A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The only possible references for timekeeping



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 8th 15, 11:00 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-6, Martin Brown

wrote:
On 08/10/2015 18:09, Chris L Peterson wrote:


Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason

why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.


They were for a while until we had something better.


I was using "mechanical clock" in a broad sense, including atomic

clocks, so in
that sense, they still are.


In such a broad sense sundials are mechanical clocks too, since they
work through celestial mechanics.


In the narrow sense, though, while accurate pendulum clocks were

used for
serious timekeeping, when this was the case, the Earth's rotation

was used as
the primary standard of time - through transit circles that looked

to see when
stars, not the Sun, crossed the local meridian.


I didn't mention _that_ once more because I know it's the issue

that gives poor
Oriel the fits, but now you've forced my hand.


John Savard



I think you're stretching the definition of mechanical a bit too far.


  #12  
Old October 9th 15, 12:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

There are a great many severely damaged people in this forum,after all, the leading principle behind all the references is not just that there are 365 1/4 rotations per circuit but that a single rotation is responsible for the appearance of the Sun followed by the appearance of the stars each day.

The damage created by the 'solar vs sidereal' fiction which attempted to split rotation separately to the Sun and the stars was total by attempting to create a mismatch between rotations and the Sun/stars cycle each day -

" Easy question: How many days are there in one year? Answer: 365.25, rounded to the nearest quarter of a day. Harder question: How many times does Earth rotate in one year? Answer: 366.25, rounded to the nearest quarter of a day. Earth rotates once more than the number of days in the year? How can this possibly be so? Lets see." Solar vs sidereal fiction

http://www.clarkfoundation.org/astro.../Extraday.html


The false freedom of conjuring up conclusions out of thin air is no freedom at all but a form of slavery but rather than throw good information after bad or go into the forensics of what went wrong and who was responsible, it is better to recover the original principles and help organize them technically and historically for future generations using tools we already have.

Severely damaged people don't know they are damaged,as far as they are concerned they have a superior point of view even when common sense should intervene and guide them back to a safe and stable narrative. My choice to bring the actual systems into a forum like this is no real choice at all as there is simply no place else suitable to contain the many issues in general or in detail.



  #13  
Old October 9th 15, 01:12 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
palsing[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,068
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 4:42:02 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

Severely damaged people don't know they are damaged,as far as they are concerned they have a superior point of view even when common sense should intervene and guide them back to a safe and stable narrative.


You said a mouthful there, Gerald... dare I say, you should take a look in the mirror...
  #14  
Old October 9th 15, 04:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In such a broad sense sundials are mechanical clocks too, since they
work through celestial mechanics.


I was fitting my terms to the debate with Oriel, who feels timekeeping should be
referenced to the Sun in the sky and not to the kind of clocks people build with
their hands. Something electronic is in the same category as something built from
springs and gears from that viewpoint.

John Savard
  #15  
Old October 9th 15, 04:36 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-6, oriel36 wrote:

The false freedom of conjuring up conclusions out of thin air is no freedom at
all but a form of slavery


WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

or the modern version

LESS IS MORE
PROPERTY IS THEFT
ZIONISM IS RACISM

John Savard
  #16  
Old October 9th 15, 05:52 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 22:00:54 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:29:47 PM UTC-6, Martin Brown

wrote:
On 08/10/2015 18:09, Chris L Peterson wrote:


Such mechanical clocks do not exist... and that's the reason

why
mechanical clocks are not the primary time standard.


They were for a while until we had something better.


I was using "mechanical clock" in a broad sense, including

atomic
clocks, so in
that sense, they still are.


In such a broad sense sundials are mechanical clocks too, since

they
work through celestial mechanics.


In the narrow sense, though, while accurate pendulum clocks were

used for
serious timekeeping, when this was the case, the Earth's

rotation
was used as
the primary standard of time - through transit circles that

looked
to see when
stars, not the Sun, crossed the local meridian.


I didn't mention _that_ once more because I know it's the issue

that gives poor
Oriel the fits, but now you've forced my hand.


John Savard



I think you're stretching the definition of mechanical a bit too

far.

Which was my point. Atomic clocks are not mechanical clocks, since
they contain electronics.
  #17  
Old October 9th 15, 06:03 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:34:52 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

In such a broad sense sundials are mechanical clocks too, since

they
work through celestial mechanics.


