what's your bet?

On Dec 6, 4:22*am, oriel36 wrote:

... the Earth turns at a rate of 15 degrees per hour,that distance translates
into the turning of the equatorial distance through its 40,075 km
circumference in 24 hours.There is no external *celestial reference
for this rotation...

This is correct, with respect to the sun, no one argues this point,
and no fixed stars are needed to figure this out. There is no need for
you to bring this basic truth up again, we all understand.

But let's say you lived on a world that was totally overcast every
day, and you never, ever saw the sun, year after year and decade after
decade, etc. It is clearly not nighttime, it gets light, but the
clouds are so thick that you have no idea what the direction might be
for the source of the light. I maintain that even under these
conditions, assuming that you have some way of accurately keeping
track of the passage of time, you would eventually discover the
average 24-hour cycle that you often speak of, the 24 hours of Monday
becoming the 24 hours of Tuesday, etc.

However, every night, after it gets completely dark, the sky clears
up, and it is filled with stars, all night, every night. You use that
same timekeeping device and discover that for any star you wish to
choose, it returns to the meridian in a few minutes less than 24
hours. What would you think then? It is clear that there are 2
different cycles, one of 24 hours and one about 4 minutes less, each
and every day.

Although you might never solve this mystery, the facts remain
incontrovertible, because you yourself have determined, according to
your very own measurements, that there are 2 cycles involved. There
can be no mistake here, the timings can be made over and over again
and the results are always the same. Would there be any way at all to
prove that one cycle had any influence on the other? I don't think so,
do you? I don't think that anyone could state that, as you claim, "the
idea that the planetary dynamics of daily rotation correlates directly
with the rotation of the constellations around Polaris thereby
destroying all the information about planetary dimensions and
rotational characteristics organised around the 24 hour value.",
because, it is clear, there is no correlation between them, and no one
claims that there is, but you continue to state the opposite. Get over
it, there are (at least) 2 independent cycles, there always has been,
there always will be, and everyone knows it.

The sun and the earth just do what they have been doing for a very
long time now, and all we can do is observe the results and keep
notes... otherwise known as empirical data... and formulate theories.
So, if you want to share any new theories that you have formulated...
let's see your data and subsequent calculations... otherwise.. your
work here is done.

\Paul A