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
=----

To Craig

If you wish to remain with a cartoon astronomical creation then be my
guest but there has to be room for people to appreciate real
astronomical principles such as the correct resolution for retrogrades.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

The person who sees a faster Earth taking an inner orbital circuit
overtaking the slower outer planets will be a Copernican/Keplerian
heliocentrist for this is how retrogrades are resolved.

A person who retains the stellar background and believes that only by
jumping to the Sun are retrogrades resolved will be a cataloguer and a
Newtonian* .

* "For to the earth they [ planetary orbital motions] appear sometimes
direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from
the sun they are always seen direct.."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

An intelligent person would correct Newton's awful mangling of what
retrogrades actually are but then again,you freaks believe the wrong
value for axial rotation in order to support Newton's cartoon
astronomical conceptions that destroy heliocentricity by keeping the
stellar background -

"PHÆNOMENON IV.
That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

So,there is nothing left to destroy,all you can do is not give Harrison
his due,destroy the works of Copernicus,Kepler and Roemer, wreck the
pre-Copernican principles behind the equable 24 hour day and all
because of the convenience of tying a telescope to a celestial sphere
and the calendar system.Tedious !!,nothing more tedious that existing
with insincerity.

In article .com,
says...
To Craig

It doesn't matter what you post old chap, it's still the same tired and
tedious ranting of an obvious social inadequate. Maybe you should get
out more.
--
Craig Oldfield

To Craig

You may be right about what I post here but then again I do not live
with the charade at the expense of Copernican/Keplerian
heliocentricity.

I do care about the inheritance from antiquity and especially Western
achievement that lost out to this cosy relationship that began between
cataloguers and theorists.

All holocausts are caused by the same silly pretensiousness with a
convenient figurehead,in your case -Newton.

Considering the people whoes works wither under your stupid conceptions
I do not mind the insults in this direction.

In article .com,
says...
To Craig

You may be right about what I post here

I am right about what you post. Poor old Gerald, the only one marching
in step, everybody else is wrong. Face it fruitcake, you're a brick
short of a full load. This is my last contact with you. As the saying
goes, you can try to teach a pig to dance but you only waste your time
and annoy the pig, so go back to your trough and wallow some more in
your own self-pity.

--
Craig Oldfield

Craig Oldfield wrote:
In article .com,
says...
To Craig

You may be right about what I post here

I am right about what you post. Poor old Gerald, the only one marching
in step, everybody else is wrong. Face it fruitcake, you're a brick
short of a full load. This is my last contact with you. As the saying
goes, you can try to teach a pig to dance but you only waste your time
and annoy the pig, so go back to your trough and wallow some more in
your own self-pity.

--
Craig Oldfield

The intellectual vandalism visited on the Copernican heliocentric
insight and its later refinements by Kepler and Roemer most certainly
evokes the lament that most of humanity dies without getting to
appreciate what they see as they look out on the planets.Presently,as
the Earth in its orbital motion is overtaking the slower moving
Mars,the planet appears to move backwards against the stellar
background but it is really the orbital motion of the Earth in its
heliocentric orbit generating the effect.

Clocks are easy to understand from the other independent motion of the
Earth and why they keep pace at 15 degrees per hour and 24 hours/360
degrees.There is no external reference for constant axial rotation yet
you people justify a location's rotation to the Sun in 24 hours exactly
even though it is known since antiquity that no such equable motion
occurs.Hence the neccessity of the Equation of Time correction.

Even when it is pointed out to you that a star returns to the same
position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec of a 24 hour day and this is fine as
long as you do NOT attempt to justify it astronomically,you freaks do
and for that Newtonian agenda that keeps the stellar background in
heliocentricity -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

Anyone who recognises how retrogrades are resolved by substituting the
stellar background with the annual orbital motion of the Earth would be
sickened by that dumb Newtonian quasi-geocentric attempt,obviously
people still need to become familiar with the exquisite reasoning of
Copernicus.

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/.../marsretro.gif

Unfortunately few people can discern that it is the Earth overtaking
the slower orbital motion and outer orbital path of Mars and this is
a shame for it is not at all difficult.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ima...2000_tezel.gif

People who see Mars rising and setting on the horizon are most
certainly cataloguers,great if you like photography and love your
telescope but far removed from real astronomy and the exquisite
Keplerian refinement .

In article ,
Hayley wrote:
well my original post provoked a friendly discussion I see!!

Apologies about that. I'd hoped to flag up some of the wider issues
withiout detracting from Old John's achievements (the clock collection
in the old observatory in Greenwich is a delight). To put it mildly,
the result was not what I'd aimed at.

I'd suggest an application of killfiles and a return to discussing
astronomy - and I'll go back to lurking for a while.

Ob. Lunations and Jovian eclipses: a check through my old copies
of the Admiralty manual of navigation reveals that these weren't
formally part of practice by the 1930s. I can onlt assume that
my father picked up the skills from an old-fashioned navigator
who regarded tham as still worth knowing - and who recognised
that clocks can break!

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...

Craig Oldfield wrote:

[SNIP]

Even when it is pointed out to you that a star returns to the
same
position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec of a 24 hour day and this is
fine as
long as you do NOT attempt to justify it astronomically

I beg you pardon!?

It is an astronomical observation.

RonL

In message , Ron Larham
writes

"oriel36" wrote in message
oups.com...

Craig Oldfield wrote:

[SNIP]

Even when it is pointed out to you that a star returns to the
same
position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec of a 24 hour day and this is
fine as
long as you do NOT attempt to justify it astronomically

I beg you pardon!?

It is an astronomical observation.

RonL


You possibly haven't seen Gerald's posts on this, which go back years
and have yet to provide anything that wasn't in the very first one.
There's nobody home.

Ron Larham wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message
ups.com...

Craig Oldfield wrote:

[SNIP]

Even when it is pointed out to you that a star returns to the
same
position in 23 hours 56 min 04 sec of a 24 hour day and this is
fine as
long as you do NOT attempt to justify it astronomically

I beg you pardon!?

It is an astronomical observation.

RonL

This is why none of you are astronomers because none of you have the
feeling for how the noon Equation of Time correction which equalises
the variations in the length of a day to the equable 24 hour day
exclude the possibility of justifying the sidereal value of 23 hours 56
min 04 sec.

You lousy and stupid freaks,the pre-Copernican astronomers being good
enough to equalise the variations in the natural day at noon and the
early heliocentric adaption of this principle to the newly discovered
principle of constant axial rotation makes it one of the most exquisite
astronomical jewels in existence.