I was fitting my terms to the debate with Oriel, who feels

timekeeping should be
referenced to the Sun in the sky and not to the kind of clocks

people build with
their hands. Something electronic is in the same category as

something built from
springs and gears from that viewpoint.


Any clocks contain s two parts:

1. Something that oscillates. E.g. the Sun in our sky, a spring, a
pendulum, a quartz crystal, an atom.

2. Something that counts the oscillations. E.g. people counting
sunrises, sunsets or transits, mechanical gears, electronic counters.


The stability of the clocks depends on the stability of the
oscillatior. The rotating Earth is no longer our best available
oscillator.
  #18  
Old October 9th 15, 06:54 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Any clocks contain s two parts:


1. Something that oscillates. E.g. the Sun in our sky, a spring, a
pendulum, a quartz crystal, an atom.


2. Something that counts the oscillations. E.g. people counting
sunrises, sunsets or transits, mechanical gears, electronic counters.


The stability of the clocks depends on the stability of the
oscillatior. The rotating Earth is no longer our best available
oscillator.


Note that atomic clocks aren't really clocks in most cases; instead, they're
frequency sources - used to calibrate associated quartz crystal clocks that
tell time, if that functionality is desired (i.e. for broadcasting the WWV time
signal).

John Savard
  #19  
Old October 9th 15, 08:07 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 6:03:07 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The stability of the clocks depends on the stability of the
oscillatior. The rotating Earth is no longer our best available
oscillator.


This is what I mean by damaged people.

The facility which converts the average 24 hour day to constant rotation at a rate of 15° per hour via the Lat/Long system is a unique and exquisite example of human innovation at its finest.

People can lunge at the notion that the Earth's rotation is slowing down just as they can lunge at the notion that the Earth is heating up but there is no discipline attached to the assertions nor the conclusions.

I asked a simple question - what is the rotational rate in miles per hour at the Equator if the Earth's circumference is 24901 miles ?. It allows for only one answer based on 15° of geographical separation corresponding to 1 hour time difference yet not a single one of you can give the answer.

Clocks have no foundation other than the dynamics of the Earth and even then only to a close proximity, at least in terms of hours ,minutes and seconds within the framework of the 24 hour day which itself fits into the primary framework of the 1461 day/4 annual cycle system.

I haven't found anyone who can discuss the many major topics in general or in detail and there is a good reason for that.


  #20  
Old October 9th 15, 08:30 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default The only possible references for timekeeping

On 09/10/2015 06:54, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Any clocks contain s two parts:


1. Something that oscillates. E.g. the Sun in our sky, a spring, a
pendulum, a quartz crystal, an atom.


Not all water clocks and candle clocks oscillate (neither are they
particularly accurate). Flow of water from a specially shaped calibrated
vessel or burning of an Advent candle for instance.

2. Something that counts the oscillations. E.g. people counting
sunrises, sunsets or transits, mechanical gears, electronic counters.


The stability of the clocks depends on the stability of the
oscillatior. The rotating Earth is no longer our best available
oscillator.


Note that atomic clocks aren't really clocks in most cases; instead, they're
frequency sources - used to calibrate associated quartz crystal clocks that
tell time, if that functionality is desired (i.e. for broadcasting the WWV time
signal).


Depends what you mean by atomic clock. The ones sold to consumers are
merely picking up broadcast time signals that are derived from the
ensemble of atomic clocks used to maintain true clock time.

You can buy Rubidium or Caesium frequency standards and true atomic
clocks new for a price or secondhand on eBay. A UK electronic magazine
had a build your own atomic clock project fairly recently.

They are not all that expensive although you have to figure out how to
drive them.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nk...uency+standard

These days a GPS with the ability to output the time is also a possible
solution (and it can correct for light travel time whereas a simple
domestic "Atomic" clock receiver lags true atomic time by distance/c).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Timekeeping architecture oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 7 February 25th 14 12:27 PM
Fundamental unit of human timekeeping oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 1 October 18th 12 08:51 AM
Timekeeping in Genesis oriel36[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 November 11th 11 08:38 PM
Interplanetary timekeeping Jim McCauley Policy 15 June 19th 06 11:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.