Astronomers Vs Harrison (clock maker) ref Longitude problem

Hayley wrote:

well my original post provoked a friendly discussion I see!!


Your post provoked nothing only the same mediocre responses from
indifferent people who neither know nor care about what was once good
about their nation.

Harrsion's concern would have been the constant pace which a clock
maintains in order to be accurate,the gauge for that constant pace was
natural noon and the application of the Equation of Time correction
which equalises the natural inequalities in the length of a natural day
to the equable 24 hour day.

No big problem to adapt that principle to the heliocentric insight of
constant axial rotation at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360
degrees as the first heliocentrists did and which Harrison would have
used to gauge the accuracy of his clocks.

This is the only means to explain what fixes the pace of a clock and
subsequently the equable hour,minute and second.

These freaks attribute two values for axial rotation through 360
degrees,one to the Sun in 24 hours exactly and one to the celestial
sphere at 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.Despite the fact that a location on
Earth does not rotate to face the Sun in 24 hours exactly hence the
necessity of the Equation of Time correction,to accept there stupid
sidereal justification to to accept the same miserable and peevish
creatures that Harrison knew so well.

I leave you to make your own judgement based on the cataloguing
explanations of the National Maritime Museum who possess Harrison's
clocks.If you feel uncomfortable enough with their convoluted garbage
then you may help finish the Longitude story and help stop this
misconduct from continuing.

"Each solar day the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the Sun.
Similarly the Earth rotates 360º with respect to the background stars
in a sidereal day. During each solar day, the motion of the Earth
around the Sun means the Earth rotates 361º with respect to the
background stars."

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/nav.00500300l005001000

Perhaps you would like to tell these guys why it is not a good idea to
combine axial rotation with orbital motion given that the early
heliocentrists treated orbital motion in isolation from axial rotation
and that clocks only keep pace with the principles of axial rotation.










"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 11 Nov 2005 08:50:19 -0800, in uk.sci.astronomy , "oriel36"
wrote:


wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Dr Breen here comes from the same peevish and miserable breed that

Dr Breen happens to be an old and respected pal of mine

Let me rephrase,the whole lot of you are that peevish and stupid breed

Why don't you children go have this argument in the playground?

If there was anyone here with a trace of goodness they would make an
effort to correct this dismal situation where fools believe that the
Earth rotates through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec.

Oh, gawd, you really are a chump.

That it has been years since I outlined how the pre-Copernican
astronomers derived the equable 24 hour day from the natural unequal

So bleedin what? We don't live in the pre-Copernican age.
Approximations used in the past have no bearing on the present, except
as interesting background.

Consider the Bohr model of the atom.


--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
CLC readme: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----