The Leap Millisecond

oriel36 wrote:

Looking at the contemporary graphic in the Wikipedia article which
expresses how a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours in order
to justify the rotation to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is
shocking considering that the rotation of a location to noon has been
known to vary in length from antiquity.The idea of the 24 hours of
Monday elapsing into the 24 hours of Tuesday comes about via the noon
correction which equalises the variations but people are willingly
ignoring that such a correction is required.

Yes, the diagram simplifies matters, so that they can be more clearly
explained. It neglects the relatively small matter of the fact the
Earth's orbit is an ellipse, in which the Earth moves with unequal
speed, but makes that orbit a circle, so that the basic principle
behind *one element* of the Earth's motions is brought out in
isolation to be understood on its own.

The 'leap second' represents the worst part of an error that has
snowballed for the better part of 3 centuries for it represents the
unauthorised hitching of axial and orbital motion directly to the
horror of astrological geometry or rather the return of a star in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

Since the leap second has to do with an approximation to the 24 hour
day, averaged out over a year, but now only slightly too short because
it is out of date, what does it have to do with 23 hours, 56 minutes,
4 seconds?

Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
Atomic Time?

I assure you, the mathematicians and astronomers have produced
accurate formulae which let them calculate accurate ephemerides. What
further justification is needed?

John Savard

On Jun 9, 3:30 am, Quadibloc wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
Looking at the contemporary graphic in the Wikipedia article which
expresses how a location on Earth rotates to noon in 24 hours in order
to justify the rotation to a star in 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds is
shocking considering that the rotation of a location to noon has been
known to vary in length from antiquity.The idea of the 24 hours of
Monday elapsing into the 24 hours of Tuesday comes about via the noon
correction which equalises the variations but people are willingly
ignoring that such a correction is required.

Yes, the diagram simplifies matters, so that they can be more clearly
explained. It neglects the relatively small matter of the fact the
Earth's orbit is an ellipse, in which the Earth moves with unequal
speed, but makes that orbit a circle, so that the basic principle
behind *one element* of the Earth's motions is brought out in
isolation to be understood on its own.


You are on the wrong side of a very simple set of principles which
recognises that no two noon cycles are alike (hence the Equation of
Time) and even it is frightening,at least in some aspects,to see that
an idiotic and creationistlike understanding of the Earth's cycles be
so dominant the good news is that the original principles which create
the 24 hour day and its application to the daily cycle as a 24 hour/
360 degree equivalency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

I do not mind your creationistlike defence of justifying the Earth's
motions to a 23 hour 56 minute 04 second value but my goodness,even
considering the sheer scale of the damage it does and in every
possible way it does the greatest disappointment is that nobody finds
the correct principles enjoyable,not just the 24 hour/360 degree
equivalency but the Copernican reasoning from which it emerged.





The 'leap second' represents the worst part of an error that has
snowballed for the better part of 3 centuries for it represents the
unauthorised hitching of axial and orbital motion directly to the
horror of astrological geometry or rather the return of a star in 23
hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.

Since the leap second has to do with an approximation to the 24 hour
day, averaged out over a year, but now only slightly too short because
it is out of date, what does it have to do with 23 hours, 56 minutes,
4 seconds?


I still cannot account for why people would willingly ignore how the
24 hour day is created via variations in the noon cycle or rather
adopt a dumb view which deterrmines that a location rotates to face
noon in 24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

Good kids who could easily grasp the treatise by Huygens are being
indoctrinated into this awful way of treating the axial and orbital
cycles and allowing for the fact that all here have be taught in the
astrological style of Flamsteed there is no excuse for intelligent
people to recognise that this 'sidereal' depiction of the Earth's
motion is shockingly creationlike in content and character -

Period Of Rotation
"The actual value is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the
length of a "sidereal" day. It is the actual time it takes the Earth
to rotate 360 degrees. The term "sidereal" (pronounced sigh-dear'-
real) refers to the rotation of the Earth being measured relative to
the stars. There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun."

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...ch/period.html

When a website coming from Nasa determines that the Sun is overhead in
24 hours from one noon to the next in spite of the observation that no
two noon cycles are alike how can good people standf a chance of
appreciating the only technically correct set of principles leading to
the creation of the 24 hour day,how these 24 hour cycles elapse
seamlessly into each other and how it provides an equivalency between
clocks and terrestrial longitudes and the daily cycle at 15 degrees
per hour making 24 hours/360 degrees.


Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
Atomic Time?


There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
by Flamsteed,specifically -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1677

No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
no astronomical authority exists at present.




I assure you, the mathematicians and astronomers have produced
accurate formulae which let them calculate accurate ephemerides. What
further justification is needed?

John Savard

Mathematicians and astologers indeed !,a bunch of people who cannot
even appreciate the basic principle which creates the 24 hour day and
how it is applied to the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes as a
24 hour/360 degree equivalency.It would be a lot easier to get the
magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.

oriel36 wrote:
quoting me:
Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
Atomic Time?
..
There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
by Flamsteed,specifically -
..
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1677
..
No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
no astronomical authority exists at present.
..
It's true that Flamsteed wasn't quite right. The revolutions of the
Earth are not absolutely uniform in time. Our atomic clocks show that
the Earth's rotation is slowing down, due to tidal forces from the
Moon, in an imperceptible manner, and also there are variations due to
the effects of seasonal winds, leading to the UT1-UT2 correction.

