russia and Greece were still on the Julian Calendar.
See http://www.tondering.dk/claus/calendar.html.

The small American Olympic team is said to have nearly missed the first
Games (Athens, 1896), as the Greeks had given Julian dates.
The Imperial Russian Olympic Team, using the Julian Calendar, is said
to have arrived twelve days too late for the 1908 London Games.


You post from Germany - ii is hard to say whether in Protestant Germany
1700 was or was not Leap. since 18 Feb was followed by 1 Mar. OTOH, as
the Julian Calendar was there abandoned after Feb 18, 1700 must be an
example of a Leap Year not containing Feb 29.

Don't plan on visiting Samoa on Fri Dec 30 next.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05.
Website http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc. : http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/ - see in 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

On Jul 15, 4:15*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

You post from Germany -

Let's just say that 1700 was not a leap year in the proleptic
Gregorian calendar in Germany, and it was not a leap year in the
(plain old) Gregorian calendar period in Roman Catholic nations.

There are cases when one must keep the confusion of calendars into
account, but if one *can* avoid worrying about it...

And then, of course, the Orthodox countries that have converted from
the old Julian calendar have done so *not* to the Gregorian calendar,
but to one with a 900-year cycle of leap years.

Thus, 1500, 2000, 2400, and 2900 are leap century years in that
system, with alternating 500 and 400 year distances between leap
century years. The alternative, to maintain that level of accuracy,
would be to omit the year 4000 as a leap century year in the Gregorian
system.

John Savard