Intellectual nadir

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.