However, these effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the
Equation of Time. Compared to the regular solar day, which can move
ahead or behind up to 15 minutes in the course of a year, the sidereal
day *is* very nearly isochronous - in point of fact. Transit circle
observations and the like have indeed provided solid proof that the
Earth's rotation compared to the stars is highly uniform, unlike solar
time which includes the effects recorded in the Equation of Time.

It would be a lot easier to get the
magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.
..
The reason we seem so "indoctrinated" to you is because the theory
which you view, for some reason, as flawed _is not_ flawed, but does
accurately describe the Solar System. We *understand* Newton and
Flamsteed, and we know there is not, in them, the least contradiction
to anything in Copernicus or Huyghens, just an amplification and a
carrying further of their beautiful insights. You have stumbled over
something in your understanding, so you fail to see this. But you do
not explain yourself clearly enough even for me to see where your
mistake is - or, if you *are* the one who is right, to make me see my
mistake.

John Savard

On Jun 9, 7:30 pm, Quadibloc wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

quoting me: Precisely what sort of "authorization" is needed to express the
Earth's motions in terms of uniform time, such as was calculated from
the planets in Ephemeris Time, or which is produced by cesium atoms in
Atomic Time?
.
There is no technical arguments to support the original error created
by Flamsteed,specifically -
.
"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1677
.
No astronomer or anybody using the title of doctorate would dare
adhere to such foolishness which is why I am correct in stating that
no astronomical authority exists at present.

.
It's true that Flamsteed wasn't quite right. The revolutions of the
Earth are not absolutely uniform in time. Our atomic clocks show that
the Earth's rotation is slowing down, due to tidal forces from the
Moon, in an imperceptible manner, and also there are variations due to
the effects of seasonal winds, leading to the UT1-UT2 correction.


The principles always remain the same whether it is pendulum clocks or
atomic clocks insofar as the inviolate correlation which keeps clocks
in sync with the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes will always be
15 degrees per hour ,4 minutes for each degree of geographical
seperation making 24 hours/360 degrees.To argue to the contrary ,and
your entire community does this,assures that this is the dark ages of
Western civilisation in so many ways.



However, these effects are orders of magnitude smaller than the
Equation of Time. Compared to the regular solar day, which can move
ahead or behind up to 15 minutes in the course of a year, the sidereal
day *is* very nearly isochronous - in point of fact. Transit circle
observations and the like have indeed provided solid proof that the
Earth's rotation compared to the stars is highly uniform, unlike solar
time which includes the effects recorded in the Equation of Time.


I am indebted to you for continuing to demonstrate just how awful the
situation is ,where humanity and especially children are indoctrinated
into an idea that the noon cycles are alike.The website of Nasa
explaining the cult view which derives directly from Flamsteed -

"There ARE 24 hours in a "solar day". This is the time it
takes from one noon (sun overhead) to the next noon. The difference
in
the two "days" arises from the fact that during a day the Earth also
travels nearly a degree further on its yearly trek around the Sun."


http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy...ch/period.html

There is only the difference between the inequality in the noon cycle
and it equalisation over an annual orbit to a human devised 24 hour
day cycle.It is supposed to be the most fundamental astronomical
timekeeping principle yet the cult idea believes that a location
rotates to noon in 24 hours -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

This is supposed to be shocking,an outrage and a mistake so obvious
that in any other circumstances it would provoke the type of
discussion that any individual could become involved in yet all that
exists in one person trying to promote the correct ideals to a group
that willingly sticks with a concept that would have puzzled our
ancestors no end - the inability to grasp how the 24 hour days emerges
from the variations in the noon cycle.





It would be a lot easier to get the
magnification guys interested in their true astronomical heritage and
promote it to humanity by removing the cartoon conceptions of the
Earth's motions created by Flamsteed and built on by Newton but even I
have to concede that ,in the absence of any sense of
responsibility,the indoctrination here goes too deep.

.
The reason we seem so "indoctrinated" to you is because the theory
which you view, for some reason, as flawed _is not_ flawed, but does
accurately describe the Solar System. We *understand* Newton and
Flamsteed, and we know there is not, in them, the least contradiction
to anything in Copernicus or Huyghens, just an amplification and a
carrying further of their beautiful insights.

The astrological geometry on which Newton hung his concepts is not
supported by any observation insofar as the axial and orbital of the
motions of the Earth do not correspond and cannot be justified by a
23 hour 56 minute 04 second value.

Although all holocausts find their ideologies through individual
doctrines, a holocaust is effectively a mass movement of people acting
out an artificial set of principles without regard for a background
heritage or where it is going,a blind monster that vandalises all
ahead of it with no purpose only the perverse satisfaction of enjoying
the power to do so.

This particualr holocaust does have a distinct origin in 1677,a silly
mistake made by one person who tried to justify the motions of the
Earth using a clock and two external references -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical... " Flamsteed 1677

I do not fault Flamsteed unduly but a mistake is a mistake and it did
lead to the awful 20th century notions of time travel,warped space and
other novelistic trash that serves no pupose but to highlight that
something went badly wrong.






You have stumbled over
something in your understanding, so you fail to see this. But you do
not explain yourself clearly enough even for me to see where your
mistake is - or, if you *are* the one who is right, to make me see my
mistake.

John Savard